2000-02-08PLEASE TURN OFF ALL PAGERS & CELL PHONES IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS
AGENDA
MOUND CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2000 7:30 PM
MOUND CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
*Consent Agenda: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be
routine by the Council and will be enacted by a roll call vote. There will be no
separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember or Citizen so requests, in
which event the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in
normal sequence.
1. OPEN MEETING - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
PAGE
2. APPROVE AGENDA.
3. *CONSENT AGENDA
*A.
COMMIT'FEE OF THE WHOLE MINUTES FROM
JANUARY 18, 2000 .......................... 451-460
*B.
MINUTES FROM JANUARY 25, 2000, REGULAR
MEETING ................................ 461-477
*C.
MINUTES FROM JANUARY 31, 2000, SPECIAL
MEETING ................................ 478-482
*D.
CASE 99-47: RESOLUTION TO APPROVE FRONT YARD,
SIDE YARD, LOT AREA AND HARDCOVER VARIANCES FOR
REMODELING AND ADDITIONS TO AN EXISTING
RESIDENCE FOR STEPHEN L. HEWITT, AT 4849
ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, BLOCK 14, LOT 3, DEVON,
37870, PID 9 25-117-24-11-0036 .................. 483-484
*E.
SET DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING
CASE 99-45: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW AN
ADDITION TO MOUNT OLIVE LUTHERAN CHURCH;
5218 BARTLETr BLVD., BLOCK 2, TRACT A & PART
OF BLK 2 SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT D, 62050,
PID # 24-117-24-21-0036
(SUGGESTED DATE: FEBRUARY 22, 2000) .......... 485
*F.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF 2000
GRANT APPLICATION FOR RECYCLING AND
EXECUTION OF GRANT AGREEMENT ............ 486-487
448
PLEASE TURN OFF ALL PAGERS & CELL PHONES IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS
*G.
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CREATION OF PUBLICLY-
TRADED COMPANY BY MEDIACOM LLC, PARENT OF
MEDIACOM MINNESOTA LLC, CABLE TELEVISION
FRANCI-IISEE ............................. zt88-zt92
*H.
RESOLUTION FROM THE CITY OF MOUND TO THE
CONSOLIDATED POOL SELECTION COMMIT'FEE
THAT CDBG FUNDING OF SENIOR COMMUNITY SERVICES'
WESTONKA SENIOR CENTER BE CONTINUED ....... 493-494
*I. PAYMENT OF BILLS ..................... 495-509
COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT (PLEASE LIMIT
TO 3 MINUTES PER SUBJECT)
PUBLIC HEARING: TO CONSIDER VACATION
OF UNIMPROVED WATERFORD ROAD 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 & 16, PID #'S
NOT YET ASSIGNED, SETON, P& Z CASE #99-41 .......... 510-541
PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUATION: COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN ....................................... 542-552
APPROVAL OF TWIN PARK MULTIPLE DOCK SLIP FOR
2000 ........................................ 553-559
APPROVAL OF WATERBURY ACCESS MULTIPLE DOCK
SLIP FOR 2000 ................................. 560-567
APPROVAL OF 200 DOCK LOCATION MAP WITH CHANGES
AS NOTED IN ITEM 6 & 7 ABOVE .................... 568-580
INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS
Preliminary Financial Report for December 31, 1999, as prepared
by Finance Director, Gino Businaro ..................... 581-582
Bo
Communication from Standard & Poor's on Mound's bond rating
that is an A ...................................... 583
C. Economic Development Commission Minutes from January 20, 2000. 584-588
449
PLEASE TURN OFF ~LL P~GER8 & CELL PHONES IN COUNCIL CI~MBER8
D. Results of Community Survey of Tobacco Attitudes ............ 589-609
E. Dock & Commons Commission Minutes from January 20, 2000 .... 610-618
Fo
Draft Planning Commission Minutes of January 2, 2000 ......... 619-638
LMCD mailing .................................... 639
450
MINUTES - MOUND COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - JANUARY 18, 2000
The Committee of the Whole for the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in
regular session on Tuesday, January 18, 2000, at 7:00 P.M., in the Council Workroom at
5341 Maywood Road, in said City.
Those present were: Mayor Pat Meisel; Councilmembers: Andrea Ahrens (excused at 9:05
p.m.), Bob Brown, Mark Hanus, and Leah Weycker. Also in attendance: Acting City
Manager Fran Clark; Park Commissioners: John Beise, Norm Domholt, Peter Meyer; and
Secretary Sue McCulloch.
