The URL can be used to link to this page

85-08-27 CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA A_GENDA MOUND CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING 7:30 P.M., TUESDAY, AUGUST 27, 1985 COUNCIL CHAMBERS Approve Minutes of August 13, 1985 Regular Meeting PUBLIC HEARING: Delinquent Utility Bills for August PUBLIC HEARING: On An Amendment of Section 23.412.2 (5), Standard & Regulations for Planning Development Area (PDA) of the Mound Zoning Code CASE ~85-4RR: Richard Shedd, 2223 Noble Lane, Lots 8 & 9, Block 4, Abraham Lincoln Addition to Lakeside Park, Request: Front Yard Variance - 9 Feet CASE ~85-4R6: Bette Sather, 3090 North Shore Dr., Wayzata (5841 Grandview Blvd.), Lot 14 & 1/2 of Vacated Alley, Mound Addition Request: Lot Size Variance ~.CASE #85-4~7 & 4~8: Craigh & Cheryl Thompson, 5827 Vine Hill Road, Mtka, MN. (Lots 15, 16, & 17, Block 7, Shadywood Point .~eques~:A. Subdivision of Lot B. Lot Size Variance CASE #85-4~0: C. R. Mfg., 5340 Shoreline Blvd. Blocks 5 & 6, Sylvan Heights Add'n to Mound Request: Variance to Locate Cooling Towers on Northside of Building Consideration of a Variance Request to do Structural Repairs for Upgrading a Private Home to Building Code. Home Located at 2624 Westedge Blvd. Applicants: Aaron M. Applequist & Mary J. Pacholke License Renewal: Set-Up License - Mound Lanes New License Applications Tree Removal: Bear Tree Service Owner: 4301 Oregon Ave. North New Hope, MN. 55428 Ken Berres 5724 Lynwood Blvd. Mound, MN. Pg. 2195-2210 Pg. 2211-2212 Pg. 2213-2216 Pg. 2217-2228 Pg. 2229-2235 Pg. 2236-2244 Pg. 2245-2255 Pg. 2256-2272 Page 2192 161 Ausust 13~ 1985 MINUTES REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 13, 1985 The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on August 13, 1985, at 7:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present.were: Mayor Bob Polston* Councilmembers Phyllis Jessen, Gary Paulsen, Russ Peterson and Steve Smith. Also' present were: City Manager Jon Elam, City Attorney Curt Pearson, City Clerk Fran Clark, Building Inspector Jan Bertrand, City Engineer John Cameron, City Planner Mark Koegler and the following interested citizens: Gloria Yule, Florence Yule, Cynthia Smith, John & Terrie Thoresen, Gene Hodge, John & Dotty O'Brien, Eldo Schmidt, Helen & Herb Wolner, Del Pfeifer, Kim & Todd Yilek, Phil & Eva Hasch, Gregg Murray, Patzy D'Avia, Lillian Anderson, Judson Anderson, Marilyn Stillings, Renee Stillings, Duane Norberg, Charles & Laura Smith, Irma Ward, Mrz & Mrs. John Hurley, Dwight Wood, Gregory Carlson, M. E. Mueller, Chris & Scott Brickley, Steve VanderLinden, Alan Blackwell, Lis Jensen, Cheryl Grand, Martin Weinstein, Buzz Sycks, Dr. & Mrs. Ken Romness, Doug Morton, Derrick Dahlen, Jim Larson, John Bierbaum, Steve Emerson, Ernie Clark, Frank Ahrens, Paul Pond, Pete Barber, Ken Stork, Bud Stannard, Ms. Amidon, Jeanette Gellman, The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. The-Minutes from the July 9, 1985, Regular Council Meeting wer~ presented for consideration. Councilmember Smith asked that "if warranted" be '~dded to his motion regarding Blue Lagoon Marina on Page 1937. MOTION made by Councilmember Peterson, seconded by Councilmember Paulsen to approve the Minutes of the July 9, 1985, Regular Council Meeting as corrected. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. The Minutes from the July 11,. 1985, Special Council Meeting were presented for consideration. MOTION made by Councilmember Paulsen, seconded by Couneilmember Jessen to approve the Minut6s of the July 11, 1985, Special Council Meeting as presented. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 162 August 13, 1985 The Minutes of the July 23, 1985, Regular Council Meeting were presented for consideration. Councilmember Peterson asked the the City Attorney's comments regarding accessory apartments be included on Page 1952. Councilmember Smith asked that his statement on page 1948 be amended to read as follows: "Councilmember Smith suggested that the Planning Commission look at an ordinance to inspect homes for code violations of sufficient ~e~ to require condemnation when they are placed for sale." MOTION made by Councilmember Peterson, seconded by Councilmember Paulsen to approve the Minutes of the July 23, 1985, Regular Council Meeting as amended. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: REGARDING ACOUI2ITION OF CONTINENTAL TELEPHONE'S HOUND EXCHANGE The Mayor explained that Continental Telephone has asked to be allowed to address the Council and the citizens present. Doug Morton, Public Affairs for Continental explained that he was here because Contel is concerned about the condemnation, is the largest employer in Mound and they do not want to leave Mound. He furt-her explained that because condemnation is a time consuming, costly process they would like to work with the City Council and the customers in Mound to alleviate high costs. Therefore they ~ave worked out a plan that they feel will reduce costs to the majority of Mound users and place the burden of cost on the people who are big users of the phone system. He then presented Options 1, 2, and 3 of their local measured service plan. He stated this is a revenue neutral plan, not a reduction in rates. It is figured on todays interim rates which are now being used. They asked that they be allowed to do a comparison billing based on calls made for a 3 month period with Options 1, 2 and 3 so the people can see which option would be the best for them individually. These options would have to be approved by the PUC but Contel did not think they would have any objections. The Mayor opened the public hearing. He stated that what the State needs is for the Legislature to set up a Public Utilities Commission that will protect the public and not the utilities. The following comments and questions were made by the people in attendance: 1. Contel is shifting costs to high users if you figure the difference between their $31.50 rate and Option 3 at $39.50. 2. Are Mound customers subsidizing outstate Contel users? 3. Why wasn't the measured use brought up before this.? 4. If Mound were connected to N.W.Bell, what would the rates be? 163 August 13, 1985 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. A petition was presented to the Council with 341 signatures and read as follows: "We, the undersigned residents of Mound, Minnesota, do call upon the City Council to hold a special election· The purpose of which is to ask the City of Mound to proceed' with the acquisition of Contel's exchange which services Mound either by purchase or condemnation, subject to such costs being deemed reasonable and pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 237.19. Further we urge the Mound City Council to express in all proceedings before the Public Utilities Commission, our strong opposition to Contel's current request for a rate increase." What would happen to Contel if 90% of Mound residents took the Option 1 rate? We do not appreciate Contel coming in and presenting their Options because that was not the intent for this meeting. N.W. Bell charges $16.50 in comparison to Contel's rates. Can the City afford to own a small phone company? The citizens cannot see a 28% increase in rates being reasonable or fair and where will this stop. There has been improvement in the Contel service since July, but we should look at other options for phone service. The product does not hold up to the price charged· Contel should cut profits to lower rates· Why wasn't the measured service make available before? The options offered by Contel are not good options. The Mayor closed the public hearing. Ken Nikolai, Public Service Commission representative, stated that Contel could do the option 1, 2, and 3 billing on an information basis. The Council discussed continuing this hearing to a certain date to allow a rate expert and the legal staff to put together information on the feasibility of condemning Contel. This would also allow Contel to do their Option billings on an information basis. Rate expert, Derick Dahlen was present and went over his proposal with the Council. The Council discussed the 2 phases of his proposal and the concensus was that Phase I should be done to determine if the City acquiring the phone company is feasible. MOTION made by Council member Jessen, seconded by Councilmember Peterson to continue this Public Hearing until the November 26, 1985, Meeting, and authorizing Derick Dahlen to proceed with Phase I of his proposal, with a cap of $7,000 to be put on the cost of the study. A roll call vote was 164 .. August 13, 1985 unanimously in favor. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: AMEND & MODIFY TOWN SOUARE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT & THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN The Mayor called on the City Attorney to give the background of this project. He explained that when this project was originally approved the cost was $1,125,000. (land acquisition, relocation and expenses), plus capitalized interest of $250,000 for a total of $1,375,000. The modified plan which is before the Council tonight is to add on the following: Increased land, relocation & expenses Demolition & grading Capitalized interest Original project cost Total Amended Project Cost 375,000 225,000 400,000 2,125,000 The developer has agreed to to spend $3,950,500 in construction costs to build the retail area, drug store, bank and clinic. He has a letter of credit in that amount in favor of the City of Mound to assure construction of the project. He also has a committment for a construction loan of $3,500,000. for the project's construction. The City Planner and Steve Emerson, from Miller/Schroeder went over the updated changes in the project plan and the financing plan with the Council. Mr. Emerson stated that they feel their projected figures will provide revenues sufficient to retire the expenses of the project. The City Attorney reminded the Council that they have already approved the original amount and that the HRA has entered into an agreement with the developer which is binding for the original amount. The reason it is back here tonight is to modify and amend the original proposal. The Mayor opened the Public hearing. The following comments were made: Buzz Sycks, diagreed with 4% appreciation in property and stated he feels it is going down. Chris Brickly, Mound Superette, stated she has 450 to 500 signatures against this project. She stated that she thinks certain businesses were guaranteed space · while others were not. Developer John Bierbaum stated that they had to start with the large space users, i.e. clinic, drug store and bank and he has not gotten back to the other businesses interested in obtaining space because he does not have the mechanics in place to lease the remaining space. 165 August 13, 1985 10. Frank Ahrens, stated he is for a referendum vote on this for the increase in the amount of the obligation. The Mayor stated that the developer has guaranteed in writing that he would pick up any shortfalls so the residents will not have to pay them. Mr. Paul Pond, representing Bryon Peterson, read and submitted a statement from Dr. ?eterson asking that the Council protect him from the unfair treatment he feels he is receiving. Pete Barber, asked that the Council not compound a mistake by approving the amendment and modification. Mike Mueller stated that he supports Town Square, but that tax increment is for depressed businesses or new businesses not existing businesses. . Ken Stork stated that he was sure if Snyder Drug felt a new store was needed they would put one up. Cindy Smith questioned the real estate taxes and paying off the bonds. The City Attorney explained that the project has expanded and the increase in the taxes will pay the bonds off. ~ Bud Stannard stated that he thought it was a 15 year payoff on the bonds when it was originally approved. The Mayor stated no, it has always been 20 years, but that 15 years was discussed at one time. Barbara Anderson asked if the City was going to benefit from this project. The Mayor explained the declining property values in the downtown area and how the City would benefit from the new buildings and the increased property taxes. The City Attorney explained that several of the property owners of the 11 parcels want more for their buildings than the appraisals and they are the reason for the hearing on the modification. The money is needed to acquire these parcels. 11. 12. 13. 14. Greg Murray stated he would like a new shopping center, but not with tax increment financing, because he feels the developers will be back for more money down the road. Dottle O'Brien stated that she sees this as creating additional empty buildings, i.e. the old bank and the drug store. Jeanette Gellman asked who the developers are and if this is a General Obligation Bond? The City Attorney stated that the developer's company is owned by Carl Polad. Yes, they are General Obligation Bonds, but he further explained that the Letter of Credit was issued to the City to pay the 3 highest years in taxes, with a 25% limit, if there is a shortfall. Herb Wolner asked what the rent on the new drug store was going to be? 166 August 13, 1985 John Bierbaum stated that is not public information. Mr. Wolner then stated that he had offered to build a drug store for Snyders on his property in the Lost Lake area and they had turned him down because they would not pay $4.00 per square foot. 15. Buzz Sycks urged the Council to vote no on tonight's increase. 16. Dick Schwert stated he has been in business in Mound for 25 years and this is the first time he has seen anything this positive for Mound. He urged the Council to vote in favor of the project. The Mayor closed the Public Hearing. Councilmember Pet°erson stated that he too would like to see the 20 years to pay off the bonds be less, but that with the figures as they. are 20 years is the best. Councilmember Smith stated that he was not on the Council last year when this was originally approved. He would like to know how many new jobs will be created, not just transferred from place to place. He is not in favor of public subsidy for private development. Also that if the project succeeds, the present taxpayers should get the benefit not a new generation of taxpayers 20 years from now. He further stated that he would like to -see a referendum vote on this increase. Councilmember Paulsen stated that his first reaction was against tax increment financing, but he has since looked into it and feels in order to compete with other towns (such as Chanhassen, Plymouth, and Minnetonka) we too must consider it as a way to turn the deteriorating downtown around. He stated that T.I.F. is not a giveaway program. He supports the project. Councilmember Jessen stated that she supports the Town Square Project and especially this modification because it will bring the rents per square foot of the new shops down so more people will be able to lease space. She supports the project. Paulsen moved and Peterson seconde,d the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~85-85 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE MODIFIED AND AMENDED DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TOWN SQUARE, .. DATED JULY 15, 1985 Councilmember Smith moved to amend this resolution asking t~hat there be a referendum vote on this plan to allow the public to decide on tax increment financing for Town Square. The City Attorney advised Councilmember Smith that thereis no provision in the law for a referendum vote on this. Motion died for lack of a second. 167 A. roll call vote was four in favor with Councilmember Smith voting nay. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER REVOCATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE MINOR BOAT REPAIR AT ~42 L~OOD BLVD. (BLUE LAGOON MARINA) The City Manager gave the background of this item from past meetings. Mr. Steve Pauly, owner of Blue Lagoon Marina, was present and stated he questions if the Council can condition his Use Permit at 5542 Lynwood Blvd. on the site on Edgewater Drive. He stated his understanding was that he could do whatever Dick Martin did at the Edgewater site as 10ng as he did not increase the use. Me stated that his recollection of the June meeting was that testing at the Edgewater site was not mentioned, only hauling boats from the Lynwood site to the Edgewater site. He also stated that the Council has received letters from both Mr. Keith Ketcher and Mr. Art Ridgeway that they helped Mr. Martin perform repairs, etc. at the site on Edgewater Drive. ~ Mayor Polston stated that when he offered the amendment to the original Conditional Use Permit approval, that he did mean there wouid be no testing of boats at the Edgewater site. Counciimembers Paulsen and Peterson stated that their understanding of the Mayor's condition was that there would be no hauling of boats from the Lynwood site to the Edgewater site for testing. · The Mayor opened the public hearing. The following persons spoke: 1. Todd Yilek stated that Martin never repaired boats other than small fishing boats at the Edgewater 2. Doug Clint and Tom Sheron, representing Paul Scherber, owner of the Edgewater site, stated that they are submitting a sworn affidavit from Dick Martin stating exactly what his operation of the marina included and all the activities are the same as Blue Lagoon Marina is doing at the Edgewater Site. They also had submitted a letter to the City Council in Paul Scherbers behalf addressing his concerns about conditioning-Mr. Pauly's permit on Lynwood Blvd. to the Edgewater site. 3. Bonnie Lanns state that if Martin had run his operation the way Mr. Pauly is, he would have lost his permit with the L.M.C.D. for docks. The Mayor explained that the City is concerned with zoning and the L.M.C.D. has the jurisdiction over the marina docks. 4. Todd Yilek stated that there is a difference between major and minor boat repair and he feels they are not running a minor boat repair business. 168 August 13, 1985 The Mayor closed the public hearing. The City Attorney stated that he has asked City Attorney Jim Larson who was at the original meeting why the Edgewater site was included in the Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Larson stated that Mr. Pauly agreed to the stipulation. The Council and the City Attorney discussed tying the 2 locations together and the criminal complaint that was drawn up. The City attorney recommended not pursuing the criminal complaint because at least several of the Counoilmembers do not agree on what was approved the night the Conditional Use Permit was approved. Polston moved and Smith seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~85-86 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PROCEED IN THE REVOCATION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR 55~2 L~NWOOD BLYD. TO OPERATE A MINOR BOAT REPAIR Steve Pauly stated that he has purchased another building and is planning on moving from the site on Lynwood Blvd. to Spring Park on September 25, 1985. He asked for an extension of his Conditional Use Permit until that date. Councilmember Smith withdrew his second. for lack of a second. The resolution died Peterson moved and Paulsen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~85-86 RESOLUTION TO EXTEND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR 5542 LYNWOOD BLYD. TO OPERATE A MINOR BOAT REPAIR SER¥ICE UNTIL SEPTEMBER 25, 1985, AT WHICH TIME THE PERMIT SHALL EXPIRE · ne vote was three in favor with Polston and Smith voting nay. Motion carried. CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING AMENDMENT TO PROVIDE FOR A PLANNED INDUSTRIAL AREA (P.I.A.) AT THE FORMER TONKA TOY The City Planner explained that the Planning Commission reluctantly recommended approval. They are recommending a $250.00 charge for the Operations Permit. This amendment will also allow the Council to establish an amount above the minimum deposit of $250.00 which will be held in a special developer's escrow account to cover administrative and legal expenses incurred by the City . There is a typographical error in section 23.650.7 (2). It should read as follows: "Approval of a planned industrial area operations permit shall be by the City Council after recommendation by the City Staff." Councilmember 169 August 13, 1985 Paulsen stated does not agree with this aspect of the amendment and feels that we should continue the hearing process of the Planning Commission and City Council before issuance of the Operations Permit. / The Mayor reopened the public hearing. There were no comments. The Mayor closed the public hearing. Jessen moved and Peterson seconded the following: ORDINANCE ~481 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING 'THE CITY CODE BY ADDING SECTION 23.640.3 RELATING TO CONDITIONAL USE AND ADDING SECTION 23.650 RELATING TO PLANNED INDUSTRIAL AREA (PIA) The vote was 4 in favor with Paulsen voting nay. Motion carried. CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING: ISSUANCE OF CONDITONAL USE PERMIT TO BALBOA MINNESOTA CO TO ESTABLISH A P.I.A. AT ~00/~0 $HORELINE BLVD. The Mayor reopened the public hearing. The Mayor closed the public hearing. There were no comments. The Council discussed adding j. to the proposed resolution which would read, "No outside storage is permitted except by Operations Permit. Parking of vehicles exceeding 24 hours is prohibited except delivery vehicles in designated spaces and trucks in loading berth areas." The Planner also recommended adding that Balboa submit to the city $1,000 to be put in an escrow account to cover staff review and administration. Peterson moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~85-87 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO BALBOA MINNESOTA COMPANY FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PLANNED INDUSTRIAL AREA - 5340 SHORELINE BLVD., AND ADDING J AND K AS RECOMMENDED The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. SETTING OPERATIONS PERMIT FEE FOR P.I.A. The City Manager stated that the recommendation is for $250.00, Polston moved and Smith seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION $85-88 RESOLUTION SETTING FEE FOR OPERATIONS PERMIT AS INDENTIFIED IN SECTION 23.650.7 (1) AT $250.00 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 170 August 13, 1985 APPLICATION FOR OPERATIONS PERMIT FOR LUNALITE~ INC. AT 5~40 SHORELINE BLVD. The Planner and the City Manager explained that application for an Operations Permit from Lunalite is to operate an electrical lighting assembly operation which will occupy a total of 63,000 square feet. They are looking at employing approximately 250 people. Mr. Greg Gustafson, representing Balboa, was present and stated that he hopes they are not underestimating parking needs and that they may have to come back to have the Permit amended if parking becomes a problem as the building is leased. Jessen moved and Smith seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~85-89 RESOLUTION GRANTING AN OPERATIONS PERMIT FOR LUNALITE, INC. AT 5340 SHORELINE BLVD. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: PROPOSED VACATION OF UNIMPROVED PORTION OF NORTHERN ROAD ABUTTING LOTS 24~ 2~ & 26~ PLAT OF SUBDIVISION OF - LOTS 1 & ~2 SKARP & LINDOUIST,S RAVENSWOOD The City Manager stated that the Planning Commission has recommended approval of this vacation. The Mayor opened the public hearing. There were no comments. The Mayor closed the public hearing. Smith moved and'Jessen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~85-90 RESOLUTION VACATING CERTAIN STREET EASEMENT AND RETAINING FOR THE CITY A UTILITY EASEMENT OVER, UNDER AND THROUGH A PORTION OF NORTHERN ROAD The City attorney recommended having the City Engineer insert the description of the portion of Northern Road vacated in the last paragraph of the resolution. The Council agreed. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. CONSIDERATION OF VARIANCE REOUEST FOR AARON AP~LEOUIST & MARY J. PACHOLKE~ 2624 WESTEDGE BLVD. The City Attorney submitted his finished resolution for this item. The applicants were present and after some discussion with the Council decided they would like to wait until the blanks in the proposed resolution are filled in and to let their attorney see it before they agreed and had the Council approve it. The Council tabled this item until the next meeting, Augu"st 27, 1 985. 171 August 13, 1985 COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT The Mayor asked if there were any comments or suggestions from the citizens present. There were none. CITY. WIDE RECYCLING PROGRAM Joyce Nelson and Jackie Meye~ of the Recycling Committee were present and stated that the cost for the city-wide expansion of this program will be $11,820 per year with Beermann Services. Of this 50% will be paid by Hennepin County and the City will receive $.50 per household from the State. The City Manager added that the Legislature has given the City the power for a Special Levy to fund the remainder. Jessen moved and Paulsen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~85-91 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE EXPANSION OF THE RECYCLING PROGRAM TO CITY-WIDE FROM OCTOBER ~, 1985 TO SEPTEMBER 5, 1986 The vote was four in favor with Smith voting nay. Motion carried. REOUEST FOR CITY REPURCHASE SIX CEMETERY LOTS The City Manager explained that this is the lady who has asked before and we have told her that we cannot repurchase the cemetery lots she owns. The reason £s that the City Code covering the cemetery will not allow us to pay more for the lots than was originally paid for them. These lots were never paid for because her family gave the entire plot of ground to the City. She does not want t9 give them to us and we cannot purchase them. The Council took no action on this item. PLANNING COMMISSION APPOINTMENT Paulsen moved and Peterson seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~85-92 RESOLUTION TO APPOINT WILLIAM C. THAL, TO FILL MICHAEL VARGO'S UNEXPIRED TERM ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION - TERM EXPIRES 12-31- 85 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. CONSIDERATION OF OUOTATIONS FOR FIRE DEPT. The City Manager explained that we have received two quotations for two separate repairs that need to be made to Fire Dept. equipment. 172 August 13, 1985 A'. Fire Truck Repairs on 1973 - Mack Truck (~12) Truck Utilities & Mfg., Inc. $2,300 Custom Fire Apparatus, Inc. $1,620 MOTION made by Mayor Polston, seconded by Councilmember Paulsen to approve the quotation of Custom Fire Apparatus, Inc. in the amount of $1,620 for repairs to the 1973 Mack Truck. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. B. Fabricate & Install New Water Tank Custom Fire Apparatus, Inc. $4,300 Truck Utilities & Mfg., Inc. $5,200 MOTION made by Mayor Polston, seconded by Councilmember Smith to approve the quotation of Custom Fire Apparatus, Inc. in the amount of $4,300 to fabricate and install a new stainless steel water tank. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. CONSIDERATION OF SOLICITED PROPOSALS FOR A STUDY ON BEACHWOOD ROAD POND The City Manager stated that he received 2 quotations to a study the Beachwood Road Pond problem. They are as follows: Hickok & Associates $1,800 Bonestroo $ 600 At tonight's meeting, John Cameron, City Engineer (McCombs- Knutson) offered to do the plan for free and then the City could apply the $600 it would have spent toward correcting the problem. MOTION made by Councilmember Peterson, seconded by Councilmember Jessen to accept the offer from McCombs-Knutson to prepare the plans and specifications for lowering the Beachwood Road Pond for free. Correction of the problem to be paid from the 1978 Street Project funds. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. UPDATE ON LYNWOOD BLVD. M.S.A. PROJECT The City Engineer brought the Council up-to-date on the progress of the Lynwood Blvd. Improvement Project and gave the projected project cost,of $373,404.00, less non eligible construction items (45% of storm sewer cost and city utility services) $17,324.00, leaving an estimated cost to be paid from M.S.A. Construction Fund at $356,080.00. He further reported that waiting until the Town Square project is underway will allow us to fill in the basements of the Anderson Building and the Bakery with the material from the other project, thus keeping the costs down for fill. We would then divide the plans for M.S.A. to accomodate both plans. This will postpone the letting of bids until the beginning of 1986 to avoid the extra cost of filling the basements. 173 August 13, 1985 REVIEW & APPROVE FIVE YEAR M.S.A. STREET IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM The City Manager explained that the M.S.A. Office has again requested that each City submit a five year construction program. The City Engineer has worked out the estimated expenditures thru 1990. This does not mean that the plans cannot be changed, but it give the M.S.A. an estimated cost. That cost is estimated to be $815,138. Peterson moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~85-90.RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE M.S.A. FIVE YEAR CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM AS SUBMITTED The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. TUXEDO BLVD. SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT The City 'Engineer explained that MSA is requesting that the City pass a resolution adopting a hold harmless condition to a variance approval for the safety improvement on Tuxedo Blvd. at Manchester Road. The Staff recommends approval. Peterson moved and Jessen seconded the.following resolution: RESOLUTION ~85-91 RESOLUTION ADOPTING A HOLD HARMLESS CONDITION TO A VARIANCE APPROVAL FOR A SAFETY IMPROVEMENT ON TUXEDO BLVD. AT MANCHESTER ROAD - SAP 145-101-05 The vote was unanimously in favor. CORRECTION TO RESOLUTION $78-527 Motion carried. \ The City Clerk explained that the description in the above resolution was incorrect when it was passed in 1978. Now the person wishes to file this resolution and woutd like the description corrected. It was for the subdivision of Lots 9, 10, 11, Block 6, Abraham Lincoln Addition to Lakeside Park. Polston moved and Paulsen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~85-92 RESOLUTION CORRECTING THE PARCEL DESCRIPTIONS IN RESOLUTION {78-527 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. PETITION TO UPGRADE A PRIVATE PORTION OF DENBIGH ROAD The City Manager explained that some of the residents on Denbigh Road have now submitted a petition for the extension of this road. The item was previously considered, but the neighborhood seemed to be split on the proposal. The petition has been signed 7 174 August 13, 1985 by 5 of the 9 property owners, but they represent only 5 1/2 lots of the 12 in the project area. 3 of the 12 lots are vacant and are for sale. The petition needs to be accepted and the hearing date set. Peterson moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ;85-93 RESOLUTION DECLARING ADEQUACY OF PETITION FOR IMPROVEMENT OF A PRIVATE PORTION OF DENBIGH ROAD AND CALLING A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE IMPROVEMENT The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. RESTAURANT LICENSE APPLICATION FOR ~q08 THREE POINTS BLVD. Mr. & Mrs Roger Rager were present and explained that they are asking for a restaurant license to serve soup and sandwiches and sell antiques, etc. similar to Antiquity Rose in Excelsior. The Council discussed the use of the property as an antique store and the City Attorney advised that thisis not a permitted use in the zoning district where the property is located. The Building Inspector reported that the County Health Dept. has only approved a limited food license. The Council discussed both issues and told Mr. & Mrs. Rager they could not operate a seconded hand, craft and antique shop in the neighborhood the property is in, but they would be willing to issue the restadrant license subject to all County Health Codes. Mr. & Mrs. Rager stated that is what they would like. MOTION made by. Councilmember Peterson, seconded by Councilmember Paulsen to authorize the issuance of a Restaurant License to Gall & Roger Rager, 5098 Three Points Blvd. subject to the premises, meeting all the Hennepin County Health Dept. Codes. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. INCUBATOR CONCEPT FOR FORMER TONKA FACILITY The City Manager explained that this item should be tabled at this time because Balboa seems to be renting the space quickly and may not be interested in the incubator concept for small business use. The Council agreed. pAYMENT OF BILLS The bills were presented for consideration. MOTION made by Councilmember Peterson, seconded by Councilmember Jessen to approve the payment of bills as presented on the pre-list in the amount of $~43,27~.18, when funds are available. Motion carried. 175 August 13, 1985 The vote was unanimously in favor. SET DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING MOTION made by Councilmember Jessen, seconded by Councilmember Peterson to set September 10, 1985, at 7:30 P.M. for a public hearing to consider the preliminary plat and final plat of Lots ? through 13, Block 16, The Highlands. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS A. B. C. Update on Joint Compensation Study. Letter from NSP on new street lights. , Twin City Testing report on paint on water towner on Evergreen. : D. Monthly liquor report. E. Newsclipping Re: Lake Virginia/Lake Ann Sewer Line. F. Metro Council report on above sewer line. G. Newsclippings on Garcia Ruling. H. Increase in City insurance costs- newsclipping. I. Metro' Council Review- July 12, 1985. J. District #277 School Board Minutes. K. Metro CoUncil waste-Line Newsletter. : L. League of Cities Memo on Federal Budget Pact. M. League seminar on Strategy Planning regarding tax increment financing & other development tools. N. Memo regarding "New Laws" concerning collection utility bills. MOTION made by Mayor Polston, seconded by Councilmember Smith to adjourn at 1:05 P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. motion carried. Fran Clark, City Clerk Jon Elam, City Manager BILLS ...... AUGUST 13, ]985 Batch 854703 per computer run dated Batch 854704 per computer run dated Batch 854705 per following list 8/8/85 8/9/85 357,879.79 56,446.74 ~8,947.65 Total Bills 443,274.18 Ben Frankl!n ." Bryan Rock Products Bury & Carlson Copy Duplicating Coast to Coast Emery's Tree Service Gerry's Plumbing 61 enwood Ing 1 ewood Kelly Services The Laker LOG I S Mpls Oxygen Mound Fire Dept Wm Mueller. Ma r ina Au to N.S.P. NavArre Hdwe J.L. Shiely SOS Printing Twin City Testing V| deo One Van Doren Hazard Happy's Potato Chips Mark VI I Rex Distributing Tri State Beverage Sbpplies 166.75 Rock 3,.115.70 Asphalt 436.00 Copier 15.OO Supplies 300.85 Remove Stump 25.00 Faucet-Coleman 38.80 July Water 53.65 Secr. help 219.68 July ads 132.18 July computer 2,039.63 July oxygen 57.00 July salar~.etc't'4,277,00 Sand 7,289.32 July parts 287,70 July electric 4,692,70 July supplies 167.98 Sand 79.85 Maps, surveys 887,65 Review paint syst 536.42 Tapes 89.00 Consult serv 1,195.00 July supplies 138.94 July beer 2,133.85 July beer 140.O0 July mix 432,00 28,~47.65 11 001 1747 O1 11 001 1772 81 11 010 1733 11 11 012 1689 91 11 028 1656 61 11 055 5024 61 11 055 5139 21 11 058 5016 61 11 058 5043 O1 11 064 4945 53 11 076 1839 61 11 067 1904 81 11 067 1920 41 11 067 1959 21 11 070 1927 31 11 085 4960 91 11 085 5040 92 11 085 5084 71 11 112 5917 O1 11 112 5918 81 11 166 2257 O1 11 220 2180 91 33 424 4738 41 33 439 4681 42 33 463 4740 81 33 472 4560 11 33 475 4519 O1 33 515 3118 51 33 539 4838 71 33 563 3063 31 33 572 4864 41 33 593 5218 81 33 596 4618 31 33 599 4535 31 8-21-85 Delinquent Utility Bills $312.71 136.07 297.04 176.86 111.14 68.86 230.83 77.34 163.88 68.86 77.66 106.04 197.75 60.94 193.20 114.59 192.51 60.06 140.99 146.48 133.77 82.67 70.73 162.32 217.75 83.71 206.79 72.65 118.65 126.03 105.64 125.43 73.13 70.94 33 620 4738 71 33 620 4758 51 33 638 3219 12 33 647 5223 21 $109.69 87.03 70.73 116.12 $4967.59 8-21-85 11 001 1747 01 11 001 1772 81 11 010 1733 11 11 012 1689 91 11 028 1656 61 11 055 5024 61 11 055 5139 21 11 058 5016 61 11 058 5043 01 11 064 4945 53 11 076 1839 61 11 067 1904 81 11 067 1920 41 11 067 1959 21 11 070 1927 31 11 085 4960 91 11 085 5040 92 11 085 5084 71 11 112 5917 01 11 112 5918 81 11 166 2257 01 11 220 2180 91 33 424 4738 41 33 439 4681 42 33 463 4740 81 33 472 4560 11 33 475 4519 01 33 515 3118 51 33 539 4838 71 33 563 3063 31 33 572 4864 41 33 593 5218 81 33 596 4618 31 33 599 4535 31 Delinquent Utility Bills Pat Pletsch Rodney Wilkens Leo Stachman S. Hinchxliff Ronald Nelson Paid Edward Alexander Alan Hofstater A. Anderson John Joyce Brian Johnson Gary Smith Wayne Burkhalter Paid Jack Breazile Creigh Thompson Paid A.J. Chapman Tom Harty Ralph Warta Jeff Moot Paid Thomas Jerde Geo Hyland Paid Verlin Payne Gerald Garvais Paid Gary Paulson Paid John Zambori * Edna Enstad Fr. Germain M..bO. Phillipi James Otto Rand Sarles * Steve Frederickson R. M. Swanson Bruce Burton * R. Hentig * Lawrence Rousseau · Made arrangements $312.71 136.07 297.04 176.86 68.86 230.83 77.34 163.88 68.86 77.66 797.75 ~60.94-- 193.20 114.59 192.51 140.99 133.77 162.32 217.75 83.71 206.79 72.65 118.65 126.03 105.64 125.43 73.13 70.94 1747 Lafayette Ln. 1772 Lafayette tn. 1733 Baywood Shores Dr. 1689 Avocet Ln. 1656 Finch Ln. 5024 Woodland Rd. 5139 Woodland Rd. 5016 Enchanted Rd. 5043 Enchanted Rd. 4945 Glen Elyn Rd. 1839 Shorewood Ln. 1904 Shorewood Ln. 1920 Shorewood Ln. 1959 Shorewood Ln. 1927 Lakeside Ln. 4960 Three Pts. Blvd. 5040 Three Pts. Blvd. 5084 Three Pts. Blvd. 5917 Gumwood Rd. 5918 Gumwood Rd.' 2257 Cottonwood Ln. 2180 Cardinal Ln. 4738 Tyrone Ln. 4681Wilshire Blvd. 4740 Bedford Rd. 4560 Dorchester Rd. 45~9~Manchester Rd.~ 3118 Inverness Rd. 4838 Glasgow Rd. 3063 Devon Ln. 4864 Monmouth Rd. 5218 Drummond Rd. 4618 Hanover Rd. 4535 Aberdeen Rd. 33 620 4738 71 33 620 4758 51 33 638 3219 12 33 647 5223 21 James Brouckson Occupant Terri Weldon Gerald Longley $109.69 87.03 70.73 116.12 $4967.59 $4329.53 4738 Island View Dr. 4758 Island View Dr. 3219 Warner Ln. 5223 Phelps Rd. CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota NOTICE OF HEARING ON THE AMENDMENT OF SECTION 23.412.2(5), STANDARDS AND REGULATIONS FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AREA (PDA) OF THE MOUND ZONING CODE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Tuesday, August 27, 1985, at 7:30 P.M. at the City Hall, 5341Maywood Road, Mound, Minnesota, the City Council Will hold a hearing on the amendment of Section 23.412.2(5) of the Mound Zoning Code. Section 23.412.2(5) presently reads in part, "All housing types included as permitted uses in the residential district may be included in the P.D.A." Under the proposed amendment, the section will read in part, "All housing types included as permitted uses in the residential districts may be included in the P.D.A." This change will permit a variety of housing types in Planned Development Areas, subject to the density restrictions of the underlying zoning district. For example, in the R-1 zone, a' P.D.A. could include single family, two family, townhouse or condominium units at a maximum density of one unit per 10,OO0 square feet of lot area. All persons appearing at said hearing will be given an opportunity to be heard. Francene C. Clark, City Clerk Publish in the Laker August 5, 1985 A "PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AREA" WITH~'N CER?A~'N P. ES~'DENTIA. L USE DISTR/C?S The City of Mound ordains~ '. Section 23.065 is hereby added to the City Code and shall read as follow~ 23.065 Planned Development Area a. Purpose. The purpose of this section of the zoning code is to provide a method by which parcels of land in the Residential Use District A-1 (Sec. 23.011), Residential Use District A-2 (Sec. 23.012), Residential Use District B (Sec. 23.05).~ and Residential Townhouse Use District (Sec. 23.055) having unusual building characteristics due to subsoil conditions, topographic conditions, elevation of water table, unique environmental considerations, or because of the parcel's unusual shape or location'in relationship to lakes, trees or other natura~ resources r~quires more unique and controll, ed platting techniques to protect and promote the quality of life in the City. b. Standards and Re~ulations for Planned Development Area. The owner or owners of any tract or tracts of land in the aforedescribed residen- tial districts may submit to the City Council for approval, a plan for the use and development of such a tract of land as a P.D.~. by making application for a Special Use Permit authorizing completion of the project according to the plan. The plan for the proposed project shall conform to the requirements of the use district within whic~ the land .is located except as hereinafter fied. 1. The tract of land for which a proje'ct is proposed and a permit' requested shall not be less than ten (10) acres. 2. The application for a Special Use Permit shall state precise- ly the reasons for requesting the consideration of the property for 3. The application for the Special Use Permit shall include a detailed preliminary plan, and shall be submitted in complete con- formanc6 with the City ~ubdivision regulations or with all variances detailed and explained. Variances to the requirements of the Sub- division ordinance may be approved by the City Counci~ upon.a showing that the public health, safety and welfare will not be adversely affected and further that the development plan will not have an adverse effect on adjacent properties. All variances must he so noted on the.preliminary plan at the time of application. '" 4. The number of dwelling units proposed for the entire site shall not exceed the total number permitted under the density control' provision for the use district within which the land is located. 5. The density in ~he plan shall not exceed the maximum for the zoning district. 6. All housin~types included as permitted uses in the afore- described districts)may be included in the P.D.A. Each lot as shown on the plan'shall~ave indicated on it the maximum number of dwelling units to be permitted'within a single build'ing. 7. O~en space and park land dedication 'or cash in lieu thereof pursuant to the requirements of Sec. 22.37 o~ the City Code shall be required. The ladd which is to be-set aside as open space shall be clearly indicated on the plan. Provisions for recreational area and ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 23.412.2(5) OF THE MOUND ZONING OODE TO CHANGE THE ~DRD DISTRICT TO DISTRICTS The City of Mound does ordain: Section 23.412.2(5) of the Mound Zoning Code is amended as follows: The word district in the statement, "All housing types included as permitted uses in the residential district may be included in the P.D.A." is hereby changed to districts. Mayor Attest: City Clerk for continual maintenance of that area not dedicate0 and accepted. by-the City shall be required. 8. The concept of cluster platting 6r zero lot line development will be reflected by the P~D.A. and must be shown on the plan and sklbject to all conditions imposed by the Special Use Permit. 9. No conveyance of property within the P.D.A. shall take place until the ~property is platted in c~nformance with the City subdivision regulatlons and M.S.A. 462,358 or unless specifically waived by the Special Use Permit. All bylaws,' Home Owner's Association Articles of. Incorporation, and Protective Covenants must be approved by the City Attorney and filed with the record plat. 10. Approval of a P.D.A. Special Use Perndt shell be by the City Council after recommendation by the City Planning Commission and all improvements required by Section 22 of the City Code shall be con- structed by the developer at its sole cost. The applicant must pro- vide the City wl~h a surety bond or other financial guarantee to guarantee the construction of all improvements required in accordance with City specifications. 13. The land utilized by public utilities, such as easements for major facilities, such as electrical transmission lines, sewer lines and water mains, where suuh land is not available to the owner or developer for development because of such elements, shall not b~ con- sidered as part of the gross acreage in computing the maximum number of lots or density'that may be created under the procedure described in this ordinance. I 12. The maximum number of lots that may be approved shall be computed by subtracting, from the total gross acreage available for development under this Planned Developmept Area procedure, the actua~ amount of street right-of-way required and that land in (11) which is not available, and by dividing the remaining area by the minimum lot area requirements of the existing °'~" district or dis1 tricts in which the development is to be located. 13. After approval of the Special'Use Permit the applicant, owner or developer, before commencing any work or obtaining any building permits shall make a minimum cash deposit of $100 per acre or any portion of an acre t~ereof. The Council shall establish the amount required for deposit at the time the P.D.A. is approved and this deposit shall be held in a special Developer's Escrow Account and shall be credited t= the said .applicant, owner or developer. Engineering and legal expenses incurred by the City of Mound in plan approval, office an~ field checking, checking and setting grade'and drainage requirements, general supervisions, staking, inspection, drafting as-built drawings and all other engineering services per- formed in the processing of said development, and all administrative and legal expenses in examining title to the property and in reviewing all documents described in paragraph 9 for the land being developed shall be charged to the aforementioned account and shall be credited to the City of Mound for the payment of these expenses. If at any time it appears that a deficit will'occur in any Developer's Escrow Account as determined by the City Engineer and/or the City Attorney, said officials shall recommend t~ the Council that an addi- tional deposit is required and the Council may require that the appli- cant, owner or developer shall deposit additional funds in the Developer's Escrow Account. ~ The City Engineer and City Attorney shall itemize all services and materials billed to any Developer's Escrow Account. The applicant, owner or developer making the deposit'(s) in the Developer's Escrow Account shall be furnished a copy of said itemized charges and any balance remaining in the account upon completing the project shall be returned to the depositor by the Clerk after all claims and charges thereto have been paid. Mayor Attest: ~ City Clerk Approved.by the City Council February 14, 1978 Published in Official Newspaper February 22, 1978 CITY OF HOUND Mound, Minnesota CASE NO. 85-433 Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda of August 12, 1985: Board of Appeal~ Case No. 85-433 Location: 2223 Noble Lane Legal Oesc.: Lots 8 & 9, Block 4, A. Lincoln Addn. to Lakeside Park Request: Front yard 9 ft, variance Zoning District: Richard Shedd 2223 Noble Lane Mound, MN. 55364 Phone: 545-0129 The applicant is requesting a 9 foot front yard variance to the Noble Lane right-of-way to allow the construction of a one story 22 foot by 22 foot attached garage. ,. The Zoning Ordinance requires a 30foot front yard to both streets on corner ~ - lots in the R-3 District for lots of record with a lot width exceeding 80 feet. Comments: The lot has a'large tree in the front yard with a hill rising off of Lynwood Boulevard. The owner is trying to correct a dbainage problem from the existing tuckunder garage by constructing a new attached garage. Recommendation: Staf.f recommends approval of the 9 foot front yard variance due to topography'of the=lot and natural forestation on the prop- erty, ~'pon the condition that no future expansion be allowed without additional variance approval. The abutting property owners have signed' approval. ...... -BOARD -OF" ~qJ~PEAL, S ....: ....... [ .......... i ........... i. Case No. 85'433 Front Ya'rd 9..'F°ot' Variance for 2223 Noble Lane Lots 8 & 9, B1.ock~4, A. L'incoln 'Addn. to Lakeside Park Richard Shedd was present. The Buildi.ng official, Jan Bertrand,' reviewed the request, for a 9 foot front yard. yariance for a.c.orner l°~ that fronts, on Lynwood and Noble. Applicant wants to build an attached garage'. Ordinance requires a 30 foot front yard se~ back to both streets for. the R-3 Zoning District'and it is a lot of record ex- ceeding 80 feet in Width. He has a front yard covered with forestation; also he has an existing tuckunder garage that has some drainage problems to it which cut into hill. Heis asking that a one story garage be attached to this area which would mostly be sheltered by the existing cut in grade. The neighbors have giyen their written approval to this project and the Building Official feel'~ that due to'the topography and trees on this property, he should have his variance granted. The subject was discussed, briefly. K. Smith questioned if applicant would neec a variance to fix tuckUnder gaEage, into. a room. Bertrand responded no; just the expansion of the house up or out would require another variance. Weiland moved and K. Smith seconded, a motion to recommend Staff's recommenC tion for approval of the 9 foot front yard variance due to the topography natural forestation of the property with the condition that no future expar sion be allowed without additional variance .approval. The vote was unanim ly in favor. !!- [I CITY OF HOUND ! ~-: JUL 2 4 :~ ~.! !J l -- J-o.m o ~pp AT ION TO ~-; ............... ] L I,C PLANN I NG & ZON I NG COHM I SS I ON C~I ~ ~2~' ,',:~'J~j,4~ljease type the following information) st.~.t ~d~.~,, of P.op~.ty ~~~ ~/~_ $~ Legal Description of Property: Lo~~ m ~F~ ~ Addition A~.~m~ ~/~/~0~,~,~ ~ ~<,~ P~ Pip No. Case Fee Pa Date Filed Block / Day Phone No. ,,~'~,/.,.2.-.._~",~..~'-0/.2.? Applicant (if other than owner): Name Day Phone No. Address Type of Request: (~) Variance ( ) Conditional Use Permit ( ) Zoning Interpretation & Review ( ) Wetland Permit ( ) P.U.D. *If other, specify: (') Amendment ( ) Sign Permit ( )*Other Present Zoning District Existing Use(s) of Property Has an application ever been made for zoning, va[lance, o~ conditional use permit or other zoning procedure for this property?/~/() If so, list date(s) of list date(s) of application, action taken and provide Resolution No.(s) Copies of previous resolutions shall accompan~ present request. I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required. papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for. the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Signature of Appl icant ~'~/Z 'r~ ~?Z/ Da t e ~-~.?~.-~P_~--- Planning Commission Recommendation: Approyal of the 9 foot front yard variance due to the topography and natural forestation of the property with the condition that no future expansion be allowed without additional variance approval. Date 8-12-85 Council Action: Resolution No. ~_,-2./_~ 4182 Date 8-27-85 Request for Zoning Variance Procedure (2) Case # ~..~'-~'.~ D, Location of: Signs, easements, underground utilities, etc. E. Indicate North compass direction F. Any additional information as may reasonably be required by the City Staff and applicable Sections of the Zoning Ordinance· III..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? Y.es (~x) No ( ) If "no", specify each non-conforming use: Do the existing structures comply with all area height and bulk regulations for the zone district in which it is located? Yes (~) No ( ) If "no'.~, specify each non-conforming use: De Which unique physical.characteristics of the subject proper~y prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? (~(x) Too narrow (.) Topography .