2000-01-18AGENDA
MOUND CITY COUNCIL
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING
TUESDAY, JANUARY 18, 2000 7:00 PM
MOUND CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
THE FOLLOWING ARE ALL DISCUSSION ITEMS.
PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT. This amendment would require that all
property taxes, special assessments, municipal utility fees, including but not limited to
water and sewer bills, and penalties and interest thereon have been paid for the property
for which the permit has been submitted.
This amendment would pertain to building permits; permits
plumbing; sewer and water hook-up; permits for excavation;
subdivisions; and Conditional Use Permits.
for mechanical and
permits for grading;
APPLICATION FOR A VACATION OF WATERFORD ROAD.
3. 8:00P.M. MEETING WITH THE PARK COMMISSION ABOUT THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
4. UPDATE FROM MAYOR MEISEL.
ADJOURN.
ORDI~ANCIE. - 2000
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION $00:J0, Subd. 1: 305:00; 310:00;
311:00;315:20~4~:05, Subd. ~-; 460:10:460:S5 a~d 350:52S, Subd. 1 OF TI-1E CITY CODE
RELATING TO PERMIT APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS
The City of Mound Does Ordain:
Section I.
Section 300:1 O, Subd. 1 of the City Code is amended by adding the underlined
language to read as follows:
Section 300:10.
Buildin~ Permits, Apnltcation
Subd. 1 Plans and Svedficafio, ns. Each application for a build:ng
permit shall be accompanied by writtert certification that ali vropertv
taxes, special assessment, mtmicipal utility fees. inc]udin£ but not_lim~ted
to water and sewer bills, and penalties and interest thereon have bcen paid
for the property for which the bu~.ldin~ verroit has been submitted and by
such building p]anx and specificatior~s a,~ thc Building Inspector may
determined to be .~ufficient to explain the nature, construction, and purpose
of the building or structure, or additions or alterations, proposed to be
erected or placed: or as the City Council may requite.
Section
Section 305:00 of the City Cod~s is amended by adding the underlined language
to read a.s follows
Section 305:00. Permits
No pcrson shall repair, install, construct, or modify any well or individual
septic system untcss said p¢rson shall have fu'st obtained a permit from the
City Clerk or someone he or she desi~,~nates to process permits. .Thc
vermit avolicant shall orovide written certification that all property taxes_,
svecial assessments, municival utility fees, including but r~ot limited to
water and sewer bills, and vcnalties and interest thereon have been raid
for the provertv for which thc permit has been submitted. The fee for such
permit shall be as set by the Council in Section 510:40. It is the
responsibility ot the perm~ttce to obtain the necessary inspections before
doing the work.
Section IH
Section IV.
Section v.
Section 310:00 of the City Codes is amended by addmt the [mdcrlined language
to r~ad as follows:
Section 310:00.
Permit Required, Fees
No person shall install or make substantial repairs or additions to
plumbing, sewage disposal, or sewage connection systems without first
securing a permit for such installation, repair or addition. The permit
avvlican,t_shall vrovide written c_e_rtilic_ation that all proverrv tax, es. sm:cial
astes_s, ments, municival utility fees, including but not limited to water and
sewer bills, and penalties and interest thereon have been paid for the
property for which the permit has been submitted. There shall be a
minimum fee as sci by the Council in Section 520:00 for the permit for
inside plumbing, plus an additional fee as set by the Council in Section
520:00 for each plumbing fixture: and them shall be a fee as set by the
Council ill Section 520:00 for each permit or connection to the pubhc
sanitary sewer system.
Section 311:00 of the City Code is amended by adding the underlined language to
read as follows:
Section 311:00.
Permit Reo_utred, Fees
It is unlawful for any person to perform any work on mechanical systems.
including gas piping, of a building regulated by this Code without first having
obtaiued a permit and paid thc fees required in Chapter 5. _The pein'lit applicant
shall vrovide written certification that all t~rovert¥ taxes, ~ecial assessments,
mUmcival utility fees, including but not limited to water and sewer bills, and
vcnaltic, s and interest there_on have bee~n void for_the oropegv for which the permit
has been ,submitted. The provisinns of this Code shall apply to the erection.
installation, alteration, repairs, relocation, replacement, addition to, use or
maintenance of any heating, ventilating, cooling, refrigeration systems.
incinerators or other mi~ellaneou.~ heat-producing appliances within this
jurisdiction.
Section 315:20 of the City Code is amcnded by adding the underlined language to
read as follows:
Section 315:20.
Permits
Every person seeking a permit pursuant to Section 315:15. or renewal thereof.
hereunder shall make an application therefor in writing at the office of the City
Clerk upon a form provided. 'l'he permit applicant shall provide written
.certification that all vropert¥ taxes, special assessments, municival utility fees,
including but not limited to water and sewer bills, and penalties and interest
thereo~ have been paid for the prol~rtv for which the vermit has been submitted.
Section VI.
It shall state thc name alld addr~s of thc applicant and a description of the
property upon which the permit is desired. Each such apphcation shall be filed
with the City Clerk not less than ten (10) days before said trailer is ready for
occupancy, and shall be accompanied by an inspection fee as set by the Council iii
Section 520:00, No permit shall be issued pursuant to this Section 315 except
upon approval of the Council,
Section ~t60:10 of the City Code is amended by adding the underlined language to
read as follows:
Section 460:10.
~xp~ltcatiojn.
The application shall be made in writing on such form as the City may from ttm¢
to time designate, and shall include such information as may be required by the
City Manager or Council and shall contain, among other things:
Subd. I. The correct legal description of the premises where the excavation.
rcmovaJ, or storage of rock, sand. dirt, gravel, clay. or other Ii. kc material shall or
does occur.
SuM. 2. The name and address of the applicant and owner of the land.
Subd. 3. The purpose o£ the removal, storage, or cxcavation.
Subd. ~. The cstimated time required to complcte the removal, storage, or
~xcavation.
Subd. 5. The highways, streets, or other public ways within the City upon and
along which the material excavated or removed shall be transported.
Subd. 6. A map or plat of the proposed pit or excavation to be made showing the
confines or limits thereof together with the propo,~d t~ntsl~eci elevations t~ased on
sea level readings.
Subd. 7. Writtcn certification that all property taxes, socciaI assessments.
mumcival utility fees, includine but not limited to water and sewer bills, and
penalties and interest thereon have been paid for the prop_ertv for which the pm-mit
has been submitted.
090-d lO/~O'd ~[8-L OLEBZ££Z[9+ N~AYa9 ! XO~NNS~-mo3t W:OL 68-6L-ZL
Sectiou VII.
Section 'vii.
Section ~160:35 of the City Code is amended by adding the tmderlined language to
read as follows:
Sectio~ ~t60:35.
Conditlom of Pern~t
The permit shall include as a condition thereof a l~nished ~ade plan which will
not adversely affect the adjacent land. and as a condition thcreo[ shall regulate the
type of fill permitted, plans for rodent control, fire control, and general
maintenance of the site and adjacent area. and make provision for control of
material dispersed from wind or hauling material to or from the site. The permit
shall also make reference to thc Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Controls
established in the Zoning Ordinances. (23.?11). The permit applicant shall
t~rovide written certification that all l~ro~rty taxes, ~¢cial assessments,
municil~al utility re_es, includinl: but not limited to water and sewer bills, a~d
venalties and interest thereon have been paid for the vroven¥ for which the permit
has been submitted.