Mayor Meisel opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.
PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT.
The Acting City Manager stated this amendment would require all property taxes, special
assessments, municipal utility fees, including but not limited to water and sewer bills, and
penalties and interest thereon to be paid for the property for which any permit has been
submitted. She stated this amendment would pertain to building permits; permits for
mechanical and plumbing; sewer and water hook-ups; permits for excavation; permits for
grading; subdivisions; and conditional use permits.
The Acting City Manager stated if an individual is up to date with his/her taxes and
municipal utility bills, then this ordinance will not pose a problem for those individuals. The
Acting City Manager stated the public works department is in favor of this ordinance as well.
Mayor Meisel stated this ordinance would be presented to the City Council at the January
25th meeting.
1.1 APPLICATION FOR A VACATION OF WATERFORD ROAD.
The Acting City Manager presented the case. She stated that when the minor subdivision
and Conditional Use Permit were approved on April 13, 1999, the applicant agreed that
dockage for the twin home would be accessed from private lakeshore rather than public. She
stated the application for this vacation was not forwarded to the appropriate chain of people,
specifically the Park Director, City Clerk and the DNR, before it went to the Planning
Commission in November of 1999.
Councilmember Weycker stated there would be approximately 35 feet of lakeshore for the
City that would be lost with this vacation. The Acting City Manager agreed.
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MINUTES JANUARY 18. 2000
Councilmember Brown stated the Planning Commission did not have the letter from DNR
representative, Martha Reger dated January 5, 2000, when they recommended approval of
the vacation in November, 1999.
Councilmember Ahrens stated it would appear the City would be required to get the DNR to
approve this vacation. She further stated this vacation is not in an area that is useable for the
City of Mound. She is in favor of vacating this property.
Councilmember Hanus questioned the calculations made by Jim Fackler in determining the
shoreline footage. He stated property under water cannot be counted as shoreline footage
and this may have been included in the total evaluation of public shoreline in Mound.
Councilmember Brown agreed.
Councilmember Hanus stated he would like to absorb the information presented tonight and
discuss it further at the a future City Council meeting when Jim Fackler and the applicant
would be present to answer his questions. Mayor Meisel agreed.
The consensus agreed to review the April minutes presented in the packet tonight which
could give them more information.
Councilmember Ahrens does not want to see another commons dock proposed on this 35 feet
of property if the vacation does not get passed.
Mayor Meisel excused herself at 7:15 p.m. to have a talk with School Superintendent Dr.
Pam Myers.
Councilmember Brown stated the City of Mound has the ability to put out 475 docks and
they currently only have 396 docks that are being used. He stated the 30 feet of shoreline
would not make too much of a difference and it appears we do not need it.
Mayor Meisel returned to the meeting at 7:20 p.m.
The Acting City Manager stated that in the past very little land has been vacated that was
public shoreline.
Councilmember Hanus reviewed Mr. Fackler's breakdown briefly regarding useable
shoreline that is city owned land for the City of Mound and it appears the shoreline he is
including with his calculations may be inaccurate. Again, Councilmember Hanus would like
to discuss this further with Mr. Faclder at a future City Council meeting.
Mayor Meisel agreed the calculation for useable shoreline footage needs to be reviewed with
more emphasis put on accuracy and detail.
2
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MINUTES JANUARY 18. 2000
Mr. Beise stated he would not disapprove of this vacation because of the footage, although,
he would disapprove of it because the only reason the applicant wants to be given this
property is to remove one of his three variances in existence.
UPDATES FROM MAYOR MEISEL.
1.1 OLD HIGH SCHOOL SITE
Mayor Meisel stated that at the City Council meeting on Tuesday January 25th there
will be an.Ex~'gession scheduled to discuss possible litigation on how the City
Council Wants to proceed with issues at hand and the new school board.
Councilmember Ahrens stated she is of the same opinion about the school board
recouping costs from the City of Mound as in previous meetings concerning this
topic.
Councilmember Brown stated because there are new school board members and he
would be willing to meet with them regarding this issue. The consensus of the
committee of the whole was to meet with the new school board to discuss topics at
hand. Two dates were suggested, February 1, 2000, or February 29, 2000. A firm
date will be set at a later time.
Mayor Meisel informed the Council that School District Superintendent, Dr. Pam
Myers just informed her that Metro Plains Development has bought out the purchase
agreement between Trail Head and the School District and is the new developer of the
old high school site. She stated a Purchase Agreement has been approved by the
School District and signed.