( ) Soil ( ) Too small ( ) Drainage ( ) Sub-surface' ( ) Too shallow ( )' Shape ( ) Other: Specify: Was the hards~i~ described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the Zoning Ordinance was adopted? Yes ( ) No (~) If yes, explain: Was the hardship created b;y any ~r 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 (X) No ( ) 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? (Specify, using maps, site plans with dimensions and written explanation.' Attach additional sheets, if necessary.) I. Will granting of the variance be materially detrimental to property in the same zone, or to the~enforcement of this ordinance? 0 I t 0 ~-0 '~ ;n cone.curb ~¢nchrnar/~ : 1'ap n~,4 hy~. 0 Denotes Iron Monument I hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of: Lot 7, except that part of Lot 7, Block 4, Abraham Lincoln Addition to Lakeside Rark, Hound, Hinnetonka, lying southerly of a line, and its extension, said line being described as beginning at a point in the east line of said Lot 7 distant 40 feet southerly from the northeast corner of said Lot 7; thence westerly to a point in the west line of said Lot 7, distant 29 feet southerly from the northwest corner of said Lot 7; also Lots 8 and 9, 8lock 4, Abraham Lincoln Addition to Lakeside Park, Mound, Hinnetonka. And of the location of all buildings, thereon, and all visible encroachments, if any, from or on said land. As surveyed by me this 17th day of 3uly, ]985. --. [. McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. 111, _ t 11% ~ MINN[APOLI$,HU?CHIN$ON~io~IMARSHALL. IdlNNE~OTA. ',,,,~ -.. ~ Paul A. Oohns~ Land Surveyor, Minn. Reg. No. -i,~,7:;;o,~I"'"'".Zo~l"'~'7~o "*~' ~o ."i" ~/CK CERTIFICATE SHEDD for OF SURVEY HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED THAT RICHARD SHEDD WHO LIVES AT 2223 NOBLE LANE, PLANS TO BUILD A TWO CAR ATTACHED GARAGE ONTO HIS HOUSE. (SEE ATTACHED PLANS). I HAVE ~/'~NO, SOME,(CHECK ONE) OBJECTIONS TO THESE PLANS. COMMENTS: DATE - ' f SI ~'iATU E[_..' ....... ~ ..... HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED THAT RICHARD SHEDD WHO LIVES AT 2223 NOBLE LANE, PLANS TO BUILD A TWO CAR ATTACHED GARAGE ONTO HIS HOUSE. (SEE ATTACHED PLANS). I HAVE ,// NO, ~SOME,(CHECK ONE) OBJECTIONS TO THESE PLANS. COM?,~ENTS: ~ QATE ' ' --' /u/'SIG"AT~JRE K '-~ 'C~ ~ ' l HA~E BEEN NOTIFIED THAT RI RD SHEDD WHO LIVES AT 2223 NOBLE LANE, PLANS TO BUILD A l'WO CAR A1FACHED GARAGE ONTO HIS HOUSE. (SEE ATTACHED PLANS). I HAVE ~ NO, ~LSOME,{CHECK ONE) OBJECTIONS TO THESE PLANS. COMMENTS: HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED THAT RICHARD SHEDD WHO LIVES AT 2223 NOBLE LANE, PLANS TO ' BUILD A TWO CAR A1FACHED GARAGE ONTO HIS HOUSE. {SEE ATTACHED PLANS). I HAVE /JNO, SOME,{CHECK ONE) OBJECTIONS TO THESE PLANS. COMMENTS: HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED THAT RICHARD SHEDD WHO LIVES AT 2223 NOBLE LANE, PLANS TO BUILD A TWO CAR ATTACHED GARAGE ONTO HIS HOUSE. (SEE ATTACHED PLANS). I HAVE ~..,.. NO, SOME,(CHECK ONE) OBJECTIONS TO THESE PLANS. COMMENTS: HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED THAT RICHARD SHEDD WHO LIVES AT 2223 NOBLE LANE, PLANS TO BUILD A TWO CAR ATTACHED GARAGE ONTO HIS HOUSE. (SEE ATTACHED PLANS). I HAVE NO, SOME,(CHECK ONE) OBJECTIONS TO THESE PLANS. COMMENTS: HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED THAT RICHARD SHEDD WHO LIVES AT 2223 NOBLE LANE, PLANS TO BUILD A TWO CAR ATTACHED GARAGE ONTO HIS HOUSE. (SEE ATTACHED PLANS). I HAVE ~ NO, SOME,{CHECK ONE) OBJECTIONS TO THESE PLANS. COMMENTS: DATE ' SIGNATURE -- HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED~T~A~ RICHARD SHEDD WHO LIVES AT 2223 NOBLE LANE, PLANS TO BUILD A TWO CAR ATTACHED GARAGE ONTO HIS HOUSE. (SEE ATTACHED PLANS}. I HAVE X NO,__ SOME, (CHECK ONE) OBJECTIONS TO THESE PLANS. COMMENTS: PROPOSED RESOLUTION CASE NO. 85-433 RESOLUTION NO. 85- RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION SETBACK VARIANCE FOR LOTS 8 AND 9, BLOCK 4, ABRAHAM LINCOLN ADDITION TO LAKESIDE PARK PID NO. 13-117-24 34 0003 (2223 Noble Lane) WHEREAS, the applicant, Mr. Richard Shedd, is requesting a 9 foot front yard variance to the Noble Lane right-of-way to allow the construc- tion of a one story 22 x 22 foot attached garage on. the property known as Lots 8 and 9, Block 4, Abraham Lincoln Addition to Lakeside Park - PID No. )3-)!7-24 34 0003; and' WHEREAS, the Zoning Ordinance requires a 30 foot front yard setback to both streets on a corner lots in the R-3 Zoning..Dlstrict for lots of record with e lot width exceeding 80 feet'; and .... ' WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and does recommend approval of the front yard variance due to ~opography and foresta- tion on the property. NO~, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA, does hereby approve the 9 foot side street front yard vari- ance as requested upon the cOndition that no. future expansion be allowed without additional variance approval.for Lots 8 and 9, Block 4, Abraham Lincoln Addition to Lakeside Park, PID 13-117-24 34 0003 (2223 Noble Lane). CASE NO. B5-436 CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota Planning Commission Agenda of August 12, 1985: Board of App.~a. ls. Ca'~e' No. 85-436 Location: 5841,Grandview Boulevard Legal Desc.: Lot 14 & 1/2 of vacated alley, Mound Addition Request: Lot Size Variance Zoning District: R-3 Applicant: Bette Sather 3090 North Shore Drive Wayzata, MN. 55391 Phone: 471-9834 The applicant would like a lot area variance to construct a single family dwelling on a parcel of 5,450 square feet + with conforming side yard setbacks of 6 feet and l0 feet, front yard of 30 feet and a rear yard exceeding 15 feet. Re comme n da t i on: Staff recommends approval of the requested variance as it is within 10 percent of the required 6,000 square fee't lot area for the R-3 Zoning District. The alley was recently vacated to allow more lot area to be returned to the property owners. The abutting neighbors have been notified. This will be referred to the City Council meeting of August 27, 1985. Jan Bertrand Building Official JB/ms Planning Commission Hinutes ........ A.ugu_s ~._l.2_.,. _l 985." Case No. 85-436 Lot Size :V~rla~ce for 58q1 Grandview Boulevard Lot 'lq and 1/2 of vacated al:ley, Hound' Addition PID // 13-117-2/4 13 0001 Bette Sather was prese, nt .. The Building Official ~oted that .~ecently .the al le. y.'in Mound Addition ~vas vacated and Ms.' Sather .acquired half .of that alley.which brought .the square . footage of her lot to approximately'.5,450 which is within 10% of the guidelines the Commission has used for building sites. Lot is in R-3 Zoning District .which requires' 6;000 square foot minimum for a.single.family home. She is planning on confoming to sideyard'setbacks for lots of record of 6.foot and 1 0 foot. The Commission discussed, the request; the size of the proposed hou'se; the lot width at rear, etc. fi'" Kim Schulz, 5833 Grandvlew~. and _Craig Johnso. n., 58/49-Grandview~ are against havln a house on the lot; concerned that house would be so close· .. .... 'Ken Smith stated.it'.'looked iike house .was being sandwiched .in..-He.yet. was against; he stated'.houses around there are all moderately the same size and to 'stick something' in there and squeeze.out what privacy is .there '~hou]d not be done~ Hs. Sather stated she had had the.lot for sale. a number of years ago; she is having Gehring build a house an~l plans to llve there 6 or ? months a year With her /4 lb. dog. The house will conform to'.all setba'cks. We[iand stated there are several smaller houses in area by Dutch I'ake. .Weiland moved and Hich~ei seconded a motion to g6 with the staff-"s recommendation for approval of 550 square, foot variance of' lot size as long as structure meets setbacks· The hardship is the shape of the lot. The vote was Jansen, Hichael, Steve Smith and Weilapd in..favor; Hayer,. Ken Smith and Reese against. Hot/on carried by a /4 to ] vote. This will.be on the Council agenda of August 27, 1985. I r{ JUL 3 0 198:::i { OEM. OUND 1. CITY OF HOUND Fee Paid ~'~-~. ,~ o APPLICATION TO PLANNIN~ ~, 20~ COMMISSION (Please type the following information) .Street Address of Property ~~~'~ ~q~, Legal Description of Property: Lot ~ Date Filed Addition /~ Owner's Name PID No. /~-//7-X~ 13 ooo/ Day Phone No.~.~ 4, Appl'icant (if other than owner): Name Day Phone No. Address 5. Type of Request: e (~) Variance ( ) Conditional Use Permit .( ) Zoning Interpretation & Review ( *If other, specify: ) Wetland Permit ( resent Zoning D'istrict , ,~..~ Existing Use(s) of Property ( ) Amendment (') Sign Permit ( )*Other Has an applicatibn ever been made for zoning, variance, or conditional use permit or other zoning procedure for this property? N'0 . If so, list date(s) of list date(s) of application, action taken and provide Resolution No.(s) Copies of previous resolutions shall accompany present request. I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained 'in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. ~ Signature of Applicant % .~.~'~. <-~%.]~'~'Y~ , Date~.0~ Planning Commission Recommen ~tion:. Approval of the ~50 square foot variance of lot size, as ]on9 as structure meets setbacks. 8-12-85 · Date I Action: Resolutid~ No. Date 8-27-85 / 'Request for Zoni.ng Variance Procedure (2) Case D. Location of: Signs, easements, underground utilities, etc. E. Indicate North compass direction Any additional information as may reasonably be required by the City Staff and applicable Sections of the Zoning Ordinance. I!1. Request for a Zonin9 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 )ocated? Y, es ()~) No ( ) I~ "no", specify each nOn-conforming use: Do the existing structures comply with al1 area height and bulk regulations for .the .zone .district' in which it is located? Yes {X) No' { If "no", specify each non-conforming use: Which unique physical.characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted, in that zoning district? ('.) .Too narrow ( ) Topography -( ) Soil " (.X) Too. small ( ) Drainage ( ) Sub-surface ( ) Too Shallow ( )' Shape ( ) Other: Specify.: Was the hards~Lp described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the Zoning Ordinance was adopted? Yes ( ) No (~) If yes, explain: 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 hardshi~ 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? What is the "minimum" 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.) -,., -' . ........ -~-"' Will granting of the variance be materially detrimental to property in the same zone, or to the enforcement of this ordinance? C~rtificateof Sur-vey for Betty E. Sather in Lot 14, Mound Hennepin County, Minne. sota' : .,".. RESOLUTION //85-96" (EXHIBIT A) 7-1-85 1": '30' Iron marker ! hereby certify that this is a true and' correct representation of a survey of the · boundaries of Lot 14, M~und,. and that part of the adjoining one-half of the vacated alley lying northerly of the westerly extension of the northerly line of Lot 36, M~und,'and the location of all existing buildings', if any, thereon~ It does not purport to show other improvements or encroachments. COFFIN & GRONBERG, INC. Vi'ar[ S. Gr6nb~g Reg. No.V~2755 Gordon R. 'Coffin Reg.. No.. 6064 Engineers & Land Surveyors Long Lake, Minnesota O00~NO 3:II,ON -I PROPOSED RESOLUTION CASE NO. 85-436 RESOLUT)ON NO. B~- RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH"THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE THE LOT S)ZE VARIANCE~FOR LOTS 14,.AND ONE HALF THE VACATED ALLEY,'. HOUND ADD(TION, PID lq-l17-Zq 13. OO01 WHEREAS, Ms. Bette Sather, applicant, owner of the property des- cribed aS Lots 14 and the'-l/2 of the vacated alley, Mound Addition, PID 14-117- 24 13 0001, has applied for lot size variance in order to construct a new dwelling; and WHEREAS, Exhibit A has al.so been submitted to indicate conforming side yard,' front and rear yard setbacks'of '6 feet, lO feet, 30 feet and 15 feet; and WHEREAS, the C.ity Code requires 6,000'square foot of lot area for the R-3 Zoning District to construct a single family home; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and does recommend the approval of the lot size variance. Now, 'THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Coun~i.l.of the' City of Mound~ Minnesota, does hereby approve the 550 sq.ft, lot size variance as requested and shown on Exhibit A for' Lot 14 and i/2 the vacated alley, Mound Addition; PID 14-117-24 1'3 O001 upon the condition that the setbacks for lots of record meet the requirements of the Zoning Code. CASE NO. 85-437 CASE NO. 85-438 CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota Planning Commission Agenda of August 12, 1985: Board of Appeal~ Case No. 85-432 & Case No. 85-438 Location: 1~59 Shorewood Lane Legal Desc.: Lots 15, 16 & 17, Block 7, Shadywood Point Request: Subdivision & Lot Size Variance Zoning District: R-) App1 icant: Creigh & Cheryl Thompson ~m.v~d, MN. 55364 Phone: 474-2726 The applicant is requesting to divide Lot 16 in half and combine the Northwesterly portion of Lot 16 with an existing Lot 17, which is owned by the State of Minne- sota. The stipulation to release Lot 17 for sale is to adjoining property owners. The land to the Northwest of 17 has two lots of record. Mr. Thompson presently owns Lots 15 and 16. The R-i Zoning District requires 10,000 square feet lot area and a 60 foot lot width. The lot width of the proposed division exceeds 60 foot width, but he has applied for a lot area variance to allow two parcels of: "A" equals 8,035+ square feet and "B" equals 7,332+_. square feet. Recommendation: Due to recently granted lot size variance approval and the direction given by the City Council at their June 25th meeting regarding the Shadywood Point, Staff does recommend approval of the lot split subdivision upon the following conditions: !. A survey be submitted of the boundaries, area and legal des- cription of the newly created parcels plus the utility con- nections for the existing structure and the newly created site. 2. The subdivided Lot 16 be combined 1/2 to Lot 15 and 1/2 to Lot 17. 3. The lot size variance be limited to 2,668+ square feet for Parcel "B'~ and 1965+_ square feet for Parc~'l "A" 4. Any deficient unit charges be paid or assessed to the newly created site. 5. No park dedication fees be assessed against the newly created site as it is a possibility that a variance may have been granted for Lot 17. 6. The existing accessory building has non-conforming setbacks and should be repaired to Building Code Requirements or removed. 7. The subdivision must be filed with the Hennepin County Recorder or Hennepin County Register of Titles within 180 days. 8. Variance approval is valid for one year. The abutting neighbors have been notified. This will be referred to the City Council at August 27, )985 meeting. Jan Bertrand Building Official JB/ms August 5 & 6, Case's No. 85-437 &' 85-4.38 Sub~livision and Lot Size Variance, 19521 Shqre~ood Lane; Lots )5, 16 & 17, Block 7, Shad~wood PointI Creigh and Cheryl Thompson were present. The Building Official. reviewed the. request. The applicant'presently owns Lots 15 and 16;' Lot' 17 is owned by the State. He is proposing Lot 16 be spli. t in half and .then combine 15 and one half of 16; 17 and one half of 16 as two build- able par'c~ls.. Lot 17 and half of 16 would be 8,035 square feet and Lot 15. and half of lis would' be. _7:332..S_~q_u_a.r__e_...f~e__e__t.t _._l..t_ .is 'in the R-1 Zoning District which -.i ~' requires .!O,O00..square .fee-t an.d lot width is minimum of 60 feet. Both of these 1.ots.would be over, the minimum.in width-and Parcel A would be shore 1,965 squ~re .... .. feet and Parcel B 2,668 square .feet'. 'The staff' is recommending along wi th some --' · of.-the recomme'ndations by the council. (minutes of June 25, 1985) to consider a rezoning change to R-2 because.most, of area lots are single lot parcels. She is recommending approval 'subject to some conditions ..... ..... : -.', .:.., ~, .. '. . . , ': · . ~ . . .... 'The City Manage'r-stab:ed t~[ls case differs in that tt~e¥ are creating 2 undersized · ~i:...: lots whereas the other lots were lots of record. · . · Discus'seal ·also the creating a site wi.th a lot'owned by the State...Cheryl Th0mp'L- son stated· they can purchase'Lot .17 over the co6nter, because no one bid on it when It was off~red at the. tax forfeit'~ale. They don't wish to purchase the lot · unless they can upgrade and sell both parcels. Reese questioned Thompson"s -... strategy - to build lot into'a- $15,0.00' to $20,O00 Io.t ~ith.a $6 , 000 :house . on it, They stated they're making the lot; the house is on smalle.r. Reese. commented on the dumping .of junk On the lot~.and..suggested tearing down the house 'and the'n · split., into two nice' Sites.'" _. . ...... 'Council Representative Smith cla'rifiJd his.motio~ in the Council minutes..They were asking that· the question be put on the table whether it should, be.rezoned, not. that we. wa.nted it. to be rezoned. They just wanted it discussed.. Th;.neighborhood was discussed and Meyer-brought up' the-point that-directly f~'.i i .:..,.across from these three Jots are-4, and 3/4 homes.and-applicant wants to divide this.and build two homes. The Commission discussed that the lots would be worth.' more without the structures on it. " Reese moved and. St~ve Sm)th secon'ded a motion to approve the ·staff.. re.commenda- tion- revising item 6 to rea. d that existing structure and dccessory building shall be removed. Thompson's think th~'t economlcall'y they wcluld not. purchase Lot 17 if they mu. st tear down"th.e, st'rudture. 'Michae) qu~s.tioried creating 2 undersi:zed lots. Reason given ,for:the motion is t'h~t-Ir'fits .nei'ghbc~rhc~od and gets J tax forfeit lot back on the tax rolls; The vote was all in favor of..the motion, except Michael Who abstained. Motion This will 'be on the Council agenda of August 27, !~85. ,PPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION Sec. 22.03-a VILLAGE OF MOUND OF LAND FEE $ ~"¢- o ~ FEE OWNER C~£~'~- R, 'T/J,-o ~ P~j~ PLAT PARCEL ~ ¢~ I17 ~-~ vo'/o Location and complete legal description of property to be divided: L O'T'5 i ~.a i (% 17 ~LOC~ 7 '51-Ht o y o~ ~ © 'Po I ,d T .To be divided as follows: (attach survey or scale drawing showing adjacent streets, dimension Of proposed building sites, square foot area of each new parcel designated by number) A WAIVER IN LOT SIZE IS REQUESTED FOR: Lot No. ~ ~/ ~rom ~ Reason: Square feet TO "~ ~3 ~ Square feet 405'5 ADDRESS B_ '~-- ' !v~'~ ~" ' DATE Applicant's interest in the properxy: This application must be sign. ed by all the OWNERS of the progert¥0 or an explan- ation given why this is not the case. 31 5'acY /~ PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Approve subdivision and lot sike variances with condition existing structure and accessory buildina shall k~ ~ ...... ~ ~ .... OF MO:, Case No. CITY OF MOUND Fee Paid ~-~ o o APPLICATION TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION (Please type the following information) Date Filed Street Address of Property 1959 Shorewood I~r~e MOund, MN 55364 Legal Description' of Property: Addition Shadywood Point Lot Lots 15,16,and17 PID No. Block 7 i 8-117-23-23'00q.0 18-117-23-23-0041 3. Owner's Name Creigh & Cheryl Thompson Day Phone No. 474-2726 Address 5827 Vine Hill Road Minnetonka, Mn 55364 Applicant (if other than owner): Same as above Name Address Day Phone No. 5. Type of Request: e (X) Variance ( ) Conditional Use Permit ( ) Zoning Interpretation & Review ( ) Wetland Permit ( ) P.U.D. *If other, specify: ( ) Amendment ( ) Sign Permit (')*Other Present Zoning District 1~ 1 Existing Use(s) of Property Lot 15 600 sq ft ho~e. lot 16_,J'acaut. lot 17 ..... ~umpzng - grounds. Has an appllcati'on ever been made for zoning, M~]qi~arbc,~, or conditional use permit or other zoning procedure for this property? 1Go 8t~tr~'~wleclg$~ so, list date(s) of list date(s) of application, action taken and provide Resolution No.(s) Copies of previous resolutions shall accompany present request. I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by ~aw. Signature of Applicant~_~~ ~O~.~v~,~/~~~r~~ Date ju~v ~1;~98 Planning Commission Recommendation: Approve staff recommendation with the condition existing structure and accessory building shall be removed. Date 8-12-85 1 Action: Resolution No. Date 8-27-85 Request for Zoning Variance Pr6cedure '(2) Case # ~-~-~ D. Location of: Signs, easements, underground utilities, etc. £. Indicate North compass direction F. Any additional information as may reasonably be required by the City Staff and applicable Sections of the Zoning Ordinance. Ill. Request fpr a Zonin9 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 (~) No ( ) If "no", specify each non-conforming use: C. Do the existing structures comply with all area height and bulk regulations for the zone district in which it is located? Yes ( ) No ( If "no", specify each non-conforming use: ~~ OM LOT D. Nhich unique physical characteristics of the sub~ect property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted, in that zoning district? ( ) Too narrow ( ) Topography ( ) Soil (X) Too small ( ) Drainage ( ) Sub-surface ( ) Too shallow ( ) Shape ( ) Other: Specify: Ee Was the hardship, described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the Zoning Ordinance was adopted? Yes ( ) No ()O 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 varlance peculia-r only to the property described in this petition? Yes (~) No ( ) If no, how many other prgperties 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? (Specify, using maps, site'plans with dimensions and written explanation. Attach additional sheets, if necessary.) I. Will granting of the variance be materially detrimental to property in the same zone, or to the enforcement of this ordinance? t 0 -r' RESOLUTION NO. 85- PROPOSED RESOLUTION CASE NO. 85-437 CASE NO. 85-438 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE THE LOT SUBDIVISION AND LOT SIZE VARIANCES FOR LOTS 15, 16 AND 17, BLOCK 7, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID NO. 18-117-23 23 0040 AND 0041 (1959. Shorewood Lane) WHEREAS, Creigh and Cheryl. Thompson, applicant and owners of the property described as Lots 15, 16 and 17, Block 7, Shadywood Point, have applied for subdivision of Lot 16 and lot size variances in order to construct a new dwelling for 1/2 of Lot 16 and Lot 15 and 1/2 of Lot 16 and Lot 17; and WHEREAS, Exhibit A has also'been submitted to indicate the requested subdivision and lot size variances; and WHEREAS, the City Code requires a lot size of 10,OO0 square feet of area in the R-I Zoning District; and WHEREAS, an application to waive the subdivision requirements con- tained in Section 22.00 of'the City Code has been fi]ed with.the City of Mound by the applicant, Creigh and Cheryl Thompson; and WHEREAS, said request for waiver has been reviewed by the Planning Commission and the City Council; and WHEREAS, it is hereby determined that there are special circumstances effecting said property such that the strict application of the ordinance would deprive the owner of the reasonable use of his land; and that the waiver is neces- sary for the preservation and enjoyment of the substantial property right; and that granting the waiver will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injuri- ous to the other property owners. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota: The request of the City.of Mound for a waiver from the provisions of Section 22.00 of the City Code and the 'request to subdivide property, of ]ess than 5 acres, described as fOllows; Lots 15, 16 and 17, Block 7, ShadywOod Point; is hereby granted to permit the 'subdivision in the following manner; Parcel A. Lot 15 and i/2 of' Lot 16 and Parcel B. Lot 17 and 1/2 of Lot 16; upon the condition that: 1. A survey be submitted of the boundaries, area and legal description of the newly created parcels plus utility connections for the existing structure and the newly created site. 2. The subdivision subdivided Lot~ 16 be combined 1/2 to Lot 15 and i/2 to Lot 17. 3. The lot size variance be limited t° 2,668 square feet+ for Parcel B and 1,965 square feet+ for Parcel A shown on Exhibit A. 4. Any deficient unit charges be paid or assessed to the newly created site. 5. No park dedication fees be assessed against the newly created site. 6. The subdivision must be fi]ed with Hennepin County Recorder or Hennepin County Register of Titles within 180 days. 7. Variance approval is valid for one year. PROPOSED RESOLUTION CASE NO.. 85-437 CASE NO. 85-438 8. The existing acCessory building and principal building shown on Lot 15 shal I be removed. 9. It is.determined that the foregoing subdivision will constitute a desirable and stable community development and it is in harmony with the adjacent propeKties. lO. The City Clerk ~s auth°ri Zed .to deliver a certified copy' of this resolu- tion to the applicant for filing in the office of Registers of Deeds or Registers Of Titles of Nennepin County to show compliance with the sub- division regulations of the'City. Case No. ~--~Yo CITY OF MOUND Fee Paid $50.00 Date Filed 8-8-85 APPLICATION TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION (Please type the following information) 1. Street Address of Property.~'~) ~) Addition Sy.lyan H~hts.. Addn, to Mound Block PID No. I~-I17-24 ~4 0066 Day Phone No. 472-14OO Address -5. e Applicant (if other than owner): Address~ Type of Request: (~ Variance ( ( ) Zoning Interpretation & Review ( ) Wetland Permit ( ) P.U.D. *If other, specify: ,.~/~_, P/~-,.~., '~~ Present Zoning District ~7~- Day Phone No.~ ) Conditional Use Permit ( ) Amendment ( ) Sign Permit ( )*Other Existing Use(s) of Property Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, or conditional use permit or other zoning procedure for this property? If so, list date(s) of list date(s) of application, action taken and provide Resolution No.(s) Copies of previous resolutions shall accompany present request. I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this applicatlon by any authorized official of the City of Mound for. the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required/~/~~~~ Signature of Applicant_ _ Date Planning Commission Recommendation: To approve variance for cool in9 towers with it being their responsibility to get approval from the railroad. Date 8-12-85 il Action: Resolution No. 8-27-85 Date Request for Zoning Variance Procedure '(2) Case D. Location of: Signs, easements, underground utilities, etc. E. Indicate North compass direction F. Any additional information as may reasonably be required by the City Staff and applicable Sections of the Zoning Ordinance. i11. Request for a Zonin~ 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 (~/) No ( ) If 'lno", specify each non-conforming use: C. Do the existing structures comply with all area height...and bulk regulations for the zone district in which it is located? Yes (v~) No ( ) If "no", specify each non-conforming use: Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) Too narrow ( ) Topography ( ) Soil ( ) Too small. ( ) Drainage ( ) Sub-surface ( ) Too shallow ( ) Shape ( ) Other: Specify: Was the hardship described above 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 othe~ man-made change, such as the reloca- tion of a road? Yes ( ) No( ~'~ If yes, explain: G. 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 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.) I. Will granting of the variance be materially detrimental to property in the same zone, or to the enforcement of this ordinance? Planning Commission Minutes.I . August 12, 1985 J-'-- Metes $ Bounds Descriptl.ons'- PID-i~)-117-24 ~)4 0066 .. Bruce B, Oahlb.erg was present for'C..R~. Manufacturing Company, 'The planner mentioned 'that at'a previou~ meeting.~hen we l~oked a.t C.i~;..Manu- facturing Company,' there was-a'cooling tower that'was kind of thrust up.on the Commission'with no ir~formation on' it.. They 'are proposing to'construct cooling apparatus !n conformance with the di. agram they've submitted.which is a kind of a mix of plan..views and..sect|on.'views, it shows that-betwee6 the b)Jildlng wa-Il · and. the north lot. li6e, there is 3 feet of property owned by Balboa. They are . .-. nbw proposing to extend this cooling .apparatus to a'footing that l'ooks like it has a.center point about i2 feet away. from the bu.ilding..' Obviously it is 9 feet.' ' Into the 'hailroad property-. The apparatus would be. on a platform wh.ich is .... mS ~Own -as-7'.6'" ~ff,the-"D-rounu'-~iid-ti~A~-ha~e S tate~ '~:-h~.'~'"~0Ul d put a cycl6ne fence around the' enclosure itself; Our only question, is the.legal.status 9f someone doing .something .on property they don~t' own.. He commented the City could handle that by haying C. R. Manufacturing'~et a'letter from the Railroad' ' · The.Commissior~'disc~ussed.the cooling towers, noise factor, and v~hether i't would be more prudent, to .p.ut. towers on the roof, Dab)berg stated there ls a fan, but ~..' .'..noi'se would 13e no.. different than [t is. now. The two .tow~.rs weigh about 4,000 lbs.; they don't want to'put .them on the. roof as' it would mean rear. rahg|ng their operation. Th~ ~ocation they .are proposing f. or.towe'r is 23Z'feet from the north- .' · . west corner of the .property, . I.t is thought the ra|lroa~l would give ap~'roval for' .'... a price.'. · ' . '' ' . . ~ -'. .'. ~ . ~ ~. · .... .. . .... . . -. ......... Reese mov¢'d and'Weilan~ seconded a'.motJ, on to approve variance for' coo))ng tc~wers .-..~ . with It being their, responsibility, to get approval from the rai)road .... The vote .. .:. was uflanimously .~n :.f.avor; . Motion carried. ...... ... This will' be 'or{ the Cbu'ncil agenda °t;'August 27,"1~85. .. " PROPOSED RESOLUTION CASE NO. 85-440 RESOLUTION NO. 85- RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR 5340 SHORELINE BOULEVARD PID NO. 13-117-24-34 0006 WHEREAS, Fred E. Guttormson, applicant, and Balboa Minnesota, owner of the property described as PID No. ]3-117-24 34 0066 (5340 Shoreline Boulevard) have' applied for variance in setback to rear yard on the north of the building in order to construct a cooling tower as shown on Exhibit "A" 9 feet onto the Railroad property; and WHEREAS, the City Code requires a 30 foot rear yard setback to the property line in the I-1 Industrial Zoning District; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the 'request and does recommend approval of the setback variance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby.approve the variance as requested ~nd shown on Exhibit "A" for PID No. 13;117-24 34 0066 ('5340 Shoreline Boulevard) known as C. R. Manufacturing upon the condition that the Railroad does confirm an agree- ment of placing a cooling tower structure 9 fee t~ onto their abutting property before a building permit will be issued for the structure. E~F/¥//3 / 7-'.~ RESOLUTION #85-97 ill MINUTES OF THE HOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMHISSION HEETING OF August 12, 1985 Present were:. Chair Elizabeth Jansen; Commissioners William Meyer, Geoff Michael, Thomas Reese, Kenneth Smith and Frank Weiland; Council Representative Steve Smith; City Manage[ Jun Elam; City Planner Mark Koegler; Building Official Jan Bertrand and Secretary Marjorie Stutsman. Absent and excused was Commissioner Robert Byrnes. Aisc present were the following interested persons: Bette Sather, Bruce B. Dahlberg, Robert Tomalka, Richard.Hall, JoAnna Llnn, A. L. Shaffer, Warren Shaffer, Craig John-~ son~ ~i. chard Shedd, Louis M. Darner, Dean Fleming, John Sill, Klm Schulz, William · Thal and Creigh and Cheryl Thompson..~ MINUTES The m. inutes of the Planning Co~ni.sslon ~eeting of July 22, 1985 were presented for consideration. Reese asked that the wording on page. 4 in statement regarding 2624 Westedge Boulevard, be changed-to show that the subject was discussed briefly. ~eese moved and Weiland seconded a motion to approve the minutes of the July 22, 1985' Planning~Commission meet!lng.as re¥i'sed.. The 'vote was unanimously 'in BOARD OF APPEALS' i. Case No, 85J433 Front Yard ~ Fo0t variance for 2223 Noble Lane Lots 8 & 9, Block 4, A. Lincoln Addn. to Lakeside Park Richard. Shedd.was present. The Building Off/cia/, Jan Sertrand,'reviewed the request 'for a 9 foot front yard variance for a comer'lot I:hat.fronts on Lynwood and Noble. Applicant wants to build an attached garage... Ordinance requires a 30 foot front yard set- back to both streets for the R-3 Zoning' District and it is a 1ct of record, ex- ceeding 80 feet in width. He has a front yard covered with forestation; .also he has an existing .tuckunder garage that has some drainage problems to it which cut into hill. He is asking that a one story garage be attached to this area which would mostly be sheltered by the existing cut in grade. The neighbors have given their, written approval to this project and the Building Official feels that due' ~o the topography and trees on ~his property, he should have his variance granted.. .. ~ The subject was discu[sed briefly. K. Smith questioned if applicant would need a variance to fix tuckunder' gar. age into a room. Bertrand responded.no; just the expansion of the house up or out would require, another variance. Weiland moved and K. Smith seconded a motion to recommend Staff's recommenda- tion for approval of the ~ foot front yard variance due to the topography and natural forestation of the property with the condition that no future expan- sion be allowed without additional variance approval. The. vote was unanimous- ly'in favor. Motion carried. This item will be on the Council agenda of August 27, 1985. Z & 3. Cases 85-434 & 85-435 Wetlands Permit and Preliminary and Final Plat for Sinclair Court Subdivision; Lots 7 thru 13, Block 16, The Highlands Louis M. Derner, President of Derner I'ndustries, Inc. was present. C The Chair stated that this was a public hearing and she asked the Building Official to review the requests. The Building Official noted that in ]978, Plannlng Commission Minutes August 12, 1 85 - Page 2 they had f|nal approval on this plat. At that time all of the permits were issued by .the State Health Department, the DNR, Watershed District and the PCA for the watermains and so on; and they are in the process right now of reapplying to all these agencies for approval again without any changes in their design. She talked to the Watershed District because one of her concerns was that since 1978, Mound has adopted a Wetlands-Ordinance and this does require that applicant file for a Wetlands Permit because 'they. are proposing to do some filling in the wetlands portion of this property. Also, 'because of the.lapse of time, all approvals have expired and we have to go through the public hearing process again. She then went through some of the recommendations in the City Engineer's report. Applicant is proposing that the wetlands on south of plans marked '~Outlot A" be dedicated to the City for Park Dedication. The street would be extended off of the existing Sinclair Road. That area also, (shown by dotted line), is below the wetlands elevation so a portion'on the south of Sinclair Court would require filling; Lot 5 also is below the 932 elevation set for the wetlands. T° the north is another wetlands. Sinclair Court is basicall.y a ridge between the two wetlands.. Muriel. Road'. is an unimproved right-of-way and wetlands extends to the south edge.of the'platted Muriel Road. Ordinance allows'wetlands platted into your property in flgurin9 your lot area.except land riparian to Lake Minne- tonka. Ail of this property is in the.R-2 Zoning District so lots actually would only be required to be 6,ODD.square feet in size. Ail have been platted at over 10~000 square feet.. The City Engineer iS recommending this plat be approved with an escrow fund of $5,000 and performance bond would be $80,000. to insure the-construction of roads, sewer and water, etc. Also recommended is that there be no filling below the 932 elevation except to Lot 5'which is restricted to placing or fill.below the elevation of 931. She pointed out areas proposed to be filled. The Minnehaha'Creek-Watershed District will require that if filling is done, other storage area of the.same capacity.be designated thus keeping capa- city the same. Weil. and asked if Outlot A could be dredged for storage?, Bertrand would i'ike to have an Item 8.added, stating that soil tests are needed where road-. way is to be put in for Sinclair.Road. Discussed where roadway would be. Derner said roadway to Sinclair Court'wiil turn lef't 50 to 60 feet from end of Sinclair Road. Reese questioned, what.would.~be done with the' stagnant pond.. City Manager advised that was Lagoon Park. There is no lake access for the development. o The Chair opened the public hearing. The' followi'ng persons had questions and/or. comments: 1. Dean Fleming, 2. Warren Shaffer, 3. Bob Toma]ka, 4. John Bill, and 5.' Alvina Shaffer. Their biggest concern was for. the effect the subdivision would have on drainage in the area. The Chair closed the public hearing. The Commission discussed the drainage prob- lems, possibility of splitting parcels into smaller lots, park dedication,' etc. The Building official suggested adding stipulatibn lots not be allowed to be split because of the environment, wetlands, drainage and topography of the land. On park dedication of 0utlot A, the Planner commented it would have to be a determination made' by t'he Council if they were looking for land or cash in lieu of; he' stated there wasn't much usable from a park standpoint; there'is from a wetlands 'protection standpoint; he recommended asking for cash in addition to the wetlands. The City Manager advised that some kind of park dedicatidn could cover the cost of upgrading wetlands so you really have a preservable wetlands. Elam suggested contacting Joel Settles of Hennepin Soils and Water Conservation District on what could be done to improve quality of wetlands. Reese moved and Weiland seconded moving the staff's recommendation with ~/ Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 1985 - Page 3 l) the additional proviso that the lots cannot be subsequently subdivided because of the environment, wetlands, drainage and topography of the land, and 2) that the owner be given $]00 per lot credit, for park. dedication fee for Outlot A plus $250 per lot to be assessed to be used for the improvement of the new park; '3) the Planning Commission asked the. staff to be particularly sensi- tive to the drainage issues that:residents have brought up and /~) that.soil tests be made of roadway area where Sinclair. Road will be put in. The vote on the motion was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. The Cit~ Council .will be asked .to set'the'public hearing for SePtember 10, 1985. Case No. 85-436 Lot Size variance for 5841 Grandview Boulevard Lot I/~ and 1/2 of vacated al:le¥, Mound Addition PID // 13-117-2z~ 13 0001 Bette Sather was prese, nt .. The Building Official ~oted that .~'ecently .the alley, in Mound Addition was vacated and Ms.'Sather.acquired half .of that alley which brought the square · footage of her lot to approximately'.5,ztSO which is within 10~; of the guidelines the Commission has used for building sites. Lot is in R-3 Zoning District .'which requires' 6~000 square foot minimum for a single.family home. She is planning on'conforming to sldeyard'setbacks for lots of record o'f 6 foot and lO foot. The Commission 'discussed. the request; the size of the' proposed house; the lot width at rear, etc. Klm Schulz, $833 Grandvlew,. and Craig Johnson, 5849 Grandview, are against having [... a house on the lot; concerned that house would be so close. 'Ken Smith stated it'looked iike house lWaS being sandwiched .in. Meyer. was against; he stated'.houses around there are ali moderately the same., size and to stick something in there and squeeze.out what privacy is .th,ere shou]d not be done.. Ms, Sather. stated she had had the.lot for sale. a number of years ago; she is having Gehring build a house an~l plans to live there 6 or 7 months a year With her /~ lb. dog. The house wi1] conform to. all setba'cks. Weiland stated there are several smaller houses in area by Dutch I~ake. Weiland moved and Micha'el seconded a motion to go with the staff's recommendation for approval of 550 square, foot variance of lot size as long as structure meets setbacks. The hardship is the shape of the lot. The vote was Jensen, Michael, Steve Smith and Weiland in. favor; Meyer, Ken Smith and Reese against. Motion carried by a Zt to 3 vote. This will.be on the Council agenda of August 27, 1985, 6. Cases No. 85-~37 &' 85-498 Subdivision and Lot Size Variance, 195~ Shqre~ood Lane; Lots ]$, 16 S 17, Block 7, Shadywood Point' Creigh and Cheryl Thompson were present. The Building Officia) reviewed the request. The applicant'presently owns Lots 15 and 16;' Lot 17 is owned by the State. He is proposing Lot 16 be spli. t in half and .then combine l$ and one half of 16; 17 and one half of 16 as two build- able parcels. Lot 17 and half of 16 would be 8,035 square feet and Lot 15 and half of 16 would'be 7,332 square feet. It is in the R-! Zoning District which Planning Commission Minutes August 12, i 85 - page 4 requires .10,000. square-feet and lot width is minimum of ~O J~eet. Both o{~ these lots.would be over. the minimum.in width and PaFcel A would be shore ],965 square feet and Parcel B 2,668 square feet', 'The staff' is recommendlng along with some .of. the recomme'ndations by the council. (minutes of June 25, 1985) to consider a rezoning change to R-2 because most. of area lots are single lot parcels. She is · recommending approval subject to some conditions, 'The City Manage'r. sta~:ed t~'i~ case differs in that tl~ey are creating 2 undersized lots whereas the other lots were lots of record. Discussed.also the creating a site wi.th a 1or'owned by the State...Cheryl Th0mp~ son stated' they .can purchase'Lot 17 over the co6nter, because no one bid on it when it was offered at the. tax forfeit' Sale. They don't wish to purchase the lot · unless they can.upgrade and sell both parcels. Re,se questioned Thompson's -.. strategy -.to build lot into'.a'$15,0.00'to $20,000 lo.t ~ith a $6 , 000 ,house on it. They stated they're making the lot: the house is on smaller. Re,se. commented on the dumping'of junk on the lot~. and.. suggested tearing down the house 'and then · split-.into two nice sites, " 'Council Representative Smith clariff~d his.motio~ in the Council minutes. ·They were asking that-the question be put on the table whether it should, be.rezoned, not that we, wanted it 'to be rezoned. They just wante.d it discussed. Ti~;.neighborhood was discussed and Meyer-brought up' the-point that-directly across from these three lots are. 4 and 3/4 homes, and. applicant wants to divide this and build two homes.. The Commission discussed that the lots would be worth · more without the structures on it. Re,se moved and St~ve Sm!th seconded a motion to ap'prove the staff, recommenda- tion- revising I.tem 6 to rea. d that existing structure and ~iccessory building shall be removed .... ' .. -. Thompson's think th~'t economicall'y they wc;uld not.purchas'e Lot 17 if they must tear down'th.e, st'ructure. 'Michael questiohed creating 2 undersi:zed lots. Reason given .for: the motion is tha't. It.fits nei'ghbc~rhc~od and gets ~ tax forfeit lot back on the tax rolls; · .... · . The vote was all in favor of..the motion, except Michael Who abstained. Motion carried.- . . This Will be on the Counci. l agfa'da of August 27, 1985. Case No. 85-440 Variance for COoling Towe~-s for C: R. Manufacturing Co. Metes & Bounds Oescrfpt~ons - PI0'13-117-24 34 0066 Bruce B. Dahlberg was present for C..R. Manufacturing Company. ~ The Planner mentioned ·that at'a previou~ meeting When we 16oked at C.R:.Manu- facturing Company, there was-a cooling tower that'was kind of thrust upon the Commission with no ir~formation on' it.. They are proposing to'construct 'cooling apparatus .in conformance with the di. agram they've submitted.which is a kind of a mix of plan views and.section 'views. It shows that .between the b~ilding wall and. the north lot. lihe, there is 3 feet of property owned by Balboa. They are now proposing to extend this cooling apparatus to a footing that l'ooks like it has a center point about 12 feet away from the building.' Obviously it is 9 feet. into the ~ailroad property. The apparatus would be on a platform which is Planning" Commission Minutes August 12, 1385 - Page 5 shown as 7'6" off the ground and they have stated they would put a cyclone fence [" around the enclosure itse]f; Our onl.y question, is the ]egal.status of someone doing something .on property they don"t' own. He commented the City could handle that by haying C. R. Manufacturing get a'letter from the Railroad~ The Commissiori' discussed.the cooling towers, noise factor, and Whether i't would be more prudent, to p.ut. towers on the roof. Dah]berg stated there is a fan, but noise would 'be no different than it is. now. The two.towers weigh about 4,000 lbs.; t'hey don't want to put .them on the roof as it would mean rearranging their operation. The 'location they .are proposing f. or.towe'r is 232 'feet from the north- .... west corner of the .property.. I.t is thought the railroad would give approval for ., a price; Re,se moved and Wei]and seconded a',motion to approve v~riance for' cooling towers with it being their, responsibility, to 'get approval from the railroad... The vote was unanimously ,in=favor. Motion carried. This wili' be-on the C0u'nci) agenda of August 27, '1985. ." Planned Industrial'Area O~dinance · . '... .... ,' . The Planner stated 2 i.tems remain to .be reviewed by the Plann|ng"Co'mmission that are going to the City Council tomorrow evening: ]) Planned Industrial Area Ordi- nance draft changes which is basically in response to the Council's directive of their last meeting; and 2) The draft resolution for a conditional use permit for .., Balboa Minnesota which WOuld comprise the entire Tonka structure. ' Starting with page marked Item 7, he highlighted some changes: 'Under Section ~ 23.650.7(1) Same except prov!slon for escrow account. (2) Correct typo,. Planning .Commission should be changed to City Staff, 23..650.7 Also added "Criteria .for Granti.ng Operations Permit";. .. Going back under sectior~ 23.650.(;, the Planner commented he and Jan. have ' tried to pull out everything that they fee] .has enough negative' impact that it should not be on that site; they looked 'at types of uses that mlg.h't gener&te waste (]iquld form, 'emissions, etc.), signif, icant outside storage requirements, uses · that have odor problems, equipment .storage problems; pulled out things that did n~t i.see..m t~ f.i't. This leaves a fairly extensive list'wh, ich tends ·to·be· the cleaner .industrial uses. plus all of the commercial retail type' Of things' that wants to have - all to be granted b~ operations permit which would be granted by the proi:edure outlined. 'The Cqn~n..ission discussed the Ordinance at ledgth.~ Jansen ~oved an'd Ken Smith seconded a motion to advise the .City Council that the Commissipn has .revi'ewed the suggest Planned Industrial Area Ordinance; that ".'we. would, prefer a more,~tream]ine method, but will accept what they"ye done. The vote on' the motion was unanimously in favor, Motion carried. Case No. 85-43~ Conditional Use Permit for Balboa Minnesota, 5300/53'40 Shore]ina Th~ Planner state~ that Jan and'he thought they would be coming, in with a fairly comprehensive plan for Femodeling portions of the exterior of the building, but Plannlng Commission Minu{es that is not their intention. They will leave bui.ldlng essentlally the way it is;. will make ~indow improvements, and they will be improving:Lunalite office area. which, wilJ be part of the truck dock turned into office space. The Planner reviewe'd.t'he conditi'on~ outj.i, ned In the resolution. He al.so'asked that .! tem..d be added whic.h..would,.rea~, "prohibit exterior .parking o'f vehicles exceeding'24 hours duration except, in designated areas". He stated ;chat.parkin~ was going .to be extremel.y tl.ght;, nothing on the south side. of. Shoreline Bo~le-~ yard is 'part of their'application. The Commission discussed at length p'arking,'what constitutes stc~age c;f.i'ndus- trial materials,-.etc.. I.t was algreed that.Mark 'c6.uld.put somethi.ng ..togethe. r for Item J'such as "N,o outside parking and storage.except by operations permit .process foE period exceeding.24 hours dur. ation". ' Weiland moved and Ken '~mi'th 'seconded a mo'tion 'to. recommend' approyal Of Resolu- tion Granting Conditional Use Permit to Balboa Mi.nn.eso.t.a Company for the Establishment of a"planned Industrial Area. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried ~' Operations Permit for Lunalite, Inc. The Planner advised'that this pe[rmi~t 'does not require comment .l~y the C~mmissi'on; it is in the packet for informational' purposes.' He a. lso stated the form of.this may change; by the time, the'next.one comes in, City m~y have an established application form. The permit .was discussed briefly. 90 Satellite :Disl~ Antennas ' The Planner stated the Commis.s!on. had asked.him ~o'fesearch this subject. Basi'caIly there is not a significant' difference.i.O the.. cost of, sa.te].!.i.te di.sh antennas; they can be gotten in any color; the mesh ne~d to be slightly-larger ..for reception' purposes. The' Commission discussed types, color and the grandfathered issue. It ~as agreed we should requir~ a mesh type in a dark color (gray or black). The second approach to grandfathering was the Commission's choice. The Commission looked ove'r the informational items briefly and signed the letter to be sent to former Commissioner Vargo. Adjournment P, eese moved and Meyer seconded a motion 'to adjourn the meeting 'at 10:30 P".M. The vote was all in' favor. Meeting was adjourned. Attest: Elizabeth Jensen, Chair CITY OF I~(~UND REPORT OF INSPECTION P. ELATI\rE TO HAZARDOUS AND DANGEROUS BUILDING(S) AT 2624 Westedge Boulevard, CITY OF MOUND SITE ADDRESS WHAT INSPECTED 2624 Westedge Boulevard single family dwelling DATE July 3], 1985 PRINCIPAL USES ! single family structure USE ZONE R-! FIRE ZONE N/A LEGAL DESCRIPTION Commencing 227~ feet south from southeast corner of Lot 4_than south along west line of LoL 3 a disLan~ of 50 feet than east at right angles to shore of Lake Langdon than northwesterly along said shore to point due east from beginning than west to beginning OI'~NER Mary Pacholke and Aaron Applequist 472-3008/ ADDRESS 2624 Westedg? Boulevard, MoUnd, Minnesota PHONE ~-6868 AGENT ADDRESS OCCUPANTS PH ON E ADDRESS PHONE HEIRS of Estate of Christ'Kallevig - A~ministrator Everett Kalleviq ADDFERS Route ], Willmar, MN. 56201 PHONE. GUARDI A~N ADD.PiESS L I EI'~- H OLDE RS PHONE ADDP£SS CONSTRUCT/ON OF BUILDING wood frame TYPE OF HEATING PLANT none CC:~¢D2 ']'i OK C,F HLATiNG OTHE? ~'K'CHA?~] CAL EQU IP~t,'T none PH ON E NO. OF STOPIES__.I ,__ BUILDING INSPECTION (HAZARDOUS & DANGEROU ELECTRIC LIGHTING AND WIRING 60 amp service; inadequate out,ets and receptacles [DN OF ABOVE below m;nimum and hazardous KIND OF ROOF 2 X 4's - 2 foot on center overspanned with roof boards CONDITION OF ROOF, poor CONDITION OF CONDITION OF WINDOWS fair ADEQUATE LIGHT AND AIR PROVIDED CONDITION OF SILLS fair crawl space - extremely poor ye s CONDITION OF CHIMNEYS hazardous with no footing; too close to combustibles ATTIC: HOW USED no storaqe CONDITION OF FOUNDATION WALL bad - no footing and portions with. no blocks; only dirt dug out CONDITION OF BEARING WALLS not v|sib]e - wa]] covered on inside and out~ CONDITION OF NON-BEARING WAL~equate beam and support system under floor OF EXTERIOR WALLS wood siding fair with interior finish of painted parti'cle "'board and sheetrock with seams open CONDITION OF PLUMBING pipes, no water heater connected. is plywood with no flooring' CONDITION OF COOKING EQUIPMENT LP gas to vent piping MUNICIPAL WATER Yes WELL MUNICIPAL SEWER Yes CONDITION OF INTERIOR, LATH AND PLASTER, ETC. poor TYPE ~ND CONDITION OF FIRE PROTECTION EQUIPMENT OR FACILITIES none DIMENSION OF BUILDING survey attached SETBACKS , FRONT REAR SIDES DISTANCE FROM OTHER BUILDINGS okay REMARKS IN GENEP~,L floor in east bedroom is sloped (converted old porch); house is tting .iow to yard grade which poses a drainage problem. Ceili_ng joists are ~overspanned 2 X 4's 2 foot on center; west porch is restin~ on the 9round. Roof is sagged. BUILDING INSPECTION (HAZARDOUS & DANGEROUS) LIST SEPARATELY ALL PEPJ~IITS ISSUED FOR BUILDING BUILDING HEATING PLUMB IN G Permit # 5042 3-13-79 Value $5,800. for remodeling & sidinq all of which was no~ completed. Permit # 4353 5-3-77 Insulation & panelinq # 81 10/9/62 Wate~ connection #291 10/22/64 Sewer connection # 214 10/22/64 Inside. plumbing. CONCLUSIONS: IS BUILDING A FIRE HAZARD? yes WHY the use of extension cords due to inadequate outlets and [eceptacl'es, fireplace too close to combusti'b]es. IS BUILDING A HAZARD TO PUBLIC SAFETY? yes WHY overspanned wood member and inadequate foundation system. Ungrounded t'ype electrical system. IS BUILDING A HAZARD TO PUBLIC HEALTH yes I~SIY all plumbing is not com?)eterll no kitchen sink, no hot water, no heating system; plumbing is subiect to freezinq P~ECO]~_MENDATION: CHECK O]~]E X 'REPAIR (LIST ALL REAPIRS REQUIP~ED) as per attached. REMOVAL WERE PHOTS TAKEN? ),es, before i. .! 