Section 350:525 of the City Code is amended by adding thc underlined language
to r~ad as follows:
Section 350:525. Conditional Use Permits
Subd. 1 Criteria for Grantinp, Conditional Use Permits. I~ granting a
conditional use permit, the Mound City Council shall consider the advice and
recommendations of thc Planning Commission and the effect or' the proposed use
upon thc health, safety, morals and general welfare of occupants of surrourtding
lands. Among other things, the City Council may make t_he following findings
where applicable.
That the conditional use will not bc injurious to the use and
enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the
purposes already pet-mined, nor ~bstantially dimimsh and impair
property values within the immediate vicinity.
That the establishment of the conditional use will not impede the
normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding
vacant property for uses predominant in the area.
That adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and other necessary
facilities have been or am being provided.
That adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide
sufficient off-street parking and loading space to setwe the
proposed use.
SccUon ~.
That adequate measures have bceo or will I~ taken to prevent or
control offensive odor. fume, clu,s~, noise and vibration, so that
none of these will constitute a nuisance, and to control lighted
signs and other lights irt such a manner that uo disturbance to
neighboring properties will result.
The use. in the opinion of the City Council. is reasonably related to
the overall ne~ds of the City and to the existiog land use.
The use is consistent with the purposes of the zoning code and the
purposes of thc zoning district in which the applicant imencts to
locate the proposed usc.
H, The usc is not in conflict with the policies plan of thc City.
I. The use will not cause traffic h~ards or congestion.
Existing adjacent uses will not be adversely affected because of
curtailment or customer trade brought about by intrusion of noise.
~are or general unsightliness.
The developer shall submit a time ~hedule for completion of the
project.
Lo
The developer shall provide proof of ownership of the property to
thc Zoning Officer.
That all p~perty taxes, special assessments, municipal utility fees,
includine but not limited to water and sewer b~ills, and oenahies
and interest thereon have been ~aid for the prooerty for which the
permit has been submitted.
This ordinance shall bc effectivc upon its passage and official publication.
Dated this day of 2000.
APPROVED:
Mayor
ATTEST:
Accepted by Cyrantce this
By'.
!ts:
day of
.I999:
080-:1 20/10'd lqB-J. 0[£82£~Z[9+ N:l^V;d9 ! ~,(]'qNN:l)l-moJ:t 9E:OI, 88-ci[-ZL
1-~-2~ 7:28~M FROM DNR SW AREA OFFICE ~12 825 $7~7 P. 2
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
9925 Valley View Road, Eden Prairie, M2q 55344
612-8266769, 612-826-6767(fax)
January 5, 2.000
Mr. Jim Fackler
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, M2q 55364
Dear Jim:
This letter is in reference to the proposed vacation of a portion of the undeveloped public road in
the City of Mound described as follows:
Unimproved Waterford Road Street adjacent to 2537 and 2541 Wexford
Lane located within the R-2 single or two family residential zoning district,
Block 7, Lots 1,2,3, 15, and 16, no PID's, I~&Z 99-41.
Please be advised that the State of~fmnesota, Department of Natural Resources, Division of
Trails and Waterways opposes the proposed vacation of the above described property,
particularly with respect to the fact that it abuts public water. I have personally gone. to the site
and reviewed this proposed vacation. The public road as originally declieaxed provides a means
of access to Lake Minnetonka and was dedicated to public use forever via the Seton Plat back in
1913.
The citizens of Minnesota have a fight to use all of the public waters in our state. Any attempt to
preclude access should be carefully considered. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
devo:es considerable effort to providing the public with free and adequate access :o our lake~
and rivers throughout the state. The public includes persons other than those in the immediate
vicinity. Our goal is to preserve and protect the public's right To ALL forms of access. This
access can include, but is not Iimited to, shore fishing, canoe/carry in access, winter access (by
car, mowmobiIe or foot), swimming, picnic area and observation/natural areas. Any access the
public has, has value. The public owns it now, and should not lose any property or opportunity.
No access should be simply "given" to adjacent neighbors through a vacation.
FROM DNR SW aREA OFFICE ~12 82~ ~7~7
P. 3
Minnesota law prohibits the vacation of property dedicated for public use unless the persons
requesting the vacation prove that the property is useless both now and in the future for the
purpose for which it was laid out. It is an extremely high standard which is rarely satistied. The
standard is justifiably high because if the property is vacated the public will lose forever acc~s to
i~ublic water. It is important to preserve public lakeshore for the public because development
occurring on lakes impairs and olden eliminates the public's enjoyment of lakes by those members
of the public who do not own lake.shore property; often times because they can not afford it.
As a matter of law, it does not matter that the property may have been used little, if at all, by the
public. This is especially true in those cases where the public is not even aware that it had the
right to use the property. It also does not matter that the property is undeveloped. Finally, it
does not matter ii'there are other public access sites on the lake or that if the propert,¢ is vacated
it may be returned to the tax rolls. The essential and only issue is. whether the property is
useless both currently and in the future using the unrestricted definition o£"useless" ascribed to it
by the Court in the case of In Re Application o/Baldwin, 218 Minn. ! 1, 15 N.W.2d 184 (1944):
not sowing or not capable of serving any public valuable purpose; being of no
use; having or being of no use; unserviceable; producing no good .end;
answer/rig no desired purpose.
Ifthe facts show that the property is useable in its current state i'or its dedicated purpose or that it
has potential future uses, it cannot be deemed useless and cannot be vacated. To do otherwise
would clearly be unwarranted,, contrary to wall-established law and detrimental to the public's
recreational needs by taking away another public site forever. Please consider this letter as a
request for. denial of the proposed vacation.
In any future road vacations that terminate at, or abut any public water, please be aware that the
City is required via State Statute 505.14 to notify the Commissioner of Natural Resources at least
30 days before the term at which the vacation shall be heard. I don't believe in this particular
vacation the Commissioner was ever notified.
I would appreciate it if'you could let me know the outcome of this particular situation when some
decision is made. Should you have any additional questions in the meantime please feel free to
contact me.
Sincerely,
Martha I. Reger
Area Trails and Waterways Supervisor
1-~-2~ 7:2TAM FROM DNR SW 4RE4 OFFICE 612 826 6767
FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL
CO VERSHEET
· SO r.,rI'HWEST METRO d.~Ed
9925 V,~r_r_EY VIEW ROAD
VALLEY VTEW BUSINESS CE,.VTER
EDEN PRAIRIE, .zi,~V 55344
PA GES: T+
TO:
FR OM:
PHONE:
PURPOSE..
REMARKS:'
~.-..r your infoz=..acion
..... As .you req"a~sted
As' we di$cuased
For your appro~m!
Take appropria~.e
Reply and r.~:urn
Ouher (see remarks)
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX/612) 472-0620
Memorandum
TO: POSAC and DCAC
FROM: Jim Fackler, Park Director'
SUBJECT: Vacation of Waterford Road.