Mayor Meisel informed the Council that she, the Acting City Manager and Bruce
Chamberlain, City Planner met briefly with Mr. Larry Olson of Metro Plains late last
week and he stated he should have all soil tests completed within 45 days. Mr.
Olson's intent is to put medium density housing and commercial development on this
property. The value of the homes will be approximately $200,000. Mr. Olson is
also open to carving out a piece of this property to be used for the post office
relocation.
Councilmember Hanus expressed concern about parking facilities in this new location
for housing and the post office.
The Council discussed the fact that there will be a percentage of the land that will be
designated for park dedication.
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MINUTES JANUARY 18. 2000
Mayor Meisel stated Mr. Olson would like to attend a meeting where the
Comprehensive Plan is discussed, possibly February 8, 2000, because he does not
want the ballfields to be designated as park space.
1.2 DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT
Mayor Meisel stated Bill Beard and Sid Inman are moving along with the
redevelopment of downtown Mound. She stated appropriate numbers have been
collected and they look good. She stated plans for the Planning Commission's review
will happen soon.
1.3 REX ALWIN PROPERTY
Mayor Meisel mentioned the Rex Alwin property. She stated the developer for this
property is proposing housing as well. The Council discussed a property percentage
for park dedication for this property.
1.4 CITY MANAGER SEARCH
Mayor Meisel stated Jim Mercer would like to meet with the Council and present his
list of possible candidates for the City Manager's position. He will be available on
January 31 or February 1. The consensus was to meet on January 31, 2000, at 6:30
p.m., in the work room. Mercer will be notified of this date.
1.5 VACANT LAND ON SHORELINE DRIVE - BALBOA PROPERTY
Mayor Meisel handed out a 9-page fax from Mr. Gary Maxwell. Mr. Maxwell stated
the property at hand could go through a phase one and phase two report and the cost
of the VIC program with staffs time to read these reports and issue a No Association
letter would cost approximately $1,000 more for the City of Mound. She stated our
City Engineer has been quoting the City of Mound a much higher cost.
Mayor Meisel stated if the City is now again interested in this property, it is possible
according to Mr. Maxwell to have this property cleaned up for free by the State.
Mayor Meisel stated if the City of Mound is not interested at all, we need to make
this information available to Mr. Maxwell. Mayor Meisel stated we could present
new numbers to Mr. Maxwell for this property.
4
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MINUTES JANUARY 18. 2000
Mayor Meisel stated if we go ahead with this thought and present lower numbers as
our bid for this proPerty, we definitely will not consider this property without a valid
no association agreement. Councilmembers Brown and Hanus agreed.
Mayor Meisel stated the next step is to have Mr. Maxwell put together a package to
present to the City for this property. After that point, the package would be
presented to the HRA at an appropriate meeting.
Mayor Meisel stated once we get a no association letter, which would take about one
month, we then would go into the VIC program for the cleanup process. She stated if
both of these were not part of the acquisition, the City of Mound would not want the
property. The VIC program does not hold up the project and will allow progression
forward by the parties involved.
Councilmember Ahrens stated the City of Mound is out the 10 percent already
invested in this project.
Mayor Meisel stated if the City of Mound would buy this property, they could turn
right back around and sell it back to a developer.
Councilmember Weycker stated she is reluctant to get back into this situation. She
would appreciate more information from our City Attorney and the City Engineer.
Mayor Meisel stated she would get back to Gary Maxwell by Friday of this week to
inform him if the City of Mound is interested in pursuing this property again.
The consensus of the members present was that they would be interested in scoping
out this property again as long as there is a no association letter and the VIC program
was a sure bet.
1.6 SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
Councilmember Brown mentioned the Surface Water Management Plan briefly. He
stated the Planning Commission is absolutely against the buffer zone in the Plan and
would like this section removed from the Plan.
Mayor Meisel recessed the meeting at 8:02 p.m. Mayor Meisel reconvened the meeting at
8:10 p.m.
1.7 JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PARK COMMISSION MEETING
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MINUTES JANUARY 18. 2000
Mayor Meisel welcomed the Park Commission to the Committee of the Whole meeting.
Peter Meyer thanked Mayor Meisel for this opportunity.
Norm Domholt introduced himself as Chair of the Park Commission. He stated he has been
a business owner and resident of the City of Mound for 15 years. He stated he grew up in
South Minneapolis where he enjoyed the fabulous parks they had o offer. Mr. Domholt
stated being a business owner for the last 15 years has taught him how to get things done.