979' IF SO, ATTACH COPIES TO THE REPORT. " (HAZAPDOUS & DANGEROUS) NkMES OF ALL INSPECTORS WHO INSPECTED THE PREMISES AND FILED REPORTS: [ry Truelsen, Jan Bertrand, Greg Skinner SIGNATURE /~/ Jan Bertrand TITLE Bu~ ld~n~ 0FF;r|~1 ATTORNEY REVIEW ATTORNEY ACT ION COUNCIL HEARING COUNCIL ACTION )ING POSTED ORDER SERVED TIME -FOR COMPLIANCE HOW SERVED DATE DATE DATE DATE DATE DATE COURT ACTION TAKEN FILED WITH CLERK OF COURT FILED WITH COUNTY RECORDER DATE -DATE 0'~ 8 · oooG j.. - ' ' '--. .0 CASE NO. 85-432 0 ¢~ 0 REPAIR LIST FOR 2624 WESTEDI~E BOULEVARD: Install a new footing and foundation wall for crawl space at the structure perimeter. Install 100 amp electrical service with 20 amp circuit to the kitchen grounding for service and equipment; remove all hazardous wiring throughout (worn, open splices, any missing junction boxes, etc.) Install a new heating system to meet current code. Complete and install plumbing piping to all fixtures including the installation of a water heater to current code~ Protect the water service and piping from freezing. Install post, beam, and footing pads to properly support floor system. Submit blueprint drawings for all necessary repairs and improvements. Level floor system in the proposed bedroom (converted former porch area). Install smoke alarm adjacent to the bedrooms connected to house w~ring. Remove fireplace and chimney. Correct yard grade to provide drainage away from the structure. Install beam or install new ceiling joists to allow for proper length of span. Install bracing of the roof rafters; if the roof is replaced, all roof boards shall have solid sheathing placed over it before roofing is applied. · 2624 !~restedge Blvd. ~. ~ 61223 :. · 4353 Frank Esposito 721-6215 ' _.' ~'.C:~ !. 0950 . .. 'z. 5-3-77 ..... S~ $sme ~.,.~.,,'~ Part of 4 ". ·;2'. ~~_~? Section 23 '~Y'~, O? q~'~F-;7!<. Insulation a~d paneling ......... ~ DY, TE of interior ADDRESS OWNER CONTRACTOR PLUMBING CONTRACTOR PERMIT NO. MISC. PERMIT NO. 2624 ~Yestedge Blvd. Christ Ksilevig 529-3571 DATE 19 DATE 1 9 PLAT PARCEL LOT BLOCK 61223 PERMIT NO. 5042 095o DATE 3-13-79 FINAL INSP. OCCUPANCY PERMIT SUBDIVISION Section ~t TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION raise cottage reside, new flooring sndinstallkitchen ZONING ~'-I cabinet LOT SQUARE FOOTAGE BLDG. SQ. FOOTAGE VALUE $ ~800 FEE $ 36.00 GARAGE SQ. FT. COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. & A. THOMA*~ WURST~ P.A. CUR?~$ A. P£AR~ON, P.A. ,JosEPH I:"". HAI~ILTON~ P.A. .JAMES D. LAR$ON~. THOI,4A$ F. UND£RWOOD~ P.A. ROGE:I~ J. F'£LLOW'= LAW OFFICES WURST, PEARSON, HAMILTON, LARSON & UNDERWOOD IIOO FIR~;T BANI~ PLACE WEST MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 5-~40:~ July 31, 1985 Ms. Jan Bertrand, Building Inspector City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, PM 55364 Re: Mary Pacholke and Aaron Applequist Dear Jan: Mary Pacholke called on July 30 and asked for a sample letter of credit form. I have made one out in blank which she wants to pick up and take to her bank. A copy is enclosed for your file. City Attorney CAP:ih Enclosure cc: Mary Pacholke (W/enc) City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Re: Property at 2624 West Edge Boulevard Mound, Minnesota Gentlemen: This is to advise you that we have issued to you an Irrevocable Letter of Credit No. in favor of Mary Pacholke and Aaron Applequist of 2624 West Edge Boulevard, Mound, Minnesota, in the amount of $ (the Letter of Credit fund) in which we assure you of completion of the project under the following conditions: 1. It is understood and agreed that $.. of the Letter of Credit fund is being held to assure the completion of the City's requirements for bringing a substandard building up to Code, which requirements cover the construction of the following listed items: as set out in the approval of said house reconstruction by the City Council of Mound. 2. We herein agree that the Letter of Credit fund will be (a) held to accomplish and complete all the requirements set forth for the prior mentioned house reconstruction and (b) if necessary paid out and disbursed as provided under this Irrevocable Letter of Credit if the aforementioned improvements are not completed on or before August 15, 1987. It is further understood and agreed that: (a) No part of the Letter of Credit fund will be released except against a certificate by the City signed by the City Manager stating that Mary Pacholke and Aaron Applequist have completed the work specified in the approval and in this Agreement. (b) Any portion of the Letter of Credit fund which has not been released on or prior to August 15, 1987, against a certificate from the City of Mound stating that the construction has been completed and approved will be paid by us to the City of Mound against a certificate from said City under the signature of the City Manager stating that said improvements have not been completed and that the City is entitled to the undisbursed portion of the Letter of Credit fund to be used to complete said improvements. (c) We have no obligation or right to (1) inquire into the correctness of, or question, any such certificate or (2) see to the proper application or use by said City of any payments by us to it under any such certificate or Letter of Credit. Very truly yours, Bank of By Its Contracted prices for repairs and improvements for the purposes of evaluating a building permit for .... 2624 Westedge Blvd S. Mound, Mn. 55364 $3,625 inc. $600 600 200 2,558 650 inc. $1,500 5,000 1,750 5OO 6OO Repair and improve foundation on ~-~ ".~u~uFrancis Miller existing structure (basement) Add 2 support beams and posts Install additional electrical outlets Install 100 amp service Floor joists are O.K. as is 2" 6".~16" on center Hook up water heater and sink Install furnace and ductwork Ditter, Inc. 2"~4" walls O.K. ~'~ '~ Remove old chimney, install new-concrete Francis Miller Add c~iling insulation Change ~0fline, move kitchen wall, remove kitchen, bedroom walls Addition- carpentry Addition- foundation (basement) Addition- plumbing Addition- electric Allstar Electric Robert Sells Robert Sells Francis Miller Allsar electric $17610 CHECK LIST HAZARDOUS AND SUB-STANDARD BUILDINGS An inspection form should be filled out relating to the premises. This is necessary to show and ~stat~ the specific substandard portions and items relating to the~ structure which we want the council to Order repaired.. Pictures.are helpful and should be taken if at all possible. The findings of the inspection report are incorporated in a resolution to be presented for the council's consideration calling for an enforcement ord. er. Special attention should be paid at this phase'of the proceedings to any questions relating to personal property which may be on. the. site, and if personal property is on the site, the owners should be ordered to remove it or it may be necessary for the City to sell i't before it can proceed with the order. ~ Service of the council resolution and enforcement ord. er must'be made by personal service on all of the following: a. Owner b. Tenants c. Any lien holders. (The owner has 20 days to answer the council resolution.) A copy of the resolution containing the enforcement order must be filed, with the clerk of District Court at least five days prior to the filing of a motion to enforce the order. The City must file a notice of lis pend. ens with t~e County 'Recorder or Registrar of Titles noting the pendency of these proceedings describing wi~h reasonable certainty' the lands affected and. the nature of the order. (If the City drops the action, it shall within ten days remove the notice of lis pendens.) If the property owners or other interested parties do not answer, the City then brings on a motion before the District Court fo~ the enforcement of the council's order. We then submit affidavits and other data necessary for the court to enter its order. Contested cases are tried by the court under the rules of civil procedure. The one ad. vantage is that the case has priority and moves ahead of other cases on the calendar. WURST, P.A. CURTIS A. P£AR$ON~ P.A. ~DSE:I~H E~. HAMILTON, P. A. .JANES D. LARSON, P.A. THOHAS F. UNDERWOOD, P. A. ROGER J. FELLOWS LAW OFFICE5 WURST, PEAR$ON~HAMILTON~LAR$ON & UNDE;RWOOD I100 FIRST BANK PLACE WEST MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA S540:=' August 12, 1985 (6 I~') 338-4Z00 Ms. Jan Bertrand, Building Inspector City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Re: Mary Pacholke/Aaron Applequist - Variance Dear Jan: Pursuant to the materials you sent me, I have prepared a proposed resolution for the Mound Council's consideration. I did talk to Mary Pacholke on August 12, and I am not sure that she will agree to all of the things contained herein. I am sending a copy to her and to Jon Elam so they will have it prior to the meeting. After you have reviewed the materials, if you have any questions, please give me a call. I will see you Tuesday night. Very truly yours, CAP:Ih Enclosure cc: Mr. Jon Elam Ms. Mary Pacholke Cur.i A. Pearson Cit} s Attorney RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A VARIANCE FOR PROPERTY AT 2624 WESTEDGE BOULEVARD IN MOUND WHEREAS, Aaron M. Applequist and Mary J. Pacholke, who reside at 2624 Westedge Boulevard, Mound, Minnesota, have made application to the City for a variance on a nonconforming property; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has reported to this Council that the property is located in the R-1 District and requires a lot area of 10,000 square feet and a lot width of 60 feet, and a minimum floor area for the house of 840 square feet; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has examined the house and is of the opinion that property owners would be better off if they demolished the existing structure and started over but Aaron Applequist and Mary Pacholke are purchasing this property under a contract for deed from the Estate of Christ Kallevig and the personal representative for that estate is Everett Kallevig, and it is their belief that they can rehabilitate this structure; and 'WHEREAS, on July 8, 1985 the Planning commission reviewed the request for variances and the right to add on or structurally change the building and the Planning Commission recommended to this Council that the request for a variance be denied for all the reasons set forth in the hearing and the staff report; and WHEREAS, on July 23, 1985 this matter was returned to the City Council who considered it and have directed the staff to work with the property owners to attempt to rehabilitate the structure; and WHEREAS, at the direction of the City Council the Building Inspector did go out ana make a complete and thorough review of this building, all of which is set forth in a report entitled, "Report of Inspection Relative to Hazardous and Dangerous Buildings", dated July 31, 1985 and attached hereto as 'Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has recommended to this Council that no variance be granted unless all of the work set forth in her report and as set forth in this resolution be accomplished and that a copy of this resolution be placed of record in the office of the County Recorder and/or Registrar of Titles of Hennepin County so that the work will be done or the City will be authorized to proceed under a bond; and WHEREAS, a letter of credit form has been prepared and delivered to Mary Pacholke and Aaron Applequist and upon receipt of that letter of credit form properly executed by a bank or trust company and upon the execution of a copy of this resolution showing a complete understanding of the terms by Mary Pacholke, Aaron Applequist and Personal Representative Everett Kallevig, then in that event, the City may proceed to authorize building permits in accordance with the additional terms in this resolution, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound: 1. Personal Representative, Everett Kallevig, for the Estate of Christ Kallevig, and Mary Pacholke and Aaron Applequist, contract for deed vendees, are hereby granted a Variance to work on property at 2624 Westedge Boulevard in the City of Mound based upon the following terms: A. Ail safety and heaith provisions required by the Building Inspector and set forth in Exhibt B shall be completed by the applicants. B. A performance bond or letter of credit in the.amount of $ shall be filed running to the City of Mound which provides that if the work on this structure has hot been completed by , 198_, the City of Mound shall have the legal authority to go in and enter upon the property to complete the work or to have the property demolished. 2. The fee owner and the contract vendee purchasers shall execute a copy of this resolution indicating their complete and total agreement with this arrangement. 3. A copy of this resolution shall be filed in th~ office of the County Recorder and/or Registrar of. Titles signed by Personal Representative Everett K~llevig for the Estate of Christ Kallevig and by Aaron Applequist and Mary Pacholke, as contract vendees, indicating that the City of Moun~ shall have the right to enter upon the following legally described parcel to complete the work in accordance with this resolution or shall have the authority to have the property demolished if all work required bY this resolution are not completed on .. The property ls legally described as follows: "The North 50 feet of that part of Government Lot 3 of Section 23, Township 117 North, Range 24., West of the Fifth Principal Meridian, described as follows: Beginning 227.5 feet South of the Southeast corner of Government Lot 4 on the West line of said Government Lot 3; thence South along said West line a distance of 100 feet; thenc~ at right angles East 506.3 feet more or less to the shore of Lake Langdon; thence Northwesterly along said shore line 137._ more or less to a line drawn east perpendicular to said West line from the point of beginning; thence West to the point of beginning." 4. The following listed minimu~ improvements shall be made on or before December 1, 1985 to make this habitable during the winter season: 5. The parties to this agreement shall acknowledge.that the building officials and administrative staff of the City of Mound have recommended that the variance not be granted or that the property not be improved and the fee owners and contract vendee owners shall agree to hold the City of Mound and any and all of its officers harmless from any or all claims ~hich may result from health or safety hazards on the property and from which any of said parties shall be injured. Attest: Mayor City Clerk We, the undersigned, are all of the fee owners and/or contract for deed purchasers of the above legally described parcel. We. agree to all of the terms contained in this resolution and understand that an executed certified copy of this resolution will be filed with the County Recorder and/or Registrar of Titles of ~ennepin County. We further agree that if all work is not completed on , 198 , the City of Mound or its agents'may enter upon the above property'and complete all th9 work agreed to and set forth in the resolution. Mary Pacholke Aaron Applequist Everett Kallevig, Personal Representative of Estate of Christ Kallevig State of Minnesota County of of The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this__ .., 19 ., by day Notary Public TO McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES INC. 2%(30 Industrial Park B/vd. PLYMOUTH, MN 55441 (612) 559-3700 WE ARE SENDING YOU ~, Attached [] Under separate cover via the following items: [] Shop drawings [] Prints [] Plans [] Samples [] Specifications [] Copy of letter [] Change order [] COPI ES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: [] For approval ' For your use [] As requested [] For review and comment [] FOR BIDS DUE [] Approved as submitted [] Approved as noted [] Returned for corrections 19 REMARKS [] Resubmit [] Submit [] Return__ copies for approval copies for distribution corrected prints __ [] PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US COPY TO SIGNED: ~0%~,~ If enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at once. McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS · LAND SURVEYORS · PLANNERS Reply To: 12800 Industrial Park Boulevard Plymouth, Minnesota 55441 (612) 559-3700 Vacation of a portion of Right-of-Way for Beverly Avenue (now known as Northern Lane) as dedicated to the public by the recorded plat of SUBDIVISION OF LOTS 1 AND 32 SKARR AND LINDQUIST'S RAVENSWOOD. That portion of Beverly Avenue (now known as Northern Lane) as dedicated to the public by the recorded plat of the SUBDIVISION OF LOTS i AND 32 SKARR AND LINDQUIST'S RAVENSWOOD, Hennepin County, Minnesota described as follows: Beginning at the southwest corner of Lot 27, said SUBDIVISION OF LOTS i AND 32 SKARR AND LIND~UIST'S RAVENSWOOD; thence northerly along the west line of said Lot 27 a distance of 20.00 feet to the southeast corner of Lot 26; thence westerly along the south line of Lots 26, 25 and 24 to the southwest corner of said Lot 24; thence southeasterly to a point 15 feet southerly of and 37 feet easterly of said southwest corner of Lot 24; thence southeasterly to a point 20 feet southerly of and 100 feet easterly of said southwest corner of Lot 24; thence easterly to the point of beginning. Reserving a permanent easement for utility purposes over, under and across the southerly and southwesterly 5.00 feet of the above described street vacation. Revised 8/22/85 #2113 August 20, 1985 LICENSE RENEWAL - Expired June 30, 1985 Set-Up Mound Lanes New license period: 7-1-85 to 6-30-86 NEW LICENSE APPLICATIONS Tree Removal - License period: August of 1985 to 3-31-86 Bear Tree Service Owner of Ken Berres 4301 Oregon Ave. N. Business: 5724 Lynwood Blvd. New Hope, Minn 55428 Mound, Minn. 55364 Games of Skill - License period: August of 1985 to 4-30-86 Minnetonka Music Owner of Keith Orin Johnson 2252 Commerce Blvd. Business: 5040 Shady Island Pt. Mound, Minn, 55364 Mound, Minn. 55364 ., ^US I 9 1985 MINNESOTA.DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY LIQUOR CONTROL DIVISION 333 SIBLEY · ST, PAUL, MN 55101 TO ALLOW ONLY CONSUMPTION AND DISPLAY OF INTOXICATING LIQUOR PERMIT FEE $151.50 Applicant Name (Business, Partnership, Corporation) ~.e<q~4~ress I;~( ~J~--~ ~ City PERMIT TYPE [~Prlvate Club {~ubllc Business Name~(~.~.-~.-~°f Business or Club Manage~ Name of ~ ~ DBA or Trade Name ~ Address ITY~e of Business (Restaurant, Dance Hall, etc,} ' ~ ' ARE THE CLUB OR BUSINESS PREMISES SEPARATE FROM ANY IHASOR WILL A NON-INTOXICATING MALT LIQUOR LICENSE BEEN IS$1:)ED TO THIS BUSINESS FOR THIS LOCATION? E~Yes [::]No OTHER BUSINESS ESTABLISHMENT? ~Yes [:]No IS APPLICATION . 4 IF TRANSFER, FORMER LICENSEES NAME AND BUSINESS TRADE NAME ORIGINAL [] RENEWAL~ TRANSFER E~ FOR A PUBLIC BUSINESS: If a Partnership, State the Name and Address of Each Partner; If a Corporation, State the Name and Address of Each Officer. Business Partner/Officer Address Address Business Partner/Officer Address FOR A PRIVATE CLUB ...... Date Club Organized I Number of Members I Amount of Dues IMembership Requirements ! At Present Location.- Owned or Rented? For Members To Store Liquor? E]Yes Club Officer/Director Name Address Club Office'r/Director Name Address Club Officer/Director Name Address Has applicant; if partnership, any partner; if corporation, any officer or director; if club, any club officer or director, ever had a license under the Minnesota Liquor Control Act revoked or suspended or been convicted for any violation of State Laws or local ordinances; if so, give date and details I hereby certify that the answers are true of my own knowledge and understand that the giving of false information or the failure to give pertinent information constitutes cause for revocation of this permit. ANY pERMIT ISSUED HEREUNDER DOES NOT ALLOW THE SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUOR. NO CONSIDERATION WILL BE GIVEN TO THIS APPLICATION (~~).~ ~:~'~~A UNLESS APPROVED AS PROVIDED BELOW: IF THE BUSINESS IS LOCATED IN A COUNTY: Signature -- Authorized Applicant Date IF A CLUB ATTACH A COPY OF THE CONSTITUTION AND BYLAWS OF THE CLUB AND A CURRENT LIST OF Approved -- Chairperson County Board or Representative Date MEMBE RS. IF THE BUSINESS IS LOCATED IN A MUNICIPALITY CASH : Approved -- Council. President o1: Representative' ¢:.:.Date,.? CHECK/~ ~ McCOMBS KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, ~ c0Ns. LT,~ ~.~I~EE.S . L*.. S..VEVO.S · P.*.~E.S INC. Reply To: 12800 Industrial Park Boulevard Plymouth, Minnesota 55441 (612) 559-3700 August 27, 1985 Mr. Chuck Weischelbaum District State Aid Engineer Minnesota Department of Transportation 2055 North Lilac Drive Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422 SUB3ECT: City of Nound M.S.A Five Year Construction Rrogram File #7409 Dear Mr. Weischelbaum: Enclosed is the City of Mound's five year construction program for their municipal state-aid street system. This was approved by the City Council at their regular meeting on August 13, 1985, Resolution #85-90. If you should need additional information, please advise. Very truly yours, McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. 3C:tdv Enclosure cc: Son Elam, City Manager John Cameron MUNICIPAL STATE-AID STREET SYSTEM 5-Year Construction Program For~ (State Aid Expenditures Only) ~,~VENUE Present State Aid Construction Balance June 30, 19J~ Zstimated Annual Construction Allotment SJ_~~ X 4 Zstimated Total State Aid Allotment for Programming Purposes ESTI~ATED EXPZNDITURES Year Estimated of State Aid Ex?e,nd i.ture Termini Project. De. sc~.~ip t ip_n Expend i,ture PETITION FOR LOCAL I~RROVE~ENT MOUND, MINNESOTA /~/~ day of A~Y~ , 198~--_~ TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WOUND, MINNESOTA: We, the undersigned, owners of all real property described as and abutting on hereby petition that such street(area~be improved by the construction of and, in accordance with M.S.A. 429.031, Subd. 3, hereby waive any public hearing to be held on said improvement. We further state and agree that we are all the persons owning properties to be assessed for said improvements. SIGNATURE OF OWHER e DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY ,. ,- Examined, checked, and found to be in proper form and to be signed by the required number of owners of property affected by the making of the improvement petitioned for City Clerk orr lgg4 - 8 Filed ~v ~., ? ~! APPLICATION TO PLANNIN~IZONING COMMISSION f~~~~~--Property asr sloe of Commerce between Church s Lynwood Legal Description of Property: Lot See Attached Block Addition PID No. Owner's Name John Bierbaum-The Bellefnnt~_ Ch_ Address 710 Marquette Ave. Suite 450. Mpls.: MN Applicant (if other than owner): Ray W. Geiger Name. Smiley Glotter Associates Day Phone No. 33g-J~2A(, Day Phone No. 332-1401 Address 1021LaSalle~ Mpls.~ MN 55403 5.. Type of Request: (x) Variance (x) Conditional Use Permit ( ) Amendment ~,~ ~ ()K') Zoning Interpretation & Review ( ) Sign Permit (') Wetland Permit ( ) P.U.D. ( )*Other ~lf other, specify: Rezoninq of Northeast corner property from R1 to BI 6; ..Present Zoning District Bi 7. Existing Use(s) of Property Doctor's Clinic, Laundry, Pharmacy, Superette, Residential 8. Has an application ever been made for zoning,'variance, or conditional use permit or other zoning procedure for this property? No If so, list date(s)of list date(s) of application, action taken and provide Resolution No.(s) Copies of previous resolutions shall accompany present request. I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City Of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. ~ignature of Applicant~ Date Dec. 3, 1984 Planning Commission Recommendation: To move the recommendations of the staff, Date 1-14-85 Council Action: 1-22-85 Public hearing set for February I2, I985. Resolution No. Date 2-12-85 Procedure for Conditional Use Permit (2) D. E. F. Case Location of: Signs, easements, underground utilities, etc. Ind cmte North compass direction. Any additional information as may reasonably be required by the City and applicable 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 provided before a hearing will be scheduled. ~see below) B. Type of development for which a Conditional Use Permit is requested: 1. Conditional Use (Specify): Drive-up teller along Commerce Avenue 2. Current Zoning and Designation in the future Land Use Plan for Mound B-1 Development Schedule: 1. A development schedule shall be attached to this application providing reasonable guarantees for the completion of the proposed.development. 2. Estimate of cost of the project: $ 780~000.00 (Total Bank) Density (for residential developments only): 1. Number of structures: 2. Dwelling Units Per Structure: a. Number of type: Efficiency I Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 3. Lot area per dwelling unit: 4. Total lot area: 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. The proposed use will be a replacement of the facility now entering and exiting from Commerce Avenue South of Highway 15. Ample stacking space has been provided to prevent problems with traffic on Commerce. Schedule Construction to start Spring of 1985 with completion in late fall of 1985. 77 Request for Zoning Variance Prod,dura Case#..~°"' '~'3C; D. Location of: Signs, easements, underground utilities, etc. E. Indicate North compass direction F. Any additional information as may reasonably be required by the City Staff and applicable Sections of the Zoning Ordinance. I!1..Request for a Zonin~ Variance A. All information below, a site plan, as described in Part II, and general application must be provided before a hearin~ 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 ~.) No-~-X-~F- If "no", specify each non-conforming use: Drive-up tellers at bank require conditional use Do the existing structures comply with all area height and bulk regulations for the zone district in which it is located? Yes (x) No ( ) If "no", specify each.non-conforming use: De Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) .Too narrow (.) Topography ( ) Soil ( ) Too small ( ) Drainage ( ) Sub-surface (x ~ Too shallow (x) Shape ( ) Other: Specify: Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the Zoning Ordinance was adopted? Yes ( ) No (x) If yes, explain: F. Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the reloca- tion of a road? Yes ( ) No (x) If yes, explain: Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (x) No ( ) "l~ no, how many other properties are similarly al[acted? H. What is the "minimum" 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 a~lditional sheets, if necessary.) Back-yard set-back I. Will granting of the variance be materlally detrimental to.property in the same zone, or to the enforcement of this ordinance? No Procedure for Zoning Amendments Case D. Location of: Signs, easements, underground utilities, etc. E. Indicate North compass direction F. Any additional information as may reasonably be required by the City Staff and applicable Sections III.An Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance (Answer either A or B below) J lt is requested that Sectlon~ of the Zoning Ordinance be amended as follows: Reason for Amendment: Amendment to Map: It is requested that the property described below and shown on the attached site plan be rezoned from Address of Property~m~ ~ Legal description of property (lot, block, subdivision or metes ~) Attach additional sheets, if necessary) Note: Present Use of Property: Reason for Amendment: No application of a property owner for an amendment to the text of the ordi- nance or the zoning map shall be considered by the Planning Commission within one year period following a denial of such request. February 12, 1985 REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on February 12, 1985, at 7:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers at 5341Maywood Road, in said City. Those present were: Mayor Bob Polston, Councilmembers Phyllis Jessen, Gary Paulsen, Russ Peterson and Steve Smith. Also present were: City Manager Jon Elam, City Attorney Curt Pearson, City Clerk Fran Clark, Building Inspector Jan Bertrand, City Planner Mark Koegler, City Engineer John Cameron, Insurance Agent Earl Bailey, Insurance Consultant Bill Husbands, Recycling Committee Members Wendy Anderson, Jackie Meyer, Joyce Nelson and Kathy Kluth and the following interested citizens: Ada Shepherd, George Shepherd, Sr. and George Shepherd, Jr., Steve Coddon, Coral P. Kruce, Florence Yule, Gloria Briggs, Virginia Crawford, Frank Ahrens, Jerry Petrowski, Dr. Chuck Carlson, Eldo Schmidt, Karen Holmberg, Tod Holly, E. G. Schlee, Saul Smiley. The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. MINUTES The Minutes of the January 22, 1985, Regular Council Meeting were presented for considerDtion. paUlsen moved and Peterson seconded a motion to approve the Minutes of the January 22, 1985, Regular Meeting, as presented. The vote was unanimously in favor. 'Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: REZONING, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (SETBACK vARI- ANCES, LOCATIONAL VARIANCES).. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR TOWN SQUARE PROJECT City Planner Mark Koegl&r explained that al} three action items are related. He then presented the exhibik and explained the project. REZONING He explained that the project requires the rezoning of the northeast corner of the property from R-3 to B-1. The single family residence located on the R-3 parcel would have to be removed making the property available for commercial development. The Mayor asked if the Council had any questions. There were none. The Mayor opened the Public Hearing and asked if there was anyone present who wished to speak for or against the rezoning. There were no comments. The Mayor closed the Public Hearing. 21 February 12, 1985 The City Attorney recommended that no action be taken on this item at this time and the Council go on to the next public hearing on the Conditional Use Permit. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT The City Planner explained that under the current ordinances a drive-in bank facility is considered a conditional use in ~he B-1 zone. 'There are also performance standards in the ordinance and the proposed bank location is not consistent with those in the following areas: 1. Under the ordinance, drive-in facilities are prohibited within 400 feet of churches. The existing church is within approximately 300 feet of the proposed drive-in bank. Thus requiring a 100 foot variance. 2. The performance standards state that loudspeakers shall not be located within 400 feet of any residentially zoned property or with 200 feet of any adjacent lot. As proposed, loudspeaker locations would fall within 255 feet of the adjacent church lot, approximatel, y 86 feet from the lot across the street and within 320 feet of the R-3 zoning property along the eastern side of the Town Square site. He further stated that.is it very unlikely'that the location of the bank or use of the loudspeakers will negatively impact any neighboring parcels. However, the site plan will require a 114 foot variance .to the.provision regulating the distance to an adjacent lot and an 80 foot variance from the required distance to a residential use. The Mayor asked if the Council had any questions. none. The~e were. The Mayor opened the Public Hearing and asked if anyone have any comments for or against the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit. There were no comments. The Mayor closed the Public Hearing. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT ~ The City Planner explained that the MoundiComprehensive Plan designates the Town Square parcel as commercial and residential in concurrence with the existing zoning. Thus, approval of the Town Square site plan will require an amendment to the City's comprehensive plan. This amendment requires formal review by the Metropolitan~Council. The City Attorney recommended that the Council deal with the Comprehensive Plan Amendment first before taking action on .the other items because Council approval of that and review by the Metro Council must happen before Town Square can move ahead. Peterson moved and Paulsen seconded the following resolution: · 23 February 12, 1985 RESOLUTION ~85-16 RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE SUBMITTING AN AMENDMENT OF MOUND'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO THE METROLPOLITAN COUNCIL FOR REVIEW Councilmember Paulsen asked if .there was going to be a problem with ingress and egress at the bank. The City Planner stated that he felt this will be worked out. Councilmember Smith stated that he was not'on the Council when this project was conceived and the TIF' District was setup so he has some questions about the project and TIF that he knows cannot be answered tonight. The questions were: - How may new jobs will be created by the project? - Was a market impact study done? - What is the breakeven point? - Is there a market for this project? - Was a study done on how non-subsidized businesses will be impacted? - What revenues will be generated? Councilmember Smith further stated that he will have to vote against this project because it is a tax increment'district and the public is taking the risk. He stated that at the recent League Conference Legislator Moe stated that TIF is risky for retail centers because of the possible property tax reduction and because it should be used for industrial development not retail centers. He continued that the State Auditor has. state~ that TIF is over-utilized and if the bank and. clinic will not put their money into the project why should the citizens. It might have a negative impact on other businesses in Mound. Mr. Saul Smiley was present and explained that this project has been 3 years in the making. The clinic, the bank, the drug store are existing businesses and John BierbaUm is assuring that other retail shops will be in the center. He stated that this project will be a good catalyst and will enhance other businesses property values. Mayor Polston stated that this project has been'in the planning for several ye. ars and at the ~ime it started not alot was happening downtown. The Council had a choice to either ignore the downtown area and do nothing which would have caused downtown to continue to deteriorate or do something which will enhance the values downtown and make downtown desireable. Councilmember Jessen stated that she is aware that ot.her cities have abused TIF but that Mound has only one industrial area', Tonka, and needs the TIF for the retail center. She stated that she is sure the existing businesses will make the center go. 24 February Counoilmember ?aulsen stated that this h~s been ~ lon~ ~nd tedious process and everyone, including Councilmember Smith, had a chance months ago to give input on the project if they wished. Councilmember Smith stated that he was just urging caution because he feels there may be major changes in legislation that council affect TIF. Councilmember Peterson asked the City Attorney if he knew of any impending legislation that could affect TIF. The Attorney answered that he was not aware of any at this point. Councilmember Peterson stated that he has watched this TIF plan develop and it has been a difficult process, but he has confidence that Mound will progress and this will be a good project for the City, The vote in RESOLUTION #85-16 was four in favor with Councilmember Smith voting nay. Motion carried. Councilmember Jessen moved and Paulsen seconded a motion to continue Item 2.A. Rezoning and Item 2.C. Conditional Use Permit for Town Square to a future meeting. This will allow time to submit the amended Comprehensive Plan to the Metropolitan Council for their review and approval. The vote was unanimously in. favor. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR TOWNHOMES, AT ~2U~,. 5257, 5271 & 5285 EDEN ROAD, LOTS 21, 22, 2~,. & 24, BLOCK 2, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT F The City Manager explained that the applicant, Eugene G. Schlee, would like to construct two four-unit townhouse structures in the B-1 zoning district which requires a Conditional Use Permit. The Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommended approval subject to six (6) conditions. The Mayor opened the Public Hearing and asked if there was anyone present who wished to speak for or agains~ the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit. No one responded. The Mayor closed the Public Hearing. Peterson moved and Smith seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~85-17 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF MULTI-FAMILY STRUCTURES, TWO GROUPS OF FOUR ATTACHED TOWNHOUSE UNITS IN THE CENTRAL BUSINESS (B-l) ZONE IN THE 5200 BLOCK OF EDEN ROAD, PID ~13-117-24 34 0034/0035/0036/0037 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. April 11, 1985 " ' Metropolitan Council -O~"~r~' 300 Metro Square Building I~.,~.~"' --"~ St. POUl, Minnesota 55~0{ Telephone (6t2) 29t-6350 ~,.,,'~ , . . Jan Elam, Manager City of Mound 534 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 RE: City of Mound Comprehensive Plan Amendment Review Church Road Land Use Change Metropolitan Council Referral File No. 12751-1 Dear Mr. Elam: At its meeting on April 25, 1985, the Metropolitan Council considered the amendment to Mound's comprehensive plan. This consideration was based on the following statement from the Consent List which was adopted by the Council: This plan amendment proposes to change the proposed land use of 0.27 acre in the downtown area of Mound from residential to commercial use. The 0.27 acre parcel will be added to an existing 2.13-acre commercial property to create a 2.4-acre redevelopment parcel. The city of Mound has capacity within its 1990 sewer allocation to serve this proposed redevelopment project. The Mound.amendment is in conformity with metropolitan system plans, consistent with other chapters of the Metropolian Development Guide and compatible with the plans of adjacent communities. The Council should adopt the attached resolution completing review of the proposed amendment. The Council adopted Resolution No. 85-40 approving the Council's review of this proposed amendment to the Mound Comprehensive Plan. A copy of the resolution is attached. Sincerely, SSG: sam Attachment CC: R. Mark Koegler, City Planner, Van Doren Hazard Stallings 3030 Harbor Lane North, Suite 104 Minneapolis, MN 55441 Ray Odde, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission Pat Pahjl, Metropolitan Council Staff Municipal File An Equal Oppodunity Employer METROPOLITAN COUNCIL 300 Metro Square Building, Saint Paul, Pl nnesota 55101 RESOLUTION NO. 85-40 RESOLUTION APPROVING COUNCIL REVIEW OF CHURCH RD. LAND USE CHANGE AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF MOUND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council, pursuant to the Metropolitan Land Planning Act, has reviewed the City of Mound Comprehensive Plan and adopted a plan review report, Referral Report No. 81-227 and WHEREAS, the City of Mound, by letter submitted March 27, 1985, has transmitted an Amendment to its adopted Comprehensive Plan in accordance with the Metropolitan Land Planning Act and the Council Guidelines f6r Reviewing Local Comprehensive Plan Amendments; and WHEREAS, the Council has reviewed the Plan Amendment, Referral File No. 12751-1, in accordance with the Metropolitan Land Planning Act and the Council Guidelines for Reviewing Local Comprehensive Pqan Amendments; and WHEREAS, the proposed Amendment has been reviewed for impacts on metropolitan systems, apparent consistency with other adopted Metropolitan Development Guide chapters, and compatibility with plans of adjacent local unit's of government. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Metropolitan Council: That the City of Mound be informed that the Amendment to its adopted Comprehensive Plan, reviewed by the Council in Referral File No.~12751-1, is in conformity with metropolitan system plans, is consistent with other chapters of the Metropolitan Development Guide, and appears compatible with the plans of adjacent communities. Adopted this 25th day of April .... , 1985. METROPOLITAN COUNCIL By C~a . Gardel~ring, Secretary Metropolitan Council 300 Metro Square Building Seventh and Robert Streets St. Paul, Minnesota 55~0'1 Telephone [6t2] 29t-6' April 7, 1985 Jon Elam, Manager City of Mound 5341Maywood Rd. Mound, Minnesota 55364 RE: City of Mound Comprehensive Plan Amendment Review Church Rd. Land Use Change Metropolitan Council District 13 Metropolitan Council Referral No. 12751-1 Dear Mr. Elam: The Metropolitan Council staff has reviewed Mound's proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment received by the Council on March 27, 1985. With staff input, I have determined that the proposed amendment has no potential impact upon any of the impact upon any of the metropolitan system plans. A copy of the comments is enclosed. The city may place the amendment into effect at any time. As you may be aware, beyond an initial determination of no potential impact, the Council has 60 days from receipt of a proposed amendment to review and comment upon the apparent consistency of the proposed amendment with other adopted chapters of the Metropolitan Development Guide. Council staff has also completed this review and has found no inconsistencies. As a result, the amendment will be placed on the Metropolitan Council°s Consent List on April 25, 1985. This formal action by the Council will complete the review of the amendment. If you have any questions, please contact Pat Pahl at 291-6407. Sincerely, Sandra S.'~ Chair SSG:bm Enclosure cc: Dirk deVries, Metropolitan Council District No. 13 John Rutford, Metropolitan Council Staff Pat Pahl, Metropolitan Council Staff J ~ ~)~ An Equol OppoFiun)Iy Emp,over For Metropolitan Council Meeting on April 25, 1985. MOUND~ehensive Plan Amendment Church Rd Land Use Change, File No. 12751-1 (District 13) ~ ' This plan amendment proposes to change the proposed land use of 0.27 acre in the downtown area of Mound from residential to commercial use. The 0.27 acre parcel will be added to an existing 2.13 acre commercial property to create a 2.4 acre redevelopment parcel. The city of Mound has capacity within its 1990 sewer allocation to serve this proposed redevelopment project. The Mound amendment is in conformity with metropolitan system plans, consistent with other chapters of the Metropolitan Development Guide and compatible with the plans of adjacent communities. The Council should adopt the attached resolution completing review of the proposed amendment. Pat Pahl:bm 04.07.85 consen-PHDEVl CASE NO. 85-403 CITY OF MOUND · Mound, Minnesota NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON TOWN SQUARE APPLICATIONS FOP~G FROM R-3 TO B-l, CONDITIONAL USE ~APPROVAL FOR A 'DRIVE-IN BANK; SETBACK VARIANCES, DRIVE-IN BANK LOCATIONAL VARIANCES AND A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR LAND WITH THE FOLLOWING PID NUMBERS 13-117-24 33 0001/0027/0058/0059/ OO60/O061/OO62/OO63. AND 13-117-24 32 O125/ 0129/O 161 ~ ~ NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT on Tuesday, February 12, 1985, at 7:30 P.M. at the Mound City Hall, 5341Maywood Road, Mound, Minnesota, the City Council will hold a public hearing on the applications for Town Square for Rezoni.ng from R-3 to B-l, Conditional Use Perm'it approval for a Drive-in Bank, Setback Variances, Drive-in Bank Locational.Variances and a Comprehensive Plan Amendment for lands lying within the following described boundaries: Bounded on the north by Church Road, bounded on the South by Lynwood Boulevard, bounded on the west by Commerce Boulevard and bounded on the east by a line drawn from a point on Church Road 500 feet easterly of Commerce Boulevard to a point on Lynwood Boulevard 500 feet easterly of Commerce Boulevard and bearing the following street addresses: 5541 Church Road, 2208 thru 2222 Commerce Boulevard and 5542 Lynwood Boulevard; including the following PID Numbers 13-117-24 33 0001/0027/0058/0059/0060/0061/0062/0063 and 13-117-24 32 O125/ 0129/O161. All persons appearing at said hearing will be given an opportunity to be heard. F~n~:ene C. Clark, City Clerk 3030 Harbor Lane North, Suite 104 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55441 612/553-1950 PL~NI~NG REPO~ TO: Planning Cc~mission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner ~ DATE: January 9, 1985 ~: Town Square - Variances, Conditional Use Permit for Drive-in Banking Facility and Rezoning CASE NO: 85-403 APPLICJLNT: Ray W. Geiger, C/O Smiley Glotter Associates LOCATION: East Side of Ccmmerce Boulevard between Church and Lynwood EXISTING ZONING: Central Business (B-I) and Two-family Residential (R-3) PLAN: Ccr~nercial and Residential BACKGROUND: On June 25, 1984, the Planning Commission reviewed the Town Square proposal as Part of the tax increment financi~ plan approval process. At the present time, the applicant has finalized the development plans and is requestir~ final review and approval frown the City of Mound. The current Town Square site plan has attempted to respond to the issues that w~re previously raised by the Planning Ccmmission, i.e., rear alley truck access, circulation, etc. The final plan contains two separate buildings surr0U~ded by parking, driveways, 'walkways and landscaping. Six entrances provide access to various portions of the property. The center's main entrances are from Lynwood Boulevard on the south and Church Road on the north. REZONING: Implementation of the Town Square plan will require the rezoning of the northeast corner of the property from R-3 to B-i. The single-family residence that is located on the R-3 parcel will be removed making the property available for ccmmercial development. Plannirg c~,~ission and Staff Page Two January 9, 1985 Accordirg to the zonirg ordinance, amendments to zoninG districts should "only be used as a means to reflect changes in the goals and policies of the community as reflected in the plan or changes in conditions in the city." Town Square has been reviewed extensively by the HRA and the City Council, and their support for the proposal seems to reflect a charge in both policy and business conditions in the City of Mound. Based upon their actions, Town Square meets the ordinance criteria for rezoning. (/1MMENTS: The redevelopment of the Town Square site generates a number of issues which need to be considered by the Planning Commission and City Council. Setbacks: The B-1 provisions do not require front yard setbacks which wculd be applicable to the frontages along Lynwood Boulevard, Commerce Boulevard and Church Road. The northern most 180 feet of the eastern side of the site abuts an existing R-3 zone. Where B-1 abuts R-3, the ordinance requires a setback of 50 feet. The final site plan for Town Square depicts a setback in this area ranging from 35 to 41 feet. This will require a variance of 9 to 15 feet. Parking: All parking for Town Square will be acccmmodated in surface lots. The site plan provides a total of 182 parking spaces, 20 of which are drive-in teller stalls. Mound zoning ordinance requires the following: Land Use Floor Area Ordinance Standard Required Spaces Retail 23~900 1 per 150 sq. ft. 159 Bank 10,250 1 per 400 sq. ft. 26 Clinic 16,700 5 per professional employee 55* 1 per other employee TOTAL 240 * Assumes 8 professional and 15 other ~ployees. The Town Square proposal is 58 spaces short of the ordinance standard. There are a number of ways to remedy this deficiency, the most probable of which involves securing additional parking for employees of the various businesses. The church immediately north of the project provides one such source and the Mound Super Valu may provide an additional source. Super Valu is relocating to the No Frills Center. At the present time, a replacement use for the old Super Valu building is unknown. Depending upon what type of business eventually occupies the structure, extra parkirg may be available. 'Plannin~ Ccnrai ss ion and Staff Page Three January 9, 1985 A review of parking should also address circulation and location. The connections between parkin~ lots provide convenient access for customers. The hard surface areas are broken up by landscaped islands which will help both visually and functionally. The site plan provides a compact parking area in the center of the parcel. The placement of this lot is presumably due to the physical space available. Frcm a functional standpoint, however, staff questions the validity of a 100 percent cc~pact stall lot in this location. The compact parking area PrOvides some of the most convenient parkir~ for the retail shops. As such, it will be difficult to enforce ccmpact parkinG only in this area regardless of posted signage. Larger vehicles in this lot may cause occasional problems, however, a 25-foot aisle should provide adequate maneuvering rock. Approval of the proposed parking scheme will require two types, of variances. First, a variance will be necessary to recognize the 58-stall deficiency. Secondly, a variance frcm the ordinance stall standard of 10 x 20 feet will be required for the 8 x 16 foot ccmpact stalls and the 9 x 18 foot regular spaces. All handicapped stalls will need to. be extended to 20 feet in length. Drive-in Bank: Drive-in facilities of any type are conditional uses in the B-1 zone. ~nerefore, the proposed drive-in bank will require the issuance of a conditional use permit. The ordinance establishes performance° standards for drive-in facilities. The proposed bank location is not c6nsistent with the performance standards in the followir~3 areas: Under the ordinance, drive-in facilities are prchibited within 400 feet of churches. The existing church is within approximately 300 feet of the proposed drive-in bank. be The performance standards state that loudspeakers shall not be located within 400 feet of any residentially zoned property or within 200 feet of any adjacent lot. As proposed, ~loudspeaker locations would fall within 255 feet of the adjacent church lot, approximately 86 feet frcn% the lot across the street and within 320 feet of the R-3 zoned.