I would like to make only three points in addition to the
January 5, 2000 comments from Martha Reger, Area Trails and
Waterways Supervisor of the Department of Natural Resources.
The first is that I believe the Main objective of the
applicant was to obtain dock access to Lake Minnetonka.
This was complicated by the Lake Minnetonka Conservation
District (LMCD) rules that require setbacks to adjoining
property owners, of which the city is. There is a simpler
solution that can be done without the city giving up their
control of Waterford Road and has been done with this
developer in a similar situation. That is to allow a
variance to the LMCD rule.
The second point is that all of the Lake Minnetonka
shoreline under the cities control is used towards gaining a
LMCD Multiple Dock and Mooring Area License. Basically for
every 50 Lnft of shoreline the city is allowed one boat.
From the enclosed memorandums you will see how this relates
to the cities dock system. The impact of losing shoreline as
we are with Woodland Point and possible Dreamwood/Whychwood
means that the cities boat count will be limited closer to
one boat per dock.
The third point is that this would set precedent on allowing
lands adjacent to Lake ~innetonka under the cities control
to be lost.
printed on recycled paper
CITY OF MOUND
534'~ MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX t612) 472-0620
Memorandum
January 7, 2000
FROM: Jim Fackler, Park Director /'~i/
SUBJECT: Dedicated Commons Lineal FoOtage @ Boat Use.
Total Lineal Footage of City owned shoreline ... 29,500 Lnft
Total LMCD BSUs allowed to Dock Program ............ 590 BSU
Total actual BSUs used in 1998 ..................... 492 BSU
Woodland Point Lineal Footage ................... 1,995 Lnft
Woodland Point with 1 BSU per 50 Lnft allows ...... 39.9 BSU
Total actual BSUs in 1999 (not regulated) .... 46 Dock Sites
Total Abutting Sites ......................... 27 Dock Sites
Total Non-Abutting Users 1999 ................. 23 Ind. User
Dreamwood Lineal Footage ........................ 1,360 Lnft
Dreamwood with 1 BSU per 50 Lnft allows ........... 27.2 BSU
Total actual BSUs in 1999 ........................... 46 BSU
Wychwood Lineal Footage ......................... 1,030 Lnft
Wychwood with 1 BSU per 50 Lnft allows ............ 20.6 BSU
Total actual BSUs in 1999 ........................... 23 BSU
If the City did not have Woodland, Dreamwood and Wychwood in
the City Dock program:
Total adjusted Lineal Footage ................ 25,115 Lnft
Total adjusted LMCD BSUs allowed ................. 502 BSU
Total actual BSUs reduced from Dock Program ...... 115 BSU
*Expected use of BSUs for 2000 .................... 475 BSU
5
*This number of BSUs will only allow a buffer of 27 BSUs for
the program as compared to the 98 BSUs we have today. We
would have to closely monitor the number of BSUs (boats) in
the dock program and place limitations on the boats moored
at the docks.
pr~nted on recycled paper
DNR WA TERS
DATE: 11/10/99
STATE OF MINNESOTA
Office Memorandum
TO:
FROM:
Jim Fackler, City of Mound
Ceil Strauss, Area Hydrologist
(e-mail: ceil.strauss @ dnr.state.mn.us)
RECEIVED
NOV )5 1.999
PHONE: 651-772-7914 FAX: 651-772-7977
SUBJECT:
Vacation of Waterford Lane adjacent to 2537 and 2541 Wexford Lane, Case 99-41, Lake
Minnetonka- Seton Channel (27-133-14), City of Mound,
Since the majority of the proposed portion of Waterford Lane is below the ordinary high water
elevation of 929.4', DNR Waters does not have an objection to the proposed vacation. If the
proposed vacation had extended further north to the extension of Longford Road, I believe the
Department would have objected since a potential public access location could have been
compromised.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please call me if you have any questions.
C;
Martha Reger, DNR Trails & Waterways
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District, Greg Nybeck
MINUTES
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY~ NOVEMBER 8~ 1999
PUBLIC HEARING: CASE# 99-41: STREET VACATION; UNIMPROVED
WATERFORD ROAD ADJACENT TO 2537 AND 2541 WEXFORD LAND; RICHARD
OLIVER, 37950, PID# NOT YET ASSIGNED.
The applicant requested to vacate a portion of Waterford Lane adjacent to 2537 and
2541 Waterford Road. The request is prompted by the developers desire to create a
dock site accessible by Seton Channel. Almost all of Waterford Lane is underwater and
serves no purpose to the City. There are no City utilities within the right of way. Again,
this request was prompted by the applicant, and Staff has not taken a detailed look at
the balance of Waterford.
Gordon stated this issue would be presented to the docks and commons commission in
two weeks and he suspects the docks and commons commission would not favor the
vacation because there would be some minimal lineal area that would be lost due to
this vacation.
Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend to Council approval of the
street vacation as requested.
Mue!ler stated it appears the dimension of lineal shoreline that would be lost would be
about 25 feet. Brown agreed with Muetler and stated this 25 feet would include one
boat unit that would be lost.
Mr. Steve Behnke stated he is representing Richard Oliver, the applicant. Mr. Behnke
stated there are bvo options for extending the deck. One option that the DNR would
prefer would to be to extend the deck north, but neighbors to the applicant do not like
this suggestion because of site lines. Therefore, he is choosing the second option
which would include running the deck towards the channel. The LMCD may have
some arguments about this selection. Mr. Behnke stated the vacation propcsed would
allow use of the dock area and it would also still give the City of Mound access to the
channel. He wanted to restate that the DNR and LMCD both encourage dock usage.
Mueller asked if there would be an agreement with the adjacent landowner regarding
the dock. Mr. Behnke stated there would be an association-type agreement set up
which would allow both landowners dock access.
Chair Michael opened the public hearing at 7:50 p.m.
Chair Michael closed the public hearing at 7:51 p.m.
MOTION by Muel!er, seconded by Clapsaddle, to accept the vacation
according to staff recommendations with review and approval by the City
Attorney. MOTION CARRIED. 7-0.
Mound Plannina Commission Minutes - November 8. 1999
Mueller asked if there would be an agreement with the adjacent landowner regarding
the dock. Mr. Behnke stated there would be an association-type agreement set up
which would allow both landowners ,:lock access.
Chair Michael opened [he public hearing at 7:50 p.m.
Chair Michael closed the public hearing at 7:51 p.m.
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Clapsaddle, to accept the vacation
according to staff, recommendations with review and approval by the City
Attorney. MOTION CARRIED. 7-0.
Chair Michae! '""-'- ,~ '" ' '
· ~,,r.~, me~ Mr. =ennKe this case would be presented to City Council on
De:ember ~4, 1999.