He stated he is excited to help out the City of Mound with as many improvements to the
parks as possible.
The consensus of the Council was that they would rather see park dedication on
developments come in the form of land, rather than money.
Mr. Domholt stated he was delighted to hear the city's vision regarding green space and
would like to help facilitate this vision.
Mr. Domholt stated the number one problem is communication between the City Council and
the Park Commission. He stated the communication they currently have is the minutes, and
he would like to propose an annual workshop, like tonight's meeting to get dialog from both
sides.
Councilmember Brown stated, and Mayor Meisel agreed, the minutes need to be more
specific in nature in certain circumstances to make sure everyone is clear with the topic at
hand.
Mr. Beise stated the most important aspect the Park Commission would like to accomplish in
tonight's meeting is a good working relationship between the Park Commission and the City
Council.
Councilmember Hanus stated he would suggest a set of goals for the Park Commission to
present to the City Council on an annual basis.
Peter Meyer stated he would like to see a good working relationship with the City Council.
The Council discussed Island Park Hall and its potential refurbishing but stated the City of
Mound clearly does not have the funds right now for this project.
Mr. Beise stated it is his understanding from past experiences that if the Park Commission
presents information they would like the City Council to review, it would be altered before
the City Council had a chance to review it. He does not understand why Staff should edit a
document of this type before the City Council has reviewed it.
6
COMMI'ITEE OF THE WHO~ MINUTES JANUARY 18. 2000
Mr. Meyer stated the Park Commission did present recommendations for the year 2000 in
their budget, but it evidently was presented in an untimely manner and the City Council was
not able to consider it. Mr. Beise stated the Island Park Hall was on the top of the list.
Councilmember Ahrens stated she is frustrated when doing governmental business because
the price will automatically go up when this has been noted to developers and redevelopers a
municipality is interested in the property and, thus, the City Council cannot negotiate on its
behalf.
Councilmember Brown asked the Park Commission what frustrates them the most about the
City Council.
Mr. Domholt stated the City Council is doing a fabulous job and he commends them for all
of their hard work. He does recommend better communication to the department heads who
are working for the City of Mound and trying to make the City of Mound a better place to
live. Mr. Domholt stated he agrees with a "wish list" of some type, but if this wish list
cannot be financed through the City of Mound, then allow the department heads and his
fellow commissioners to organize volunteer efforts to help make it possible.
Mayor Meisel asked if memorials have been installed in the City of Mound. She stated if
there is a need for park benches, then a citizen of Mound may want to put a bench up on
green space in memory of someone close to them.
Councilmember Ahrens agreed there needs to be a goal-setting policy. She stated this policy
needs to be carried out by the City Manager. She stated there is a need for more direction
and communication amongst the Commissions, City Council, City Manager and City of
Mound staff. Councilmember Ahrens stated the City of Wayzata is always presented so
well, and she would like to see the City of Mound looking as cleaned up with flower beds,
etc. She supports volunteer efforts.
Councilmember Brown suggested having one Saturday workshop that would include the
Planning Commission, Park Commission and City Council wherein they could discuss and
work through issues. Mayor Meisel stated we would need a facilitator for such a project and
the public could not be excluded in such a meeting.
Mr. Beise stated the Park Commission would like to have the City of Mound update them
more often on park issues, like tonight's meeting. He stated he would like the City Council
to perceive the Park Commission as an asset and not a "thom in your side that would
hopefully go away."
Mayor Meisel stated the Park Commission feels the way they do because of a lack of
communication. She stated there were so many issues going on with the green space and the
7
COMMITI'EE OF THE WHOLE MINUTES JANUARY 15. 2000
Rex Alwin property that needed to be sorted out properly and professionally. She stated the
Park Commission needs to consider the needs for the citizens of Mound before acting
prematurely in the future with regard to the acquisition of property.
Councilmember Ahrens stated there was never any mention in her 12 years of service on the
City Council of the City acquiring the Rex Alwin property.
Mr. Beise stated he felt it was his obligation and duty as a real estate agent and a Park
Commission member to try and acquire this gorgeous piece of property Rex Alwin owns and
wants to sell.
Councilmember Brown stated a problem occurred when the Park Commission contacted Rex
Alwin about the City of Mound possibly buying the property without having discussed this
with any City Council members. He stated Rex Alwin then got the impression the City of
Mound wanted to purchase the property and the price of the property just went up with that
information. Councilmember Brown further stated he was frustrated by the fact it appeared
Mr. Meyer was leading the "green space people" and he appeared to be using his position as
Park Commissioner to alienate the people against the City Council.