~ p~operty along the eastern side of the Town Square site. In reviewing the proposed drive-in banking activities and'the surrounding land uses, it seems very unlikely that the location of the bank or the use of loudspeakers will negatively impact any neighboring parcels. Technically, however, the site plan will' require a ll4-foot variance to the provision regulating the distance to an adjacent lot and an 80-foot variance from the required distance to a residential use. ~lannin~ C~,,~%ission and Staff Page Four January 9, 1985 e 0 ® Grading, Drainage and Utility Plans: Grading, drainage and utility plans were not submitted with the site plan materials for Town Square. Review of such plans by the City Engineer is essential prior to final approval of the project. Landscaping.' The landscaping plan for Town Square is adequate as a concept but does not contain sufficient detail to meet the City's final approval requirements. Essentially, the plan provides landscaped areas arour~ the perimeter of the site, at the entrance of the buildings and in islands within the .parking lot. The placement and variety of species shown on the plan should enhance the development. Alor~ the eastern side of the site, the plan calls for the installation of a retainir~3 wall and an arborvitae screen. The arborvitae should provide a visual buffer between the rear portion of the shops and the adjacent residential uses, however, only the southerly one-half of the plantings are located on the Town Square property. The plantings alor~ the northern one-half of the eastern side can be on adjacent property, however, the City should require some assurance that the material will be maintained. Prior to final approval, the applicant will need to submit a detailed landscaping plan to staff for further review. Signage: The Town Square site plan shows a pylon sign at the southwest corner of the property. Additionally, the building elevation sheets depict individual wall signage for each of the businesses. This signage concept is consistent with the City's sign ordinance. No signs can be placed in the ground or on buildings without formal sign permit approval. Signa~e permit applications will need to be filed with the City as such information beccmes available. Platting: Town Square contains a confusing array of legal descriptions. In order to clarify existin~ ownership and provide the vehicle for future ownership of the various buildings, preparation of a plat will be necessary. An application for subdivision and a preliminary and final plat will need to be pr.epared and sukmitted to the City prior to final approval. Circulation: The pedestrian and vehicular circulation pattern of the .final site plan is consistent with the preliminary site plans that were previously reviewed by the City. The sidewalk system provides adequate interior circulation and connections to adjacent parcels. Comprehensive Plan: The Mound comprehensive plan designates the Town Square parcel as commercial and residential in concurrence with the existing zoning. Approval of the Town Square site plan will require amendment of the City's ccmprehensive plan. This process is relatively simple, however, it does involve the Metropolitan Council. An amendment to the ccmprehensive plan requires formal review by the Metropolitan Council. After receipt of the proposed amendment, the Metropolitan Plannin(3 Ccmmission and Staff Page Five January 9, 1985 Council has 10 days to respond regarding the level of the required review. Presumably, with a small amendment such as the Town Square one, they will issue an immediate finding that the amendment is of no significant consequence to Metropolitan' s systems. RECOMMENDATIONS: The staff recommends approval of the ccmprehensive plan amendment, variances, rezonir~ and conditional use permit for the drive-in bank facility for Town Square subject to the followin~ conditions: The rezonin~ of the R-3 parcel to B-1 shall not formally occur until such time as the City has ccmpleted acquisition negotiations and acquired the subject parcel. Final grading, drainage and utility plans must be su~itted and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit. Final landscaping plans must be submitted to the City Planner for approval prior to issuance of a gradin~ permit. e The applicant shall be responsible for plattin~ the parcel in conformance with the City's subdivision regulations and M.S.A 462.358. Platting shall occur prior to conveyance of any land to the developer frcm the City of Mound. Bo The applican, t shall submit plans to the watershed district for review, comment and required ~ermit approval. The Planning Commission finds that the setback, drive-in bank location and parkir~ variances meet the criteria for grantin~ variances due to the unique redevelopment aspects of the project. The applicant shall be required to enter into negotiations with the church or other land owners to provide employee parkin~ outside of the boundaries of the Town Square parcel. Prior to installation of any signage, the applicant shall file and receive sign permit approval frc~ the City of Mound. ..The applicant shall provide the City with copies of agreements with abuttin~ landowners pertainin~ to the placement and maintenance of plant materials outside of the ownership boundaries of Town Square. o The Mound comprehensive plan is amended to reflect a commercial designation for the Town Square site, subject to comprehensive plan amendment approval by the Metropolitan Council. 10. Driveway and utility access along C~m~nerce Boulevard shall be subject to the review and permit approval of Hennepin County. VARIANCES 0 e Setbacks Abutting R-3 zone Parking Requirements Total Spaces Stall Size Drive-in Bank Distance to Church Loudspeaker Location To Adjacent Lot To Residential Property Required 50' 240 10 ' x20' 400' 200' 400' 35'-41' 182 9'x18' 300' 86' 320' Variance (9'-15'V) (58 space V) (v) (100' v) (114' V) (80' v) Planning Commission Minutes January 14, 1985 - Page 3 3. Case No. 85-403 Town Square - Rezoning portion from R-3 to B-I, Conditional Use Permit Approval. for a Drive-in. Bank, Setback Variances, Drive-in Bank ..Locational Variances and a Comprehensive Plan Amendment Various 1.egals - l~ocation generally east of C°mmerce Boulevard between .Church Road'and Lynwood Boulevard Saul Smiley of Smiley/Glotter Associates was present. Planner Mark Koegler stated the Commission last saw the Town Square proposal last June and that was a review of the preliminary site plan. The action before the Commission tonight is the formal site plan.action. He emphasized all decisions the Commission makes are independent of any financing the project ultimately gets. Your approval coupled with the financing will determine the fate of the project. You are really looking at the physical aspects as well as the proposal itself. He then reviewed his report on Town Square - the rezoning, various variances which include the setback to.the R-3, parking stall size and number, conditional use permit for a drive-in facili~ty including a 100 foot variance to the church and a variance for loudspeakers closer than 400 feet of residentially zoned Planning Commission Minutes January 14, 1985 - Page 4 property, landscaping requirements, signage, circulation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and comprehensive plan amendment. The staff recom- mends approval of the comprehensive plan amendment, variances, rezoning and conditional use permit for the drive-in bank facility for Town Square subject to the following conditions: 1. The rezoning of the R-3 parcel to B-1 shall not formally occur until such time as the City has completed acquisition negotiations and acquired the subject parcel. 2. Final grading, drainage and utility plans must be submitted and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit. 3. Final landscaping plans must be submitted to the City Planner for approval prior to issuance of a grading permit. 4. The applicant shall be responsible for platting the parcel in conformance with the City's subdivision regulations and M.S.A. 462.358. Platting shall occur prior to conveyance of any land to the developer from the City of Mound. 5. The applicant shall submit plans to. the Watershed District for review, comment and required permit approval. 6. The Planning Commission finds that the setback, drive-in bank location and parking variances meet the criteria for granting variances due to the unique redevelopment aspects of the project. The applicant shall be required to enter into negotiations with the church and other land owners to provide employee parking outside of the boundaries of the Town Square parcel. 7. Prior to installation of any signage, the applicant shall file and re- ceive sign permit approval from the city of Mound. '8. The applicant shall provide the City with copies of agreements with abutting landowners pertaining to the placement and maintenance of plant materials outside of the ownership boundaries of Town Square. 9. The Mound comprehensive plan is amended to reflect a commercial designation for the Town Square site, subject to comprehensive plan amendment approval' by the Metropolitan Council. 10. Driveway and utility access along Commerce Boulevard shall be subject to the review and permit approval of Hennepin County Transportation Department. Saul Smiley responded to the point Planner made about access from Commerce Boule- vard. Presently the Clinic and Tom Thumb are accessible from Commerce; but if we could not have that access, we would come in off of Church Road into the bank drive-in portion, so we do not see that as a major problem. As we have such a large holding area available on the bank site, we didn't see that as any obstruc- tion of traffic along Commerce Boulevard. Drainage has been worked out with Engineers, have touched base on all the variances, landscaping has been more fully developed - we have tried to take each of these needs and satisfied them as much as we can at this time. Major concern is the final determination of the site itself for acquisition which seems to be in a state of flux. Project has been carried very well along; a great amount of work has been done. Showed plan and commented it is a very attractive facility for the community. The Chair then opened the public hearing. As no one responded, the Chair closed the public hearing. Weiland moved and Reese seconded a motion to approve the recommendations of the staff. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. At the Janaary 22, 1985 CounCil meeting, the Council will be asked to set Feb. 12, 1985 as the date for the public hearing. DATE: COMM. NO.: PROJECT: SUBJECT: MEHO BY: COPIES TO: January 8, 1985 821201 (2) Hound Town Square Site Mtg. with Hennepin County Ray W-. Gelger George Glassco, John Bierbaum Jan Bertrand~ Saul Smiley~ Ray Gelger SMILEY Gl.OTTER ASSOCIATES Archilects Engineers Planners 1021 LaSalle Avenue Minneapohs M~nnesota 55403 (612) 332 1401 memorandum I met with George Glassco and Stephen Tyce this date regarding the request for permit to allow two curb cuts along Commerce in Hound which serves the State Bank of Hound drive~up teller area. Due to the amount of traffic on Commerce the County has refused a permit for the access but not for the exit, this due to the potential hazard of over stacking at the entrance back unto the street. At the exit the driver has the option to either make a right hand turn to go North or flow through the parking lot to Lynwood if the traffic is heavy. This would aJso still work if a median were installed North from the intersection of Lynwood and Commerce. SGA is to examine the possibility of entering the bank drive-up teller area off of Church and flowing through the North parking lot. Three parking spaces will be lost. A controlled entrance to the bank area from the parking lot could be made by narrowing the flow to one car at a time and by a chain when the drive-up is not open. SGA will contact the City~ the bank, and the developer as to this revision in the site planning. If any of this does not meet with your understanding of items discussed, please notify me as soon as possible. bank 10.25o il . '~ gO i pekingI ~tai shO~s. /~cf~ecl~ Ehg~eml Planne~ InlM'~' O~s~gnm'l town site plan parking regular stalls · comiSact stalls ,hand!cap stalls (5%) bank drive-in teller .~tal!s total 133 20 9 20 182 landscaping sodded area screening trees screening shrubs planter trees planter shrubs canopy / ornamental trees I~ac~r~s $1xuco 6' hO~eysuckl~ tochn¥ nrbevltoe .L Sq MN o ~o ~oo~oo Town uare-- Mound, . N Parcels 1. city of ~und 2. Medical Properties, Inc. 3. Thomas L. Giesen/Paul E. Busche 4. Eugene Bickman 5. Medical Properties, Inc. 6. M. E. Mueller 7. Medical Properties, Inc. figure 3 2Joo 8. M. E. Mueller 9. George Shephe.rd/John R. Morrison 10. M. E. Mueller 11. George Shepherd 3 d~ ~u!uoz N~ 'puno~ --aj~nbs u~oJ_ X Z U% ,Zt7. ~.- '~. '° :::+.; R D '7 ; · . 3~o.{r(," ', PARK ;ART OF LOT $2 RO OF LOT '522jI t7 I B LYNWOOD 8L. VD 3520 : (~ 'i 6'- o Deno/e$ iron reo of properly: rnonumen 136,117 sq. or 3. 12 Crcs I hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of: That part of Lot 2, Block 11, lying.West of a line drawn parallel with and 100 feet West from the East line of Block ll; Lot 6, Block 11; Lot ? and that part of Lot 8, Block ll, lying East of the Easterly line of Linden Street, said Easterly line of Linden Street being described as follows: Commencing at the Southwest corner of Lot 2, "Koehler's Addition to Mound" Lake Minnetonka; thence East along the South line of said Lot 2 a distance of 2.5 feet to the point of beginning of the Easterly line being described herein;'thence Northerly, deflecting to the left 88 degrees ll minutes, a distance of 60 feet; thence Northerly along a tangential curve to the right, having a radius of 423.5 feet and a central angle of 20 degrees 46 minutes, a distance of 153.5 feet; thence Northerly along a tangential curve to the left, having a radius of 167 feet, to its intersection with the Northeasterly line of said Lot 8 and there terminating; except that part of Lots 7 and 8 lying Southerly of a line drawn from the Northeast corner of Lot 3, "Koehler's Addition to Mound" Cake Minnetonka, to a point on the above described Easterly line of Linden Street distant 20 feet Northerly along said Easterly line from the south line of Lot 8, all in "Lake Side Park: A.L. Crocker's 1st Division, Mound, Minnetonka", according to the recorded plat thereof. Parcel 2 That part of the Southwest ~Jarter of the Southwest Quarter, Section 13, Township 117, Range 24 described as commencing at the intersection of the west line of said Southwest ~uarter of the Southwest ~uarter and the extension West of a line drawn parallel with and 1 foot North from the North line of Lot l, "Koehler's Additio~ to Mound" Lake Minnetonka; thence East parallel with the North line of said Lot 1 a distance of 191.90 feet; thence North parallel with the West line of said Southwest ~uarter of the Southwest Quarter a distance of 53 feet to the actual point of beginning; thence South along the last described parallel line a distance of 53 feet; thence East parallel with the North line of said Lot 1 a distance of 72.10 feet to the West line of Lot 2, "Koehler's Addition to Mound" Lake Minnetonka; thence North along the West line of said Lot 2 to the North line of said Southwest ~uarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence west along the North line of said Southwest Quarter of the Southwest ~uarter to a pnint 145.30 feet East from the Northwest corner of said Southwest Quarter of the Southwest ~uarter; thence'South parallel with the West line.of said Southwest aJarter of the Southwest Ouarter, a' distance of 92 feet; ~hence That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, Section 13, Township 117, Range 24 described as commencing at the intersection of the West line of said SoUthWest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter and the extension West of a line drawn parallel with and 1 foot North from the )rth line of Lot l, "Koehler's Addition to Mound" Lake Ninnetonka; thence oarallel with the North line of said Lot 1 a distance of 191.90 feet; thence North parallel with the West line of said Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter a distance of 53 feet to the actual point of beginning; thence South along the last described parallel line a distance of 53 feet; thence East parallel with the North line of said Lot 1 a distance of 72.10 feet to the West line of Lot 2, "Koehler's Addition to Mound" Lake Minnetonka; thence North along the West line of said Lot 2 to the North line of said Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Qua'rt~r; thence west along the North line of said Southwest Quarter of the 5outhwest Quarter to a point 145.30 feet East from the Northwest corner of said Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence South parallel with the West line .of said Southwest Quarter of the Southwest ~uarter, a distance of 92 feet; thence East parallel with the North line of said Southwest Qd~rter of the Sc~thwest Quarter a distance of 34 feet; thence 5outb~ea.sterly to the actual point of beginning. Lots 2, 3, 4, and 5, "Koehler's Addition 'to.Mound" Lake Minnetonka except Ehe Southeriy 26 feet thereof, according to the recorded plaE thereof. That part of Lots 7 and 8, Block 11, "Lake Side Park: A.L. Crocker's 1st Division, Mound, Minnetonka" described as beginning at the Northeast corner of Lot 3, "Koehler's Addition to Mound" Lake Minnetonka; thence West aIong the South line of said Lots 7 and 8 to the Easterly line of Linden Street (said Easterly line of Linden Street being described as follows: On~nencing at the Southwest corner of Lot 2, "Koehler's Addition to Mound" ke Minnetonka; thence East along the South line of said Lot 2, a distance of 2.50 feet to the point of beginning of the Easterly line being described herein; thence Northerly deflecting to the left 88 degrees ll minutes, a distance of 60 feet; thence Northerly along a tangential curve to the right having a radius of 423.50 feet and a central angle of 20 degrees 46 minutes, a distance of 153.50 feet; thenc6'Northerly along a tangential curve to the left having a radius of 167 feet, to its intersection with the Northeasterly line of Lot 8, "Lake Side Rark: A.L. Crocker's 1st Division, Mound, Minnetonka" and there terminating) thence Northerly along the Easterly line of said Linden Street a 01stance of 20 feet; thence Easterly to the point of beginning, according'tn the recorded plat thereof. ~of~ ~' Section 13, Township 117, Range 24, described as follows: Commencing on a line parallel with the West line of said Section and distant 33 feet Easterly therefrom measured at right angles and at a point on said line 50 feet North of the intersection of said line with the north line of Dell Street, thence South along said line a distance of 50 feet to the north line of Deli Street, thence East along the North line of Dell Street t08.5 feet, thence Northwesterly 50.15 feet, more or less to the intersection with a line drawn parallel with the north line of Dell Street from the point of )ginning, thence West along said parallel line 105.44 feet to the point of i~inninQ. Parcel 4 That D~rt of Lot 32, Lafayette Park, Lake Minnetonka lying West of Lot 8, Block l!, Lake Side Rark; A.L. Crocker's 1st Division Mound, Minnetonka, ancl %o~,th ~,f the 50klth line of School Street as shown on the plat ' Parcel That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 13, Township 117, Range 24, described as follows: C(%~mencing on a line parallel with the West line of said Section and distant ~'3 feet Easterly therefrom measured at right angles and at a point o~ said line 50 feet North of the intersection of said line with the north line of Dell Street, thence South along said line a distance of 50 feet to the north line of Dell Street, thence East along the North line of Dell Street 108.5 feet, thence Northwesterly 50.15 feet, ,~re or less to the intersection with a line drawn parallel with the north line of Dell Street from the point of beginning, thence West along said parallel iine 105.44 feet to the point of beginning. Parcel 4 That part of Lot 32, Lafayette Park, Lake Minnetonka lying West of Lot 8, Block ll, Lake Side Park; A.L. Crocker's 1st Division Mound, Minnetonka, and South of the South line of School Street as shown on the plat of said Lake Side Park; A.L. Crocker's 1st Division Mound, Minnetonka; and that part of Lot 8, Block ll, Lake Side Park; A.L. Crocker's 1st Division Mound, Minnetonka lying West of the Easterly line of Linden Street at opened in Village of Mound and .described in Book 1162 of Deeds, page 138; and Tracts. A and B, Registered Land Survey No. 588, Files of Registrar of Titles, County of Hennepin. ..' Parcel 5 Tracts C, D, E, F, G, H, I, $, and K, Registered Land Survey No. 588, Files of the Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Parcel 6 Lots 11 to 15 inclusive', Block 12, LAKE SIDE PARK A.L. CROCKER'S 1ST DIVISION NOUND, MINNETOKi<A, Hennepin County, Minnesota, except that part of said Lots ll to 15 which lies northerly of a line that is 40.00 feet southerly of, measured at a right angle to, and parallel with the north line of said Lots and its easterly extension. ALSO That part of School Street dedicated on the plat of LAKE SIDE PARK; A.L. CROCKER'S 1ST DIVISION, HOUND, MINNETO~<A, now known as Church Road, and that part of vacated Essex' °lace, formerly'known as Linden Street which lies between the east righ~of-way line of Commerce Boulevard and a line drawn from a point on the northwesterly line of Lot 2, Block 11, of said LAKE SIDE PARK; A.L. CROCKER'S 1ST DIVISION MOUND, MI~ETO~<A, which point is located by drawing a line parallel wlth and 100 feet West from the east line of said B1ock-11 to intersect with the northwesterly line of said Lot 2; to a point on the east line of Lot 11, Block 12 of said LAKE SIDE PARK; A.L. CROCKER'S 1ST DIVISION, which point is located by drawing a line parallel with and 40 feet south from the north line of said Lot 11, Block 12. And of the locations of all buildings, thereon, and all visible encroachments, if any, from or on said land. As surveyed by me, or under my direct supervision, this 25th day of May, ~_ ~-~~ Rau--I A. 3ohnson /"// ~O~ Land Surveyor, MinM~/Re'g. No. 10938 August 2, 1985 CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOO ROAD MOUND, MINNF. SOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 Mr. Vic Cossette Century Auto'Body & Marine, Inc. '5533 Shoreline Blvd. Mound, MN. 55364 Dear Vic, Unfortunately, here we go again. Only this time the complaints about your operation have spilled over and I am getting pressure from'.the Planning Commission and other businesses. I went back to your Conditional Use Permit, as approved in 1978 (#78-488) to look at what you can legally perform at your site. From reading it, clearly it looks like your operating in violation of the permit, parti- cularly in the gravel lot. In fact, your permit does not cover many of the items normally covered under Use Permits. i.e. - exterior painting of boats - parking of boats and trailers in the CBD parking lot - boats extending over onto the sidewalk, etc. I am going to ask for direction from the City Council on this and it may be that they will require you to apply for an amendment to your permit to cover your boat operations. I will get back to you on this soon. In the meantime, the boat you have in the CBD parking lot, which is being worked on, must be removed by August 5, 1985, at 4:30 P.M. Or you will be cited under a complaint filed by the City. Sincerely, City Manager JE:fc enc. Counci Imumber SWenson mo~ed the roi 1owl ng r~sol uriah. RESOLUTION NO. 78-488 RESOLUTIOtl TO CONCUR WITH THE RECOHHENDATi. ON OF THE' PLANNING COMMISSION TO GRANT THE SPECIAL USE PER/41T AS REQUESTED WITH ADDITIONAL STIPULATIONS 'WHEREAS, owner of property'described as .Lots 5 and part of Lot 6, Auditor's ' '~ ' Subdivision' //170 have applied for a special 'use permit, and · WHEREAS said prOperty although, zoned Commercial does not .specify the sale .' % ..-,. of automobiles, and a special use permit is neces§ary, and ~ ;::.WHEREAS~ a public hearing is necessary before said permit 'can be issue~l. ': .. "NOW,"THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CiTY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUN~,'. . . 'MOUND,-M!NNE'SOTA: ' ~'" ...:i"-'.' That Cou'ncil concurs with the recommendation Of'the Planning · . . '-' Commission to grant the Special Use Permit as requested with · · .' addltlonal stlpulations. Said stipulations are: That sales be limited to not more than 12 cars on sale at one time..' That the graveled area along Shoreline Blvd. be blacktopped or covered with concrete and sidewalk be repaired or reconstructed,"where damaged, as specified by Engineer. That no flggs, 6anners or flashing lights be permitted; also no loud noises or noises over loud speakers be permitted. The premises b~ ~alntained in a neat and order]'y, manner That the permit holder be prohi'bite~ ~rom using the C.B.D. parking area' for storage of cars for sale. The motion for the adoption of the forego~ing'resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Fenstad, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Fenstad, Lo6aasen, Polston, Swehson and Withhart, the follow- .ing ;voted against the same, none; whereupon said re,.;olulion was declared passed and adopted, ' signed by the Mayor and his signature attested by the City Clerk.' s/Tim Lovaasen Mayor CITY of MOUND f ~ 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155. April 12, 1984 Mr. Vic Cossette Century Auto Body.&~.Marine, Inc. 5533 Shoreline BofileYard Mound, MN. 55364 Dear Vic: Thank you for the Resolution 78-488 which gave approval' for your property to sell automobiles. Unfortunately, the practice of selling cars was'discontinued for quite some period of time. The City Code, Section 23.404 states that a non-conforming zoning use of a property may not be resumed, if discontinued for a 12 month period of time. The present zoning ordinance, Section 23.625, B-1 Central business allows boat and marine sa]es by a conditional (special) use permit with no automobile sales allowed in the Central Business District. The minimum lot size is 7,500 square feet and I have enclosed'a parcel combination form to be filled out and returned to our City Office~ .. If you would like to sell boats as well as repairing boats and auto- mobiles, you will need to apply to the City of Mound for the neces- sary Conditional Use Permit. Please'contact me if you have any fur- ther questions regarding this matter. Sincerely, Jan Bertrand Buildi. ng Official JB/ms Encl. TO: FROM: SUBJECT: INTEROFFICE City Manager Sgt William M Hudson Ymund Police Reserve Dance MEMO DATE 8-13 lP 85 On September 20, 1985, the B'bund Police Reserve will be having their second annual dance. Last year pemits were granted by the council for on sale 3.2 beer and set-ups. This year we are again requesting the necessary permits to sell 3.2 beer, set-ups and ,munchies such as potatoe chips and pop corn. Last year the dance generated approximatley $3,000 for the reserve unit. We hope to have about the same turn out this year. INTEROFFICE MEMO ?ROM: ~UBJECT: Jon Elam, City Manager Len Harrell, Chief of Police Implementation of Canine Program DATE August 1 to 8--5 As you are aware, the recent police canine demonstration for "Mound City Days" has generated a good deal of positive feedback for a canine program in Mound. We currently have available to the department, a fully trained police canine belonging to Off. John McKinley. John and I have discussed the use of M±ckey and John is enthusiastic about getting Mickey back to work. Mickey is a seven year old German Shepherd with three National team titles and has individ- ually ranked 8th in 1983, and 7th in 1984 in National competition. Off. McKinley and Mickey previously worked together in Pierce County, Wisconsin and their background check indicated that they were an effective law enforcement tool. Implementing the program would be of minimal cost with a dog that i~ already trained. I have spoken with Earl Bailey, our insurance agent, and he checked into our coverage and found that there would be no problems or additional costs. A squad that is presently in the fleet would be converted to accomodate the canine. That vehicle would be #840 which is currently the oldest squad in the fleet. The cost of conversion would be between $200 and $500. Lastly, an agreement would be entered into with Off. McKinley whereby the canine is leased or purchased from McKinley for $1 and that thereafter, the City would be responsible for food and veterinary expenses, usually averaging less than $750 per year. All training time to maintain the teams competence will be incorporated into Off. McKinley's present work schedule and would not result in additional costs. I feel that the implementation of a canine program will be beneficial to the City both in the added strength that a dog affords and also in the positive public relations work that can be done with a canine. CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota PUBLI~ HEARING ON. ZONING AMENDMENTFOR CONDITIONAL USE'PROVISIONS OF 23.635.3 TO'ALLOW'CONSIGNMENT/GIFT SHOP BY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO.WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: NoTIcE IS' HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing will be heid on Tuesday, September l'O, 1.985, at the City Hail, 5341Maywood Road, Mound, Minnesota, at 7:36 P.M. The Hearing Will beheld on the amendment for the Conditional Use Permit Provisions of the B'3 Zoning District (Neighborhood Business)' of the Mound Zoning Code to allow gift shops by Conditional Use Permit. Such persons as desire to be heard with reference to the above, will be heard'at th~s meeting. Fr~ncene C. Clark, City Clerk Request for Funding 1985 Discretionary Hontes/UHC CDBG Program Project Proposal PUBLIC SERVICES THIS SECTION WILL BE COMPLETED BY HENNEPIN COUNTY ER Status: / status Project Number: / number Project Eligibility: citation Environmental Review Specialist date Financial Manager date / Hennepin County date GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Community: 2. Project Name: MOUND Specialized Van for Seniors, Handicapped, Low and Moderate Income Citizens 3. Contact Person: Fran' Clark, City Clerk B. PROJECT DATA Total Funds Requested $8,000.00 1. Description Describe the project and all necessary component activities. Be as detailed as possible. (Add sheets if necessary.) 0-10 points Purchase of a wheelchair equipped maxivan to be used in the Westonka Rides Program as a means of transportation for the elderly, handicapped, low and moderate income residents of the Western Hennepin County area who have no other means of transportation. We presently have committments of $14,820 from the cities of Mound, Orono, Spring Park, St. Bonifacius and Minnetrista, but need the additional $8,000 to acquire this vehicle. Prior use of CDBG funds for Public Services. Is this a continuing CDBG project? ~ Yes No If yes, what year did funding begin? Xl Total CDBG monies programmed by program year $14~820 Amount and percentage of CDBG monies programmed from Year X1 cycle $ 14,820 / 10 % of total funding from Mound, Spring Park, Orono, St. Bonifaclus. and Minnetrista 3~ Identify and document the local community development need that the project is intended to meet and explain how the project will substantially meet that need~ .. 0-10 points Westonka Eides is a combined effort of the Westonka Senior Center, Westonka Christian Services, and Ind. School Dist. #277, using Federal:Older American monies, in-kind services, volunteer workers and donations.to provide tran~portation to Western Hennepin County citizens. The pastyear this program served over 500. undup!icated residents. The increased demand for time-conSuming medical trips has put a strain on this present program which is used heavily during the mid-day hours. A wheelchai'r equipped maxivan that could be used excluslvely ~h[o~gbR,u~.~b~.day for medical, appR!p.tm~nt~, and related life sustaining needs would alleviate this problem.. ............. ~-"'Identify the user g'6oup(s) fbr-the-Service, inclUding supporti'n~ doCumeh~atiOn' indicating the need for the service. · 0-10 points ~estonka Eides serves primarily senior citizens, handicapped and single parent families having no transportation. The ~estern suburbs has a high precentage of these groups. Over )0~ of the elderly are below 125~ of the proverty level. Hound having the largest overall population, ranks in the top five.of low-income, single parent households in Hennepin County. b. Indicate what necessary service(s) will be provided to low and moderate income group(s) in the community. Explain how the project will make substantal improvements. The use of a wheelchair equipped.maxivan uslng volunteer drivers will provide more rides; using less mileage and will m~ke the "block-~ime" concept at the clinics and' hospital a reality. c. State the quantifiable accomplishments the project will achieve. We wi1) be able to serve the largest number of elderly and handicapped during the hours, of 9-) P.H., while at the same time being able to provide the time consuming local and distant medical needs of the low and moderate income residents, both young and old. Implementation schedule. 0-3 points Although the joint cooperation agreement allows for an 18 month expenditure limit, the discretionary monies should be scheduled to be spent in 12 months. a. Starting date October 1985 Completion date January 1986 Major milestones, if applicablet Does the implementing agency have a record of expending funds in an expe- ditious manner? Yes Budget Using the following budget lines, please list the amount budgeted for each component of the project, including administration. a, Acquisition of Real Property a. $ b. Senior Centers b. $ c. Special Assessment Assistance c. $ dj Clearance .Activities d. $ e. Relocation Assistance e. $ · f~ Removal of Architectural Barriers f. $ g. Rehabilitation of Private Single Family Property g. $ h, Public. Service h. $ i. Special Projects/Non Profits i. $ j. Economic Development j. $ 22,820.00 TOTAL BUDGET $ * The cost of administering a funded project is to be included within the proposed project budget. 7. Completeness of application; detailed information provided. 0-10 points CASE NO. 84-365 TO: CITY COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER FROM: JAN BERTRAND, BUILDING OFFICIAL SUBJECT: UPDATED REPORT FOR THE VARIANCE APPLICATION FROM GORDON L. WOLF, DATED JULY 24, 1984, FOR THE PROPERTY KNOWN A~ LOT 39, BLOCK 11, SETON, 4610 KILDARE ROAD.'~ DATE: JULY 24, 1985 On August 13, 1984 the Planning Commission tabled the applicants request for a variance to do structural modifications to his structure until they could have a building plan submitted by the applicant. On August 27, 1984 the Planning Commission once again considered the applicants request and recommended denial by a vote of 5 for, 1 abstained, and 1 against. On November 13, 1984 the applicant had apUblic hearing before the City Council to request a vacation of a portion-of Kildare Road which was denied. The variance request is now being brought before the City Council on August 13, 1985 for the applicant to do structural modifications as listed on his application as follows: to add an 8 by 30.3 foot unenclosed deck to the south of the structure in alignment with the existing structure, change the home for year around use, and to do structural repairs and room repairs to include insulating. Comments: I was familiar with the structure when the former owner had the property For Sale. I have conducted an inspection of the home on July 19, 1985. The applicant has not submitted any formal plans (drawings) or a i~emized list of improvements to the structure. The applicant also owns Lot 6 but the tax parcels have not been combined. The tax assessors value of the structure is $5,100 and it sets on a 40 by 90 foot lot (3600 sq. ft.). The front yard setback is 2.5 feet and the rear yard is 7.0 feet. The R-2 Zoning Distr%ct requires a 20 foot front yard and a 15 foot rear yard with a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet. Since I was in the home with the former owner a considerable amount of remodeling has been started by the applicant without building permit approval. A stop work tag was issued for the home before the application date of 3uly 24, 1984 (date, June 1, 1984). The following is my report on the existing conditions of the structure: The basement has a dirt floor with stack blocks of 23 by 6 inch with some areas,approximately 1/3, on crawl space. The floor joists are 2 by 6 in.- 16 in. on center to 24 in. o~c. and 36 in. o.c.. The floor system is overspanned for the size and support system. It appears that the post pier ih the one quarter of the area does not have a footing pad. The beam in the same area has one end unsupported. The concrete blocks have mortar missing, some blocks are cracked. The applicant mentioned he was told that the structure suffered some tornado damage. The structure has been moved off from the foundation blocks approximately 3 inches ±. It also appears that the building sewer may be shallow as it is leaving the building above the street. The structure has no furnace or central heating system,; the electric service is 60 amp- the outlet recepticles are floor mounted without proper dust covers; the type of wiring is BX cable and appears in good condition; the plumbing, other than a possible shallow sewer, is proper and legal copper, brass waste~ & vent and copper water piping; the kitchen does not have wiring for the cook range yet and the new water heater is electric. The chimney in the structure has no,. CITY of MOUND August 26, 1985 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER Enclosed is a petition signed by a number of residents who are concerned about the efforts of a resident at 5469 Bartlett Blvd. to intimidate and generally discourage the use of the Lost Lake Channel. As you will note on the attached map, there is a lot at the channel which is privately owned. This is the property the petition is concerned with. The City of Mound owns the rest of the Channel so it might make sense to tie this parcel into it. What I would suggest is to refer this to the City Attorney, who can talk with the State about land ownership under public waters and then decide what action the City might want to take. JE:fc enc. An equal opportunity Employer that does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, or handicapped status in the admission or access to, or treatment or employment in, its programs and activities. page 2 Case No. 84-365 foundation and starts mid-way up from the floor in the kitchen,and should be removed or mortared up to prevent it's use. The windows are shutter typc which have no supporting headers (beams) over them. The structural walls have one top plate and the requirements should have two top plates. One room the applicant has paneled in the~center of the home needs 8 per cent of the floor area for light and ventilation. The applicant stated that he has added wood studs, insulation with vapor barrier at exterior walls; the rooms have been sheetrocked and paneled (7/16 in.)i The rafters inzsome areas 2 by 4 in. 2 ft. o.c. and overspanned. The ceiling joists were 2 by 4 in. with some ceiling joists added by the applicant and some rafters added by the applicant in the sloped ceiling area which were covered by sheetrock. Mr. Wolf stated he had added 2 by 8 ceiling rafters in the dining/den area. Recommendation: The applicant wants to improve the structure gradually but wishes to live in the building during the improvements. He has been told to remove certain sections of the wall covering to allow inspection of what was done. Some of the deficiencies will not be corrected at this time. He should 'draw up plans and specification of the work to be done with a schedule of completion. He should be required to combine the two tax parcels to create a cconforming lot area and limit the expansion of the structure to a small entry deck at the door. cc: Gordon Wolf CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota Planning Commission Agenda of Aug. 13, 1984: Board of Appeals Case No. 84-347 L6cation: 4610 Kildare Road Legal Desc:' Lots 6 & 39, Block 11, Seton Request: 17.5 foot front yard variance Zoning District: R-2 Applicant: Gordon L. Wolf 4610 Kildare Road Mound, MN .~~ Phone: 47~- The applicant is requesting to convert a summer cabin into a year around home by doing structural, m~chanical, electrical, and pltmbing alterations and to add an 8 ft. by 30.3 f~. unenclosed deck to the south of the wstructure in alignment with the existing structure. Staff has not reviewed any construction blueprints as of yet. The Zoning Code for an existing non-conforming structure in residential units states "23.404 (8) Alterations may be made to a building containing lawful non-conforming residential units when they will improve the livability thereof, provided they will not increase the number of dwelling uniLs or bUlk of the building, with the recommendation and approval of the City Council. Comments:-.The hardship in this case could be considered the street construction. When the roadway was improved the City had two lots to the west of this property that was converted io~ road purposes from platted lots. Instead of the structure having a non-confoYming side yard'of 2.5 ft. instead of 6 feet, it is required to have a 20 foot setback to Black Lake Lane and Kildare Road (corner lot). The structure needs a good deal of repairs to make it a year around habitable structure. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the present structure be brought up to current Uniform Building Code standards for the structure, mechanical, energy, plu~bimg,electrical. The Planning Commission may want to consider tabling the request until plans and/or a construction statement is submitted. The staff also recOmmends that the unenclosed deck may not be altered in the futrue without additional variance approval.nor occupancy of the structure until a certificate of occupancy is issued. This will be referred to the CityCouncil on Aug. 28, 1984. Abutting neighbors have been notified. P.S. The applicant has not combined the two tax parcels. Lots 6 & 39 have two parcels and unless combined they are undersized lots. anning Commission Minutes ust 13, 1984 Case No. 84-347 17.5 Foot Front Yard Variance at 46'i0 Kil~are Road Lots 6 and'3~,'Block ll, Seton Gordon.Wolf was present. The Building Officlal explained that Mr. Wolf purchased the-home on Kildare and that he would like to remodel and make it a year around homeJ The present lot size meets th~ requirements for the Zoning Distric.t; the configuration of the 'lot is "L~' shaped. The.present structure is 2.5 feet from the right-of-way. The City converted two-platted lots to the west of' thls property to make the street causing .this hardship. The Zoning Ordinance requires two front yard set- backs (20 feet to.west and 20.feet to south and 6 feet to the side property line) The applicant is planning to'do some extensive remodeling including adding an open 8 foot wide by 30 foot.deck. The-Zoning Code allows repairs to nonconform- ing structures to improve.the livability, but does not allow expansion unless the City Council approves. In order tO make that'a year around home, it would take - a great deal of expense and effort for'him to put in insulation, etc. and do some structural repairs to the building. "His intention is to bring entire 'struc- ture up to code. Applicant is working with his brother to get a structural list of repairs or blueprint. Reese asked about time'frame for remodeling. Applicant doesn't have a blueprint'. It was questioned what'is the nature of the alterations? and. if there is anything the Plann).ng Commission can do until we find out'? Byrnes moved to table until' we have a plan to see. Michael stated we're just ta)king about.a 17+ variance setback that the City created by putting the street through. City Manager stated applicant needs, some direction from the Commission before going.to expense of blueprints. The value of the structure was discussed; whether it would be better to start over. Wolf stated there are frost footings 'and he would like a chance to bring the structure up to code. Reese asked if the building is structurally sound? The Building Official stated foundation wal)s and supports for floors and rafters do not meet the span tables for allowable spans for construction, but would probably stand for 20 years. Reese seconded the motion to support plan to table. He would like to see at least a hand drawh sketch with rough cost estimates; he thought Planning Commis- sion wou/d look at this in two weeks if applicant is ready with thi.s information. The vote on the motion to tabl. e was: Michael opposed; all others in favor. Motion carried.' Planning Commission Minutes August 27, 1984 - Page 2 The City Manager stated that the Commission is asking for something different from this fellow than you are asking from any other person that I can recall that submitted a variance request. He's submitted everything he's required to by the City--the survey, the house is located there, etc. Reese stated that Jon is asking the Commission to vote mindlessly. We do not want him to improve a structure that we would not approve. Why'should we encourage him to improve that? Why-not tell him to develop the lot like his brother from Tennessee is probably telling him to do now. The structure is not worthy of reconstruction. Michael asked the Building Official if variance were granted, what next step would be? The Building Official explained.the requirements of the building code; she can accept repairs if it makes it less hazardous without bringing it up to code. If repairs are going to be more than 50%, room they might add has to comply. City has no housing code. Meyer asked applicant to give an estimate of repairs. Wolf stated it would be about $5,000. Any repairs would have to meet code. The vote on the motion was Michael opposed; Charon abstained; all others voted in favor of denying. Motion carried. Michael opposed because he feels we are only looking at a request for a 17½ foot front yard variance and a deck and if the deck is put on, it's got to pass a code and that's all we're being requested to look at. Charon abstained because she has not been present to look at this request. This will be considered by the City Council on September 18th. Case No. 84-348 Sign Variance Permit for 2316 Commerce Boulevard Steve Ziebarth of Prowood Plus was present. At the August 13, ]984' Planning Commission meeting,.the Commission approved a 34 square foot sign.for the front of the building at 2316 Commerce Boulevard. Mr. Ziebarth asked what would be necessary to put the same sign on the back of the building. The City Manager thought the Commission could amend their motion and the Council could act on the whole thing at the meeting on August 14th. Reese moved and Michael seconded a motion to amend the previous decision on signage for Dr. Jeffrey Soule for adding same sized sign on back of building at 2316 Commerce Boulevard. All in favor except Jensen who abstained. Public Hearing Dates to be Set 1. Site at 1861 Commerce Boulevard - The City Manager stated that he thought we had said that this wetlands was not a wetlands. The Building Official stated we are recommending that it be deleted from the Wetlands; bUt it hasn't been done yet. The City Manager stated we should have had an Ordinance change on the agenda; not a wetlands permit application. Thinks that is separate issue and an improper agenda item. Chairman stated Commission will drop this issue until City comes up with what they want to do. Planner to be requested to put together a change to the ordinance. 2. Conditional Use Permit Public Hearing for Printing Shop at 2434 Commerce Boulevard Reese moved and Byrnes seconded a motion to set September IO, 1984 for the public hearing for conditional use permit for printing shop. The vote was unanimously in favor. MINUTES OF T~E MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 27, 1984 Present were: Chairman Frank Weiland; Commissioners Robert Byrnes, Liz Jensen, William Meyer, Geoff Michael and Thomas Reese; City Manager Jon Elam; Building OffiCial Jan Bertrand and Secretary Marjorie Stutsman. Commissioners George Kinser and Michael Vargo were absent. Also present were Gordon L. Wolf and Steve Ziebarth. MINUTES The minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of August 13, 1984 were presented for con,siderat~on. Reese moved and Meyer. seconded a motion to approve the minutes of the August 13, 1984 meeting as presented. The vote was unanimously in favor. BOARD OF APPEALS I~Case No. 84-347" 17.5 Foot Front Yard Variance for 4610 Kildare Road Lots 6 and 39, Block 11, Seton Gordon L. Wolf was present. The Chairman explained that this case is a continuation from the August 13th meeting. Mr. Wolf was to bring in some information. The Building'Official stated she would like to bring up one item - Section 23.404 has 8 items concerning the Non-Conforming Uses; Item 2 really talks about "restoring of a structure to safe condition .......... providing further that the necessary repairs shall not consti- tute more than 50% of the fair market value of such structure" She did talk to the Assessment Department of Hennepin County and they are, by State Law, supposed to assess at 100% of value. Structure is valued at $5100. Tax information was included in packets so. Commissioners could look at it. The two lots are two separate parcels and should be combined. The Chairman questioned whether or not there are 2. sewer and water units on these lots and asked that this be checked on. Discussed that livability could be preserved, but not increase the bulk. The applicant stated he has plans for a house on that lot; but not for the remodel- ing. Wolf wants to bring structure up-to-code. Reese commented that the Commission had requested a hand drawn plan. The City Manager stated he has a survey with the house platted out and he has drawn on the proposed deck--it shows the setbacks that you would need and that's about all that most people submit for a variance. Reese thought applicant would be putting more money into the structure than the value of $5i00. The appl. icant apologized for not having a drawing and stated the structure will meet the codes and will not be an eyesore. Byrnes asked if we were going to landlock the house on Lot 5. The Building Official stated there is a private ease- ment to get to Lot 5. Byrnes asked if applicant could make repairs without putting the deck on. Wolf responded that he'd have to do something about the front door as it is 7 or 8 feet up in the air. The Chairman asked about frost footings. The Building Official stated the foundation wall itself is in pretty tough shape; she would guess it's from the structure being unheated; there are partial frost footings, but no floor in the basement. The request was discussed at length and also what Kildare Road was used for. Later in the meeting, the applicant asked if part of Kildare Road could be vacated? Byrnes stated Commission would just be shooting in the dark without schematic/ plan and he moved to deny the variance requested and to waive the fee if appli- cant submits plans in a month or two. Reese seconded the motion. OF MOUND 1, Street Address of P~operty CITY OF HOUND APPLICATION TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION (Please type the following information) Legal Description of Property: Addition Lot S 6' & 39 Seton PID No. Case No. Fee Paid $50.00 Date Filed 7-25-84 Block 11 7-23 21 0033/0028 Add res s Applicant (if other than owner): Name Day Phone No.. Day Phone No. Address 5. Type of Request: Variance ( ) Conditional Use Permit Zoning Interpretation & Review Wetland Permit ( ) P.U.D. ( ) Amendment ( ') Sign Permit ( )*Other *If other, specify: Present Zoning District Existing Use(s) of Property '~,'-~ Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, or conditional use permit or other zoning procedure for this property? ~k~, If so, list date(s) of list date(s) of application, action taken and provide Resolution No.(s) Copies of previous resolutions shall accompany present request. I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law.~,~~~ Signature of Applicant .