PLANNING REPORT
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff'
FROM: Loren Gordon, A. ICP
DATE: November $ 1999
SUBJECT: Street Vacation
APPLICA.NT: Rich~d Oliver
CASE .NUMBER: 99-4t
HKG FILE .NUMBER: 99-.<
LOCATION: Adjacent ,'.o 2557 and 2_<21 Waterford. Road
ZONING: Re. siciendai Disr,"/c: R-2
COMPILEHENSIVE PL~N': Residential
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: A request to vacate a portion of Waterford Lane adjacant to
2537 and 25-tl '¢,'ate~ord Road. The request is prompted by the developers desire to create a
dock site accessible by Seton Channel. Almost all of Waterford Lane is tmderwater and serves no
purpose to the City. There are no CiD' utilities within the fight of way. Again, this request was
prompted bx' the applicant, and Staff has not taken a detailed look at the balance of Waterford.
Almost all of' it is unde~vater however.
RECO.M.ME.NDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recormmend Council
approve the street vacation as requested.
t3
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Mirmesota 5540
(6t2) 338-0800 Fax (612.1 338-6838
Engineering ° Planning · Surveying
RECEIVED
N 0 V 0 ~ ~999
MOUtJB PLAI,]~JI~IG & I~IS,~
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
October _9. I c~qc)
TO:
Jon Surherland. P[amning & Zoning
FROM: John Cameron. Cit,.' En_oineer
SUBJECT:
Cit.',' of*lound
Street Vacation - Waterford Lane
Case ~99-41
MF P,_-X/-. 12680
As requested we have reviewed the proposed vacation of Waterford Lane adjacent to Lots 14 and 15,
Brock 7, Seton and have no objection to the street vacation. This portion of Waterford Lane is
unusable as street fight-of-way with over 95 percent of the area below elevation 929.4, the ordina_D'
high water (OHW) of Lake Minnetonka. There are no CiD' utilities located in this section of
Waterford Road. The property to the ,xest is o~vned by the CiD' of Mound and is also wetland.
s:'main: mouI2680:correspondenc=',suthcrl~d10-29
15050 23rd Avenue No~h · Plymouth. Minnesota · 55447
phone 612/476-6010 · fax 5~2,'476-8532
e-mail' mfra,Cmfra.com
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAY~NOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
September 28, 1999
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Jim Fackler, Park Director /
Break Down Of Lineal Footag~e~'O~ Dedicated Commons.
From reviewing the information that I provided to the city
attorney for the c~rrent litigation at Woodland Point the
numbers are as follows:
Current LMCD BSU's With Woodland Pt. LnFt.
Adjusted LMCD BSU's Without Woodland Pt. LnFt.
1999 BSU Count With Out Woodland Pt.
City Claimed Shoreline Lineal Footage
Woodland Point Lineal Footage
( Does not include Canary Beach )
BSU's Allowed For Woodland Point
Woodland Pt. Current Boat Count
Dreamwood Common Lineal Footage
Dreamwood Common Current Boat Count
Wychwood Common Lineal Footage
Wychwood Common Current Boat Count
590 BSU
550 BSU
507 BSU
29,500 LnFt
1,995 LnFt
39.9 BSU
Unknown
1,360 LnFt
46 BSU
1,030 LnFt
28 BSU
If the dedicated commons were lost the combined totals would
be:
Total Lineal Footage Removed
Adjusted BSU's Allowed For Dock Program
Adjusted Dock Program LMCD Allowed BSU's
Estimated BSU Use Per Future Season's
4,385 LnFt
25,115 LnFt
502 BSU
438 BSU
printed on recycled paper
Application for
STREET / EASEMENT VACATION
Cit~ of Mound
5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620
P!anning Commission Date:
City Council Date: - D.~".
D sir bution'
10 -iE -qq city P!anner'~'
JC-J~-5~'~ City Engineer '~'
1O"~ ~ '~'¢i Public Works J
Minne§asco
Poiice Dept.
Dept. ,,,.
RECENED
MOUND PLA,N~ING & IN~,F.
Case No. qCl-H/
Application Fee:
Please ~pe or print the following informaticn:
ADJACENT
PRCPER,'TY
(AP~LLCANT'S
PROPERTY)
ZCNING
DIST~IC-
DESCRIPTION
OF STREET
TO BE
VACATED
~,c.,.ss ' '~. ~ ~ .
ACjac~m .... --
N~me cf Business
Circle: R-i R-iA ~ R-3 84 B-2 8-3
REzS,2N
FCA
RE]UEST
IS THERE ~,
PUBUC NEED
FOR THIS
LAND?
Blcck
P!D;
Print Applicant's Name
Date
Print Applicant's Name
Applicant's Signature
Date
15
CiTY OF MOUHD
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
CITY OF MOUND
MOUND, MINNESOTA
CASE #99-41
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING
TO CONSIDER THE APPROVAL OF UNIMPROVED WATERFORD ROAD STREET
VACATION ADJACENT TO 2537 AND 25'~i WEXFORD LANE LOCATED WITHIN
THE R-2 SINGL= OR TWO FAMILY RESiDENTiAL ZONING DISTRICT, BLOCK 7,
LOTS 1, 2, 3, 15,& 16
PIDS # NOT YET ASSIGNED
P & Z 99-41
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the ?fanning Commission of the City of
Mound, Minnesota, will meet in the Council Chambers, 534i Maywood Road, at
7:30 p.m. on Monday, November 8, 1999to conside: the approval of unimproved
Waterford Road Street Vacation adjacent to 2537 and 254i Wexford Lane located
within the R-2 Single or Two Family Residential zoning district.
· ' ~ ''...,~tT, l,: '1.~ ~i.i~.l.~! :
~ ~ ", ~ 'i ~,.: ,;t t,~;,~ ~ L
-¢ .............~' ~'r,'~"~ .... ~' ~,~
All persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the a~ve will be
given the opportunity to be heard at this meeting. -~ J~
.... ~is--L~L,~ist, Pr'ar~.~Ing Secretary
Mailed to property owners within 350 feet of affected property on October 20, 1999
Published in the Laker, October 23, 1999
NQ~C~[ OF A PUBLIC HEARING
TO CONSIDER THE APP;OVAL OF
UNIMPROVED WATERFORD ROAD
~'I'RE~ VACATION AD, JA~';~N'T TO
LOCA-;ED WITHIN THE R-2 SINGLE.
OR TWO FAMILY RE$1Df£NTIAL
ZONING DiSTRiCT, at.f.~aX 7,
LOTS 1, 2, 3, 1S,
PIPS # NOT YET
NCT~CE IS HE.::[EeY GIYE~, :~al :he
Pla~mng Commis~on of ~e City of Mound.
Minnesota. will meet in ~e Counc~.l
Chaplets. 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30
co~sJ~er ~e approval of ummp~oved
2~7 a~ ~41 Wexford L~e
~e ~-2 Sin~ie or Two F~i~
ZOnin~
w~[~ ~efe~e~ m ~e ~ove ~11 ~ ~tven ~e
K~s L~nqu~st. Planing
(P~ii~ :n The L~er ~ ~. :~)
\-1
Affidavit of Publication
State of Minnesota, County ot Hennepin.
Bill Holm, being duly sworn on oath, says that he is
an authorized agent and employee of the publisher
of the newspaper known as THE LAKER, Mound,
Minnesota, and has full knowledge of the facts
which are stated below:
A.) The newspaper has complied with all the
requirements constituting qualifications as a
qualiiied newspaper, as previded by Minnesota
Statute 331A.02, 331A.37, and other applics-ble
laws, as amended.