~~¢~/~f/~~~ Date Planning Commission Recommendation: 8-13-85 Table forehand drawn sketch with rough cost estimates; 8-27-85 Move to deny the variance requested and to waive the fee if applicant submits plans in a month or two. Date 8-13-85 8-27-85- Council Action: Resolution No. Date !:/~2 '" Request for Zoning Variance Procedure (2) Case # 84-347 D. Location of; Signs, easements, underground utilities, etc. E. Indicate North compass direction F. Any additional information as may reasonably be required by the City Staff and applicable Sections of the Zoning Ordinance. III. Request for a Zoning Variance A. Al.l' information below, a site plan, as described in Part II, and general appllcatlon must be provided before a hearing will be scheduled. B. Does'the present use of the property conform to a~l use regulations for the zone district in which it is located? Yes(~ ~o ( ) If "no", specify each non-conforming use: Do the existing structures comply with all area heigh~and bulk regulations for the zone district in which it is located? Yes (//~'~. No ( ) If "no", specify each 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? ( ) Too narrow ( ) Topography ( ) Soil ( ) Too small ( ) Drainage ( ) Sub-surface ( ) Too shallow ( ) Shape ( ) Other: Specify: E. Was the hardship, described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the Zoning Ordinance was adopted? Yes ( ) No ( ) If yes, explain: ~f~r F. Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the reloca- tion of a road? Yes ~ No ( ) If yes, explain:~. ~~ ~-~<._~ G. 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 affecte o~.' H. What is the "minimum" modification (variance) from the area-bulk regulations that will permit you to make reason'able use of your land? (.Specify, using maps, sire'plans with dimensions and written explanation. Attach additional sheets, if necessary.) I. Will granting of the variance be materially detrimental to"property in the same zone, or to the enforcement of this ordinance? CASE NO. 84-347 0 Z X uJ -_ r~ F- X 12.12. ...I F- >- n n H'~ . o o~ uJ edCO ' U X O~ .J~ n~ I- -~,-, O0 HI-lO t~O~H I-IH U U LS/8-11U SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE ' HEDGE AND TREES ON LINE [.t, '~'',' ,~, rPOWER ~L[ 0.5 NO.IH OF IRON 40.00 PLAT / -' ~* CONCRETI b WA , I HOUSE ~q ' F ql~ CGNC~ETE WALL ON L~NE ~ - - - 65.~ - - '40.15 (MEAS.)' - 9Z'.88~MEAS: 40.00 PLAT FCONCRETE WALL 27.80. .00 PLAT KILDARE LANE ! /. --- I / / [ hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of: Lots 6 and 39, Block ll, S[TON, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Hinnesota, arid of tho location of all buildings thereon, and all visible encroachments, if any, fro,, or on said land. As surveyed by me this 10th day of July, lg78. Harold C. Peterson, R.L.S. Minnesota Registration No. 12294 CASE NO. 84-347 WATE I~'S EDGE Scale: 1 inch · 30 Feet 0 Denotes iron Monument I I I lsraelson & Associates, Inc... Consulting Engineers & Land Surveyors glO0 West Bloomington Freeway Bloomington, l~t 55431 I In Il · mi i L I I I Il ~ CARLOW .RO ~ 474 lB $1 (t,,¢ zo 30 CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 June 14, 1985 Mr. Gordon Wolf 4610 Kildare Road Mound, MN. 55364 Dear Mr. Wolf: During the August 27, 198~Planning Commission meeting, your appli- cation for a variance to allow structural alterations and a deck addition to the existing structure was denied due to incomplete information. I must require you to submit this information requested by the Planning Commission by June 19, 1985 and I will forward your appli- cation to the City Council with a denial recommendation from the Planning Commission. The City Council makes the final decisions regarding your application. The Stop Work Order was posted on your property quite some time ago. You have started construction on the dwelling without proper building permits and authorization. I have enclosed a copy of the Planning Commission minutes of August 13, 1984, August 27, 1984 and the City Council minutes of November 13, 1984 regarding your requested street vacation of Kildare Road for your convenience. Your prompt attention to this matter is greatly appreciated to clarify your intentions for property improve- ments. Yours t ru~___~.~ ~ Jan Bertrand Building Official JB/ms cc: Jon Elam 40/85 Encl . CITY of MOUND August 23, 1985 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER RE: PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY After months of waiting around, Balboa finally developed a space proposal for the City Public Works use in the Old Tonka Building. The details of the proposal are attached, but basically it is for 19,489 square feet at $2.50 per square foot or an annual rent of $48,722.58 per year. Since it would be on w~t is called a triple net lease, taxes ($7,795.60), utilities ($6,000 est.) and commons maintenance ($2,000) ~.' would be on top of that. Together they would add up to a total of $64,518.80 per year, with an annual cost of living increase built in each year, not to exceed 6%. As a first year incentive, Balboa would allow us a $2.00 per square foot cash allowance ($39,445.16), plus four months free rent. These incentives would only come into play if the City signed a ten year lease. I have tried to price this out to arrive at a ten year total cost using an average increase of 4% per year. That comes to a total of $745,166.98, after you subtract the cash advance, leaving a net average annual cost of $74,516.70. Perhaps though, worst of all, is that we will not~:have anything to show for all that money at the end of ten years. As you recall, last year we did a public works building study. In the end that got delayed because we did not have any costs on Tonka and the site location was controversial. The first part of that question has now been answered.with the figures from Balboa. The need for the facility has never been more evident. With the Anderson Building's removal in late Winter, the City will be left with five stalls in the Island Park facility and a million dollars plus.~ worth of equipment sitting outside, including C~ristmas decorations, etc. The need is to reactivate our planning process for a new facility and relatively quickly. No matter where we have a site, we will still have to have a referendum because it would be funded by G.O. Bonds. 3,/"3 An equal opportunity Employer that does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, or handicapped status in the admission or access to, or treatment or employment in, its programs and activities, Page 2 City Council August 23, 1985 There are a couple Of positive notes on all of this. The estimated cost from the Engineers for a new facility was $477,360. I have priced it out similarly as I did on the Tonka Building, i.e. $2.50 per square foot, etc. with a 4% inflation rate built-in. That total comes to $651.,550.99 or a yearly average of $65,155.00. Since we already own the land. it would be built on, that would be a savings'of more than 10% or $80,000.00. Figured on an actual basis, the building would be financed by the sale of $500,000 in Bonds. I would propose a term of 15 years. Today's interest rate on that issue could be around 8%, but for safety I have figured 8.5%. Roughly speaking, that would mean an average annual cost of $54,585.00. or a total 15 year cost of $818,772. At the present time, the Building Fund has a total of $5,327.00. :ln addition, it will receive $80,000 from the sale of the lot in the northwest corner of the Town Square development site. Finally, if over the next several years the Lost Lake site could be sold, from estimates we have that should be worth another $100,O00 which can be earmarked for the Public Works Building. These funds could, of course, go to help pay the rent on the Tonka building, but it would not be a;very wise investment it would seem to me. If this scenario does turn out like I would expect, the price would mean paying off from special levies a total cost of $270,000, plus interest. The public works building need is one of the greatest unresolved issues the City faces. It must be dealt with or the Community will be stuck storing valuable equipment outside. Lost Lake will not be able to be sold because there will not be any known location to store City stock piles for street sealing rock, construction supplies, etc. It will not be easy getting people to understand this issue. The annual cost on taxes will not be alot, but it will equal close to one mill ($54,000) annually. Out of a total levy in 1985 of $$6.5 million, it comes to less than a 1% increase and as the City grows it will become less. August 21, 1985 Mr. John Elam City'Manager-~ City of Mound 5341 MaywoodRoad Mound, MN 55364 Re: Proposal - City Works Facility Unit 4 - TonkaWest Business Center Dear Mr. Elam: We are pleased to have the oppoprtunity to provide the following proposal for your significant facility requirement. The location of the facility is on County Road 15 in Mound (the old Tonka Corpora- tion plant). In this proposal you will find facility and financial information. In addition, we provide cash allowances for the City to minimize your financial exposure during your relocation efforts. Should you require additional allowances please contact us to negotiate same. The proposed area in Unit 4 consists of 20,789 square feet of 35' clear warehouse area. Immediately adjacent to the facility is a car park area for 82 vehicles. In the future additional car parks will be provided to the north of Unit 4, across the railroad tracks. We look forward to discussing in further detail this proposal and the specifics within it. Please feel free to call upon me should any questions arise during your review of this proposal. Yours very truly, S.R. ANDERSON BROKERAGE, INC. Scott R. Anderson President /kr BROKERS & DEVELOPERS OF CORPORATE REAL ESTATE City West Business Center, 6567 City West Parkway, Minneapolis, MN 55344 (612) 944-2053 TONKAWEST BUSINESS CENTER SPECIALLY PREPARED FOR THE CITY OF MOUND l) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) Zoning - I-II Lot Size - 566,280 sq. ft. Age of Facility - 20 plus years Gross Sq. Ft. Facility - 408,000 Elevations of Facility - Varies Address of Facility - 5340 Shoreline Drive Warehouse sq. ft. - Warehouse Depth Warehouse Width 20~~ sq. ft. Bay Sizing - 20' x 60' Typical Clear Ceiling Height - 35'0" Trackage - None provided PARKING 1) Allowed Traffic - Paved Area a) Light duty parking - 82 vehicles (shared parking) b) Heavy duty parking - No outside vehicle storage LANDSCAPING 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) Lawn Sprinklers - Per plan Number of plantings - to code Site sodded - per site plan Tie rail berming - None Site elevations - Slight variations for landscape purposes only. FLOOR 1) Floor load capacity - 400 lbs. per sq. ft. WALL- Metal Insulated Panel 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) Garage door openings - two Size - 10' in width- 10' in height Man-door openings - 2 (including entry) Ventilation openings - None provided Window Openings - per plan Construction type - Metal panel exterior Page 2 WAREHOUSE - Interior and Exterior Finishes 1) Interior Ceiling - Painted metal (white) 2) Interior floor - Cement, 1 application brock-white seal 3) Exterior wall - painted metal fascia 4) Interior wall - Metal panel or block (see plan) ROOF 1) Type of roof- bUilt-up metal deck roof SPRINKLERS 1) Type - wet 2) Amount - to group 3 ordinary hazard specifications HEATING 1) Amount - Gas fired unit heaters- capability to 68 degrees (standard code) 2) Thermostats location and area serviced - 1 for entire warehouse area. AIR CONDITIONING 1) Amount - None provided in warehouse area PLUMBING ' 1) Amount of baths - per plan in warehouse area, to occupancy code 2) Amount of drinking fountains - None provided in warehouse area ELECTRICAL 1) Lighting provided - 15 foot candles, typical fluorescent lighting. 2) Outlets provided - none - see Financial Section. 3) Location of service - Main service panel - north eleva- tion 4) Size of service provided - 800 amp 3 phase 277/480, not distributed UTILITIES Gas a) Where meter is located - per plan b) Where area meter services - entire tenant area - self metered ELECTRIC a) Where meters are located - per plan b) Where area meter services - entire tenant area - self metered WATER a) b) Where meter is located - per plan How services - self tenant metered ESPECIALLY PREPARED FOR THE CITY OF MOUND The following business terms are applicable to this proposal. Lease Term . .The term of the Lease is ten years, commencing on the earlier of the following dates: (1) the date ten days following the Architect's Certificate of Sustantial Completion or (2) the day The City of Mound first occupies any part of the building. The anticipated commencement date is October 1, 1985. An annual C.P.I. increase (not to exceed 6%) will be added to the base lease cost. Option to Renew . An option to renew for two (2) five year lease terms will be included in the lease. These options to renew shall be at the rent as set forth below and the rent as adjusted by the change in the Consumer Price Index (CPI for all-urban consumers for the Minneapolis/ St. Paul areas) from October 1, 1985 to Sept- ember 30, 2005. These increases shall not exceed 6% annually, and shall be on a compounded basis. Annual Rent . . . Warehouse Area (in Unit 4) Total Sq. Ft. (20,789) $2.50 20,789 $2.50/N/N/N (avg. cost psf) Annual Cost Monthly Cost $51,972.50 $ 4,331.05 Required Additional Leasehold Operating Costs and Real Estate Taxes ...... Leasehold Improvements . . Leasehold Allowance . . . · . For each expenditure above base building standards, and that certain improvement allowance listed herein calculate the dollar amount required and amortize at the prevailing interest rate over the lease term. . The rent noted above is net of all expenses relating to the operation, use, and occupancy of the building and related facilities by its te- nants including expenses in connection with the parking lot, atriums, bathrooms and other common facilities. We have not estimated these costs, but expect them to be competitive with other suburban office/warehouse projects. We have included in this proposal our addendum for the completion of the warehouse areas on the floor and the premises in addition to the brief base building summary contained on preceding pages. We have included in this proposal an allowance for carpeting of $10.00 per square yard including installation on a direct glue down basis for an open floor plan applicable to floors in the office premises to receive carpeting. An allowance of $2.00 psf. is included for those items required by The City of Mound to customize this facility for its specific operating requirements, and for those costs related to its relocation. Housin~ and Redevelopment Authority of Mound MOUND, MINNESOTA S5364 August 23t 1985 Fu?~MO RANDUM Tos Mayor Polston and Mound City Council -Froms Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Mound 'Subjects Commissioner Donald Ulrick Mr. Ulrick's term as Commissioner of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Mound expires August 29# 1985, Mr. Ulrick would like to be re-appointed fo= another five year term. Executive Director August 5, 1985 CITY of MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 {612) 472-1155 TO: ALL INTERESTED CONTRACTORS FROM: JON ELAM, CITY MANAGER Attached is a request for a quotation to perform some remodeling on the City's Community Depot Building on Commerce Blvd. These plans have beer, developed by our architect, Jim Horan (475-3539). If you have any questions, please let me or Mr. Horan know. Thank you for your interest. DEADLINE FOR QUOTATIONS: AUGUST 23, 1985, 4:30 P.M., CITY HALL The bids were sent to the following contractors: Jerry Kust Kust Construction 2709 Rosewood Lane Mound, MN. 55364 E. R. Berglund Construction 5138 Hanover Road Mound, MN. 55364 Dave Willette Option Construction 221 First National Bank Building Wayzata, MN. 55391 An equal opportunity Employer that does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, or handicapped status in the admission or access to, or treatment or employment in, its programs and activities. 'BID PROPOSAL Mr. Jon Elam City Manager Mound, Minnesota 55364 The undersigned proposes to furnish all labor, materials and equipment required for the construction of following renovation of the Depot Building, Mound, Minnesota. Item #1 install existing Dwyer kitchenette unit in the kitchen area. Installation includes relocation of unit along with plumbing and electrical connections. n];'L~ /~Un~a~/, ./tiFfT~ ~_tJn',m a/'~9//,~Dollars ($ ...... - q'5'7.o° ) Item #2 Provide and install new carpet flooring in Meeting Room and Hall. Install new carpet wainscot in Meeting Room. Install new sheet vinyl floors and vinyl base in upstairs toilets. Carpet should be Bigelow "Campus" grade, 100% Antron III nylon pile of color selected, or approved equal. Wainscot shall be approximately 36" high. Vinyl flooring shall be Armstrong's Commercial Sheet, ~085" thickness, of color selected, or approved equal. Base shall be 4" vinyl top set VPI code, or approved equal. Both vinyl and carpet shall be applied with adhesive recommended by manufacturer. Item #3 Paint all exterior bare wood; two coats to match existing. Paint entire upper-level interior; one coat on all wall, Ceiling, and trim. Painting shall extend down stair- way to all visible areas. ~tJ~f~4_5~ O;q~ .~_/1 _,~__/'/~; 7~.//lZ~;~_~.;'~Dollars ($. ~I~' O0) Item #4 Provide and install new wood sign (sandblast etched part of design shown). shall be approximately 12" x 90" and painted in two colors. Sign /')0 ~_'_~/ Dollars ($----- -- ) Bid Proposal Jon Elam Page 2 Item #5 Provide and install new drapery on all windows ia. Upper Meeting RQom, be casement type with pinch pleat valance and pinch pleat side panels'.. shall hang clear of windows. Drapery shall Drapes Side panels shall be 48" wide material pleated to hang at 16" wide. Drapery mate- rial shall be 100% cotton, flame resistant,'similar to Mitchell Fabrics "Columbia" pattern of color selected, or approved equal. All drapery material shall be lined with Mitchell Fabrics, 100% cotton, "Flameguard", color white, or approved equal. · ~0 Dollars ($ ~(o0.00 ) The undersigned agrees that all work will be completed ninety (90) days after signing of contract. It is agreed that this proposal may be withdrawn within thirty (30) days from this date. NAME OF CONTRACTOR 'A'DDRESS -PHONE NUMBER' THE CITY OF MOUND PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY IN CLOSING Should the City of Mound require improvements in addition to those mentioned on preceeding pages or in addition to the dollar amount allowance as discussed in the financial proposal of this section, Anderson Associates would be pleased to negotiate on your behalf an increase in base rent according to the terms discussed in the financial section of this proposal. A complete facility fit plan will be presented upon request. look forward to continuing leasehold improvement discussions with the City of Mound staff. We We at Anderson Associates are pleased to have the opportunity to present to the City of Mound this facility proposal. We feel it would provide a fine solution to your current requirements for space due to your current and future requirements. In addition to the attractive financial package discussed within this proposal, we feel that this new facility will fulfill your working requirements. We look forward to discussing in detail this proposal with you and the members of your staff. Should you have any questions, please contact Scott R. Anderson at (612) 944-2053. BILLS ..... AUGUST 27, 1985 Computer Run dated 8/23/85 Computer Run dated 8/23/85 Bills listed below American Natl Bank .. E.F. Andersen A & C Signgraving Acro-MN Allied Blacktop Burlington Northern Beermann Services Continental Lighting Economy Data Products Steve Grand Horan Associates Henn Co. Treas' Pillip Haugen MN Frac Sand Mound Spraying Supply Mound Medical Clinic McCombs Knutson P.D.Q. Food Stores Brad Roy Stevens Well Drilling Stevens Market State Treas-Surplus Team Laboratory Chemical Tools Unlimited Van Doren,Hazard,Stallings Von Klug & Assoc Wurst,Pearson, Hamilton Windward Communications West Tonka Interiors · Warner Hdwe Water Products Widmer Bros. Inc Xerox Corp Ziegler, Inc. Batch 854081 Batch 854082 Batch 854083 Total Bills Administration fee No Park signs Nameplates Office Supplies 1985'Sealcoat Proj Lease Recycling Pickups Fluor. lights Printer Paper Mtg exp Archltect services Assessor Services Weed Cuttlng Sand Weed Spray W/C exams July professJona! Serv July gasoline Mtg exp Pipe Supplies-council,recrea. Service Fee Chemicals 15. ton hydraulic jack' July Consult serv June Services 2nd Qtr.billing- '. Council Amps & Microph Repair carpet-Parks Railing Materials extensions Repairs & Services Aug pymts& Maint Latch for loader 351.98 268.55 50.00 390.74 29,773.25 583.33 1,005.00 124.28 61.41 7.56 1,172.40 37,944.75 327.60 82.80 11.99 26.36 4,110.00 ] ,553.20 7.56 62.40 119.27 3O.OO 233.98 1,]89.99 2,311.25 645.00 6,528.00 1,195.00 45.OO 93.77 197.70 2,10].75 616.83 ''8~99 '93,231.69 67,O38.86 25,280.19 93.,231.69 185,550.74 ZZZZZZZZZ MMMMMMMMM Z ZZZZZZZZZ 0 illllllll 111111111 N U I v U I I o02,7-. hi W U z~ 0 b.I Id W W ~l.1- U N 0 N NNNN N NNNN ~0~ N NNNNNN NNNNNN N NNN NNN NN (/) u- r- f- ~o f- o M Z M r' i,! -r' PI I I J rx~ N ~J ! I I ! I ! bJ Z I I N ! I I I I ~lt~ i Z N W W bJ I,,,- X ,,, Z NN NN '~,. ~. CIO Z z J I NN N~ zz~, I c~ I ! N NN N ~JN NNN N N NNN N N U W Illlllalll IIIIIii111 NNNNNNNNNN I I I I I I I I I I ('3 M ~ ~ Z ~ Z Z ZZZZZZ ZZZ~ r r r r r r r~rrrr rrrr ZZZZ l r rrrr rrrr r 0 I O~ ~0 I ~ I I I IIIIIIIIIi mm~m ~Z ZZZ~ ZZZZZZ ZZ~Z rr rrrr rrrrrr rrrr ,-I x ,0 Z 0 e ~ r- ---I ! I I I I 0 ~ 0 0 O. ,,~ (1. (1. bi NNNNNNNNNN NNNNNNNNNN N C~ 0 U ¢..) ZZZ UUU Z ~. ~,. ~JwkJ 0 NNN NNN August 23, 1985 CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472o1155 TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER The terms of all LMCD Board Members expire at the end of this month. I have served as Mound's representative for the past three years and have gained a great deal of knowledge about the Lake from this experience. In 1984, I was elected Treasurer and a member of the Executive Committee. I hope that I bring good representation from Mound to that Board, and if the Council would like (since I will remain a resident of the City), I would like to continue that for the new term that starts next month. A resolution designating our representative is required. JE:fc in the admission or access to, or treatment or employment in, its programs and activities, U.S. Department of Labor Deputy Under Secretary for Employment Standards Washington, D.C. 20210 August 15, 1985 NOTICE TO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT PUBLIC OFFICIALS On February 19, 1985, in Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority et al., the U.S. Supreme O-6-U-ff[ overruled its earlier decision in National League o~ies v. Usery 426 U.S. 833 (1976). Contrary to the position of the Administration, the' court held that the minimum wage and overtime pay provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) could constitutionally be applied not only to mass transit, which was before the court, but also to State and local employees engaged in traditional governmental functions. Enforcement of Garcia is likely to require substantial changes in State and local administration, may require revision of collective bargaining agreements, and could involve substantial additional costs. Covered employers may also be subject to private litigation for backpay and damages under FLSA section 16(b). Only the Congress can alter the terms and conditions of the FLSA. Consistent with the Department's obligation to enforce the law, this is to advise you that the Wage and Hour Division, where appropriate, is now investigating for compliance with the FLSA in the following categories of non-traditional government employment: (1) alcoholic beverage stores; (2) off-track betting corporations; (3) generation and distribution of electric power; (4) provision of residential and commercial telephone and telegraphic communication; (5) production and sale of organic fertilizer as a by-product of sewage processing; (6) production, cultivation, growing or harvesting of agricultural commodities for sale to consumers; and (7) repair and maintenance of boats and marine engines for the general public. This is to further advise you that effective October 15, 1985, the Wage and Hour Division will begin conducting FLSA investigations involving activities formerly con- sidered traditional government employment and involving employment in local mass transit systems operated by State and local governments. The Department's investigation period in all cases will extend back to April 15, 1985 and payment of FLSA back wages may be requested for the same period. The checklist on the reverse side is intended to assist in determining whether your jurisdiction is in compliance with certain elements of FLSA. It is intended only to highlight major FLSA provisions, and by no means should be viewed as an all in- clusive recitation of FLSA requirements. Checklist 1. Are accurate payroll and time records kept for your employees? 2. Are your employees paid at least the Federal minimum wage of $3.35 per hour? Are your empldyees paid premium pay of at least time and one half their "regular rate of pay" for hours worked in excess of 40 per week? e Do your employees who receive "extra pay" (i.e. shift differentials, hazardous duty pay, production bonuses, etc.) have such pay added in when their "regular rate of pay" for overtime purposes is calculated? Se Are your law enforcement officers and firefighters paid overtime on a "work period", rather than a "workweek basis"? Is the "work period" ? to 28 days? If so, are they paid-overtime after 171 hours for law enforcement officers and 212 hours for firefighters (or a lesser proportion if the work period is less than 28 days)? 6. Are your employees ever paid for time spent in "on-call" and "standby" status? 7. Do your employees receive compensatory time off in lieu of overtime pay? 8. Do you have employees who "moonlight" as part-time employees for other govern- ment agencies or departments? If so, are they properly paid for such work? 9. Do you have employees who "volunteer" to perform work for thei~ own or other government departments? These questions relate to issues which often arise under the FLSA..'Tt~,e,ans..wers to ihese questions will assist in determining whether you are paying your employees in ompliance with that Act. For information please call your local office of the Department's Wage and Hour Division of the Employment Standards Administration~ U.S. Department of Labor Employment Standards Administration Washington, D.C. 20210 Official Busine~ for Private Use, $300 MO UND C I TY CIT¥ CLERK 5341 MAYWOOD RD MOUND MINN 5536q. August 9, 1985 CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 Mr. David Hultquist Balboa Companies 5311Topanga Canyon Suite 300 Woodland Hills, California 91364 Dear David, There are two items that I think are still hanging loose and I need some feedback from you very soon. The first is the issue of the use of Industrial Revenue Bonds to cover the remodeling costs. I have been using Jeff Gustafson's earlier estimate that it could cost 2.9 million dollars to do the things that need to be done. That was way back in early May. Since then, the use of IDB's have remained vague. Greg has been doing the necessary legal work, but I still do not have any idea if it makes any sense to use IDB's. The problem is that the City of Mound does not have any IDB allocation. We have gone out though and with the cooperation of a number of other cities, have put together the necessary allocation at the $2.9 million level. On September 1st in order to retain that allocation with the State of Minnesota, it is required that a fee of 1% or $29,000 be deposited. This is in addition to the City of Mound's application fee of $1,000, plus legal or bond counsel costs. If we do not reserve this allocation, our dedicated commitment will expire and our chance of getting any IDB assistance in 1985 will be lost. My question is. Is Balboa going to use any of that financing for the Tonka Building? If not, please let us know so that we can lee other cities and developers who want to use those resources have them. I assume if we do not have an application before us by the end of the month, that will mean we can write the cities who have committed funds to us and release those commitments. Second, as you are aware, for some time. we have been exploring the deveiop- ment of a small business incubator center for say 10,000 - 20,000 square feet. We have supported this idea because there is a need for small, cheap space by growing companies and because today's small companies may ~~ An equal opporlun~ty Em,,p:oyer that Ooes not chscrirninate on tt~e Basis of race. color, ~aho~al or~gin, or handicapped status Page 2 Mr. David Hultquist August 9, 1985 grow to become tomorrowls strong ones. The City Council feels so secure with this that they have allocated $8,800 in our HUD budget for 1985-86 as rental subsidies for these businesses. We also expect that we may secure an additional $20,000 by the end of September. I am enclos|n9a copy of our proposed program for your review. In talking to Scott the other day, it seems that he may well have the entire first level rented and is now actively filling in the second level. There is a question in his mind that it is either not reasonable to fuss with these small businesses or because of his marvelous success at lining up tenants, he really does not need to explore the needs of these small users. Our question is. Should we be still working on the incubator strategy? It does not.really matter to us, but I have always felt that with 400,000 square feet, there would be at least some dead space that would lend itself to small users. If that is not the case, then perhaps we should be shifting our funds into other uses. What I need is some official thoughts on this from you. really cannOt go much further. Please give these two questions y~ur earliest attention. Without that, I Thank you. Sincerely, JE:fc enc· CC: Scott Anderson · Greg Gustafson Larry Blackstad City Hall- 200 Second St. (218) 624.3641 August 9, 1985 Mr. Jon Elam City Manager City of Mound 5341Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Dear Mr. Elam: As we discussed it is the Proctor City Council's intention to enter into a Joint Powers Agreement with the City of Mound in order for us to share with you $2.9 million dollars of our 1985 Industrial Development Bond Entitlement Allocation. It is my understanding that you or other parties will prepare all the necessary resolutions, agreements and the like, and that there will be no cost to the City of Proctor. In addition, if at any time it appears that the Industrial Development Bond Allocation will not be utilized, or there is some problem in submitting the necessary 1% deposit fee, call and advise me of such immediately. The Proctor City Council and I look forward to working with you and the Mound City Council. AS I mentioned to you on the phone, we received numerous requests from around the State and selected you as our first priority with whom to share our allocation. If you have any questions or desire additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Daniel P.Hoffman Administrator DPH/bo I00 vernon av, ue ;evtk, st. Ioul; park, rninncsota $$416 9to-ss3$ o Jonathan R. Elan, City Mgr. Mound City Hall 5341 Maywood Rd. Mound, MN 55364 Dear Mr. Elan: These are difficult economic times for many Minnesotans, and the cost of energy is one all of us must face. We live at the far end of the energy pipelines, importing 99% of our fuel. Thus we are vulnerable to supply interruptions and high prices. Minnesota's wholesale energy bill is now larger than the state budget. Most of the money leaves our communities,, never to return. For every barrel of oil or cubic foot of gas that flows by pipeline into Minnesota, dollars flow out, and with those dollars go economic activity and jobs. The Suburban Energy Issues Task Force in researching this issue has identified several resources which the suburban area could use in addressing the problems brought about by the situation described above. These resources are available to address both community wide problems and the needs of individual households. One resource is the Community Energy Council Grant offered by the Department of Energy and Economic Development. The depart- ment is planning to announce a grant cycle on August 12, with applications due September 12. If your community is interested in reducing the dollar drain from your local economy, the Subur- ban Energy Issues Task Force encourages you to apply for this grant. The maximum amount of a grant to a community is $15,000 and re- quires at least a ten percent local match. Joint applications may receive up to a maximum of $50,000 and again requires at least ten percent local match. In order to be eligible, a city must establish a Community Energy Council. Eligible activities include the planning, promotion, coordination, and implementation of residential, business, or transportation energy conservation activities; community energy planning activities; local government planning activities; energy efficient land-use planning activities; and alternative energy activities. Page two If you.desire to receive a copy of the°~rules governing the grant program, please contact Mark Schoenbaum, Manager, Community Services, Department of Energy and Economic Development at 297-3602. The Suburban Energy Issues Task Force is willing to provide assistance to your community if you should desire. This would include providing information as well as written support to DEED. If you are interested please call Bruce Larson, 920-5533. In addition to the Community Energy Council grants, funds are available ~hrough the Conservation Improvement Program (CIP) which all regulated utilities are required by the PUC to parti- cipate in. Richfield is the only suburban Hennepin community currently using these funds. The Task Force is developing several programming ideas which it plans to submit to Minnegasco for-use of the CIP funds. We will keep you appraised of this effort as we procede. If you should have any questions regarding the Task Force or the issues raised feel free to call anyone on the participant list. Sincerely, ~ ~' L -/'~/~a~r~s on ~ i~'i r~e r s on Suburban Energy Issues Task Force (West Hennepin Human Service Planning Council) Michael Noble, Member (Natural Resources Corporation) Enclosure SUBURBAN ENERGY ISSUES-TASK FORCE BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE BACKGROUND: The Suburban Energy Issues Task Force was established in January of 1985. It was initiated by the three suburban human service planning councils as a means to improve coordination of energy conservation activities and to develop appropriate responses to meet energy issues in the suburban area. Suburban municipalities in Hennepin County, human service providers with an interest in energy issues and county government representatives were invited to participate. Since its start the Task Force has meet monthly to develop a set of goals and objectives, to hear presentations on programming efforts throughout 'the metropolitan area, to exchange information taking place in our local communities and to ~evelop an action plan. Active membership in this task force has included representatives from seven municipalites, the three suburban human service councils, representatives from Hennepin County, and several no~profit agencies. (See attached list of participants) PURPOSE: The overall purpose of the Suburban Energy Issues Task Force is to promote energy conservation in suburban Hennepin County through the sharing of information, the coordination of existing pro~ram~in~ efforts and the initiation of new programming efforts when appropriate. GOALS: Improve public image of energy awareness in suburban Her, nepin County. Reduce suburban Hennepin County residential use by 10% over five years. Reduce low income energy costs. Reduce suburban Hennepin County energy uses for non-profit providers.' service Reduce suburban Hennepin County energy use for public libraries~ schools and city hails. buildings, Create an energy information clearing house. ~s~~~wEst hEnnEpin human sErulcEs planning board 41OO uErnon avenue south, st, louis park, minnesota 55416 JlEnnepln L~ I E~20--5533 _ Ruman ~! L SUBURBAN ENERGY ISSUES TASK FORCE ACTIVE PARTICIPANTS AND ORGANIZATIONS Firmus Opitz, City of Hopkins Steve Sjoberg, City of Minnetonka Steve Wolf, City of St. Louis Park Marcia Hale, City of Richfield Linda Terrell, Suburban Energy Assistance Program Betty Crouch, South Hennepin Human Services Planning Council/Energy Assistance Program Thomas E~ser, South Hennepin Human Services Planning Council Michael Noble, Natural Resources Corporation Alyce Osborn, Bloomington Housing and Redevelopment Authority Bruce Larson, West Hennepin Human Services Planning Board Susan Moore, Department of Energy and Economic Development Don Hauge, The HOME Program · Doug Crockett, Natural Resources Corporation Terry Barnes, Heatshare Mary Cayan, Northwest Hennepin Human Services Planning Council Myra Gibson, Fridley Cindy Whelen, Northwest Hennepin Human Services Planning Counci/Energy Assistance Program Brian Huling, Office of Planning and Development, Hennepin County leaBue of minnesota cities August 13, 1985 TO: FROM: RE: City Managers, Administrators and Clerks Ann Houle, Research Assistant New Distilled Spirits Excise Tax A new federal excise floor stocks tax of $2.00 per proof gallon will be imposed on all distilled spirits held for sale on October 1, 1985. The tax was authorized by the Tax Reform Act of 1984, Public Law 98-369. The person holding the spirits on October 1, the retail or wholesale dealer, is liable for the tax. This includes all municipal liquor stores and other retailers regardless of whether they hold off-sale licenses, on-sale licenses, or both. All tax due must be paid on or before April 1, 1986. Small retail and wholesale dealers may elect to pay in three equal installments due April 1, July 1, and October 1, 1986. To qualify for the installment payments, the gross aggregate sales from all operations must have totalled less than $500,000 during the last taxable year ending before October 1, 1985. Distilled spirits held by retailers and wholesalers who have less than 500 wine gallons (standard U.S. gallons) on hand on October 1 are exempt from the tax. However, they must file a tax return claiming this exemption. Dealers who have more than 500 wine gallons in inventory on October 1 are entitled to take a credit on their tax return of $800 or the amount of the tax due, whichever is smaller. An edition of Special Tax Return, IRS Form 11, has been modified for use as the floor stocks tax return. Tax returns will be mailed in early September to all dealers that federal and state records show are in business on March 1, 1985. Those businesses that commence operations after that date, or who do not receive a tax return by September 15 may obtain a return from their nearest IRS or Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms regional office. The address for the regional office which includes Minnesota is: Floor Stocks Coordinator, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, 15th Floor, Chicago, IL 60604 (312) 353-7740. The tax return and appropriate payment should be filed with the local IRS Service Center, which will be indicated on the Form 11. ~ .~ mniversiCy avenue ca,st, s~.. paul, mi,~nesoCa 55 fi 01 CS 1 ~) ~7-SSCDC3 Liability for'the floor stocks tax must be established by either a physical or record inventory. If a physical inventory is used, it may be taken anytime between September 23 and October 6, 1985. However, if it is not taken before business on October 1, the inventory must be reconciled to October 1 (i.e., adjusted for receipts and dispositions that took place between the date of the invocatory and October 1). If a record inventory is used, it must show the exact quantity of distilled spirits held subject to the floor stocks tax before business on October 1, 1985. Source records for establishing a record inventory must indicate daily receipts, dispositions, and on-hand quantity of distilled spirits. No standard format is required, but the inventory must identify all products on hand by size, proof, and brand. Retailers may, at their option, record only the proof and size of bottles in open stock (bottles in less than full cases). Retailers may also total and list all open bottles of the same proof as a single entry. Distilled spirits in transit must be recorded in the inventory of the person holding title to the spirits on October 1. Separate inventory entries should be made listing all such spirits and the date they were shipped or received. The following standard conversion procedures should be used for inventories: - Liters should be converted to wine gallons by multiplying the quantity in liters times the conversion factor of 0.264172. - Wine gallons Should be converted to proof gallons by multiplying the quantity in wine gallons times the exact label proof (including decimals) and dividing by 100. - For full cases only, case markings showing the wine gallons and/or proof gallons may be used in lieu of the appropriate conversion. Except for those distilled spirits in full cases, retailers may use the following procedures at their option: - Convert from liters to wine gallons using the shortened factor of 0.26. - Convert from wine gallons to proof gallons after ~irst rounding fractional label proofs to the nearest whole proof (e.g., 94.4 proof to 94 proof). If there is more than one municipal liquor store in a city, the stores together are considered a controlled group for purposes of the distilled spirits floor stocks tax. The less than 500 wine gallon exemption from the floor stocks tax must be applied to the group as a whole. (For example, if municipal store "A" has 400 wine gallons on hand on Ocober 1 and municipal store "B" has 600, the distilled spirits floor stocks tax must be paid on the full 1,000 wine gallons). Members of controlled groups may choose to pay the tax in installments only if the combined gross aggregate sales receipts from all members of the group totalled less than $500,000 during the last taxable year ending before October 1, 1985. A controlled group is entitled to only a single tax credit. The credit of up to $800 must therefore be divided among the municipal liquor stores in the city. The credit may be apportioned equally or divided in any manner the city chooses. Generally, a separate tax return must be filed for each location where distilled spirits are offered for sale. However, members of a controlled group may file a consolidated return if all the members share a common employer identification number. The common tax return must identify each of the municipal liquor stores in the controlled group and show the amount of distilled spirits held by each. If each of the municipal stores in a city has an individual employer identification number, the stores must file separate returns. If you have any specific questions regarding the floor stocks tax or the inventory, please feel free to contact me at the League office. PHONE NO. DSTATE OF EPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 296-3572 1200 Warner Road, St. Paul, MN 55106 July 25, 1985 Mr. Jon Elam City Manager City of Mound 5341Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Dear Mr. Elam: As agency heads for the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Metropoli- tan Council (MC), and the Department of Energy and Economic Development (DEED), we are writing you to urge your community to support and to initiate implementing the goals and recommendations of the Lake Minnetonka Task Force Report and to offer our agencies' assistance in this effort. Metro Water Access Task Force In 1979, our three agencies, at the recommendation of the Legislative Commission on Minnesota's Resources, banded together to form a task force for the purpose of developing a cooperative program for providing in- creased public access to metropolitan area lakes. The task force defined the term "adequate public access" and ranked the metropolitan area lakes according to their need for additional or improved access. Based on this criteria, Lake Minnetonka was listed as one of the highest priority lakes for establishing new or improving existing public access. Creation of the Lake Minnetonka Task Force With this in mind, the DNR, in 1981, identified a parcel of property on Halsted's Bay suitable for public access and with a willing seller. By February, 1982, local opposition to DNR's plans to acquire the site prompted Governor Quie to direct the DNR to abandon their plans. The ensuing dialogue between the Governor's Office, the legislature, the DNR, and Lake Minnetonka area residents resulted in the creation of the Lake Minnetonka Task Force (LMTF); which was charged with studying the recre- ational uses.of the lake and preparing a report on their findings. The task force was comprised of ten citizen members, nine government offi- cials, and a chairperson, Bob Searles, former legislator from the Minnetonka area. Both Minnetonka area and non-Minnetonka area commu- nities were represented as well as one representative each for boating, sailing, and fishing interests. The input of all communities on Lake Minnetonka was sought. Additionally, public meetings where held .to solicit input from individuals and groups. The task force found that there is a need and a demand for additional access to Lake Minnetonka. There is, however, no demonstrated need for additional lake access for AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER boats other than fishing craft and small recreational boats. The ~eport of the Lake Minnetonka Task Force, June 1983, details the workings, findings, goals, and recommendations of this task force. Lake Minnetonka Conservation Districts Role The Lake Minnetonka Task Force noted that the Lake Minnetonka Conserva- tion District (LMCD) ",.. should continue to be the primary agency in coordinating the study, monitoring, and regulating of recreational use patterns ...." The task force also recommended that the LMCD "... be responsible to coordinate existing standards for what constitutes reli- able parking in the vicinity of access sites and to maintain a program designed to reach and sustain the task force goal of 700 (vehicle-trailer parking) spaces." Recently, in response to this recommendation, the LMCD adopted reliable parking standards. We encourage your community to use these standards and work with the LMCD to reach the reliable parking goal. Request for Suppor~ Once again, we urge your community to consider and take actions which implement the recommendations of the task force. The task .force rec- ommendations specific to your community and the zones within your community are addressed on an attached sheet. Separate letters from each of our agencies which clarify our roles, responsibilities, and types of assistance that we can offer your community to help reach the task force's goals will be sent to you shortly. We are looking forward to working with you. Sincerely, ~ner Department of Natural ResoUrces Sandra Gardebr~ng, Chair Council Department of Energy and Economic Development cw85 cc: LMCD LMTF Members Legislators Hennepin and Carver County Boards attachment SUMMARY OF THE LAKE MINNETONKA TASK FORCE'S RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PUBLIC ACCESS Community: Address: Contact Person: Phone: Zones: MOUND 5341Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Jon Elam, City Manager (612) 472-1155 1, 4, 5 Zones* 5 1, 4 4, 5 1,4,5 Task Force Recommendations Recommendation: 'Mound Park - Add signs showing the location of off-site parking; add make ready docks; add additional ramp space; construct a fishing pier; and provide toilets, trash containers, public phones, and adequate landscaping. In addition, any or all of the following methods should be employed to reach the Task Force goal of 700 total car-trailer public parking spaces for the lake: Increase on-site parking by land acquisition where land avail- ability and funding permits; increase reliable parking by acquisi- tion of or through written parking agreements for off-street parking lots in the vicinity; increase long-term reliable on-street parking in the vicinity through written parking agreements. Recommendation: If long-term written parking agreements for existing access sites within Zones 1 and 4 cannot be secured, then additional access for small boats with associated parking should be considered to meet reliable parking goals for the zone. Recommendation: Additional fishing craft and small recreation boat access should be sought in Zone 5. Recommendation--Shore Facilities: Benches, trash containers, and toilets should be provided at shore access sites. Street parking at Emerald Lake/Cooks Bay should be secured. Recommendation: Lost Lake - Provides special challenge and oppor- tunity for a major access. Successful development of this site would very likely have the effect of reducing over-crowding at other existing boat access sites. Recommendation: If your community has a trail plan, the task force recommends that the plan be implemented to improve shore access. *To address the distribution of accesses for fishing craft and small recrea- tion boats, the Task Force arrived at a system whereby the lake was divided into five major zones. See attached map. 2 1,4,5 Recommendation: Implementing agencies and Mound should cooperate in monitoring any future land use changes at existing commercial access sites and should consider public access use prior to any rezoning for non-access use. Recommendation: When managing access sites and when considering new lakeshore development, particular attention should be given to the goal of improving access for fishing craft and small recreation boats. · · · · · · · · · · August 16, 1985 CITY OF 690 COULTER DRIVE · P.O. BOX 147 · CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 Mr. John Elam City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Dear Mr. Elam: As you may be aware, the Metropolitan Council will be holding a public hearing on August 29, 1985 to receive comments on a pro- posed amendment to its Water Resources Management Development Guide (Metropolitan Sewer Policy Plan) relating to the Lake Virginia Forcemain/Lift Station and Lake Ann-Red Rock Gravity Interceptor issue. The Cities of Eden Prairie and Chanhassen generally support the Lake Ann Gravity Interceptor alternative, while the Metropolitan Council staff currently appears to favor the Lake Virginia Forcemain alternative. Both alternatives would solve an iden- tified metropolitan sewer service problem relating to the Lake Virigina Lift Station. The Lake Ann-Red Rock Interceptor alter- native, however, could also satisfy both immediate and future needs of Chanhassen and Eden Prairie for local trunk sewer ser- vice. Chanhassen and Eden Prairie have spent a great deal of time working with the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission and Metropolitan Council's staffs to try to develop a local cost sharing arrangement to pay a significant portion of the gravity interceptor's construction cost in exchange for the partial use of the facility as a local trunk line. A cost sharing arrange- ment is critical because the Lake Ann-Red Rock Interceptor alter- native would be more expensive initially than the Lake Virginia Forcemain alternative. Chanhassen and Eden Prairie would like to review this issue and explain and discuss their position with representatives of the Cities in Sewer Service Area 4 prior to the Metropolitan Council's public hearing. It is believed that an informal discussion of this issue as well as other metropolitan sewer and land use issues involving the cities in Sewer Service Area 4 prior to the Metropolitan Council hearing would be beneficial to all. August 16, 1985 Page 2 As a result, you are invited to attend an informal meeting to be held on August 22, 1985 at 10:00 a.m. at the Chanhassen City Hall. Please let me know if you will be able to attend this meeting. If you are unable to attend, I would appreciate an opportunity to discuss this situation with you prior to the public hearing at your convenience. Don Ashwor th City Manager DA:k STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPART)~ENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE 7TH FLOOR AMERICAN CENTER BLDG. KELLOGG & ROBERT STS. SA~N~: PAU~ 88101 PHONE: July 26, 1985 Senator Tad Jude 235 State Capitol St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 Dear Senator Jude: During the Senate Public Utilities Subcommittee hearing in Mound on June 17, 1985, several questions on complex issues were raised. I indicated I would obtain additional information and get back to the subcommittee. Below are the questions and the Department's responses. 