B.) The .-, ~ , ,-,
which is ~=-oh=~ ',v~.~
ne,,vs.ca;er, znd ',vas
e&c~ week for
It ,,vas first ?ublished Saturday
the 23r~'day of Oc~obe: 19 99 ,
and ,,vas thereafter printed and published ever/
Saturday, to and including Saturday,
the . day of
·
/¢" /~L(thcrized A~ent
Subscribed and sworn to me on this
23rd day of . October ,19 99.._~___.
~ KRIS~ HOLM ,,
(~) Lowest dassi~ed rate paid by ~mmercial users
for comparable space: $12.90 per inch.
(2) M~ximum rate allewed by law for above m~er: Sl 2.90.
(3) Rate actually charged for above maker: $7.19 per inch.
Each additional successive week: ~. ~ 4.
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR
RICHARD OLIVER
IN BLOCK 7, SETON
HENi',IEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
OCT 15 FJg~ ...........
I~C' JND PL,~NNI~ ~, l~$p. "' ........ "':
18
RECEIVED ~ , ',
. ~>~ ~ lq / ('---~ x~ ,
~ ~ ~ .~ ~ {9) ~ ~ 5
~-- ~/
.,- ~, ~ // / ~' x~ ..'....... :~ ~ ~~~~~ ~ ..... ~ ~,.~., ,,,-
~ '/ / " " ~ ), o" ~0' , , ' ,' '
. ,/ /,'/// ~ ," ~_~~~ .... ~0~0
'~/ ~ / F ~ ~-m W ~ o o ~--~ ........... ,' ,
'~.,~ /,' ,/~ ) ~ ~~~
-"1 / .' I t / ~ '~ ~ ~ ~ ~-~1.~
......... t--' / , ' ...... ~ ,~'~ o ~ ~ ~ LTD) ' ~/8~ 'm ~ -.'~ IZ5 IZb
~ I o .76 ~ .. ¢,.~ ~ DOC NO ~0:~0~'~ 5
MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - APRIL 13, 19~
MOTION by Meisel, seconded by Ahrens to approve the following licenses
cOntingent upon all required forms, insurance, etc., being submitted.
Transient Merchant
By the Way Snack Shop
Tree Removal License
Aaspen Tree Service
Amberwood Tree
Bear Tree Care
Four Season's Tree Service
Ostvig Tree, Inc.
Precision Landscape
Randy's Tress Service
Shorewood Tree Service (Residential)
Set-Up License
A1 & Alma's Supper Club
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.13
PUBLIC HEARING CASE 99-06: MINOR SUBDIVISION, TO READJUST
PROPERTY LINES TO CREATE TWO PARCELS TO CONSTRUCT A
TWINHOME AT 2541 WEXFORD LANE, FINE LINE DESIGN GROUP, INC.,
LOTS 1, 2, 3, 14 & 15, BLOCK 7, SETON, PID #24-117-24 11 0019.
1.14
PUBLIC IIEARING: CASE 99-07: REVIEW OF CONDiTIONAL USE PERMIT
TO ALLOW FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A TWINHOME LOCATED WITHIN
THE R-2 SINGLE OR TWO FAMILY ZONING DISTRICT AT 2541 WEXFORD
LANE, LOTS 1, 2, 3, 14 & 15, BLOCK 7, SETON, PID//24-117-24 11 0019.
The City Planner explained that these two cases, 99-06 and 99-07, will be explained
together. The Minor Subdivision(1.13) would have to be approved in order for the Council
to consider the Conditional Use Permit (1.14).
The Planner stated the applicant has requested a minor subdivision to split property into two
buildable lots to construct a twin home. The proposal would split the parcel north/south
creating two new lots as shown on the survey. The Planning Commission recommended
approval of the subdivisica with the following conditions:
Easements for drainage and utility purposes should be required along all
exterior lot lines, ten feet in width adjacent to the three streets and five feet
wide 'along the south lot line of Parcel B.
259
MINUTES- MOUND CITY COUNCIL - APRIL 13, 1999
Utility services are in-place for both parcels. Parcel A has a sewer service
available on the Longford Road side and water services in both Longford Road
and Wexford Lane.
Parcel B can use the existing services that present/y service the house that is
schedule for demolition. The City's record utility plan shows the existing
house was equipped with an individual sewage pump, because it could not be
served by gravity. The proposed structure may have the same situation if
basements are planned. These existing services will need to be replaced from
the right-of-way to the new structure.
3~
A more complete grading plan will need to be furnished at the time of building
permit application.
The Planner further stated that the Staff recommends approval of the request because it is
consistent with the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan.
The Planner then explained the request for a Conditional Use Permit. He stated this is
consistent with the R-2 Zoning. There are covenants regarding the agreements with the two
property owners that would occupy each side of the unit. These are consistent with other
twin home projects. He reported that the lot area is large enough for 2 and maybe 3 single
family detached homes. If this were done, a Conditional Use Permit would not be needed.
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the Conditional Use Permit for the
twinhome with the following conditions:
A. The existing fencing conform to the codes for fence requirements.
B. All existing buildings be removed prior to construction.
Ce
Covenants be established and approved by the City Attorney prior to Council
review for the exterior of the proposed buildings and the landscaping of the
lots.
D. The basement elevation not be lower than 933.5 feet.
Any changes in the plan be reviewed by the Planning Commission prior to
City Council approval.
F. Applicant adhere to the Tree Preservation Performance Standards.
Review by the Building Official of the back-up systems if the basements are to
be served with smfitary sewer.
The Planner also suggested adding the following as a condition of the subdivision section of
the proposed resolution, as follows:
260
· MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCR, - APRIL 13, 1999
1. C. Park dedication fees be paid as stated in Section 330:120 of the City Code.
The applicant asked if this is one additional park dedication fee. The Planner stated, yes.
Councilmember Hanus asked if this is private dockage or public dockage. The Planner
stated the dock will come off of private lakeshore. Councilmember Hanus stated that his
understanding is that there will be one dock and both parties will share that dock. The
applicant agreed.
Councilmember Hanus then asked the applicant if he had a problem with adding one more
condition to the CUP that would read as follows:
H. . Dockage is to be retained as private dockage and to be utilized from private
lakeshore rather than public.
Mr. Stokkes stated he does not have a problem with adding that condition.
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
The following persons spoke against the Subdivision and the CUP:
Ron Bergquist, 2540 Wexford Lane
Gordy McVey, 4807 Longford Road
The reasons were as follows:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Increased traffic.
Would rather see two single family dwellings.
Loss of trees.
Loss of their view of the lake.
Don't want a multi-family dwelling in the neighborhood.
Do not want rental units in the neighborhood.
Richard Carlson, 4832 Longford Road, asked about the fences that are currently around this
property. The developer stated those will come down and anything that is put up would have
to conform to the ordinance.
Tom Stokkes, Fine Line Design, informed the Council that one of these units is already pre-
sold and the sale price is in excess of $300,000.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
The Council discussed the tree issue. The Planner stated that Item F in the proposed
resolution will handle this.
261
MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - APRIL 13, 1999
Brown moved and Hanus seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION//99-32
RESOLUTION APPROVING A MINOR
SUBDIVISION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A TWINHOME
IN AN R-2 ZONING DISTRICT LOCATED AT 2541
WEXFORD ROAD, LOTS 1, 2, 3, 14 & 15,
SUBJECT TO ROAD, BLOCK 7, SETON, PID//24-
11%24 11 0019, P & Z CASES g99-06 & 99-07
Hanus asked that the following be added to the proposed resolution as discussed
previously:
1. C.
Park dedication fees be paid as stated in Section 330:120 of the City
Code.
Dockage for the properties is to be located on private lakeshore and not
utilize public shoreline.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.15 CASE 99-03:
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: RESOLUTION TO APPROVE
A HARD COVER VARIANCE AND TO VACATE A UTILITY
EASEMENT IN ORDER TO ALLOW FOR CONSTRUCTION TO
CONVERT A 1 1/2 STORY DWELLING INTO A 2 STORY AND
ADD AN ADDITION WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE, AT 4844
ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, LOT 1 & 2, BLOCK 5, DEVON, PADS
25-11%24 11 0047 & 25-117-24 11 0046
City Planner, Loren Gordon gave the following: BACKGROUND/COMMENTS: George
Ayaz property owner at 4844 Island View Drive has submitted a request for the following:
Vacate 1/2 of Drummond Road adjacent to the property.
Vacate a utility easement area along the front of the property as contained in Doc. #
779757.
Currently Drummond Road is a paper street that has water and sanitary sewer lines within in
it. Between Dexter Lane and Amhurst Lane, Drummond runs in the rear of homes located
on the block. All homes on the block front on Island View Drive or Hanover Road. As
there are no homes that "front" on Drummond or and detached garages that could utilize it as
an alley, it does not seem useful to the public for access purposes.
The City Engineer's report dated February 1, 1999, details the utility and easement issues on
the property. Recommendations from this report are included in the following
recommendation.
262
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - NOVEMBER 23, 1999
1.4 PUBLIC HEARING: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
Councilmember Hanus stated he would appreciate an update from staff regarding the
Comprehensive Plan. He also stated the Councilmembers received a copy of the minutes
from the Planning Commission meeting of November 22, 1999, and would appreciate staff's
comments regarding that item also.
Councilmember Hanus questioned whether the Surface Water Management Plan was a part of
the Comprehensive Plan or a separate document. The City Planner stated it is a component
of the Comprehensive Plan but can be dealth with separately.
Councilmember Hanus noted the Planning Commission tabled the Surface Water
Management Plan. He agreed with this direction. He stated the Comprehensive Plan is a
Plan that involves more policy decisions, but the Surface Water Management Plan is looked
at as a type of zoning document which presently does not read well at all according to the
Planning Commission and Councilmember Hanus.
Councilmember Hanus asked if the City Council will be reviewing only the Comprehensive
Plan tonight and at a later date, the Surface Water Management Plan will be discussed.
Gordon stated the Planning Commission would appreciate more time to review the Surface
Water Management Plan, although the City Council could approve it without further review
by the Planning Commission.
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES = NOVEMBER 23, 1999
Councilmember Hanus stated if we allow more time, the Surface Water Management Plan
will not be approved with the Comprehensive Plan.
The City Planner stated it is acceptable to have the Surface Water Management Plan come in
at a later date than projected by the Metropolitan Council. He stated there are no
ramifications if the plan is not presented with the Comprehensive Plan. The City Planner
stated there are a number of cities that are still scrambling to get their Comprehensive Plan
and Surface Water Management Plan completed.
Councilmember Weycker asked if a Capital Improvements Plan has been included in the
Comprehensive Plan and the City Planner stated there was a section in the Comprehensive
Plan.
Councilmember Brown stated the huge problem the Planning Commission has already dealt
with in the Surface Water Management Plan is the buffer zone. The Planning Commission is
totally against buffers. Councilmember Brown stated there might be other ways to
supplement the effect buffers give.
The City Planner presented the Comprehensive Plan to the City Council and the public. He
started in the Land Use section. He noted changes would be occurring with the Mound
visions plan project. He stated the downtown by will show more density for some sort of
apartments/townhomes. There will also be redevelopment near Commerce and Shoreline.
The City Planner stated in the Housing section there is a summary showing Mound has a
large inventory of single-family housing and the plan suggests that be complimented with
other housing mixes.
The City Planner explained there were no changes in the Transportation section of the Plan,
except the rerouting of County Road 15 for the downtown project.
The City Planner stated the Cultural and Natural Resources section would be a protection of
the wetland areas and parks and school district property.
The City Planner stated the Park and Recreation section showed existing parks and major
conservation areas for the City of Mound. He stated the School District ballfields are a part
of the this. He stated there are bikeways and trails planned, including the possibility of the
Dakota railway having some sort of regional trail connection. The City Planner mentioned
the loop trail around Lost Lake and noted the existing parks are staying. The Plan does
show if there is a need for additional park facilities they will be examined as they arise.
The City Planner stated the Public Facility and Resources section showed no anticipated
improvements to the buildings at this time. He stated there is a Capital Improvements Plan
noted in the Plan that does show storm sewer pipe and road maintenance issues that will be
dealt with in an appropriate timeframe.
The City Planner stated this is a policy document and a decision-making tool. He stated the
City Council could revise sections over time. He stated it should be kept updated regularly,
4
MOUND C1TY COUNCIL MINUTES - NOVEMBER 23, 1999
but will not have to be officially reviewed for another 10 years.
The City Planner reviewed the motions the Planning Commission made regarding the
Comprehensive Plan on November 22, 1999. They are listed as follows:
Mueller recommended the following changes to the Goals and Polices section of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Mueller stated under Land Use on page 8, number 9 at the top of page should read:
"City Council, Planning Commission and Park and Open Space Commission shall
review and analyze publicly owned land to ensure that it is needed for public
purposes."
MOTION by Mueiler, seconded by Burma, to approve the amendment to
the Land Use section noted above. MOTION CARRIED. 7-0.
Mueller stated under Recreation on page 10, number 6 should read: "Promote a
balanced park system which includes neighborhood parks, community parks, nature
conservation areas, special use facilities, schools and private developments."
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Voss, to approve the amendment to the
Recreation section noted above. MOTION CARRIED. 7-0.
Mueller stated under Public Communication/Information Access section the words
"continue to" where noted in two locations should be removed.
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Voss, to approve the amendment to the
Public Communication/Information Access section noted above. MOTION
CARRIED. 7-0.
Mueller stated under Public Communications/Information Access number 3 should
read as follows: "Ensure that elected and appointed officials are provided timely and
accurate information to assist with decision making through adequate staff and resources."
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Glister, to approve the amendment to
the Public Communications/Information Access section amended above.
MOTION CARRIED. 7-0.
Voss noted that concludes the Goals and Policies Section of the Comprehensive Plan.
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Clapsaddle, to move for approval or
disapproval by the City Council the Goals and Policies Section of the
Comprehensive Plan with the amended changes above. MOTION
CARRIED. 6-1, Voss voting nay.