1. Extended Area Service: How is it priced and how are the costs of installing EAS shared? Extended Area Service (EAS) is a flat-rate, non-optional interexchange service. An EAS route may be between exchanges served by different local companies or between exchanges served by the same local company. In some areas of the state, the extra charge for EAS is not separately identified on a bill but rather the EAS charge is rolled into the flat monthly rate for basic service. In Continental's case the charges for EAS for the outstate exchanges are separately identified on customers' bills. In Continental's metro exchanges, however, the charge for EAS is rolled into the flat monthly rate for basic service. Continental has approximately 151 KAS routes in its outstate exchanges, along with providing EAS between its 5 metro exchanges and the entire metropolitan area. Continental is not atypical with regards to number of EAS routes. There are hundreds of EAS routes in service in Minnesota. These routes were all established at different times, under different circumstances using different pricing methodologies. Generally, when an KAS route is established between a town and the metro area the local exchange companies conduct traffic studies. These traffic studies help determine circuits and equipment needed to handle the calling going between Town A and the metro area. Each company determines how much investment it will have to make to connect with the other company. Each company takes its own investment costs and passes these costs on to its own customers. In Mound, for instance, the costs of the equipment Continental installed so that calls could go into the metro area are averaged over Mound customers. The costs of equipment that NWB installed so that calls could flow from the metro area to Mound are recovered from NWB customers. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 5_~. 3 Senator Tad Jude July 26, 1985 Page Two The above explanation deals with how the investment costs are split between two different companies. However, costs and rates are two different things. Once an individual company determines its portion of the costs for an EAS route it must determine EAS charges. EAS charges do not always recover or sometimes over-recover the associated EAS investment costs. In Continental's '81 rate case, Continental submitted an FAS cost study based on the Commission current EAS ~ule. On a route by route comparison, FAS rates varied from a cost under-recovery of 30% to a cost over-recovery of 750%. Since December of 1982 the PUC has had a moritorlum in effect on ~ petitions because of disputes as to the proper method to arrive at the true cost of EAS. The Commission has a proceeding established to address the provision of EAS and its current rules. 2. BYPASS: What is happenin~ with the Minnesota World Trade Center? Question fr. Senator Frank. The World Trade Center in St. Paul considered at one time the possibility of installing a teleport to meet its telecommunications needs. The World Trade Center has decided not to install a teleport at this time. Instead, the World Trade Center and Oxford Properties plan to contract with a company that will provide "shared tenant services." This company would provide a gamut of communication services to all of the individual tenants. These services may include a messa§e center, IN-WATS, intrastate and interstate long distance, local service, data processing, electronic mail, facsimile and least-cost routing. To provide these services a company basically installs its own sophisticated switch. Normally, these types of services would be too expensive for individual tenants to obtain on their own. By providing these services from one company to all of the tenants, the costs can be spread over a larger group. Hence the term - shared tenant services. The current jargon for these types of real estate developments include "smart or intelligent buildings." Whether this type of development represents bypass of the local and long-distance network is a question not easily answered. Many large telephone companies in the country are working with real estate developers to provide these services from separatesubsidiaries. From the local companies' viewpoint, in the metro area such developments as the World Trade Center represent resellers of local and long distance service. The resale of long-distance service is authorized by the Public Utilities Commission. The resale of local service has not been considered by the Public Utilities Commission, with the exception o~' coin-operated phones. The issue of reselllng local service will need to be addressed by the Commission in the near future. 2370 Senator Tad Jude July 26, 1985 Page Three 3. Does Mound and the other metro Continental exchanges subsidize the outstate exchanges of Minnesota? The cos{s of providing service to the outstate and the metro exchanges is an issue that is being studied in the current Continental case. The basic difference in rates between the metro and outstate exchanges appears to be the EAS for the metro area. If this initial info~matlon is found to be correct, no subsidy would exist. After completion of our investigation into the case we will be better able to answer this question. 4. A member of the public 'complained about not being able to call the University of Minnesota service on weed and poison information. The service provided by the University of Minnesota is called Dial U. Dial U offers information on numerous topics. When a NWB customer calls this number, they must dial a 1-975 first. This service costs the caller $2.00. NWB bills the customer and the charges appears on the monthly bill. Dial U service is made available by Northwestern Bell. Northwestern Bell and the University of Minnesota have entered into a contract to cover the sharing of the revenues and the recovery of billing and collection costs. The other telephone companies operating in the metro area do not perceive this service to be a part of basic local service or EAS. To provide access to this service these companies would have to enter into a contract with the University of Minnesota. United Telephone Company and Continental Telephone Company do not provide access to this service. Continental has informed the Department that access was provided to this service to its metro exchanges for some period of time but has cancelled access to this service. Continental feels that it must have a contract to help recover costs for billing and collecting with the University of Minnesota to be able to provide access to this service for its customers. The Department has been informed that Continental is not actively pursuing a contract with the University of Minnesota. United Telephone Company is presently pursuln§ a contract with the University of Minnesota so that customer access is provided. 5. Interim Rate Refund Issue for City of Mound In Continental's 1983 general rate case the company asked for an additional $7.2 million. By order dated July 7, 1983 the Commission authorized Continental to collect $4.7 million through interim rates pending its final decision on the petition. The interim revenue increase of $4.7 million was collected across-the-board by applying a uniform percentage increase of 29.3~. For the metro customers, the 29.3~ increase was applied to a customer's bill for basic service and EAS. For non-metro customers, the 29.3~ increase was applied only to customers' basic service. EAS charges for non-metro customers were not increased. Senator Tad Jude July 26, 1985 Page Four The Commission's final Order granted Continental an increase of $4 million. The Commission found that the final rates were lower than the interim rates and that a refund was necessary. The Commission approved an across-the-board refund. The City of Mound appealed the Commission's decision on the across the board refund to the Court of Appeals. The Court found that the Commission erred when it set interim rates by apply{ng an across-the-board {ncrease to the total metro rate (EAS plus basic service) but only to the basic service portion of non-metro rates. This resulted in metro customers paying a proportionately hi~her interim =ate than non-metro customers. The Court found that the across-the-board refund plan was unfair to metro customers because the plan refunded excess interim rates to all customers equally. The Court ordered the Commission to adopt a new refund plan based on the actual dollar amount of basic service interim Fates. The Commission has appealed this decision to the Minnesota Supreme Court. The basis for the Commission's policy on across-the-board interim rates and refunds lies in Minn. Stat. ~ 237.075, subd. 5. This statute provides that all rate design changes must be prospective from the effective date of the new rate schedules approved by the Commission. Briefs have been filed with the Supreme Court and the matter awaits oral argument. Under the current rate case, the Commission has authorized Continental to collect $2.3 million under interim rates. The problems encountered in the '83 case have been averted this time by the Commission ordering the percentage increase to be applied evenly to basic service and EAS for metro and non-metro customers. If you should need any further information please_let me know. ~B/MTB/~ 1 Enclosures c: Subcommittee Members W, JACQUES GIBBS SPECI,~ AGENT VERONICA C. THOUIN ADMINISTRATOR E~'A LOCKItART I~RKETING 8 August t985 Mr. John Elam City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Dear John, Nancy and I would like to thank you so much For your Follow up on the development of Three Points Boulev8:-d area. You've done a terrific job on what you said you would and we look Forward to completing the project. It's been a treat to work with you and you certainly have done a beautiful job For the city and For us. Si ncerel y, ~c s~~tbbs ~N~r 100 g]&SHINGTON SQUARE SUITE 1200 MIXXE.&POLIS. .~lX 55q01 (612) 343-2500 (612) 343-2550 REPRESENTING NORTI-P,~;'ESTERN ,~IUTL:,&L LIFE AND OTHER NL&JOR CO~IP.k";IES. league of minnesota oities August 9, 1985 IMPORTANT FOLLOW-UP ON AUGUST 6 MEMO! CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET RESOLUTION PRESENTS CITIES WITH PROSPECT OF INCREASED COSTS FOR SOCIAL.SECURITY AND MEDICARE COVERAGE Clarification of August 6 memorandum Information contained in the LMC memorandum~ated August 6 regarding the passage of the Congressional Budget Resolution incorrectly stated that all current state and local employees would be required to be covered by Social Security beginning January 1, 1986, if Congress votes to enact changes in Social Security and Medicare as directed by the Budget Resolution passed by the U.S. House and Senate on Thursday, August 1. The memorandum should have underscored more clearly that the Budget Resolution must now be acted upon in committee to have any effects on local government and the fact that.additional revenues sought by the U.S. Treasury from this source contemplate mandatory Medicare coverage for all current state and local employees while reserving mandatory Social Security coverage for new hires beginning January 1, 1986. It is apparent that Congress intends to require cities (as well as... states ~nd other local units of ~overnment) to enroll all current employees in Medicare by 1986, while reservin~ the Social ~ecurity requirement for all new hires as of that same date. This ~ould require employees to pay 1.45 percent of salary for Medicare as of 1/1/86, to be matched by cities' contribution of the same amount. Current employees enrolled in the PERA Coordinated Plan or otherwise covered by Social Security are not affected by these provisions since they are alreay covered by Medicare. In the case of Social Security payments, cities (and other units of govern- ment) would be required to initiate withholding of 7.15 percent of salary from all newly hired employees beginning January 1, as well as remit the employers' contribution of 7.15 percent to Social Security. The House Ways and Means Committee has already approved legislation providing mandatory Medicare coverage for all state and local employees to begin 1/1/86, so it is likely that the U.S. House of Representatives will act quickly to consider this issue. The Senate does not have similar legislation before any of its comm~ittees. The Senate Finance Committee is n ~3on,versityavenueeasC, sC. paul, minnesoCa55101 (812]227-5600 OVER dered the probable focus for action there following the current recess ends September 4). In light of these developments, it would be well for cities to determine the additional personnel costs that will result from enactment of both these requirements. Concerns from local officials must be heard now to dissuade Congress from this course of action which will sharply increase operating costs for many cities. Since cities will not know the outcome of such efforts before fall, for city budgeting purposes it appears wise to proceed on the assumption that these proposals will be enacted and the requuirements for employers will be in effect for 1986. Employee deductions and employer contributions for Medicare will be 1.45 percent of salary as of January 1. These extra costs would apparently apply to any city employees hired before January 1, 1986, who are under the PERA Basic Plan or PERA police and fire plan, a local police or fire plan, the Minneapolis Employees Retirement Fund, and those employees who are ineligible for PERA because they are paid less than $325/mo., are seasonal or are full-time students. Requirements that all new hires be enrolled in Social Security by that date will cost employees and employers an extra 7.15 percent of salary beginning January 1, on those classes of employees who would be exempt from Social Security under present law. ~any unanswered questions regarding exempt employees and the extent to current employees will be required to pay into Medicare will not be resolved until the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee begin deliberations on these matters in September. IRS'[ NATIONAL-SOO LINE CONCOURSE EHLERS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. FINANCIAL SPECIALISTS 507 MARQUE'[TE AVE. MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 5540~ 33B-B291 (AREA CODE S1~) August 1, 1985 FILE: Financial Specialists: Ehle~s and Associates, Inc. Please distribute to governing body membem In our last issue we saw nothing that would substantially reduce interest rates. But rates did drop almost a percentage point, of which about a fifth was lost. On 3uly I t, the Bond Buyer Index stood at 8.81%. What will the proposed tax law do to tax exempt bonds? Trade groups, allied with some public organizations, predict that industrial development, housing and student loans and private purpose financings will stop if their financings are taxed. Nonsense. Private purpose financings were and will be financed without tax exemption. But without the burden of billions of dollars of tax exempt private financings, public purpose financings will be at much lower rates. States and localities must vigorously oppose Treasury proposals to tax interest on bonds where more than t % of the public facility's capacity will be used by a private entity. If the facility provides a necessary governmental function or service and will be publicly owned, the financing should be exempt. This is not because of some "comity" observed by the federal government, but is a right reserved by the states in delegating limited powers to the federal government. Some counties, school districts and cities are considering leasing capital facilities. Many leases are subject to annual appropriations and levy limits. However, if the length of the lease is fairly short, it may be possible to enter into a lease/purchase financing whereby the entity ends up with title. Other long-term leases may be possible where the private owner/lessor retains ownership after the lease period. Minnesota counties may enter into long-term lease/purchase arrangements to acquire jails. Lease payments on these are outside of levy and debt limits. Such lease/purchase bond issues should be taken to competitive sale, especially since the county pledges its full faith, credit and taxing powers to the underlying lease, especially where bond insurance is available. Private sales often cost the issuer substantially higher interest rates and/or higher issuance costs. Sometimes an interest rate can appear attractive until one examines the negotiated underwriting and issuance costs which inflate the lease payments ,even though they're not in the "interest rate". Issuance and underwriting expenses are present value, not future value costs. Some leasing companies reduce the net interest rate by subtracting investment yields during and after construction! Looking at "net interest rates" alone can be costly. Enjoy your summer! Warmest regards, j~J~J~JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ [ ~ddddddd ~ddddd~dddddd --Solid Waste Grants Available to Local Governments (see page two)-- ,,, ~, , ~ ,& "~ ~ ,. ASTE ANAGEMENT BOARD ~ August, 1985 Volume Five, Number Seven ~ ~ i~~[~m~ ~ .~,~,,~,,~ ~ ~' F~ ~ ~.~ ~,.~',-*~ ~,,~'*~ ~ ~* .~.~~*~ ~ :~ ~ ~ ~'~'~ +.~J ~, ~ ~ ~_q:~,~ Smaller Businesses Targeted New hazardous waste collection service begins in state Minnesota businesses that generate hazardous wastes --especially such "small quantity generators" as metal fin- ishers, auto body shops, printers and dry cleaners--can now utilize a competi- tively-priced, statewide service for col- lecting and transporting hazardous wastes to commercial waste manage- ment facilities. The service is being operated by Na- tional Electric, Inc. (NEI) with the help of a $350,000 Waste Management Board grant. The Lakeville-based transport company has, in the past, specialized in INSIDE Hazardous waste regulations tighten for many firms · The waste tire dilemma · The magic is, "recycling .' pays" * servicing electric transformers for indus- try and collecting PCB-contaminated oil. With the new state hazardous waste transportation and collection system, many Minnesota firms which until now could not afford the high costs of hazard- ous waste transport and disposal will have access to an affordable, "one-stop" service to meet their hazardous waste management needs. At the Waste Management Board's July 11 meeting in St. Paul NEI officials reported on "Phase I" of their program to develop a statewide hazardous waste transportation/collection service in Min- nesota. The Board awarded the grant for the system to NEI in April under a program first proposed by the Board and autho- rized by the Legislature in 1984. The NEI Phase I report concludes that firms in Minnesota generating small quan- tities of hazardous wastes are not well- served by the existing system, and need a new hazardous waste transport and man- agement service. The report recommends a "compre- hensive, economical" service that will provide such generators with a "single point of contact for all their hazardous waste management needs"--and out- lines how NEI can begin providing for those needs. In compiling the report, NEI officials surveyed 209 hazardous waste genera- tors in Minnesota, 87 percent of them "small quantity generators" (generators which, according to federal regulations, generate less than 1000 kilograms of haz- ardous waste each month). The report notes that small quantity generators in Minnesota: · want to contain the costs and reduce the liabilities associated with hazardous waste transport and disposal; · often may not be aware of new regu- latory requirements, and may not know of--or may be dissatisfied with--hazard- ous waste management options available to them; and · in general, lack the trained staff needed to deal with waste management problems and requirements. More immediately, many small quantity generators cannot afford waste manage- ment services because of the high prices charged to firms which must ship small loads of hazardous wastes. "We spent a great deal of time speak- ing with the marketplace of potentia( cus- tomers during our initial phase of this pro- gram, trying to gether information on what the generators would need to serv- ice their needs in the state of Minnesota;' David Keyes of NEI told the Board. "The smaller companies typically do not have personnel on staff who are cur* rent on environmental regulations," Keyes said. Plant managers and others in charge of hazardous waste management for small firms, Keyes added, are looking for a one-stop service they can call and say "I've got a couple of drums of waste, and I want to get it out of my plant:' Under the current system, Keyes said, a firm that has generated hazardous wastes must find a laboratory to analyze the material, a transporter to haul it, and a NATIONAL ELECTRIC, INC. I (612) 469-3475 Toll-free 1-800-248-4475 waste management firm to accept it for treatment or disposal. For many smaller generators seeking waste transport and other services, "they're typically characterized by de- lays in service," Keyes commented. "In many cases, firms are quite dissatisfied with their service. They often have a continued on back page At the June 11 Board meeting. NEI officials (left to right) David Keyes, Assistant Director-Resource Services; Bil Hawks. Vice President; John Henschel. Hazardous Waste Coordinator. 15 million in grants available local solid waste projects As part of its $200 million capital im- provement bonding bill, this year's Legis- lature approved $11.4 million in new bonding authority for grants to local gov- ernments for new solid waste processing facilities. The grant program approved by this year's Legislature expands an $8.8 million grant and loan program for solid waste facilities administered by the Waste Management Board since 1980. When the newly-authorized funds are added to the unused portion of the pre- vious grant-and-loan program, they pro- vide for a total of $15 million in grants to local governments for new solid waste processing facilities. In authorizing the new funds the Legis- lature also approved several significant changes in the Board's program for as- sisting local governments in developing new facilities that provide alternatives to solid waste landfills. Perhaps the most significant change was the alteration of the program by law- makers from a grant-and-loan program to 'ogram consisting entirely of direct ts to local units of government. Un- original program 70 percent of the $8.8 million total was to have been dis- tributed in the form of Iow-interest loans. Many local units of government, how- ever, can issue their own revenue bonds at the same rate as the state can issue its bonds. Legislators, therefore, concluded that the loan portion of the program was not providing a source of assistance for local governments. To provide a direct, more effectiv~ source of assistance for local govern- ments, the Legislature earmarked the en- tire program for grants. As with the earlier program, cities, counties and special solid waste manage- ment districts can apply for grants. The funds are available for the costs of waste processing equipment, structures to house such equipment, and other capital costs for such projects as: · waste-to-energy facilities, including incinerators; · chemical, physical or biological modi- fication projects (for example, compost- lng facilities); · materials recover facility, to separate and recycle such materials as ferrous metal or aluminum; · solid waste transfer stations that serve resource recovery facilities; · incineration facilities without energy recovery capabilities, but with resource recovery; and . facilities for "speclal" waste streams, such as wood wastes and waste tires. In the earlier program, the Waste Man- agement Board made the following com- bined grant-and-loan awards: · $554,500 to Ramsay County, for a facility to separate and process recycla- hie materials; · $782.413 to Pennington County, for a facility' :hat will compress solid waste into "densified refuse-derived fuel" that will be incinerated to provide heat to pub- lic buildings in Thief River Falls; · $600,000 to Olmstead County to help finance a waste-to-energy facility at the site of the former Rochester State Hospital; · $685,000 to Olmsted County, for a materials recovery facility at the same site; · $600,000 to the city of Duluth and the Western Lake Superior Sanitary Dis- trict, to help purchase equipment to proc- ess solid waste into refuse-derived fuel; and · $950,000 tb Itasca County, for a fa- cility to process waste tires. Technical assistance for local officials in evaluating their solid waste manage- ment needs, and appropriate waste man- agement options, is available from the Waste Management Board staff. There were several key changes en- acted by the Legislature in waste proc- essing facilities assistance program: Old Program 1 ) Provided total of $8.8 million in bond funding. 2) 70 percent of the funds were to be distributed in the form of loans {repaid with interest), and 30 per- cent were earmarked as grants. 3) The maximum grant award for any one project was $1 million, with a limit of $300,000 for individual grants and $700,000 for loans. Projects receiving as- sistance were required to receive their awards in grant and loan combinations. 4) The program was a "demonstration" program. Applicants had to demonstrate a new technology or innovative institutional arrangement in their applica- tion. 5} Eligible applicants were cities, counties and solid waste management districts. 6} Cooperation among local governments was en- couraged. 7) Applicants had to demonstrate technical and conceptual feasibility of the project, their financial and administrative commitment, the economic viabil- ity of projects, and their evaluation of solid waste management alternative. New Program 1 ) Provides a new total of $15 million in bond fund- ing. 2) All funds are to be distributed in the form of di- rect grants to local governments. 3) The maximum grant award is 25 percent of total eligible capital costs or $2 million, whichever is less. 4} Projects are no longer required to demonstrate new technologies or innovative institutional arrange- ments. 5} The same local governments are eligible. 6} Projects which serve a single county are required to demonstrate that cooperation with other counties "is not needed or not feasible:' 7} Although similar documentation is required, pro- jects must also: -- conform to requirements banning waste incin- eration facilities from accepting recyclable materials, except for transfer to a recycler; and -- demonstrate that the project is not financially feasible without state assistance. [] As waste tires rnount, so do pressures to develop facilities July was not a good month for waste tires. Banned from Minnesota landfills by state law as of July 1, thousands of tires now have no Place to go. The ban should not come as a surprise. Waste tires have long been recognized as a problem in landfills. They are bulky, space-wasters, highly flammable and provide perfect nurseries for many kinds of vermin. A special commission on scrap tires was formed to study the problem in 1983 and recommended that the legisla- · tion be enacted, but the development of environmentally safe and economically feasible options for processing and recy- cling this troublesome resource have not kept pace with the state's zeal in keeping tires out of landfills. Currently, the only large-scale alterna- tive to dumping in Minnesota is a shred- Tires piled at the Andover site, ding operation in Andover operated by Minnesota Tire Recycling, But this opera- tion is only processing (into a fuel additive for industrial boilers) the eight to ten mil- lion tires already heaped at Cecil Heidelberger's notorious tire pile and only at the rate of about 2,000 tons a month. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (PCA) estimates that three to four million tires are discarded every year in Minnesota. Slightly less than one-fifth of that total has been going to landfills, and an equal number become retreads. According to PCA estimates, the remain- der are going to above-ground tire dumps or into ditches and forests. The landfill ban will make used tires more costly to dispose of, but it is also ex- pected to spur the develoPment of Minne- sota state facilities to process and recycle tires. State money is available to busi- nesses from the Minnesota Department of Energy and Economic Development for land, buildings and equipment to process waste tires; and through the new $15 mil- lion Capital Assistance Grants Program · administered by the Waste Management Board to assist local governments in the , if' Stricter hazardous waste regulations mean "rapidly escal When all provisions of last year's Con- gressional authorization of stricter federal- hazardous waste regulations eventually, over the next several months, take effect, the results are likely to include: · higher waste management costs for industry, · the inclusion of thousands of addi- tional businesses in the federal regulatory system, and · the possible closing of several operat- ing hazardous waste land-disposal facili- ties, according to federal and state offi- cials who spoke at a recent Illinois conference.' The conference, "Working Together to Manage and Site Hazardous Waste Facili- ties,'' was conducted May 21 and 22 in Chicago by the Illinois Department of En- ergy and National Resources, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, and several Illinois-based companies, with the participation of the U.S. Environmen- tal Protection Agency. The conference was attended by Waste Management Board Chairman Ro- bert Dunn, who later reported to the Board on the highlights of the conference, which featured, Dunn said, "the directors of all major segments of the U.S. EPA." Dunn said that according to John Skin- ner, Director of the EPA's Waste Manage- ment Division, stricter federal hazardous waste regulations are "resulting in rapidly escalating costs" for firms. Dunn said that nationwide, according to Skinner, at the beginning of RCRA [the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, which established the federal hazardous waste regulatory system] in 1976 it cost com- panies approximately $1 billion to man- age hazardous wastes. "When the system is fully developed, and all regulations take effect, it is esti- mated that waste management nation- wide will cost companies $20 billion," Dunn said, New RCRA regulations authorized by the Congress last year imposed much tighter restrictions on hazardous waste land-disposal facilities, setting such mini- mum technical standards on land-dis- posal facilities as "double liners," lea- chate collection systems and groundwater monitoring for new land dis- posal facilities, Newly authorized regula- tions yet to take effect will also ban cer- tain bulk liquids and specific hazardous wastes from land-disposal. The Acting Chief of the Waste Manage- ment Branch for the U.S. EPA's Region V--which includes Minnesota and other northern midwestern states--was quoted as stating that eight hazardous waste disposal facilities in the Region-- out of nine that currently accept hazard- ous wastes--are not meeting the new re- quirements and may close when those re- strictions take effect later this year. The Deputy Director for the EPA's Of- fice of Waste Programs Enforcement told the conference that at the present time 60 percent of the hazardous waste land- fills in the U.S. are not in complaince with new groundwater monitoring regula- tions, and that it's possible that, unless there's a major change in groundwater 180,000 additional firms will now be regulated monitoring practices, many facilities could close. "He said," Dunn noted, "that they'll be tough" with the new land-disposal re- quirements. The new RCRA requirements are also expected to bring an estimated 180,000 businesses across the nation--including thousands in Minnesota--.into the rank.~ of hazardous waste generators regulate, by the federal government. While the older regulations required businesses generating 1000 kilograms of hazardous waste per month to report such genera- handle them )pment of solid waste processing including state waste tire pro- jects. Many technologies for processing waste tires are under development around the country. Some of the most promising options, according to a prelimi- nary report on the waste tire problem by the PCA include: · Whole Tire Application -- Tires can be used in their original form for landscaping, soil erosion prevention, highway abut- ment cushions and even to construct arti- ficial reefs in the ocean. Tires are banded together and an- chored in coastal waters in Florida and in the Gulf. They become rapidly encrusted with marine life and provide protection and breeding grounds for many species. · Processed Tire Applications - Tires can be split or punched into shapes that are fabricated into products such as floor- mats, gaskets, sandals, dock bumpers and fences. An operation in Eveleth now makes fencing for stables in this way. Shredded tires have been used in Can- ada as a composting aid in waste water plant sludge processing. Scrap tires can also be reduced to fine granules called "crumb rubber." This product retains most of the properties of rubber and can be combined with binders for use in number of applications as di- verse as molded railroad ties, asphalt products for highways and athletic sur- faces. The rubber-asphalt products have been tested on a few roads in Minnesota since 1984 with mixed results. In June the Waste Management Board gave preliminary approval to a $950°000 grant and loan award to Itasca County and the city of Bovey for the development of a facility to process waste tires into crumb rubber for sale as a raw material for manufacturing purposes. · Thermally/Chemically Processed Tire Applications -- Scrap tires may be treated chemically or thermally to recover compounds present in the tires, such as devulcanized rubber, oil and gas. These processes, however, are still in the experi- mental stages. High costs and uncertain markets for these products do not make them economically feasible. · Direct Incineration of Scrap Tires -- ,s "formanY businesses tion to the federal government, the new regulations have lowered that reporting requirements to 100 kilograms per month, or about one-half of a 55-gallon barrel. The new minimum standard for hazard- ous waste generators will particularly af- fect many vehicle maintenance firms, metal finishers, printers and dryclearners. As of September, 1985, the hazardous waste "manifests" required of genera- tors must also certify from each generator that the toxicity and amount of waste generated by that firm has been reduced to the maximum extent economically possible-a reflection of the increasing em- phasis on the federal level on waste mini- mization and the reduced generation of hazardous wastes, an emphasis already reflected in programs in Minnesota and some other states. The Deputy Director of the EPA's Office of Waste Programs Enforcement dis- cussed the federal Superfund program, which uses funds obtained through a tax on industry to finance the cleanup of old OordOus waste dumps. He and other fficials, according to Dunn, strongly support a provision in the Superfund reauthorization bill currently under con- sideration in the U.S. Senate, which would deny Superfund cleanup funds to states that have not made provisions to manage their own wastes. The question of states ensuring that fa- cilities or other measures are available to manage their own wastes was mentioned by several conference speakers. The EPA, Dunn said, is trying to force states into more active hazardous waste facility de- velopment. He noted that most states, according to conference speakers, are not actively working to provide for such facilities, unlike the current "affirmative" efforts of such states as Minnesota and New Jersey. Based on Skinner's remarks, there is also a clear and growing presumption by EPA officials against overreliance on the land-disposal of hazardous wastes, and toward a preference on such alternatives as waste reduction and treatment. The views expressed by EPA officials, how- ever, indicated, Dunn said, that the nation cannot move out of an era of hazardous waste land-disposal unless it has more hazardous waste treatment facilities, and permits some disposal facilities, to handle wastes that cannot be otherwise proc- essed or reduced. [] Scrap tires can be shredded and proc- essed into clean rubber chips, roughly one to two inches in size to produce a tire derived fuel (TDF). The incineration of tires for heat recov- ery is one of the most rapidly growing commercial uses for large quantities of scrap tires in the world today. Industries such as the pulp and paper industry, ce- ment industry and electrical utilities have tried or are currently using TDF sold at In a 1984 photo, shredded rubber from waste tires is piled at the Andover site. prices competitive with existing fuels. That the technologies to process waste tires exist and can be developed in Minne- sota can not be questioned. But the PCA's report states that the success or failure of a scrap tire recycling project, as with any resource recovery project, is reliant on more than just technology. Other impor- tant factors include availability of raw material, market pricing structure, proper disposal incentives, transportation costs and government regulation of collectors, processors and potential markets. However, until waste tire processing and collection systems can be developed, the PCA is advising citizens and haulers to stockpile waste tires. [] Forestte is published by the Minnesota Waste Management Board, Board members include Robert Dunn, Chairman. Prin- teton1: Laurence Hunte~. Vice*Chairmen, Hastings: Kelth Kul- tars. Clerks Grove; W1111am Kirchner, Richfield; Milton Knoll, Maplswood; Louise Kudeding. Bloomington; Mary Robinson. Delano; Allan Eldeo Hittardal; Ernas! Lurid. Ghaen. Address inquiries to Waste Management 5oerd. 7323 58th Avenue North. Crystal MN 55428; i612! 536-0816 (Outsteta 1-800-652-9747). Tom Johnson, Assistant to the Chairmen Patrick Hirigoyen, Information Off;car Kavin Johnson, Deputy Information Offlce~' Mary eanarnan, Assistant Infofmatlon Officer ............ Promoting solid waste managment ( ntertainer works magic in drawing attention to recyclin -" The crowd gathered around the regis- tration table at the composting and recy- cling conference held in St. Paul on June 19 and 20, "New Roles in Recycling and Composting," which attracted local offi- cials and other participants from around Minnesota. They stood in rapt attention before New Jersey's recycling symbol -- and for good reason. If you could edge your way to the front of the crowd, you would see more than a pile of pamphlets or a poster. Rather, you would see Mr. R.E. Cycle, a top-hatted, silver-haired magician who easily con- vinced onlookers "the magic is, recycling pays." Mr. R.E. Cycle is William Romar, a re- tiree and gentleman farmer from South Amboy, New Jersey. He is the working symbol for New Jersey's Department of Energy's Office of Recycling. During the past year, he has visited all 21 New Jer- sey counties and half the towns in the "He stresses that much of our waste can be recycled." state with his message, "Recycling Pays." Mr. R.E. Cycle was conceived by Holt and Ross, inc., a small New Jersey public relations firm that specializes in the pro- motion of environmental issues. Regina Desvernine, head of the New Jersey recycling promotion for Holt and Ross, explained the appeal of magic for the promotion of recycling in a presenta- tion to conference participants. "It's a natural, because of the aspect of transformation, but we stress that the magic doesn't make it [garbage] disap- pear:' R.E. Cycle's greatest talent is getting attention from children, media, and there- fore, local officials. Recycling became mandatory in New Jersey in early 1985 and Desvernine said, "Selling people on recycling Was easy, but selling local governments was the hard part:' Local politicians turned out to get their picture taken with R.E. Cycle on his swings through their school assemblies and local service club meetings. One community's media coverage of the event would generate requests from all the neighboring towns and Desvernine said, "What politician doesn't like to get in lots of pictures? Usually the papers only run photos of them if they commit a crime.'° For $150 for a half-hour show, Mr. R.E. Cycle is a bargain, even though local funds or grants from a state fund sup- ported by a special levy on solid wastes disposed in landfills must cover this ex- pense. Desvernine said, "The state can't have a magician on the payroll." The state, however, does cover pro- duction costs, supplies and travel ex- penses. R.E. Cycle is also a symbol who knows his stuff. His routine constantly stresses that litter doesn't just disappear and that much of our waste can be recycled. He customizes traditional magic tricks to make cans, newspapers and bottles dis- appear, and reappear, recycled. With the help of the audience, even a live rabbit ap- pears when he hears the magic words: "Recycling pays in many ways:' With only $300,000 budgeted to pro- mote the recycling mandate for the whole state, Mr. R.E. Cycle's ability to get atten- tion is invaluable. The main benefits for New Jersey corn. munities, according to Desvernine, are that the state recycling tax pays for the program, that the symbol reinforces the message through a common theme, that a personal representative gets more at- tention than films or printed materials and that free media coverage is a natural pro- motional tool for a recycling program. "There is always a hesitancy to put money into promotion, "Desvernine said, "but we all know that the success of a program like this depends on it. You need to line up a public, create an issue, a con- stituency. Otherwise your support re- mains too scattered." Mr. R.E. Cycle stood confidently before the conference crowd after Desvemine's presentation, ripping newspaper to shreds and making it whole again with only a magic word or two about recycling. Beaming at the audience, bottles and cans went into his top hat and came out as dollar bills, a graphic demonstration that "recycling pays/' [] William Romer is "R.E. Cycle;' bringing the message of recycling to New Jersey residents. SERVICE (continued from page one) problem in having a job done properly, be- ;e they just don't have enough mate- )r [waste management] companies really interested in dealing with them. "From a transportation perspective, especially if firms are outside the Twin Cities metropolitan area, they often pay exorbitant rates for having their hazard- ous wastes removed from their plant," Keyes said. He explained that this occurs because even a firm with only two or three barrels of waste must pay "full truckload rates" to have that waste removed. Many trans- porters also typically haul hazardous wastes "in bGIk," while smaller genera- tors (the NEI report notes) ship their haz- ardous wastes in 55-gallon barrels. NEI Hazardous Waste Coordinator John Henschel added that one of the most significant findings of the report concerns rising insurance rates for haz- ardous waste transporters. Many trans- porters, Henschel said, have dropped out of the hazardous waste transport busi- ness due to high insurance premiums trig- gered by increased federal liability re- quirements, although, he added, hazardous waste transport was a mar- ginal business for many of them. -'1, Keyes added, has also contacted rdous waste management facilities throughout the country in order to secure contracts with firms to handle wastes collected by NEI from generators around Minnesota. Facilities contacted by NEI in- cluded 32 hazardous waste incinerators, 10 solvent recovery facilities, eight aque- ous treatment facilities and 22 hazardous waste landfills. "We were trying to find those facilities equipped to work with us in handling wastes from the smaller-quantity genera- tors,'' Keyes said. "More and more of these facilities are becoming interested in our service." He added that, while Minne- sota's hazardous waste regulations have been stricter than those of other states-- affecting, to a greater degree, small quan- tity generators of hazardous wastes-- regulations in other states are coming more "in line" with Minnesota's. Within five to ten years, Henschel said, commercial hazardous waste facilities will obtain more "clients" as they receive an increased amount of mixed shipments of hazardous waste from a variety of small generators. Keyes said that NEI has also contacted large generators of hazardous wastes in Minnesota to determine their interest in utilizing NEI's service for collecting and transporting hazardous wastes. For Minnesota hazardous waste gener- ators NEI now offers: MEETINGS AND EVENTS August 8, 22: Waste Management Board meetings, all day (contact Board office for locations). August 2: Hazardous Waste Management Planning Council, 9 a.m., Board offices, Crystal. August 9, 23: Solid Waste Management Advisory Council, 1 p.m., Board offices, Crystal. August 2, September 6: Waste Education Roundtable, 1:30 p.m., St. Paul Some meetings subject to change. For further information contact the Board office: (612) 536-0816 (Outside Twin Cities metro area 1-800-652~9747). ~ Minnesota Waste Management Board ~ -- '~- 7323 58th Avenue North i~~lh Crystal, Minnesota 55428 BOARD ~ City Clerk 5341Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 · a source of information and assist- ance for Minnesota businesses on whether specific wastes are hazardous, the cost and availability of waste trans- port services, and on hazardous waste treatment and disposal facilities; and · "truck to treatment" transport of hazardous waste, under which NEI will collect hazardous waste from Minnesota firms and transport them to hazardous waste management facilities within ten days of the waste pick-up. For information on costs and other ar- rangements for hazardous waste collec- tion services, Minnesota businesses can contact NEI at (612) 469-3475, or, out- side the Twin Cities metro area, toll-free, 1-800-248-4475. In "Phase I1' of the development of the statewide transportation/collection sys- tem, NEI will implement its collection service as well as apply for a state permit to operate a transfer/storage facility for hazardous wastes in Lakeville. The firm hopes to have the facility in operation by January, 1987. Such a facility--where wastes could be stored long enough to accumulate full truck Ioads--wil] include a laboratory for testing of waste samples. It will, accord- ing to NEI officials, enable the firm to ac- cumulate waste shipments over longer periods of time, increase the categories of wastes NEI can collect, and lower the firm's laboratory and transportation fees. Henschel noted that NEI expects to subcontract with other licensed hauling firms to provide service to communities around the state. NEI will also subcon- tract with testing firms for laboratory services to analyze hazardous wastes. "We're going to provide the service everywhere in Minnesota: that's our commitment," Bil Hawks, NEl's Vice President, told the Board. I BULK RATE U. S. POSTAGE PAID S/x July 8, 1985 Metropolitan Council 300 Metro Square Building Seventh and Robert Streets St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Telephone (612) 291-6359 TO: LOCAL OFFICIALS We are pleased to provide you with this Organized Collection Study prepared by the Metropolitan Council in response to 1984 amendments to the Waste. Management Act. Whether you are considering changes in the way refuse collection is handled in your community or whether you want to compare the level and cost of refuse collection in your community with others, we hope that the questions addressed and the information provided in this study are useful to you. We believe the study will help implement more systematic waste collection efforts in an incremental manner and are pleased to find that this can be accomplished without requiring a restructuring of governmental authority to regulate waste management activities. If you have any questions about the study or its contents, please contact Carl Michaud, Solid Waste Program staff at 291-6579. Sincerely, · Enclosure An EQual Opportunity Employer STUDY OF ORGANIZED REFUSE COLLECTION in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities Area 300 Metro Square Building, ?th and Robert Streets St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Tel. 612 291-6359/TDD 291-0904 June 1985 Publication No. 19-85-079 A special thanks to the Organlzed Collection Task Force. Mary Ayd~, Chair, National Solid Wastes Management Association Shirley Brantingham, Minnesota Association of Commerce and Industry Charles Kutter, President, Minneapolis Refuse Inc. Terry Miller, Waste Management Inc. Ron Moening, Browning-Ferris, Inc. Patricia Hoyt Neils, Plymouth City Council Luther Nelson, Hennepin County Bob Orth, Ramsey County Commissioner Vern Peterson, Association of Metropolitan Municipalities Betty Sindt, Lakeville City Council Carolyn Voss, Coon Rapids City Council PatScully, Metropolitan Council CONTENTS Page ABOUT THIS STUDY .................................................... INTRODUCTION ........................................................ 2 DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING COLLECTION SYSTEM ............................ 4 ~ntroduction ..................................................... 4 Regulatory Requirements .......................................... 6 Profile of the Refuse Collection Industry ........................ 6 Service Levels and Geographic Area ............................... I0 EVALUATION OF NEED FOR ORGANIZED COLLECTION ......................... 12 Can Organized Collection Improve Productivity and Reduce Collection Costs? ............................................. 12 Can Organized Collection Reduce Environmental Impacts and Improve Public Safety? ........................................ 20 Can Organized Collection Facilitate Implementation of the Council Solid Waste Guide Chapter? ............................ ,21 Can Organized Collection Integrate or Enhance Existing County and Local Authorities for Waste Management? .................... 22 LIABILITIES AND DISADVANTAGES OF oRGANIZED COLLECTION ............... 24 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS ............................................ 26 BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................ 27 APPENDIX FIGURES 1. Market'S~fucture of Refuse Collection: Residential Service ....... 4 2. Ma6ket Structure of Refuse Collection: Residential Service ....... 5 3. Size of Metropolitan Residential, Comercial and Industrial Refuse Collection Companies by Number of Collection Vehicles ..... g 4. Percent Metropolitan Residential, Commercial and Industrial Refuse Collection Companies by Number of Collection Vehicles ..... 9 5. Frequency of Residential Refuse Collection Charges ............... 18 TABLES 1. Selected Municipal and Township Licensing Requirements for Refuse Collection ....................................................... 