Voss reiterated the reason for him voting nay is he does not believe there is sufficient
information of the financial impact on the city this Plan will have, it does not show
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - NOVEMBER 23, 1999
how this Plan will effect property rights, and does not demonstrate the impact to local
government.
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Clapsaddle, to move for approval or
disapproval by the City Council the Natural and Cultural Resources
section of the Comprehensive Plan. MOTION CARRIED. 7-0.
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Clapsaddle to move for approval or
disapproval by the City Council the Socio-Economic Section of the
Comprehensive Plan. MOTION CARRIED. 7-0.
Mueller stated the Land Use section be changed to read: "Land by deed restrictions
or plat dedications is identified for use principally by owners of specific
subdivisions."
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Hasse, to approve the amendment to
the Land Use section as amended above. MOTION CARRIED. 7-0.
Mueller stated the Land use section under pedestrian district should read as follows:
"It is an intense downtown area with a mix of retail office and attached residential
housing."
Clapsaddle is concerned the whole downtown area will become totally multi-family
residential construction because of the financial gain with the above noted change in
the Land Use section. Gordon stated this may be a valid concern.
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Chair Michael, to approve the
amendment to the Pedestrian District of the Land Use section as amended
above. MOTION CARRIED. 5-2, Hasse and Clapsaddle voting nay.
Mueller stated changing the Land Use Map coloration on page 37. Mueller stated the
green area regarding the Lost Lake area should be recolored and the south 90 percent
of it be white and the top portion be green.
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Chair Michael, to approve the
amendment to the Land Use Map at amended above.
Gordon suggested stating the Lost Lake area be noted as a conservation area on the
Land Use Map. Mueller suggested to have the map show green and white checkered
for the Lost Lake area, except the area above the ordinary high water mark which
should be green.
AMENDED MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Clapsaddle, to approve the
amendment to the Land Use Map stated above. MOTION CARRIED. 7-
0.
MOUND crrY COUNCIL MINUTES - NOVEMBER 23, 1999
Mueller suggested on the Land Use Map for the property located on the comer of
Lynwood and Commerce which is a public institution to have the comer two pieces
remain red and the remainder change to blue.
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Clapsaddle, to approve the amendment
to the Land Use Map involving the property located at Lynwood and
Commerce as stated above. MOTION CARRI-ED. 7-0.
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Chair Michael, to move for approval
or disapproval by the City Council the Land Use Section of the
Comprehensive Plan. MOTION CARRIED. 6-1, Clapsaddle voting nay.
Clapsaddle voted nay because of the change noted to the pedestrian district section of
Land Use.
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Voss, to move for approval or
disapproval by the City Council the Housing Section of the Comprehensive
Plan. MOTION CARRIED. 7-0.
Mueller stated to make no changes to the Park and Recreation Section, but allow the
Park and Open Space Commission to make recommended changes to the Park and
Recreation Section at the City Council meeting on November 23, 1999.
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Hasse, to move for approval or
disapproval by the City Council the Park and Recreation Section with
additions noted above on the Comprehensive Plan. MOTION CARRIED.
7-0.
MOTION by Clapsaddle, seconded by Mueller, to change Contents of the
Park and Recreation Section of the Comprehensive Plan as noted above.
MOTION CARRIED. 7-0.
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Voss, to move for approval or
disapproval by the City Council the Public Facilities and Services Section
of the Comprehensive Plan. MOTION CARRIED. 7-0.
MOTION by Voss, seconded by Hasse, to move for approval or
disapproval by the City Council the Transportation Section of the
Comprehensive Plan. MOTION CARRIED. 6-1, Mueller voting nay.
Voss made the motion to pass the Transportation Section because he was not
concerned about the impact of the comments suggested in the Goals and Policies
Section of the Comprehensive Plan.
Mueller opposed this motion because neighborhood roadways should not be
considered "municipal state aid streets." He stated this would increase traffic flow at
a higher speed and a requirement by another governmental body.
7
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - NOVEMBER 23, 1999
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Voss, to move for approval or
disapproval by the City Council the Implementation Section of the
Comprehensive Plan. MOTION CARRIED. 7-0.
Mueller stated the Planning Commission should recommend to the City Council the
Parks and Recreation portion of the Comprehensive Plan should include input from
the Park and Open Space Committee regarding an immediate potential loss of activity
type-park areas and the immediate potential acquisition of property to replace the loss.
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Clapsaddle, to approve the amendment
to the Park and Recreation section as noted above. MOTION CARRIED.
6-1, Voss voting nay.
Councilmember Hanus stated the Land Use Map does not reflect the zoning properly,
specifically the Maple Manors. The City Planner stated the change can be included in the
final draft of the Land Use Map.
Councilmember Hanus stated Tyrone Park does not appear to be on the Land Use Map.
Gordon stated this park will be added back in the final draft of the Land Use Map.
Councilmember Ahrens asked the City Planner if the City Council finds mistakes in the
Comprehensive Plan after it is turned into Metropolitan Council, can it be changed. The
City Planner stated changes could be made that are minor. Any major change may not be as
easy to change. The City Planner also stated the Land Use section of the Comprehensive
Plan should be kept updated to accommodate zoning changes as they occur.
Councilmember Weycker stated the Transportation section specifically needed some changes
made. She stated Dial-a-Ride is a transportation service for all individuals and not just the
elderly or disabled. Also, it should be noted in the Comprehensive Plan the bus routes are
only available for citizens of Mound at rush hour times and not on an all day basis as
mentioned.
Councilmember Weycker stated there are some discrepancies with the Lost Lake area. She
stated the map should indicate it as an NCA or a lake marsh.
Councilmember Weycker mentioned in the Parks and Recreation section under the
Specialized Areas the fourth paragraph should exclude part of the first sentence up until the
Commerce pan.
Councilmember Weycker was concerned how the park and recreation space for the citizens
of Mound was calculated. She questioned including Lost Lake as usable land. Gordon
stated this section would need to be recalculated if the school district property is changed
from its current park listing.
Councilmember Brown stated he recommends changes to the Comprehensive Plan according
to what the Planning Commission recommended at its November 22, 1999, meeting.
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - NOVEMBER 23, 1999
Mayor Meisel opened the public hearing at 9:05 p.m.
Tom Stokes, 4636 Wilshire Boulevard. He is a part of the Brenshell Company. Mr. Stokes
would like to know why the sea green color from the original Land Use Map has changed to
yellow in the proposed Land Use Map. The City Planner stated this yellow area will be
considered vacant and could be subdivided some day.
Tom Casey, 2845 Cambridge Lane. Mr. Casey submitted for the record a memo with
recommended changes to the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Casey would like to see the final
Comprehensive Plan at a public heating when it has been completed.
Mr. Casey restated a statute which cites specific property which could be included in a
Comprehensive Plan, such as the Rex Alwin property and the school district property if it
seems appropriate. Mr. Casey stated it would make good sense to include this property in
the Comprehensive Plan. The City Attorney stated it is possible to point out specific
property in the Comprehensive Plan, but he does not recommend it.