7 2. Con~nercial Refuse Collection Charges tn~:the City of St. Paul, 1985, Monthly Charges for Weekly Pick Up ......................... 12 3. Monthly Single-Family Dwelling Residential Refuse Collection Charges .......................................................... ~4. Carver County Residential Refuse Collection Charges to Households ....................................................... 14 Metropolitan Area Municipalities with.Contracted Residential Refuse Collection: April 1985 .................................... 16 Metropolitan Area Municipalities with Franchised Residential Refuse Collection: April 1985 ................................... 19 ii ABOUT' THIS STUDY This study fulfills the legislative requirement that the Metropolitan Council prepare a study on the need for a system to implement organized collection of residential, commercial and industrial refuse in the region. Organized collection, as defined by the Council in its Solid Waste Management Development Guide/Policy .Olan, means a solid waste collection system wherein overlap of collection service areas and types of collection services is prevented or controlled. The organizing body may be public or private and may exert its control by directly pro- viding the collection service or contracting for collection services. This definition of organized collection covers all of the potential methods available for organizing collection services. The Council established a task force to help it prepare the organized collection study. The task force met over a period of two months reviewing the collected data and preliminary draft of the study. Task force members were selected to assure that county, municipal and busi- ness concerns were addressed in the study. The data used in the study were obtained from a number of sources including municipal ordinances and licenses, refuse collection com- panies operating in the region and national, county and other reports and studies. Some of the data, particularly price information, will become dated quickly given the nature of the market and industry. The study has five sections. The first section.identifies the ques- tions the study will ask in its attempt to determine whether a system is needed to implement organized collection in the region. The second section describes how refuse collection services are currently deliv- ered in the region. The third section evaluates the need for organized collection. The fourth section identifies the liabilities and disadvan- tages of organized collection. The final section provides the reader with the study's findings and conclusions. The appendix contains a listing of all known refuse collection companies operating in the region. INTRODUCTION In 1984, the ~tate legislature amended the Waste Management Act (WMA) to require the Metropolitan Council to conduct a study on the way refuse is collected in the Metropolitan Area. Specifically, the Council is to "study the need for a system to implement organized col- lection of residential, commercial and industrial solid waste in the Metropolitan Area." Organized collection refers to the manner in which refuse is collected from the waste generator. Organized collection means a solid waste collection system wherein overlap of collection service areas and types of collection services is prevented or controlled, The organizing body may be public or private, and may exert its control by directly providing the collection serviceor contracting for collection services. Organized collection does not mean that refuse collection.is mandatory or that the county or city will direct where the waste Will be delivered or that a public agency will necessarily perform the..~ol- lection service. The different methodsto organize refuse collection are contract, fran- chise, municipal or other private arrangement. The contract method is .where a municipality contracts with one service provider to collect refuse in a specific area and the city pays the contractor for the service. The franqhise method is where the city perm4~s one service provider to collect refuse in a specific area and establishes the price but the service provider retains responsibility for collection of the service fee. Munici. pal collection is where the city provides the ser- Vice with public employees. Privat6 arrangements include neighborhood groups contracting with a refuse collector for the service or several refuse collectors forming a new company in order to organize their collection routes. Currently few areas or municipalities in the region have organized col- lection of residential solid waste. Fewer still have organized collec- tion of commercial and industrial wastes. As a rule, most waste gener- ators arrange directly with a waste hauler for refuse collection services. Questions have been raised about this type of arrangement for refuse collection and whether improvements can be made to the col- lection system with implementation of organized collection. To determine the need for a system to implement organized collection in the Metropolitan Area, this Study will ask four questions. First, can organized collection improve productivity and reduce collection costs? This study will evaluate the costs of refuse collection under several. different market arrangements. And if there are cost savings to the household or business with an organized collection system, the study will attempt to identify where those cost savings are achieved. Second, can.organized collection reduce environmental impacts in the neighborhood and improve public safety? This study will evaluate to what extent organized collection reduces air pollution, fuel consump- tion, wear and tear on city streets and county and state roads, litter complaints, rodent harborages and vehicle accidents involving refuse collection trucks. Third, can organized collection facilitate implementation of the Council's Solid Waste Management Development Guide/Policy Plan? This study will explore what 'organized collection can do to'reach the objec- tives for abatement programs and obtain information about waste generation reduction or recovery. Fourth, can organized collection integrate or enhance existing county and local authorities for waste management? The study will evaluate whether organized collection can replace or complement waste designa- tion. Waste designation is the same as flow control. These issues will be discussed to better understand what organized col- lection can and cannot do for improving waste management in the region. They will also help to determine whether there is a need for a systematic process to organize refuse collection services in t~e region. The report will begin with an evaluation of the existing col- lection system. This evaluation will serve as the basis for comparison with organized collection systems and with the findings of other national and local studies that have evaluated refuse collection sys- tems and costs. The study will also discuss the liabilities.and disad- vantages associated ~ith organized collection. The final chapter contains the conclusions regarding organized collec- tion of refuse. The appendix contains a comprehensive list of the refuse collection companies licensed by municipalities in the region. INTROOUCTION DE~RIRTION OF THE EXISTING COLLECTION SYSTEM The refuse collection industry in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area is quite unlike the industry as it exists in most other major metropolitan areas. Most metropolitan areas have fewer, generally larger refuse col- lection firms servicing the region, or rely extensively upon municipal collection. In regards to residential refuse collection, the Metropolitan Area uses three different methods or structures for ensuring refuse is col- lected. The predominant method that is used is where each household by itself arranges for.refuse collection services. The household verbal arrangement system serves approximately SO0,O00 households, or 69 per- cent of the region (see Figures 1 and 2}. The role of the municipality is limited and typically requires a household to remove wastes at least once a week from the property. Some municipalities have mandatory col- lection which means.that the household must hire a collection firm to provide the service. Enforcement occurs on an as needed basis. FIGUB~ I it~2J(ET STRUCTURE OF REFUSE COLLECT!DN: ~S!DENTiAL SERVICE ;I~ARKET STRUCTURE OF REFUSE COLLECTION: RESI]]ENTIAL SERVICE P~rcent Hunioi~alit)es Served Percent Households in Region Hunicipa[ Franchise Contract ~ .2~ b4~: Household Agreement Numeric Tota[e Hunicipat Franchise 28~ Contract 78% Household A~reement The second largest method for provision of refuse collection services is where a city contracts or franchises with one company for collection services. There are 23 cities that contract for refuse collection ser- vices with a private firm and six cities that franchise or license one collector. The only difference between contract and franchise collec- tion is the method of billing for the services. Under a contract the city is responsible for billing whereas the waste hauler is responsible for billing under the franchise arrangement. Of the municipalities that have contracts, 21 are competitively bid and two are negotiated. Of the cities with franchises, one is competitively bid, and five are negotiated. Cities that have contract collection serve about 145,000 or 20 percent of all the households in the region. Cities with fran- chises serve about 9,000 or one percent of the households. The method which serves the least number of households, 62,000 or nine percent of the region's households, is for the city to provide for refuse collection services itself. Only two municipalities in the region currently provide for municipal collection of refuse, the cities of Minneapolis and Farmington. Minneapolis provides collection ser- vices to half of the city or about 62,000 households and Farmington provides collection services to about 1,500 households. In regards to commercial and industrial refuse collection, waste gen- erators typically arrange for collection service on their own with a waste hauler. Four of the municipalities that have franchise arrange- ments for residential collection also franchise for commercial refuse collection. Two municipalities that have contracts for collection also provide for commercial refuse collection in the contract. All of these municipalities are relatively small, consequently, the commercial ref- use collection system is less organized than residential collection. Less is known about the manner in which industrial wastes are collected than for residential and commercial collection. Because no city pro- vides for industrial collection, it appears that industrial waste gener- ators rely completely on arrangements between themselves and waste haulers for refuse collection. REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS Most cities license refuse collectors operating within their Jurisdic* tton; however, towns are less likely to license collectors. The pur- pose of licensing is to ensure that collectors operating within the city are reputable business operators and carry the appropriate per- sonal injury, accident and property damage insurance. Based upon infor- mation received from municipalities, Table 1 highlights the number of refuse collection companies that operate within a given municipality and.their license fees and insurance requirements. Where information was available, the table indicates the number of collection firms col- lecting from the residential and co~ercial sectors. Refuse collection companies must comply with other transportation regu- lations. Generally, these focus upon the vehicles operated by the com- pany and include requirements on the size, weight and safe operations. By far most waste haulers complain about the weight restrictions in the springtime. They are often subject to fines because it is frequently impossible to operate a packer and complylwith the weight restric- tions. Transfer stations would reduce total vehicle ~ileage and may permit collectors to use smaller trucks and remain competitive. Cur- rently, many'haulers use very large packer trucks because they are more efficient if they must travel a great distance to the landfill. PROFILE OF THE REFUSE COLLECTION INDUSTRY In the Twin Cities the industry can be characterized as very decentral- ized, with concentration of companies at the small end of the spec- trum. Information obtained from listings of municipal licenses indi- cates there are at least 225 refuse collection firms in the region. A listing of all known refuse collection companies operating in the region is included in the appendix. Most of these collectors hQve less than four refuse collection vehicles. Figures 3 and 4 provide a break- down of company size by number of collection vehicles. Although the breakdown is imperfect because the Council was not able to obtain information from all of the collection companies, it provides a good perspective of the make up of the industry. Several firms are very large and can be characterized 6y the considerable investment of capi- tal in equipment such as packer trucks, debris boxes, roll-offs or other containers. The data shows~ that companies w~th more than 40 trucks make up two per- cent of the total number of firms in the refuse collection business. Though the international firms collect residential, commercial and industrial wastes, other large local firms compete with these companies for collection of waste from the commercial and industrial ~ectors. X X ~,C~ ~37~ FIGURE 3 SIZE OF METROPOLIT~ RESIdENTIaL, CO~IERCIAL ~ INDUSTRIAL REFUSE COLLECTION COHP~IESI BY NUMBER OF COLLECTION'VEHICLES ............. · ...43 ................................................... t I I I I I I I I I 1-2 3-4 5-1e 11-4~ 4~+ FIGURE 4 PERCENT HETROPOLIT~R RESIDENTIAL, CO~ERCIAL PRD INDUSTRIAL REFUSE COLLECTION COHPANIES~ BY NUH~ER OF COLLECTION VEHICLES 2X 414' 5X ~,1-4g ~ 12X 5-18 28X 3-4 , 377 It should be noted that in recent years there has been an increase in the number of local companies that have been acquired by the interna- tional companies, especially those local firms that have a significant percentage of their business collecting commercial wastes. About 79 percent of the companies have ~our trucks or less and their business appears to be concentrated in the residential collection busi- ness. However, many of these firms do collect from commercial waste generators. The small 'firms appear to compete effectively in this mar- ket only if the commercial stops are near their other accounts and are not significant waste generators. Specialized equipment is needed, to handle wastes from large commercial waste'generators. SERVICE LEVELS AND GEOGRAPHIC AREAS There does not appear to be any difference in the type or levels of ser- vices offered by most of the refuse collection firms under either of the three methods for.the provision of collection services; In gener- al, residential refuse collection occurs once a week. For comercial and industrial waste generators, refuse is picked up on a more frequent schedule or as needed. The collection of large, bulky items such as white goods, furnitbre, etc. will vary depending upon the market structure. For example, in Minneapolis the contract specifies that everything a homeowner puts out for p~ck up will be collected, even large, bulky items.. Usually, under the household arrangement, households are limited to two or three 30- gallon cans. Bulky items cost extra, although leaves and other yard wastes are usually collected provided it is properly packaged for col- lection. Many cities with contracts generally provide for spring and fall clean up days to manage.leaves, brush and.bulky items. Some cities may require special types of pickup services for senior citizens. These arrangements are often specified in the contract where a municipality contracts for the collection services. It is not unheard of that collectors operating under the household agreement mar- ket arrangement will provide cost differentials to senior citizens. A significant percentage of large household goods are handled through other collection service providers such as Goodwill, Salvation Army or American Council for the Blind. In essence these organizations provide for recycling and capture of significant quantities of white goods, textiles, furniture., shoes and a myriad of household items. A number of the ~maller refuse collectors focus upon particular waste streams. It is difficult to quantify but it appears that some haulers work on a part-time basis and collect, possibly salvage, and dispose of demolition wastes, construction materials and other items. In our con- versations with the collectors, the Council found that some collectors who handle residential wastes are part-time too.. These collectors work primarily in the evenings or Saturdays in addition to their regular job. A small number of collectors are primarily in other business such 10 EVALUATION OF NEED FOR ORGANIZED COLLECTION CAN ORGANIZED COLLECTION IMPROVE PRODUCTIVITY AND REDUCE COLLECTION COSTS? Collectors use a variety of ways to establish a price for waste dis- posal. The costs of refuse collection and disposal may depend on the type of material; its location in relation to the landfill and on the collector's route; the size of the collection crew; frequency of pick- up; the type and size of container the refuse is in; the need for any special collection equipment; and whether the pick up is curb-side, alley or walk-up, and the pricing of competitors. Prices for commercial and industrial waste collection vary. Based on information taken from license applications from the City of St. Paul, co~ercial rates vary from S23 per month for weekly pick-up from a one cuUic yard container to $220 per month for a 40 cubic yard con- tainer. Table 2 identifies the range of prices for collection of commercial wastes within the City of St. Paul.. Table 2 COMMERCIAL REFUSE COLLECTION CHARGES IN ll~E CITY OF ST. PAUL, ~985' MONTHLY CHARGES FOR WEEKLY PICK UP Cubic Yard Capacity of Containers Rate Range Low High O.5 $ 3O.OO 1.0 23.00 - 37.00 1.5 22.50 - 40.00 2.0 27.50 - 46.00 3.0 32.00 - 42.00 4.0 40.00 - 50.00 6.0 60.00 - 65.00 8.0 75.00 I0.0 IO0.O0 15.0 125.00 - !50.00 20.0 140.00 - 170.00 25.0 150.O0 30.0 170.00 - 200.00 40.0 190.00 - 220.00 *Source: Licensing applications for refuse haulers in the city of St. Paul, Minn. 1985. For residential waste generators, the price for collection services depends upon many factors including the market structure for delivery of services, the type of service (alley, curb or walk-in) and level of 12 EVALUATION OF NEED FOR ORGANIZED COLLECTION CAN ORGANIZED COLLECTION IMPROVE PRODUCTIVITY AND REDUCE COLLECTION CUSTS? Collectors use a variety of ways to establish a price for waste dis- posal. The costs ~ refuse collection and disposal may depend on the type of material; its location in relation to the landfill and on the collector's route; the size of the collection crew; frequency of pick- up; the type and size of container the refuse is in; the need for any special collection equipment; and whether the pick up is curb-side, alley or walk-up, and the pricing of competitors. Prices for con~nercial and industrial waste collection vary. Based on information taken from license applications from the City of St. Paul, commercial rates vary from $23 per month for weekly pick-up from a one cuUic yard container to $220 per month for a 40 cubic yard con- tainer. Table 2 identifies the range of prices for collection of commercial wastes within the City of St. Paul., Table 2 COMMERCIAL REFUSE COLLECTION CHARGES IN llqE CITY OF ST. PAUL, .I985' MONTHLY CHARGES FOR WEEKLY PICK UP Cubic Yard Capacity of Containers Rate R~nge .Low High 0.5 $ 30.00 1.0 23.00 - 37.00 1.5 22.50 - 40.00 2.0 27.50 - 46.00 3.0 32.00 - 42.00 4.0 40.00 - 50.00 6.0' 60.00- 65.00 8.0 75.00 IO.O iO0,O0 15.0 125.00 - I50.00 20.0 ' 140.00 - 170.00 25.0 150,00 30.0 170.00 - 200.00 40.0 190.00- 220.00 *Source: Licensing applications for refuse haulers in the city of St. Paul, Minn. 1985. For residential waste generators, the price for collection services depends upon many factors including the market structure for delivery of services, the type of service (alley, curb or walk-in) and level of ..y 12 service (bulky items, recycling service). Table 3 shows the differ- ences in costs to the household as a consequence of the different market structures, that is, household verbal agreements, franchise, contract or municipal. For those households where the municipality contracts for waste'collection, total costs to the household {TCHS} averages $6.03 per month. TCHS with a franchise arrangement averages $7.03 per month. Where an individual household arranges with a waste hauler for refuse collection, the TChS averages $8.21 per month. Under the municipal collection arrangement in Minneapolis, the ¥CHS averages $7.02 per month whereas the TCHS for municipal collection in Farmington is $8.67 per month. These costs are averages and do not reflect differ- ences in the type of services provided for or whether the service is curb-side, alley or walk-in. It should.be understood that.al.__~l households will pay for refuse collec- tion when the city contracts for refuse collection. Under the system where each household arranges for refuse collection services, only those households desiring the service will pay and oftentimes two or more households will double up on one account. Some haulers estimate that about 10 percent of the households in the St. Paul area do this. Table 3 MONTHLY SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING RESIDENTIAL REFUSE COLLECTION CHARGES1 Market Structure Household agreement2 Franchise2 Contract3,4 Municipal: Farmington2. Minneapolis~ Mean Monthly Charge $8.21 7.03 6.03 Mean Monthly Seniors/Disabled Charqe $5.57 4~44 3.64 8.67 N/A 7.02 N/A 1Mean monthly base rate for weekly, collection o~ a 60-gallon refuse contain (or the equivalent) curbside. 2Not including walk-up service, bulky items, extra collection. The majority do not use transfer stations. 3Approximately half include bulky items, spring clean up. Only Minneapolis includes walk-up service. The majority do not use transfer stations. 4Minneapolis includes walk-up service, bulky items, extra col- lection, but not commercial or industrial wastes. 13 Why is it that refuse collection is more expensive when the household arranges for collection services than when the municipality contracts for it? National studies completed by the Center For Government Stud- ies of the Graduate School of Business at Columbia University have shown that prices paid by households for contract or franchise collec- tion where it w~s mandatory to use the designated private collector are lower than those prices paid by households who use a private firm which is not under contract to the city or which does not have an exclusive franchise. The studies noted that the difference in price can be attributed to economies of scale and economies of contiguity (for example, the ability to service all households along a given route, thereby reducing travel time between stops) achieved by firms under contract and exclusive franchise as well as lower billing costs associated with firms under contract. The study was based upon a survey of 2,060 cities with a combined population of 52 million people. A recent study completed for Carver County by John and Michele Genereux described the refuse collection industry in the county. Although stat- istical tests were not completed on comparing the costs of providing refuse collection services among the municipalities within the county, Table 4 shows that monthly costs to the household are about S1.50 to 3.20 per month less where organized collection exists. For example, households in the cities of Mayer, Hamburg and New Germany pay ~5.73 per month for refuse collection as opposed to households in the cities of Chanhassen, Chaska, Carver, Victoria, Cologne and Waconia, which do not have organized collection, pay S7.80 to 9.50 per month. All the waste in Carver County. is disposed of at the Louisvil'l.e landfill. Table 4 CARVER COUNTY RESIDENTIAL REFUSE COLLECTION CHARGES TO HOUSEHOLDS* '/ Number of Communlity Haulers Median Monthly Residential Rate Carver 2 8.00 Chanhassen 7 7.00 - 9.50 Chaska 5 8.00 - 9.50 Cologne 5 7.80 - 9.50 Mayer/Hamburg/New Germany 1 5.73 Norwood 1 6.60 Victoria 3 7.80 - 9.50 Waconia 2 7.80 - 8.00 Watertown 1 6.30 - 8.00 Young America 1 6.30 *Source: A description of the private waste hauling system in Carver County.. For the county of Carver. John P. and M. Michele Genereux. Feb. 26, 1985. The elimination of 'overlapped collection routes provides for increased efficiency for collection of wa~te~. It allows a collector to pick up refuse from more households within the same'amount of time. The city of St. Paul, when it considered organized collection of refuse, esti- mated that a collector could do at least 50 more pickups in an eight- hour day, an increase of 20 percent. Waste collectors in Minneapolis noted similar increases in efficiency when collection services were organized. Additional efficiencies could be achieved with the establishment of transfer stations in the region. Even if collection routes were organ- ized, all haulers in St. Paul for example, must still travel at least 30 miles to the landfill. Each collector spends at least one hour and 20 minutes on the average delivering waste to the landfill. A transfer station would permit a hauler to collect from more households if less time is spent traveling to and from the landfill. Similarly, labor costs are reduced because more households can be serviced within the same amount of time by one person. Transfer stations significantly reduce operating and maintenances costs of refuse collection. However, they do increase the capital costs of solid waste management. These costs should be considered in vi.ew of the reduced mileage and travel time spent by refuse trucks going to the landfill. Currently, there are few transfer stations in use in the region. The travel distance to the landfill is an important factor in the costs of solid waste management. All the municipalities in the region that have some form of organized collection system with a contract are listed in Table 5. Costs per household range from S3.88 for Wayzata to S8.50 for St. Bonifacius. There does not appear to be any substantial difference in the type or level of service provided to Wayzata or St. Bonifacius. Other fac- tors, such as the distance from the cities to the landfill, the one con- tractor might have bid the job at a loss, may play a role in the differ- ence. Some of the differences in costs among the cities with contract collection are attributable to different levels of service (curbside or alley pickup versus walk-up); collection of bulky items; distance to the landfill; recycling programs; and profit percentages. Administra- tion and monitoring costs amount to about five percent of the total cost of the contract according to the study be Ecodata, Inc. It is unclear whether cities recover their costs for billing expenses. Some contracts specify the companyto provide an on-call supervisor for handling complaints. Altogether, cities that have organized refuse collection have service costs about one-fourth to one-third less than those relying on individ- ual households to arrange for collection services. The cost for refuse collection to households in contract cities is consistently less expen- sive than for'households that make their own arrangements for refuse collection. It appears these cost differences can be accounted for by the market structure of the collection services, that is, organized versus unorganized. Other unknown factors may play a role in the cost 15 · differences. Figure 5 h~ghlights the d#ferences in cost to the house- hold per month for refuse collection when there are one or more hauler~ servicing a munitipality. The increased costs in the household agree- ment system which averages $8.21 per month are due to the extra costs associated with the non-exclusivity of collection in a given area. Municipalities. or townships with franchise collections are listed in Table 6. The costs to the household per month under a franchise arrangement range from a low of $a.32 for Jordan to a high of $8.75 for Afton. The average cost per month for all the franchise arrangements is $7.03. All but one of the franchise agreements are negotiated between the waste hauler and the city. There is little information available to document whether organized collection of commercial and industrial refuse could result in cost savings to the waste generator. Based upon the available data from residential refuse collection, it is reasonable to infer that some of the diseconomies associated with each commercial waste generator arranging for refuse collection exist as it does for the residential sector. Presumably, some cost efficiencies could be achieved if ser- vice to commercial waste generators could be provl.ded for in conjunc~ tion with organized collection of residential refuse. Additional study is needed to document whether a reduction in costs is realistic. Fur- thermore, the practicality of an organized collection system for commer- cial waste generators depends on several factors including the type of waste requiring disposal, frequency of service, proper collection equip- ment and suitable pricing arrangements. Appropriate ~ommercial estab- lishments Could be folded into an organized residential collection route. Refuse collection services are in many ways similar to a utility°s function and services such as water, sewer, or electricity. The demand for refuse collection services, as for most utilities, is inelastic, Ghat is people have a need for the service but do not demand more ser- vice if the price goes down. If demand is inelastic, economic theory says that tax increases will pass through to the consumer of the ser- vice or goods. Households in the region h'ave experienced increases in their bills as a direct result of the surcharge on tipping fees at the landfill. Most increases were about 50 cents per household per month or $6 annually. This is approximately the increase that could be expected as a consequence of the surcharge if it were all passed directly back to the consumer based upon the amount of waste generated by a typical household in one year. At least one contract between a municipality and hauler, Hastings, was recently renegotiated as a direct result of the surcharge on disposal fees according to a city official. Columbia Heights provided a clause in its contract for com- plete reimbursement of additional landfill fees approved after 1985. 17 Figure 5. FREQUENCY OF RESIDENTIAL REFUSE COLLECTION CHARGES (MAY 1985) 0 Type of Service: ~ Contra~t ~ Household Agreement ( 104 heulet-s resl3onded with 186 c~arges) 3.O 4.0 5.0 .6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10,0 11.0 Monthly S~ngle Fam~y Collection Charge in Doltars (rounded to nearest ha~f-dollar) I .12.0 18.0 14.0 8ource: Metrol3olita~ Council survey, M~y 1985. 19 CAN ORO:AN!ZED COLLECTION REDUCE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND IMPROVE PUBLIC SAFETY? Organized collection does reduce nuisance impacts associated with sev- eral refuse collectors picking up waste on the same block. Organized collection reduces wear and tear on roads and improves air quality because fuel consumption is reduced. Organized collection improves public safety because fewer miles are traveled by garbage trucks thereby decreasing the potential for accidents. The expected life of any street or alley surface is related to the traf- fic which is carried by the street or alley. The roadway surface is particularly affected by heavy wheel loads. The effect on a roadway of one refuse truck is equivalent to 1,5OO automobiles. This figure has been documented by the Research Section of the Minnesota_Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) and is currently used by Mn/DOT in street' and highway design. In its organized collection efforts, St. Paul estimated to what degree the life of a street can be extended if refuse collection were organ- ized. The city assumed that if under the current system, where each household arranges for collection, traffic volume on ~ given street is 500 cars per day and five refuse trucks per week, the equivalent' traf- fic on the street amounts to 11,OO0 cars per week. Under an organized collection system with only one refuse truck per week, the equivalent traffic on the street is 5,000 cars per week. The comparison shows that the effect on the roadway by traffic may be substantially reduced. Realistically, all streets might not last substantially longer under an organized collection system because roadway life is dependent upon many other factors than traffic. However, traffic does have a significant effect upon roadway life. These additional roadway costs are external costs passed on the the city as a consequence of each household arrang- ing for refuse collection. The reduced mileage that refuse trucks travel can reduce the potential number of accidents involving garbage trucks. Reducing the number of miles traveled by garbage trucks reduces traffic congestion and .may reduce the number of accidents. Emissions of air pollutants would be reduced because garbage trucks .would ~educe total mileage. The precise reduction in pollutants as a result of moving to an organized collection system is difficult to predict because there are both gasoline and diesel powered collection vehicles, and it is difficult to estimate the reduction in traffic congestion and miles traveled by garbage trucks that would be achieved by organized collection. The emission rates of pollutants vary accord- in~ to the speed of the vehicle with more emissions at lower speeds. Emissions of importance include hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides. Heavy duty diesel trucks also emit particulates, 2O sulfur oxides, aldehydes and organic acids. Of particular concern are particulate emissions from diesel engines because they contain ~oly- nuclear aromatic hydrocarbons {PAH} which are known carcinogens. Organized collection is one of several methods that could improve neighborhood aesthetics. It could eliminate the unsightliness of containers set out for collection sometimes every day of the week on some blocks. Organized collection could discourage illegal dumping and stockpiling of unwanted and unsightly items in backyards because the costs of removal are generally extra where a household arranges for collection with a waste hauler. Reducing litter, dumping and stock- piling could contribute to public health and safety. CAN ORGANIZED COLLECTION FACILITATE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COUNCIL °S sOLID WASTE GUIDE CHAPTER? This section of the report will evaluate to what extent organized col- lection can facilitate attainment of the objectives for waste manage- ment contained in the Council's solid waste policy pl,an. Three main areas of concern are the objectives for recycling, management of house- hold hazardous wastes and improved data collection and management. Organized collection of mixed municipal solid waste will not necessar- ily increase participation in recycling activities or the amounts of materials recycled. The hauler providing collection services for recy- clables, if operating-under the system where each household arranges for collection services, is at a competitive disadvantage because the revenues from recyclables may not cover the additional collection costs. This is one reason why few refuse haulers in the Metropolitan Area provide for comprehensive recyclables collection. If a hauler does provide for recyclables collection, it is probably for a limited number of materials, that which can be collected in racks attached to the packer truck. In some communities in the Metropolitan Area where franchises or con- tracts are provided for by the municipality, some haulers are providing for recyclables collection or separate collection of yard waste to reduce their cost at the landfill. A municipality can more easily pro- vide monetary or other incentives to the hauler, household or business. to participate in source separation activities if collection is organized. Under the system where each household arranges for collection service, haulers have the opportunity to assess the household's fee based upon the volume of refuse collected. As land disposal fees rise and become a greater percentage of total cost of solid waste management, one would expect differences in monthly rates attributable to the amount of refuse generated. This provides direct feedback to the household or waste generation as opposed to most existing contract arrangements where all households pay the same monthly fee regardless of the volume of waste generated. However, a variable rate could be established under a contract arrangement if so desired by the municipality. 21 In regards to ~ata collection and management, a municipality with organ- ized collection, depending upon how it is implemented, more easily can facilitate the development of a comprehensive data collection and man- agement system for solid waste. Organized collection could facilitate collection of information about the quantities of waste generated, recycled or processed in municipalities by population or households, or businesses. This information could'be used by the Council and counties to target incentives for abatement programs and focus the direction of the Metropolitan Abatement Fund grant and loan program administered by the Council. CAN ORGANIZED COLLECTION INTEGRATE OR ENHANCE EXISTING COUNTY AND LOCAL AUTHORITIES FOR WASTE MANAGEMENT? Currently, municipalities have the authority for provision of waste collection seKvices. Municipalities have the authority to implement resource recovery facilities by virture of its authority over collec- tion of waste. Counties, on the other hand, have responsibility for overall waste management within the county but may not have the authority for requiring collection services. Consequently, in the past, development of resource recovery facilities by the counties is made more tentative because of their lack of authority to ensure a waste flow to the facility. Currently, state law provides counties with the authority for waste designation. This authority enables the county to direct the flow of refuse to a designated resource recovery facility. T~e provisions enabling county designation were adopted in 1980. The general issue of need for designation {flow control) has been debated by the legislature for the past 10 years. When the Legislative Commission on Waste Management was created in 1980, it was charged in part with studying alternative methods of insuring adequate waste supplies for resource recovery facilities. The Conrnission°s report, completed in 1982, concluded that the feasibility of resource recovery facilities is dependent upon waste supply, the soundness of the tech-._. nology and markets for the recovered product. The Commission foun~ that the waste stream must be assured in some manner to assure financ- ing and to permit efficient operation. Generally waste is assu~ed by requiring delivery to a facility, but the Commission recognized that under rare circumstances, such as the lack of any other disposal alter- native, explicit waste assurance might not be needed. The system of refuse collection where each household and business inde- pendently arranges for waste collection service makes the development of resource recovery facilities more complicated because an individual hauler cannot guarrantee delivery of waste to a resource recovery facility. From day-to-day or month-to-month, the waste generator's decision on which hauler to use can change. Though the waste ts still there and must be collected, there is no assurance that the new waste hauler will deliver the waste to the same facility the previous collector used. 22 In other parts of the c~untry, several resource recovery facilities rely on long-term contracts with municipalities for their waste sup- ply. In some cases the municipal workers collect the waste and in others, the city contracts with private haulers for the service. In these cases organized collection merely substitutes municipal designa- tion for county designation. Because few Twin Cities con~nunities pro- vide collection service, this approach is not available in our region. There is only one municipality in the region that generates enough waste by itself to construct even a medium-sized resource recovery facility, that is a facility that could manage about 500 tons per day. Currently, none of the Metropolitan Area communities that contract for service specify where waste is to be delivered for disposal; that choice is left to the hauler. Specification of a disposal site, however,-~6~ld.'be incorporated as part of the service agreements. This is one way in which organized collection could potentially be a strong complement to waste designation. If successfully negotiated, contracts between resource recovery facilities and municipalities could provide for delivery of adequate waste supplies. In a parallel vein, haulers operating under collection service agreements would have an enhanced capability to contract with recovery facilities for delivery of waste. In either case, the effort and complexity required to enforce waste designation could be Substantially lessened. 'The degree of this effect would be directly proportional to the length of the contracts. 23 LIABILITIES AND DISADVANTAGES OF ORGANIZED COLLECTION There are four p~tential liabilities or disadvantages to organized collection of refuse. Organized collection reduces an individual's choice of garbage collectors, requires additional municipal involve- ment, broaches anti-trust issues and could potentially adversely affect existing refuse collection companies. Households that currently arrange with a hauler for refuse removal would no longer be able to select the hauler of their choice. This runs counter to the nationwide trend of permitting individuals more choice in the type and level of services desired. HOwever, a survey by the Minnesota Center for Social Research completed Mar. 29, 1985, showed b~oad-based support for municipal control, with 77 percent of those respondents who now select their garbage hauler willing to let the city decide, although some agree only if it reduces their cost. There was a small minority, about 11 percent of the population, or about 20 percent of the respohdents who selected their garbage hauler, who felt strongly that they wanted to retain choice. The study sug- gested that this group be studied further to identify their concerns. Organized collection will require municipalities with unorganized refuse collection to become more involved in refuse collection issues. Because there is a great deal of satisfaction among households and bus- inesses about the manner in which refuse is handled, ~t may be diffi- cult to explain why additional government involvement is necessary.. Municipalities will have to overcome the concern, "If it ain't broke, why fix it?" Although the cost differentials to the households of the different market structures is not great, the sum of the costs to all the households in the city over a period of a year's time can be signif- icant. For example, if St. Paul went to an organized collection sys- tem, it could expect an annual savings of at least $1 million based · upon 64,986 single-family housing units and a $1.50 differential in cost per household per month. Municipalities will incur costs associated with administration, bill~ng and monitoring performance of the contract. Billing can be doKe in con- junction with other municipal billings such as property tax statements or utility bills. National studies show that billing expenses are much less if handled by the municipality rather than the'waste hauler. 'Administration and monitoring costs amount to about five percent of the total cost of the contract according to the study by Ecodata, Inc. How organized collection is implemented in the region may be affected by anti-trust law. This matter requires additional study. Implementation of organized collection by municipalities has the poten- tial to adversely impact some refuse collection companies. An increase in productivity means that fewer people are needed to perform the same 24 function. Consequently, fewer collection crews would be needed to col- lect refuse under an organized collection system. Whether this means a reduction in collection companies depends upon how organized collection is implemented. The businesses of some waste haulers, particularly those operating part-time or collecting waste as a job on the side, may be adversely affected. The implementation of the waste management system envisioned by the Council's solid waste policy plan may work to offset any negative impacts upon the collection industry as a result of organized collec- tion. The provision of collection services for yard waste, recyclables and household hazardous wastes may compensate for the reduction in the labor force if organized collection were implemented by a significant number of cities in the region. Also, there is an opportunity for new business ventures into management of the yard waste compost sites or recyclables processing facilities. The expansion or development of new industries as a result of increased recycling activities could also increase the demand for labor. 25 ®¸ FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Organized collection may reduce the 'costs of residential refuse col- lection by increasing collection efficiencies. Additional study is . needed to determine if organized collection may benefit com~nercial and industrial waste generators. Organized collection reduces adverse environmental impacts when more than one hauler services a given area or provides the same type of collection service. Organized collection does not inherently increase participation in recycling orother abatement programs. It can be implemented in ways that would help to achieve the abatement objectives of the Solid Waste Management Guide/Policy Plan. Organized collection cannot substitute for waste designation by the county, but can complement it. Municipalities and towns have adequate authority to organize col- lection of residential refuse. 6. Organized collection of residential refuse may be a net benefit to solid waste management because it may reduce costs.and environ- mental impacts; help implement abatement programs.; and improve information about waste generation, composition add abatement. 7. There is no need for a regional system for implementation of organized collection. However, individual communities should consider the potential benefits of organized collection. 26 P BIBLIOGRAPHY Annual Repor.t.~ Sanitation Division 1983. Minneapolis, Minn. Taking the Waste Out of Minnesotars Refuse. Citizens League, Minneapolis, Minn. Aug. 1975. Keeping the Waste Out of Waste:A Proposal to Minimize the Risks by Decentralizing the Solid Waste Disposal Sys~.em. Citizens League. Minneapolis, Minn. May 1981. Comparative Study of Municipal Services Delivery~ Refuse Collection. ed. Barbara Stevens. Eco'data, lInc. New York N.Y. 1984. John P. and M. Michele Genereux. A Description of the Private Waste Haulin9 System in Carver County, Minnesota and Preferred Landfill Abatemen{ op'tions for Private HaUlers: Results of Interview's with Waste Haulers Conducted in Feb. 1985. Carver County, Minn. 1985. Proposed Residential Solid Waste Collection Plan for St. Paul~ Minn. Citizens' Solid Waste Committee and Dept. of Public Works, St. Raul, Minn. 1979. E.S. Savas and Barbara Stevens. Evaluating the Organization of Service Delivery: Solid Waste Collection and Disposal. Center,for Governmen~ StUdies, Columbia University. New York, N.Y. 1976. Barbara Stevens. "Scale, Market Structure and the Cost of Refuse Col- lection.'' Review of Economics and Statistics. Aug. 1978. 438-448. Dennis Young. How Shall We Collect the Garbage? The Urban Institute. Washington, D.C. 197'2 . 27 APPENDIX REFUSE COLLECTION COMPANIES OPEP~TING IN THE REGION ~-.A Rubbish Removal ~ . - 30th Ay. S. inneapolis, MN 55406 American Systems, Inc. 84 W; Water St. St. Paul, MN 55107 Bateman's Rubbish Removal 2239 Matterhorn La. St. Paul, MN 55119 ~ Rubbish Service, Inc. 300 Winslow Av. est St. Paul, MN 55118 Ray Anderson & Sons Cos. Inc. 930 Duluth St. St.. Paul, MN 55106 Bautch Disposal Service 10264 Xylite St. NE. Minneapolis, MN 55434 & B Trucking 87 James Av. N. inneapolis, MN 55405 Anderson's Hauling 6925 Humbolt Av. N. Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 Beckers Sanitation 18681Yakima Anoka, MN 55303 ace Rubbish Removal 120 Sunny Acres La. urnsville, MN 55337 Anderson Rubbish 918 Scheffer. St. Paul, MN 55102 Beermann Services 6900 Dixie Av. E. Inver Grove Heights, MN 55075 ,agard Sanitation 308 - IOth Av. S. ~ e~polis, MN 55407 Andy's Disposal Service 781Englewood Av. St. Paul, MN 55104 Bellaire Sanitation Service 8678 N. 75 St. Stillwater, MN 55082 ,ce Sol id Waste Management, Inc. 11!8 NW. 162 La. inoka, MN 55303 Arrow Rubbish Service 1700 E. 84th St. Minneapolis, MN 55¢20 Bergstrom Trucking Service' 5860 - 73 Av. N. Brooklyn Park~, MN 55429 kction Disposal Systems, Inc. ~300 E. 65th St. inver Grove Heights, MN 55075 Art Will.man & Son Trucking 62 - 26th Ay. N. Minneapolis, MN 55411 Ken Berquist & Son 1232 Juliet Av. St. Paul, MN 55105 kdams Disposal ~. O. Box 7342 4inneapolis, MN 55407 Baldy Sanitation 5906 Henry St. Maple Plain, MN 55355 Big Garbanzo 15238 Central Av. NE. Ham Lake, MN 55303 ~dmiral Waste Management )275 Tamarack Trail Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Barnes Sanitary Service 1917 Emerson Av. N. Minneapolis, MN.55403 Bill's Sanitation 1570 Waterloo South St. Paul, MN 55075 Al's Ail Season 11¢ Russell Ay. N. Minneapolis, MN 55411 Bateman's Rubbish, Inc. 520 White Bear Ay. N. White Bear, HN 55119 28 Blakowiak & Sons 1195 Sunnyfield Rd. N. Mound, MN 55364 ck Ay. N. Park, MN 688 $. Victoria St. Paul, MN 5SIO2 Dana's 33!3 Valley View Or. Burnsville, MN 5533? : [nc. .0 Ccncord BI,id. ~er Grove Hal.Dh:s, MN 55075 Chaska Sanitation !239 Valley St. Chaska, MN 55318 0an's 0isposai 309 NW. 202 La. Cedar, MN 55011 ;nnan Rubbish ServiN~'. University Ay. W. Paul, M~I 55I!¢ Ci%~ Clean-Up 1455 Patron .Rd. St. Paul, MN 55120 ,ay. Roll-Off Service 3801 Lovell Rd. Ne~ Brighton, ~1~ ~oklyn Oisposal ~8 N'.¢. !9! La. ~ka, MN 55303 City Clean-Up 28~I Burnside Ay. Kagan, MN 55121 0eve's Sanitation ¢072 Namel ~d. H ' MN 55~0 .a~t, .'.<.n~ham Disposal 58~: 2bode island Ay. S. ~iSzl Ci%y Disposal ZO Neal Ay. N. iliweZer,,.~,, ''~ . :5082 Cieanway Sanitati.an .8ox 220 Lo~,g Lake, MN 553~6 ' Johnnie Coolld~e 783 Ful':..:- Ay. St. Paul, MN 55!0~ 0enny's 2oii Off Service · 5816 W. 7~ St. 'Minneapol.is, ,.h,, 5.:! !05 Clover La. 0elano, ,.,, 5'-'328 Corrow Sanitation 15520 Lawndal:. La. Dayton, ~.!N 55327 O & 0 Hauling' 647~ - 12 Ay. S. Li~ L~ke.s, HN 5{0i-z n Carlson 0is~osaI Service O. Bcx 326 anti, :':,'; HSO~O Countrywide Sanitation 4.Inver Or. Circle Pines, MN 5510C O & O Hauling 123~ FarringSsn ,~ S~ii? St. Paul, ,4~1 . H. C~' r~enter Sneii inq. Ay. Paul,. MN 55TM.~_ Countr~rwide Sanitation I17 Montrose, MN ~5763 Dick Clemmer q ~ .an, ration Serv. 21338 0odd Blvd. Lakeviile, M~I 5~0'-'.a ~aul, M~I 5-'t~-' Crosst:wn Sanitation, !01!0 - 38 Ay. N. Plymouth, NN ~5~'1 29 ' ~O, .,~.,O..~ 75! iowa Ay. W. ~t. Paul, ~q;, ~5~7 ............ o? posal Systems, Inc. N. A1 belt Paul, MN 55104 Expert Disposal, Inc. 13200 Pilot Knob Rd. Apple V. alley, MN 55124 Gunderson Rubbish 1086 - 2nd Av. Newport, MN 55055 3o All Service L2863 Keller Av. N. qugo, MN 55038 Forest Lake Sanitation 8247 - 178 La. Forest Lake, MN 55025 Gustafson Sanitary Service 2741 - 12 Av. S. Minneapolis, MN 55407 Dugan Sanitation Service :070 Cavell Av. N. New Hope, MN 55428 Fragrance Solid Waste, Inc. 99 - 99th La. NW. Coon Rapids, MN 55433 Will'iam Guy Sanitation Servic Box 23, Route 1 Stacy, MN 55079 Eagle Sanitation P. O. Box 128 Newport, MN 55055 Franck'$ Sanitation 131 C~sper St. Norwood, MN 55368 Lloyd Hall 4355 Fisher Lane White Bear Lake, MN 55110 Eagle Sanitation ~"~2 ~Y. codlane Dr. ;.,.Jdbury, MN 55125 Gallagher's Service, Inc. !691 - 91 Ay.' NE. Minneapolis, MN 55434 Hastings Sanitation 1617 Ashland Hastings, MN 55033 East Tonka Sanitation 8100 Odean Ay. NE. Elk River, MN 55330 Gene's Disposal Service 6808 N. !17 St. White Bear Lake, MN 55110 Haul-A-~lay Systems 400 Whitali St. Paul, PiN 55100 Eden Prairie Trashtronics 7298 Prairie View Dr. Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Gopher Disposal P. O. Box6 Newport, MN 55055 Highland park Sanitation Ser 1801 Century Ay. Newport, MN 55055 Ed's Trucking 333 E. Lawson Ay. St. Paul, MN 55101 Gordy's Roll Off 402 N. Main St. Stillwater, MN 55082 Hilger Transfer 8550 Zachary La. Maple Grove, MN 55369 Eisinger Sanitation 15843 S. 45 St. Afton, MN 55001 Gordy Rubbish Removal 637 - 4th Ay. S. South St. Paul, MN 55075 Hillcrest Sanitation 6748 )qilitary Rd. Woodbury, MN 5.5125 Elk River Sanitation 14889 NE. 81 St. Elk River, MN 55330 W. D. Gray Trucking 1036 Central Ay. W. St. Paul,~ 55104 Hollie's Rubbish Service,"I 2109 Lowry Av. N. Minneapolis, MH 55411 ille's Rubbish~ervl~., ¢ , '-: .mc. an A'v. e Hcrrigan i E. Arlington Ay. Paul, n,l ~5101 Junker Sanitation Stillwater, HM 5~O82 Ben ',<ar'as Trucking Si~ Century Ay. Newport, 'HN Xubash & Sons Sani'tati~n~ Winston, MN 5539~ · Lake Sanitation 1201N. Birch Lake Blvd. White Bear Lake, NN 55110 mphrey's Rubbish 0 Central Ay. W. Paul, MN ~5~Q¢ H. P. Kelley Haulin~ Service 3930 - 3 Ay. S. Minneapolis, MN 5~¢09 Lakers 0isposal 3275 E. ~60 St. Webster, ~'::, .=~80 cobson Sanitary, !nc. Ol Portland 'Ay. chfi ei.~., bin 10010 Trenton La. ~'N 55360 0s~eo, .., Lakeville Sanitary, [nc. 10200 W. !99 ',./ay, ~o:< 336 La'.<evil i e, MN ~es Sol~ Waste Disposal, ?nc O0 Oliver Ay. M. Klein Sanitation io6go - I00 Ay. Osseo, ,..:., 5536.q ...n 0. ~.'aOl~. .n~. Sanitation, P. 0. Box 32J - .u.H ,-. ~ q - ~uffalo, ::3,. '",, Knutson RuSbish Servlca, rnc. !¢3~5 3iscayne Ay. Rosemount, MN 55C63 nfsh ~ ' 3ka, ;.., SE.~3 Xowski Rubbish Ramo,/ai Serv. 1560 Cakdale Ay. West ~t. P-'_ui, Larson Haul !39'"0 .,'1. St ~r:ix Tr. Stillwa~er, "".;, n's Rubbish P. emc:/al ! W. Iowa Ay. · Paul, ,'4PI 55117 Kr~use Rubbish i620 W. 7 S~. St. Paul, MN 55102 L & bi 0isposal !319 NE. Benjamin Minneapolis, MN 55413 I~~ nnny's Rubbish, ,.. St. Xnthon~ Kieth Krupenny & Sons 121¢ Hall Ay. West St. Paul, MN 5Sii~ Krupenny ~ Sons Disposal Serv. West St. P~ui, MN 551!Z 31 L & N Disposal 3a!7 - 85 Ay. N. Letrourneau Truckln: P. 0. :.ox Minneapoils, MN -':?..,-.~ 120 Marshall Av. ;. Paul, MN. 55104 1280 S. Point l~ St; Paul, MN 55119 and Transfer 8550 Zachary La. OSseo, MN 55369 Logan Hauling 13~ Dayton Av. :. Paul, MN 55104 Midwest Refuse 904 University Av. St. Paul, MN 55104 Ben Oehrlein & Sons & Daughter, Inc. 9091 Concord Blvd. Inver Grove Heights, MN 55075 )ren's Rubbish Removal )46 Washington Av. N. inneapolis, MN 55412 Minneapolis Refuse Inc. 4649'Bloomington Av. Minneapolis, MN 55407 Ken Oehrlein Sanitation Servic 1800 Century Ay. Newport, PiN 55055 :eve Manthei Disposal Service )24 - !CAv. S. inneapolis, MN 55407 M & M Sanitation Rush City, MN 55069 Ost Sanitation & Landscaping 280 Vincent Av. N. Minneapolis, MN 55405 ~rk's Sanitation )8 - 3rd St. trver, I4N 55315 Mobile Home Sanitation 2463 Lake George Dr. Cedar, MN 55011 Oxford's Disposal Ser¥ice 2305 E. Linwood Av. St. Paul,, MN 55119 ironey's Service, Inc. Lansing Ay. N'. iwater, MN 55082 Mudek Sanitary Hauling !900 Kolff St. Newport, NN 55055 Pastorek Rubbish 6300 Hwy. !0i Maple Grove, MN 55369 ~rv's Disposal B233 Eimcrest Av. N. orest Lake, MN 55025 Hudek Trucking, inc. 1520 Ames Av. St. Paul, MN 55106 Paul and Andy's ~isposal 729 - 109 Ay. NW. Coon Rapids, MN 55433 ~rv's Disposal 598 Hollywood Ct. t. Paul, MN 55108 Francis J. Nash 3208 - 41 Ay. S. Minneapolis, MN 55406 Peterson Brothers Sanitation 18605 Lake George Blvd. Cedar, MN 55011 el's Trucking Service 27 W. Spruce St. t. Paul, MN 55075 Nistler Rubbish Removal 21203 Horseshoe Trail Hamel, MN 55340 Pete's Rubbish Hauling 6360 N. 190 St. Forest Lake, MN 55025 endota Heights Rubbish Serv. oute 1, Box 120 .armington, MN 55024 Nitti Disposal, inc. 6639 E. Concord Blvd. Inver Grove Heights, MN 55075 Piekert's Sanitation RR ~2, Box 139 Monticello, MN 55362 etro Haul-A-Way Systems, Inc. 'i58 W. 125 St. avage, MN 55378 North End Sanitation 1127 Albemarle St. Paul,3~N Poor Richard's, Inc. 400 Whitall St. Paul, MN 55101 Minneton'.<a, M,q 5H3¢3 3.307 - 6 Av. S. South SO. Pa,~'i, ,'h, 550?- ko, ,',iN 55372 Red Arrow W&ste Oisposal ~4 £. Acker St. Paul, MN SE!!? $che?.r Sani t~.:':,on P. O. Bcx 272 Oelano, .'.dH .~-::23 )perty Refuse Removal Co. Excelsior Slvd. · Louis Park, M:'.I $5425 Redepenning Sanitary Service 2076 County Rd. go Maple Plain, M,q 55359 O. Shoebe & Son Disposal Service, !nc. 362! - $5 Ay. N. Minneapolis, MN 55429 .litv Waste ~---.~I inc i! N. L-z,-'. St. .nsvi!ie, M.."{ 5H~37 Reid Sanitation Service, inc. 780 Elrene Court Eagan, MN ~512! Lenny Saloka ,~ o., ~, 263 a~ '.q'/cminc., ,.:r, 5:"92 M Sanlta~cn S ' ' ' Ceu.~ias P.d Paul, j. J. Remackel & Sons !032 Jessamine A,,. E. ,.,,l 55106 St. Paul, '"' Solid Waste Service, ~nc. !2~6i Boone Ay. 5. Remackel Trucking 126~ ,e:and .:.~.. M&pl ewood,,,.,,~-'-:' ~..-- r,: 11~5 Homer 5~. '" P, ichie's Rubbish Service, 'nc. i~c-'.7 3augh St. :l.'..i. Elk River, MI'I 5~q~..~ Stromme Sanl ta-:c.:: L:.,:, ,,, Forest ..... "" ~Jdscn, Wi 51!315 - iZ3 ',. n Rapids, "~ .... Robbinsdai e Tr~.ns f:-r....,,,~" .... ,~"..~ 5232 Hanson Court Crystal, '" 55~,2g Suburban Sanitation 570 S. Orono Orchard Orono, MN 55323 5 E. Coho:rd .~r C:rs,,e Xeighss, ..:,.1 P, on's Sanitation Service 8i3 M&ry St. 730 - 3r~ Ay. '.-l. Shakcpee, M..'.', ~5~79 33 5unrise Sanitati:n ~cx 307, ~',~ - Z Sr.. · Lit: .~: ,,~ -Zxc_~is~or, ,-,,, 5"-3' - ' . . ,'-.., ~.ou:e 3, 2,ox Del eno, ~,~.~l I__ ,,~d. lll I.,dI,,FUI1 ..~l"V t~t~ 201 LO,an Ay. N. rooklyn Park, MN 55443 Recycling Transfer station 318 W. Water St. Paul, liN 55118 10050 NE. Naples St. Blaine, MN 5543¢ , ,is Sanitation 24 - 4th St. 't. Paul Park, HN 55071 Van's Rubbis~ Service 1215 Lealand Rd. St. Paul, lin 55109 Waste Management, I'nc. 12248 Pennsylvania Av. S Savage, MN 55378 'Jnnis Sanitation 026 Dayton Ay. it. Paul Park~ MN 55071 George Vasko Rubbish Removal 1591 Hoyt Av. E. St. Paul, MN 55106 ~laste Technology 410 - 11 Av. S. Hopkins, MN 55341 "own and Country Disposal Serv. ~875 Dodd Rd. iagan, MN 55123 Ernest A. Vierkant Disposal 6045 Xerxes Ay. S. Minneapolis, MN 55410 Weber's Hauling 424 - 3rd Ay. NE. Osseo, MN 55369 Fown and Country Disposal Serv. )ox 137 ~elano, MN 55328 Viking Disposal & BUilding Service, Inc. 2800 W. 109 St. Minneapolis, )4N 55431 Weller's Disposal Service 4020 Harriet Ay. Minneapolis, MN 55¢09 ~ & R Sanitaticn ~ 637 S~. Francis, ~4N 55070 Village Sanitation, Inc. 13125 Lone Oak Dr. ' Minnetonka, MN 553~.3 Westonka Sanitation P. O. Box 94 Navarre, MN 55~°~2 Trash Gordon ~555 Ering Dr. Eagan, MN 55123 Village Sanitation, Inc. 3186 W. 130 St. Louisville, MN 55379 Westonka Sanitation 3146 Isiandview Dr. Mound, MN 55364 Triangle ~ubbish Service i88! Lexington Ay. S. Mendota Heights, MN 55115 Waconia Sanitation P. O, Bo.x 196 Waconia, MN 55387 Wildwood Sanitation Box 176 Newport, MN 55055 Troje's Sanitation 8678 N. 75 St. Stillwater, MN 55082 Waconia Sanitation 11585 Hwy. 5 Cologne, MN 55322 Wiley' s Removal 492 VI. County Rd. B-2 Roseville, MN 55113 Troje's Sanitation P. O. Box 609 W~llernie, MN 55090 Walz Brothers Sanitation 14033 Territorial Rd. Maple Grove, MN 5:369 Will & Steve's Sanitation 23955 NE. Fillmore Bethel, MN 5~005 Troje's Trash Pick-Up Service 6150 Military Rd., P. O. Box 40 Newport, ~4,q 55055 Waste Control 95 Ivy Ay. W. West St. Paul. ~; ~51!7 .34 ~" William Pick-Up Service,.~n 11751 Kumquat Coon Rapids, '~'~, 5:aq3~.- 803 Maze; ¢0urt St. Paul, ,.,,~ 5S120 , Son Trucking A':.. N. :4innick Company iS N:q. Cth St. )rest Lake, ~'~' ,-,,, 55025 ;odi aka Sani:ary )~3 Flying Ci~ud :an. Prairie, )odlake S-;ni.~ar7 Service .'.O0 ~.ame! Ad. :.,me!, :.i,'~ 553.40 A & ]~ Rubbish Removal 18610 Excelsior Blvd Minneconka, Mn 55345 Blake & Son, Inc. 3461 Upper 143rd $==eec Rosemount, Mn 55068 Elvine Disposal 15200 Northern Blvd. Anoka 55303 KuC:er's Rubbish Removal 4649 Bloomington Avenue S Minneapolis Mn 55407 SAS Hauling 4900 31s~ Avenue $ ~inneapoli~ 55&t7 Suburban Sanitation Inc. P O.Box 188 Wayzata 55391 Wa~Ke Conversion 6630 N Cor~la~n Circle Golden Va!iay 55426 Browning- Ferris, Inc. 9813 Flying Cloud Or. Eden Prairie, Mn 5534~ '.~3 M.yaclnth A,/. f. AGENDA MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT August 22, 1985 Wayzata City Hall 7:30 p.m. Call to order; present, absent staff. Reading and approval of minutes of regular meeting of July 18, 1985. Approval or amendment of August 22, 1985 agenda. Hearing of permit applications: A. 82-74 Jack Overman -- shoreline erosion protection, approximately 78 lineal feet of rip rap, 5109 Wooddale at Minnehaha Creek, City of Edina. B. 85-43 Michael J. Gorra, maintenanc~ dredging of existing channel to dock area in Black Lake, Sec. 19BBB, Black Lake - Lake Minnetonka, City of Spring Park. C. 85-109 Lee Webster -- 150 lineal feet of rip rap shoreline erosion protection, Sec. 34BBD, Gideons Bay - Lake Minnetonka, City of Shorewood. D. 85-110 George Hand - 50 lineal feet of rip rap shoreline erosion protection, Sec. 22CB, Echo Bay - Lake Minnetonka, City of Tonka Bay. E. 85-111 Richard Ogle - 100 lineal feet of rip rap shoreline erosion protection, Sec. 21CAA, Carmans Bay - Lake Minnetonka, City of Orono. F. 85-112 Channel Town Association, c/o Ed Lynch - 50 lineal feet of rip rap shoreline erosion protection in a lagoon area in Lost Lake, Sec. 24BC, Lost Lake - Lake Minnetonkao City of G. 85-113 Floyd C. Thorsen - 175 lineal feet of rip rap shoreline erosion protection in a channel area, Sec. 27BCA, Halsted Bay - Lake Minnetonka, City of Minnetrista. H. 85-114 Matthew J. Levitt - replacement of an existing wooden retaining wall, Sec. 28BDC, Upper Lake - Lake Minnetonka, City of Tonka Bay. I. 85-115 Edward M. Arundel - replacement of an existing wooden retaining wall, Sec. 28BDC, Upper Lake - Lake Minnetonka, City of Tonka Bay. J. 85-116 Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board, c/o Dennis Ryan - construct an underpass under West Lake Street at the channel between Lake Calhoun and Lake of the Isles for pedestrians and bicycles, Sec. 33CC, West Lake'Street and East Calhoun Pky., City of Minneapolis. K. 85-117 Wellesly Homes, Inc. - grading and drainage plan for a 39-unit condominium, Sec. 33ACA, City of Shorewood. L. 85-118 Lundgren Bros. Construction, Inc. - grading and drainage plan for the Fox Run 2nd and 3rd Additions of the Vicksburg West Property' Sec. 29A, DNR Wetland 613W (Plymouth Pond GL-P14), City of Plymouth. M. 85-119 Naegele, Inc. - grading and drainage plan for "Ridgepoint", a retail/commercial development, Sec. 3ACC, north side of Wayzata Blvd. adjacent to Sears Imported. Autos and Morrie's Mazda, City of Minnetonka. N. 85-120 MN/DOT District 5 - grading and surfacing of a new street and installation of a small storm sewer, Sec. 31BCD, 25-1/2 Street, east of Hwy 100 between Beth E1 Synagogue and Benilde High School, City of St. Louis Park. O. 85-121 Shorewood Oaks Development Co. - grading and drainage plan'for a 73-1ot single family home development, Sec. 32DC, east of Strawberry Lane and north of Hwy 7, City of Shorewood. P. 85-122 First Minnetonka City Bank - grading and drainage plan for the construction of a new bank facility, Sec. 23AA, North of Hwy 7, west of Hwy 73, southern part of the existing Lunds parking lot, City of Minnetonka. Q. 85-123 John and'KittY PillsbUry - fill and compensating excavation within the 100-year floodplain of Lake Minnetonka, Sec. llC, Brackett's Point - Lake Minnetonka, City of Orono. R. 85-124 Don Hill - 150 lineal feet of rip rap shoreline erosion protection, Sec. 8BDB, Grays Bay - Lake Minnetonka, City of Minnetonka. S. 85-125 Warren A. Ortenblad - grading and drainage plan for a residential and elderly care facility called Twin Birch Villa, Sec. 18CD, 4523 Shoreline Drive, south of Twin Birch Health Care Center, City of Spring Park. -2- T. 85-126 James H. Binger - maintenance dredging of an existing channel and the excavation of 9,000 square feet of wetland for the construction of a docking area, Sec. 8ADC, existing channel system connected to Grays Bank - Lake Minnetonka, City of Minnetonka. U. 85-127 Joe Durda and Joan Anthony - maintenance dredging of an existing channel and lagoon, removal of 224 lineal feet of deteriorating wooden seawall and replace with 114 feet of steel sheetpile and 617 lineal feet of rip rap shoreline erosion protection, Sec. 9CCA, existing lagoon connected to Crystal Bay - Lake Minnetonka, City of Orono. V. 85-128 Vlad Kopesky - grading and drainage plan and preliminary plat for a five-lot subdivision, Sec. llDCB, intersection of Mayflower Ave. and Orchard Ave. W., City of Minnetonka. W. 85-129 The Matarese, Inc. - alteration of existing parking lot, Sec. 35CAB, Hanson House parking lot, City of Long Lake. X. 77-126 Lois Derner - grading and drainage plan for a 5-lot single family residential development, Sec. 23CDC, wetland adjacent to Priest Bay - Lake Minnetonka, City of Mound. 5. Report of Treasurer, Engineer and Attorney. A. Treasurer's Report - Mr. Andre. (1) Proposed 1986 Budget/Authorization for Public Hearing (2) Administrative Fund Report B. Engineer's Report - Mr. Panzer. C. Attorney's Report - Mr. Macomber. (1) Proposed Rule L/Fee Schedule (2) Notice of Claim - Project CP-5 Unfinished Business. New Business. Adjournment· 0783n -3- MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF MANAGERS OF THE MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT July 18, 1985 The regular meeting of the Board of Managers of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District was called to order by Chairman Cochran at 7:30 p.m., on Thursday, July 18, 1985, at the St. Louis Park City Hall, St. Louis Park, Minnesota. Managers present: Cochran, Lehman, Miller, McWethy, and Spensley Managers absent: Andre and Thomas Also present were Board advisors Panzer, Mahady, Macomber, and Blatz. Approval of Minutes The minutes of the regular meeting of June 20, 1985 were reviewed. It was noted that on page 10 under the heading 'Princeton Court Townhouse" in the next to the last line the phrase "to continue" should be deleted from the text. It was-- moved by Miller, seconded by Lehman, that the minutes be approved with the foregoing amendment. Upon vote the motion carried. Approval of Permit Applications The Managers reviewed a memorandum from the Engineer dated July 13, 1985 setting forth those permits which comply with the applicable standards of the District and recommending approval on the terms and conditions as set forth in the written memorandum. .It was moved by Miller, seconded by Lehman, that the following applications be approved on the terms and conditions as set forth in the written memorandum: 85-102 Steve Nelson - 75 lineal feet of rip rap shoreline erosion protection, Sec. 21DBD, canal system close to the Narrows Lake Minnetonka, City of Tonka Bay. 85-103 Steve Schrader - 50 lineal feet of rip rap shoreline erosion protection, Sec. 31BDD, Upper Lake - Lake Minnetonka, City of Shorewood. 85-104 Steve Curry - 65 lineal feet of rip rap shoreline erosion protection, Sec. 27AC, Echo Bay - Lake Minnetonka, City of Tonka Bay. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Minutes of Regular Meeting of July 18, 1985 Page 2 85-106 Methodist Lakeside Assembly - 94 lineal feet of rip rap shoreline erosion protection, Sec. 7D, south shore of Wayzata Bay - Lake Minnetonka, City of Woodland. 85-107 David Bradford - 225 lineal feet of rip rap shoreline erosion protection, Sec. 13DC, Lower Lake - Lake Minnetonka, City of Deephaven. 85-108 William Campbell - 60 lineal feet of rip rap shoreline erosion protection, Sec. 24ADC,.Carsons Bay - Lake Minnetonka, City of Deephaven. Upon vote the motion carried. Tablinq of Permit Applications It was moved by Lehman, seconded by Miller, that th~ following applications be tabled until such time as all required exhibits have been received: 85-101 Minnetonka Hospital, Inc. - fill placement, Sec. 4DB, 15200 Linner Road, City of Minnetonka. 85-105 Fred Lucas - 147 lineal feet of flu--rap shoreline erosion protection, Sec. 20DBB, Carmans Bay - Lake Minnetonka, City of Orono. Upon vote the motion carried. Hunter Trail Partnership - grading and drainage plan for a 8-lot rural residential subdivision on 45 acres, Sec. 25BD, Hunter Drive, west of Mooney Lake, City of Medina. 83-115 The Engineer advised the Managers that this project received District approval in 1983 for a 12 lot subdivision, but that such subdivision was never constructed. The Engineer advised the Board that the present plan calls for an 8 lot residential subdivision on the same parcel. The applicant's engineer, Jim Filippi, appeared in support of the application. The Engineer advised that the project is in compliance with District standards and recommended approval with the addition of a skimmer, submission of an erosion control plan, and submission of grades on the plans to show adequate storage. The engineer for the applicant indicated that these conditions were acceptable to the applicant. It was moved by Lehman, seconded by Miller, that the application be approved as recommended by the Engineer subjec~ to ~he foregoing conditions. Upon vote the motion carried. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Minutes of Regular Meeting of July 18, 1985 Page 3 Gary E. Briggs - fill placement next to DNR Wetland No. 741, Sec. 4CBA, south of Hwy 12 and east of Holdridge Terrace, City of Wayzata. 85-85 The Engineer reviewed the proposal to fill a portion of a lot located within the City of Wayzata but which would affect available storage within a pond located primarily in Minnetonka (pond 133A of the Minnetonka Storm Water Management Plan). The Engineer informed the Board that approximately .7 acre feet of fill was proposed to be placed below the calculated 100-year flood elevation of the pond of 942.0. The Engineer advised the Board that properties within Minnetonka are prohibited from placing fill below elevation 942.0 by City'Ordinance. The Engineer informed the Board that the normal water elevation in pond 133A was approximately 936. Mr. Briggs was present in support of his application. Mr. Briggs explained that fill was presently available in connection with the construction of 1-394, that he did not have present development plans for the property but wished to avail himself of the fill and prepare the site for future development. The Engineer reviewed the calculated volume of storage in the pond, and further advised the Board that the calculated volume does not include that area of the pond located within the boundaries of the City of Wayzata. The Engineer informed the Board that the City of Minnetonka stated that it had no jurisdiction over the project since it was located in the City of Wayzata. The City of Wayzata staff indicated to the-Engineer that the City does not, at present, regulate the placement of fill in this particular wetland. The Engineer noted that the City of Wayzata has recently authorized preparation of a storm water management plan and that it was likely that the City would address the issue of filling within this pond as a part of that plan. Following. discussion, it was moved by Lehman, seconded by Miller, that the application be tabled pending assurance from the City of Wayzata that the proposed filling in this particular wetland is consistent with the City's plan for storm water management in the vicinity and that the 942.0 contour would be protected and would remain intact under such a plan. Upon vote the motion carried. Jim Hoben - grading and drainage plan for Breconwood Plaza, Sec. 18AD, north of Minnetonka Blvd., 350' west of State Hwy 101, City of Minnetonka. 85-98 The Engineer reviewed the application for grading and drainage plan approval. Mr. John Karwacki of Schoell & Madson appeared on behalf of the applicant. The Engineer advised the Board that the property drains to Shavers Lake and that adequate on-site detention facilities are provided in conformity with District standards. The Engineer advised the Board that Shavers Lake does not have an outlet and that its 100-year flood elevation is projected at 930.2. The lowest existing basement adjoining the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Minutes of Regular Meeting of July 18, 1985 Page 4 Lake is 932.2. The Engineer recommended approval with the permit to be issued upon receipt of adequate documentation demonstrating the applicant's right to pond water on an existing parking lot. It was moved by Miller, seconded by Lehman, that the application be approved subject to the foregoing condition. Upon vote the motion carried. Duane Barth - grading and drainage plan for a 13 lot residential development called "Maple Ridge", Sec. BBC, on CSAH 15, 1000' south of Red Cedar Point Road, City of Chanhassen. 85-99 "~h~'E~gWineer reviewed the application and the drainage proposed'at this site. The Ehgineer recommended approval of the application as submitted. It was moved by Miller, seconded by Spensley, that the application be approved as recommended by the Engineer. Upon vote the motion carried. City of Minnetonka - utility and street construction for "Chestnut Hills", Sec. 4DB, Linner Road 1/4 mile south of Hwy 12, City of Minnetonka. 85-100 The Engineer reviewed the application for a utility plan for a 4.8 acre, seven lot residential subdivision. The Engineer informed the Board that the project includes a change in the Minnetonka Storm Water Management Plan to direct the drainage from this site to pond 133A instead of to the east and south as originally proposed in the City's plan.. The Engineer advised the Board that the project was in conformity with the City's plan. It? was moved by Miller, seconded by Lehman, that the application be approved as recommended by the Engineer. Upon vote the motion carried. Minnetonka Hospital, Inc. - fill placement, Sec. 4DB, 15200 Linner Road, City of Minnetonka. 85-101 The Engineer noted that a representative of Minnetonka Hospital, Inc. was now present in connection with application 85-101, which had been tabled at the beginning of the meeting. It was moved by Spensley, seconded by Miller, that the application be taken from the table. Upon vote the motion carried. The Engineer then reviewed the application, including the exhibits submitted by the applicant. The Engineer explained that the project involves the placement of approximately 10,000 cubic yards of fill from the adjacent 1-394 construction, and that the site drains to pond 133A but is located approximately 30 feet higher than pond 133A. The Engineer explained that the purpose of the filling is to clean up the site and prevent further vandalism and dumping at the site. The Engineer reviewed the exhibits submitted by the applicant and advised the Board that the only exhibits missing were measures to ensure the stability of the slopes resulting from the fill and a Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Minutes of Regular Meeting of July 18, 1985 Page 5 restoration plan. The Engineer noted that the City favors filling to prevent dumping and vandalism at the site. It was moved by Miller, seconded by Lehman, that the application be approved subject to the applicant's submittal of an appropriate slope stabilization and restoration plan to be approved by the Engineer. Upon vote the motion carried. City of Chanhassen - storm sewer and street for "Piper Ridge", Sec. 4ABC, Lake Minnewashta, City of Chanhassen. 85-96 The Engineer reviewed the application of the City of Chanhassen for storm sewer and street construction. The Engineer advised the Board that the City's plan meets District requirements for rate and water quality control. The Engineer recommended approval subject to the condition that the developer submit a permit application for a grading and drainage plan in conformance with the hydrologic calculations performed by the City for permit 85-96, and an erosion control plan. It was moved by Lehman, seconded by McWethy, that the application be approved subject to the foregoing condition. Upon vote the motion carried. Brody Associates - grading and drainage plan for "Ridgehill", a retail and restaurant commercial development, Sec. 3ADC, northern frontage road of Hwy 12 - east of Plymouth Road, City of Minnetonka. 85-97 The Engineer reviewed the application for grading and drainage plan approval. The Engineer advised the Board that the project was in conformity with the City of Minnetonka Storm Water Management Plan and recommended approval. It was moved by Lehman, seconded by McWethy, that the application be approved as recommended by the Engineer. Upon vote the motion carried. Treasurer's Report Acting Treasurer McWethy distributed the monthly Treasurer's Report dated July 18, 1985, a copy of which is attached. Manager McWethy reviewed the bills proposed for payment. Manager McWethy noted that the report recommended payment of Pay Request #5 to Crossings, Inc. for the CP-5 Project. Manager McWethy advised the Board that the CP-8 Project at Cascade Lane would be prepared for final payment at the next regular meeting. Manager McWethy further requested the Board to follow up with the City of Minneapolis regarding its final payment for the creek study performed cooperatively with the District. Finally, Manager McWethy requested that the engineering staff request payment from the City of Edina and the Minnesota Department of Transportation for their proportionate shares of PrOject CP-8 at Cascade Lane'in the City of Edina. The Managers reviewed the Treasurer's Report, noting that the first half of tax settlements have been received Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Minutes of Regular Meeting of July 18, 1985 Page 6 from Hennepin County and Carver County. The Managers also reviewed the report on the Upper Watershed Storage and Retention Project in the Painter Creek Subwatershed, noting that the project was approaching total budget and that it appeared likely that the costs of the project, when finally completed, would slightly exceed the total project budget. Following review of the report, it was moved by Miller, seconded by Lehman, that the Treasurer's Report dated July 18, 1985 be approved and the bills paid as set forth in that report. Upon vote the motion carried. CP-5 Project/Painter Creek Subwatershed The-Engineer requested s'ignature by the Board of Pay Request #5 to Crossings, Inc. in the amount of $41,288.98 pursuant to the approval of this pay request in the Treasurer's Report. The pay request was signed by Chairman Cochran on behalf of the Board of Managers. The Engineer advised the Board that all construction work has now been completed on the project and that site' restoration work is now in progress. Highway 100/Cascade Lane/City of Edina Project CP-8 The Engineer reported that all work has now been completed on the Highway 100 Cascade Lane project, and that a final payment request would be prepared for the next regular meeting. Lake Minnetonka Level and the Minnehaha Creek Flow The Enqineer reported that the Minnetonka Lake level has fallen to 929.06 and that under the approved Management Plan for the control structure, the discharge through the control structure has been reduced to the base flow of approximately 12 cfs. The Engineer distributed lake lewel data and rainfall data indicating that average precipitation recorded in the District for the month of June was in the range of 2 inches below the 30-year normal of 4.8 inches for the period. Manager Cochran asked that with the present low base flow in the Creek mandated under the Management Plan because of low lake levels, that the Board request the Engineer to investigate whether there are methods of providing augmented flow during the weekends in order to improve recreational use of the Creek in this mid-summer period. The Board agreed and the Engineer was directed to investigate this matter. City of Long Lake The Engineer reported on a meeting held with respect to the John R. Yungner property in the City of Long Lake, with President Cochran, Mayor Kunze, Mr. Yungner's engineer, and the consulting engineer for the City of Long Lake. The Engineer distributed a Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Minutes of Regular Meeting of July 18, 1985 Page 7 letter dated July 15, 1985 from the consulting engineers for the city indicating that the City Council has authorized McCombs-Knutson to investigate runoff and storage needs of the general industrial park area in the City of Long Lake, and that the engineers would come back with recommendations intended to meet the detention requirements of the watershed district on an area basis and thereby eliminate the need for on-site storage ponds. Manager Cochran reported that he had since had additional discussions with city officials and that the city expYessed a desire to meet and discuss with the District the possibilities of a cooperative effort to develop a city-wide drainage plan. The Board indicated its agreement with the suggested effort by the city. It was moved by Miller~ seconded by Lehman, that President Cochran be authorized to meet with the city on behalf of the Board to explore the possibilities for cooperative efforts between the District and the city ~o develop a city-wide drainage plan, and in addition, that he be delegated authority to resolve the issues which are presently outstanding in connection with the John R. Yungner property and permit application in the context of the development of a city-wide drainage plan. It was moved by Miller, seconded by Lehman, that President Cochran be so authorized and delegated the foregoing authority. Upon vote the motion carried. Oak Park Village/Riley Tar Litiqation The Engineer informed the Board that the City-~Y~-St. Louis Park had contacted the Engineer's office with respect to proposed filling which may occur on the former Riley site in the City of St. Louis Park near the Irwin Mandel property in connection with the settlement of the pending litigation between the city and the state, the USEPA and Riley Tar and Chemical Company. The Engineer advised the Board that he expected the city to be submitting additional detail on this proposal shortly. Richard Duvick - Permit 85-82 The Engineer reported that Mr. Duvick had responded to the letter from the Engineer, indicating that he would be out of town during the July meeting. The Board deferred consideration of remedial action until the next regular meeting. Frank Spartz/Shoreline Work in Lake Minnetonka The Engineer reported that he had received an ~dditional inquiry from Mr. Spartz requesting clarification of the Board's prior action. The Engineer explained that the applicant has submitted a new plan, which is in conformity with District standards. Mr. Spartz requested clarification whether the Board would consider the new plan before he, in fact, removed the existing unauthorized sheet pile so that the new sheet pile, if Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Minutes of Regular Meeting of July 18, 1985 Page 8 approved, could be placed at the same time the old sheet pile is removed.' Following discussion, it was moved by Spensley, seconded by McWethy, that the Spartz application be taken from the table. Upon vote the motion carried. Thereafter, it was moved by Spensley, seconded by McWethy, that the applicant be authorized to place the new wall as shown in the plan which had been reviewed by the Engineer, remove the existing wall at the same time, and contact District staff before the construction operation begins. Upon vote the motion carried. Metropolitan Waste Control Commission/Maple Plain Interceptor-Permit 85-90 The Engineer reported that he had attended a pre-construction conference on the Maple Plain Interceptor. The Engineer stated that some of the information requested had been provided, by the consulting engineers for the MWCC, but that adequate information on flows into the plant and the possible by-pass of the plant to Painter Creek had not been provided. The Managers noted that providing such information was a condition of the permit approval granted in June of 1985 and requested the Engineer and the Attorney to take additional action to secure such information. Eastman Marsh/Bay Center The Engineer reported that on July 2, 1985, the Wayzata City Council had adopted a moratorium for a period of six months, or longer if deemed necessary, on development in wetland areas in the, City of Wayzata while a storm water management plan ~s completed. The City denied the request for alteration of a storm water treatment area on Block 61 (Eastman Marsh) and further advised that it would not entertain a development proposal for the Eastman Marsh property until completion of the wetland study. The Engineer stated that with respect to the drainage issues at the Wayzata Bay Center, the Engineer had re-evaluated the site and it was the Engineer's judgment that the problem existing at that site would not appear to be capable of a feasible remedy and requested further discussion by the Board of the scope of the response which the Board desired. The Board discussed the matter, indicating that it felt a first priority should be the effort to maintain and clean up the existing ditch on the south side of the Bay Center property. The Board requested the Engineer to contact the City of Wayzata and the management company involved concerning cleaning of the ditch. Waterway Maintenance and Repair Fund The Engineer distributed a memorandum dated July 17, 1985 regarding the status of the 1985 Waterway Maintenance and Repair Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Minutes of Regular Meetin9 of July 18, 1985 Page 9 Fund. The Engineer reported that several contractors had been contacted about the removal of downed trees in the Minnehaha Creek, but, as yet, they had not responded with any cost estimates. The Engineer further noted that he did not feel these estimates would exceed $1,000 to $1,500. Manager Cochran reported that he had been contacted by former Manager and Board President Don Ringham, who expressed concern regarding a number of erosion problems and obstructions in the Creek which are now perhaps more visible than previously because of lower water levels in the Creek. The Engineer was requested to investigate the matters raised by Mr. Ringham. Princeton Court Townhouse The Engineer reported that pursuant to the direction of the Board at the last regular meeting, the developer had been informed that further work was not authorized on the site until sufficient data required for the issuance of the District's permit is prepared and submitted to the District for approval· The Engineer reported that a meeting had been held with the developer and the city engineering staff of the City of St. Louis Park, that a study had been prepared as a consequence of that meeting, and that the study results had been received in the Engineer's office. The Engineer reported that the study results were acceptable and that a permit had been issued for the Princeton Court Townhouse development· - .... ~ Correspondence The following items of correspondence were noted: Letter from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources denying the application of Cheyenne Land Company for a DNR permit for the Frederick Circle Subdivision. Letter from Wendy E. Well, P.A. to the District regarding alleged damage to the residence of Mr. Winters as a result of Project CP-5. Draft Proposed Rule on Recovery of Expenses The Attorney reperted on and reviewed a draft rule imposing fees on persons who perform work without a permit or who perform work in violation of a permit. The Managers reviewed the draft language and suggested various clarifications and modifications in the draft submitted by the Attorney. The Attorney was requested to revise the proposed rule in conformity with the Managers discussions and report it to the Board at the next regular meeting. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Minutes of Regular Meeting of July 18, 1985 Page 10 Recommendation Reqarding Adoption of Permit Guidelines as Rules The Attorney reviewed a memorandum dated July 10, 1985 dealing with the proposed permit guidelines presently under consideration by the Board. The memorandum suggested that the Board consider adopting the proposed permit guidelines and its draft policy statements under Chapter 509 as rules of the District in order to complete and refine the guidelines within the context of the Chapter 509 plan wher~ they are needed. The memorandum further suggested that ~do'ption ~f s~ch guidelines as rules could promote a more helpful dialogue with the municipalities, which would ultimately result in the development of better refined and more workable policies for inclusion in the District's Chapter 509 Plan. The Attorney further suggested that such a step would cause the work now being invested in the permit guidelines to assist directly in the preparation of the Chapter 509 Plan and move the Chapter 509 Plan forward to completion. The Managers discussed the memorandum and the various points which were raised in the memorandum. Following discussion and review, it was moved by Lehman, seconded by McWethy, that the Attorney and the Engineer be authorized to proceed to prepare the draft permit guidelines now under consideration by the Board as rules of the District in the context of development of the Chapter 509 Plan. Upon vote the motion carried. Soil Conservation Loss Leqislation The Attorney noted that soil loss legislation had passed the last regular session of the Legislature and indicated he would distribute a memorandum to the Board on that topic. The Board also requested clarification on the status of the state-wide watershed management planning legislation from the Attorney. August Meetinq/Change of Regular Meeting D~te The Attorney requested that the Board consider alternate meeting dates for the August meeting. Following discussion, it was moved by Spensley, seconded by Cochran, that the regular August meeting be moved to Thursday, August 22, 1985, at the Wayzata City Hall. Upon vote the motion carried. Adj. ournment There being no further business to come before the regular meeting, Chairman Cochran declared the regular meeting adjourned at 11:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Albert L. Lehman Acting Secretary z300 Metro Square Bldg., St. Paul, MN 55101 General Office Telephone (612) 291-6359 EVlEW A Metropolitan Council Bulletin for Community Lea, Editor: Jim Martin. For more information, call the Communications Department at 291- 6464. (I'DD 291-0904). August 9, 1985 RECENT COUNCIL ACTIONS (July 29 - Aug. 9) Sewage Treatment--The Council authorized 'the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission to apply for $13.2 million in federal and state grants. The ~funds would help pay tar a cost overrun of $31.t3 million incurre~l ,n '1~80 tar the construction of a sewage sludge processing facility at the big Metro sewage treatment plant in St. Paul. The amount of the requests was determined by a consultant to be eligible for grants. Development--The Council said a request by Oakdale to add three land parcels totalling 132 acres to the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) conforms with plans for regional sewers, parks, airports and transportation. (The MUSA is defined by a boundary circling the region, beyond which the Council discourages the extension of urban services.) Howe~ver, the Council said the additions were not consistent with regional growth because they add to Oakdale's already oversized land supply. The Council asked the city to prepare a comprehensive plan amendment to the year 2000. another development decision, the Council said a osal by Apple Valley to change planned land use for two within the city is consistent with regional plans for growth and development. The city plans to change 158 acres of land surrounded Dy Hayes Rd., 145th St-, Pennock Ay, and County Rd. 42 previously planned for residential development to a mixture of residential, business, park and shopping uses. Another area, 15 acres west of Johnny Cake Ridge Rd. and south of County Rd. 40, previously planned as a park, is planned for residential development. Because .the 15-ac. re parcel is outside the MUSA, the Council asked the city to amend its comprehensive development and sewer plans. Older People--The Council accepted an annual report o,p "communt;:' focal points" in the Metropolitan Are& Focal points are designated community and senior centers that provide a wide range of services to older people and link cider residents and their families tc other r. escurccs in thc- community. The Council has designated 51 focal points throughout the region. The Council approved the designation of Guadalupe Service Center in St. Paul and Murzyn Hall in Columbia Heights as additional focal points and approved a change in location for the Lakeville Senior Center focal point in Lakeville. Sewers--The Council approved $525,000 in additional costs for construction of a forcemain, a sewer that carries sewage uphill under pressure, and a sewage pumping station in Maple Plain. The budget increase, raising the total cost of the project to $2.6 million, is to cover engineering. administrative and contingency costs. Water Pollution--The Council asked the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) to not issue a sewage treatment permit for the Castle Towers mobile home park in East Bethel that would accommodate growth from 190 dwellings to a projected 559 dwellings. The Council said the park's sewage treatment plant is polluting Minard Lake and nased population would increase the threat to water urces. The Council asked the MPCA to require treatment improvements, but allow the plant to serve only the current park populatior~ The Council further questioned the future ownership and management of the plant The Council said it and the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission are opposed to taking charge of the plant if the future owner, a condominium association, were unable to manage the plant adequately in the future. Budget--The Councii approved its proposed 1986 work program and budget for purposes of a public hearing set for Sept 12 (see Public Hearings, Public Meetings), The budget calls for spending $11.8 million in 1986, The work program identifies six top-priority projects including solid waste management, a regional data center, government service and finance trends, regional transit studies, long-term care, and metropolitan governance. The Council's 1986 revenues of,$11.9 million come from local property tax revenues, 54 percent; federal revenues, 26 percent; state revenues, 3 percent; and 17 percent from commission reimbursements, interest income and other sources. The Council has a staff complement of 222 and 1/2 persons. NEW APPOINTMENTS The Council made the following appointments to the Regional Transit Board (RTB): Todd Lefko, St. Paul; Bernard Skrebes, New Brighton; Doris Caranicas, Minneapolis; Kenneth Bedeau, Minneapolis; Ruth Franklin, Anoka; Alison Fuhr, Edina; Paul Joyce, Hopkins; and Edward Kranz, Hastings. Bedeau is the only member who has not served on the RTB previously. The Council also recommended that Gov. Perpich reappoint Elliott Perovich RTB chair, PUBLIC HEARINGS, PUBLIC MEETINGS Sewer Construction--The Council will hold a public hearing at 7 p.m. Aug. 29, to hear public reaction to two alternative sewer construction plans to accommodate forecasted growth among eight communities on the western shores of Lake Minnetonka. A temporary reallocation of sew,-ge c;pac!ties =..~.c~= the cities :-/ill -'!so be presented. The plans involve amending the Council's Water Resources Management Development Guide. The hearing will be held in the Chanhassen City Hall, 690 Coulter Dr., Chanhasser~ To speak at the hearing, please register with Lucy Thompson at 291-6521. For reports on the two plans, call the Council at 291-6464. Housing--The Council will hold a public hearing at 2 p.m. Sept- 12. to hear reaction to proposed amendments to the Council's housing bond review guidelines. The proposed changes clarify differences in review procedures and timetables for housing bond plans and individual bond programs. The hearing will be held in the Council Chambers. To speak at the hearing, please register with Lucy Thompson at 291-6521. For a copy of the proposed guidelines, call the Council at 291-6464. Council Budget and Work Program--The Council will hold a public hearing at 5 p.m. Sept. 12. to hear reaction to its 1986 proposed budget and work program (see "Council Actions"). To speak at the hearing, please register with Lucy Thompson at 291-6521. For copies of the draft budget, call the Council at 291-6464. If you have questions about the budget, call the Council's Alan Morris at 291-6446. VACANCIES OPEN ON FIVE COUNCIL COMMITTEES The Metropolitan Council is seeking applicants to serve on its developmental disabilities, minority issues and waste management advisory committees and its health and transportation planning boards. The Developmental Disabilities Advisory Committee has five openings for people who are developmentally disabled or their parents and five openings for providers of social, health or communications services for developmentally disabled people, or members of the general public, Citizens from the following Council districts are encouraged to apply:. Dist. 6. north and northeast Minneapolis; 11, St. Louis Park. Golden Valley, Robbinsdale and Edina; 13. western Hennepin County, including the Lake Minnetonka area, Eden Prairie and Hopkins; and 16, southern Dakota and Washington Counties. The Minority Issues Advisory Committee has one opening for an applicant living anywhere in the seven-county Metropolitan Are& Anyone may apply for the vacancy, but applications from the area's American indian community are especially encouraged. The Metropolitan Waste Management Advisory Committee, which advises the Council on the reuse and safe disposal of the region's trash, has an opening for a local government representative. The Transportation Advisory Board, which advises the Council on regional highway, transit and airport systems, has four openings for citizen representatives. Applications are encouraged from the following Council districts: 1, the northern half of St. Paul; 2, the southern half of St. Paul, excluding Highland Park; 3, southern Ramsey County suburbs; 4. the south-central third of Minneapolis; 5, the southern and western third of Minneapolis; 6, north and northeast Minneapolis; 7, northern Washington and Ramsay Counties. plus Linc Lakes and Centerville; and 10, Crystal, New Hope. Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park and Osseo. The Metropolitan Health Planning Board, which advises the Council on health care and cost issues, has one opening for a local official or consumer representative. Citizens from Council district 11 (St. Louis Park. Robbinsdale. Golden Valley and Edina) are encouraged to apply. The application deadline is Sept. 13. The Council expects to make appointments Sept. 26. For applications and information, contact Sandi Lindstrom at 291-6390. SCHEDULE SET FOR REVIEW OF RIVERS STUDY REPORT The Metropolitan council will review a report on the uses and management of the Mississippi, Minnesota and St. Croix Rivers in the Metropolitan Area. with particular emphasis on recreation. The report was prepared by the Metropolitan River Corridors Study Committee (MRCSC}. The Council and Metropolitan Parks and Open Space Commission (MPOSC) will review the draft report and final report as follows: Aug. 26 MPOSC reviews draft. Sept. 9 Metropolitan Systems Committee reviews draft.- Sept. 12 Metropolitan Council reviews draft. Oct. 10 Study Committee adopts final report. Nov. 4 Metropolitan Systems Committee reviews report. Nov. 14 Metropolitan Council accepts report, submits comments to Study Committee. The Study Committee will hold public hearings on the draft report Sept. 9-12. For further information about the draft report or hearing schedule, call Mike Priesnitz, of the Study Committee. at 426-8634. BROWN BAG LUNCH OFFERS CHANCE TO DISCUSS SOLID WASTE SYSTEM "New Roles for Cities in the Metropolitan Solid Waste System." is the title of a discussion to be held at noon Aug. 27, in the Metropolitan Council Chambers. Topics to be covered will include changes in solid waste legislation, the Council's new solid waste policy plan, funding for landfill abatement efforts and the county planning process. Planners and city officials are invited to bring a brown bag luncl~ The discussion is jointly sponsored by the Minnesota Chapter of the American Planning Association and the Metropolitan Council. PUBLIC RELATIONS WORKSHOP SET FOR PUBLIC OFFICIALS The Government Training Service (GTS) will hold an evening workshop for local government officials on Aug. 22 called "Negotiating for Success." It will be held at 7 p.m. at the White Bear Lake Public Library, 4698 Clark St., White Bear Lake. The workshop is cosponsored by the League of Minnesot Cities. the Association of Minnesota Counties and the Minnesota Association of Townships. For more information, call Carol Schoeneck. GTSo at 222-7409. NEW PUBLICATIONS Housing Development Guide. June 19B5. Contains policies, programs and guidelines to guide Council decisions in the housing field and to deal with major housing problems in the Metropolitan Area` No. 19-85-021; 60 pp.; $2. Study of Organized Refuse Collection in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. June 1985. Report says that organizing the collection of trash to control or eliminate overlap between areas served by different haulers could have many advantages. However, there isn't a need for a system to establish organized collection throughout the area, the report says. No. 19-85-079; 35 pp.; $1.50. 1985 Population Estimates, Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. July 1985. Council estimates show area's population grew to 2,086,350 as of April 1, 1985--up five percent from 1980's total. Report contains estimates for each city, township and county in the area. 7 pp.; no charge. PEOPLE WITH HEARING IMPAIRMENTS CAN NOW CALL THE COUNCIL People with hearing impairments ~:an call the Council using a telecommunication device for the deaf, or "TDD.' The Council's TDD number is 291-0904. Information about Council programs and publications is available at that number. COMING MEETINGS (Aug, 19-30) (Meetings are tentative. To verify, call 291-6464.) Metropolitan Systems Committee, Mon'day, Aug. 19. 4 p.m.. Conference Room E. Regional Transit Board, Monday. Aug. 19, 4 p.m., Council Chambers. Metropolitan Waste Management Advisory Committee,Tuesday. Aug. 20. 1 p.m., Council Chambers. Aggregate Resources Advisory Committee, Tuesday. Aug. 20, 3:30 p,m.. Conference Rooms B and C. Arts Advisory Committee, Tuesday. Aug. 20, 5:15 p.m., Conference Room E. Transportation Advisory Board, Wednesday. Aug. 21. 2 p.m.. Council Chamber~ Environmental Resources Committee, Wednesday, Aug. 21. 4 p.m.. Conference Room E, Metropolitan and Community Development Committee,Thursday, Aug, 22, 1:30 p.m., Council Chambers. Management Committee, Thursday. Aug. 22, 3 p.m., Council Chambers. Metropolitan Council, Thursday, Aug. 22. 4 p.m.. Council Chambers. Aviation Policy Plan Task Force, Friday. Aug. 23. 9 a.m.. Conference Rooms A and B. Advisory Committee on Aging, Friday. Aug. 23. 9 Council Chambers. Metropolitan Parks and Open Space Commission, Monday, Aug. 26, 4 p.m.. Council Chambers. Metropolitan Systems Committee, Monday. Aug. 26, 4 p.m.. Conference Room F_ , Regional Transit Board, Monday, Aug. 26, 4:30 p.r~, Conference Rooms A and B. Metropolitan and Community Development Committee,Thursday. Aug. 29. 1:30 p.m., Council Chambers.