Mr. Casey restated he would recommend having strong language in Comprehensive Plan that
includes a friendly acquisition of the Rex Alwin property and the school district property.
Mr. Casey stated the Surface Water Management Plan is a required Plan and commends the
City and Mr. Parks for taking the appropriate time to create a well-written Plan. Mr. Casey
submitted his recommended changes of the Surface Water Management Plan to the City
Engineer.
Mr. Casey stated the buffer zones should be included in the Surface Water Management Plan
because it is a good code to have for a city like Mound and also it is mandated by the
watershed district.
Mr. Casey mentioned the two resolutions submitted to the Planning Commission which
include the Rex Alwin property and the School District property. He stated the Parks
Commission only approved the two resolutions and the memorandum he submitted was his
thoughts only. Mr. Casey stated the big woods is an "echo system" and Mr. Alwin's
property is one of those remnant parcels.
Tom Stokes stated he has an interest in Rex Alwin property. He stated he would like to
have this property put into a park and other development. Mr. Stokes would like to know
the impact it would be on him, a developer, if the city would put this property into its
Comprehensive Plan as parkland.
The City Attorney stated the property would stay zoned as it currently is zoned. He stated if
was a proposal to develop the property by a developer, it would need a conditional use
permit from the City of Mound.
Mr. Casey clarified by no means is he trying to impede Mr. Alwin's plans in anyway.
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES = NOVEMBER 23, 1999
Peter Meyer, 5848 Sunset Road. Mr. Meyer is the Chairman of the Park & Open
Space Commission. He is in favor of keeping the ballfields. Mr. Meyer did a comparison
of other cities regarding ballfields available to the public. The five cities he cited, with
various populations, of having more ballfields than Mound include Chanhassen, Chaska,
Shorewood, Watertown, and Saint Bonnifacius. Mr. Meyer wants the City of Mound
visions project to include an appropriate number of ballfields.
Councilmember Brown stated the five cities Mr. Meyer mentioned are ail cities that are
growing and have a large amount of land yet to be developed. Councilmember Brown
corrected Mr. Meyer and stated the City of Mound has three little league fields and three
softball fields. He also stated Mr. Meyer failed to mention the Swenson Park and the Shirley
Hills Park as community fields currently being utilized by the public.
Councilmember Hanus asked if all of the fields listed from each of the five cities were all
city maintained property and Mr. Meyer stated they were. Councilmember Hanus stated
these cities are blossoming and have large tax revenue to help support these fields and
Mound does not.
Councilmember Hanus suggested to Mr. Meyer he would support a generic listing of certain
types of parks to be included in the Comprehensive Plan and to have the City work towards
achieving those standards for the community; but to be include site specific parcels would be
inappropriate.
Councilmember Brown mentioned another correction in the Comprehensive Plan. He stated
in the Goais and Polices section under Recreation the first sentence should read as follows:
"Promote recreational opportunities to meet the needs of the Mound residents."
Councilmember Weycker stated it would be inappropriate to be site specific in any area of
the Comprehensive Plan, with the exception to the parks and the school district property.
Mr. Stokes questioned what will prevent the school district from selling off more of its
property, or ballfields, to other developers as the years go by. Mr. Stokes stated the City
may need to put some kind of stop in preventing this from happening again.
Councilmember Weycker agreed and would like to see the City purchase more fields in the
future.
Mr. Meyer suggested having a joint powers agreement between the school district and the
City where it would state if the school district decides to sell off any of its property, the City
would have the first right of refusal to purchase the site. Councilmember Hanus stated there
is room for discussion regarding this suggestion by Mr. Meyer but rezoning each acquired
piece of property obtained by the City would not be appropriate.
Kim Anderson, 5736 Lynwood. Ms. Anderson supported Mr. Meyer's calculations of other
cities regarding percentages of green space for bailfields that surrounding cities provide for
the citizens. She would like the City of Mound to be more aggressive about this matter.
10
MOUhrD C¥1'~ COUNCIL MII~rYES - NOVEMBEI~ 23, 1999
Mr. Casey suggested a possible better way to accomplish completing a project like the
Comprehensive Plan and the Surface Water Management Plan would include having all
interested citizens, all commission members and all consultants at one big round table
discussion and meet a common understanding and a common ground by all. He would
recommend this planning process as a vision for Mound.
Mayor Meisel closed the public hearing at 10:00 p.m.
Councilmember Hanus stated he would recommend the Comprehensive Plan be brought back
for discussion by the City Council at the next available date in December, 1999, so the City
of Mound could still meet the deadline of December, 1999. He stated the Surface Water
Management Plan would not be included in the Comprehensive Plan presented to the
Metropolitan Council, but instead it would go back to the Planning Commission for more
discussion and then forwarded back to the City Council at the end of January, 2000. He
stated he would encourage special Planning Commission Meetings to accomplish this goal.
The Acting City Manager stated the next Council meeting would be December 14~ , and
already on the agenda is the public heating on tax increment financing district.
There was discussion about having a special meeting, along with the HRA, at the end of
November which has already been scheduled.
There was discussion abbout any ramifications of not having the Comprehensive Plan or the
Surface Water Management Plan turned into to the Metropolitan Council by the end of the
year. The City Planner stated the Metropolitan Council would probably be swamped with
other Comprehensive Plans. The City Planner stated he would notify the Metropolitan
Council that the City of Mound is actively working on its Comprehensive Plan and Surface
Water Management Plan and they are making progress, but it will not be turned in by the
end of 1999 as expected.
Mayor Meisel stated the Planning Commission would require at least two meetings to
complete the Comprehensive Plan and the Surface Water Management Plan and get its
recommendations to the City Council. A consensus noted the Planning Commission should
be able to have its finished product to the City Council by January 24, 2000. The City
Planner did remind the City Council that the Planning Commission will be reviewing the
downtown visions project and this will consume quite a bit time.
Councilmember Ahrens suggested strongly the City should not have been put in this type of
rush position to get such an important Plan done in such a short amount of time.
Mayor Meisel suggested a joint meeting at a Committee of the Whole Meeting where many
issues can be addressed in an unofficial way. She stated the biggest issue would be the green
space and how it should be included in the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Casey commended the City Council if they have a Committee of the Whole meeting to
include discussions of the Comprehensive Plan in an informal environment.
11
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - NOVEMBER 23, 1999
lohn Parker, real estate agent with Rex Alwin, stated to identify every place in Mound that
could be park property would be designating every single lot in Mound.
Mayor Meisel stated there will be a Committee of the Whole meeting on scheduled for
January 18, 2000. Councilmember Hanus recommended that staff to invite the Park
Commission to attend the Committee of the Whole meeting on January 18, 2000.
MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Weycker to continue discussions of the
Comprehensive Plan and to allow the Planning Commission a deadline of January
24, 2000, to complete the Comprehensive Plan and the Surface Water
Management Plan and have it submitted to the City Council in its entirety. The
vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 5-0.
MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Brown, to continue the public hearing of the
Comprehensive Plan until February 8, 2000. The vote was unanimously in favor.
Motion carried. 5-0.
The City Planner agreed to prepare an appropriate ad notifying the public of the continuation
of the hearing until February 8, 2000.
12