Mr. Meyer stated he was not leading this group of people. He stated it was lead by other
citizens of the City of Mound.
Mr. Meyer stated again the kids in the City of Mound need the parks. Mayor Meisel stated
she agrees with this statement but the funds are not there to support all ideas the Park
Commission has asked for.
Councilmember Brown stated the new downtown redevelopment is proposing a perfect place
for an ice skating rink where it can be lit and have a warming house as well in Lost Lake.
Mayor Meisel stated there is a question and answers sheet coming to each household of
Mound shortly. She stated this will give information about the redevelopment of the City of
Mound in a user friendly way.
Mr. Beise stated he would appreciate receiving minutes from the Planning Commission,
COW, and City Council meetings on a regular basis.
Councilmember Brown suggested flooding Highland and Swenson Parks for use as ice
skating rinks until the downtown redevelopment has an ice skating rink of its own. Mr.
Meyer stated he would like about $5,000 to help in creating a nice skating rink. He stated
he would get volunteers to help keep the rink in good shape.
8
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MINUTES JANUARY 18. 2000
Mr. Beise would like to be made aware of problems the City of Mound has that the Park
Commission could possibly assist with. He stated if the funding is not available, maybe the
Park Commission could raise money to help support a project.
Mr. Domholt stated it appears the City should see the "wish list" from the Park
Commission on an annual basis to discuss what can and cannot be accomplished. He stated
he would like the City Council and the Park Commission to be working as a team.
Mayor Meisel stated she understands the City Council and the Park Commission all want to
better the City of Mound.
Mr. Meyer stated the Park Commission was hoping for the possibility of making the Rex
Alwin property into another Wolf Ridge and keeping a large portion of it natural. He stated
he knew the City had no money, but since there was a park shortage, he felt there was a
valid reason to go after this property.
Mr. Beise and Mr. Domholt asked the City Council how to handle future property and parks
issues. Councilmember Hanus stated the Park Commission should call a City Council
member or the City Manager. He stated it could then be brought to a COW Meeting for
discussion.
Councilmember Brown suggested that the Commission Chairs could meet with the Mayor,
give updates and then the Mayor could pass on the information to the CitE ,Council.
Councilmember Weycker-agr~. 'T¢.,:o '~~~ ~
Mayor Meisel stated we are a team and need to further our communication efforts. She also
stated a project has to be appropriate for the kids, cities and developers.
Mayor Meisel stated she would like to move forward and concentrate on the downtown
redevelopment and the property Mr. Olson and Mr. Alwin will be giving as park dedication.
Councilmember Hanus stated April appears to be a good time to get together to discuss
goals.
The consensus of the group was that all Commissions would be heard. It was agreed that
communication and information needs to be shared. It was agreed the Park Commission is
an asset to the City.
The Park Commission would like to hear about anything interesting coming down the Park
Commission's way in the future.
9
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MINUTES JANUARY 18. 2000
Mayor Meisel stated on April 18, 2000, there is a COW meeting scheduled and she is
inviting the Park Commission to attend and present their "wish list" and recommendations in
priority order for the parks in the City of Mound.
Councilmember Weycker stated Mr. Meyer has put in a number of hours, singled handedly,
and painted the depot. She stated Mr. Meyer has volunteered many hours of his time
elsewhere, including organizing the skating rinks and flooding them, manning the warm
houses, and organizing city clean up days for the parks in Mound.
Councilmember Brown suggested using the Adopt a Green Space Program to help keep up
the parks, skating rinks, etc. Mayor Meisel stated there are legal issues that would arise that
need to be resolved before such action could be taken.
Mr. Domholt stated that because of t~night's meeting he feels more welcomed by the City
Council and felt they were moving in a positive direction.
INFORMATION ITEMS.
No information items were distributed.
MOTION by Brown, seconded by Weycker, to adjourn at 9:47 P.M. The vote
was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 5-0.
Francene C. Clark, Acting City Manager
Attest: CounciI Secretary
10
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - IANUAKY 25, 2000
MINUTES - CITY COUNCIL -JANUARY 25, 2000
The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session
on Tuesday, January 25, 2000, at 7:30 P.M., in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood
Road, in said City.
Those present were: Mayor Pat Meisel; Councilmembers: Andrea Ahrens, Bob Brown,
Mark Hanus and leah Weycker. Also in attendance were City Attorney Mack LeFevre,
Acting City Manager Fran Clark, and Secretary Sue McCulloch. The following interested
citizens were also present: Jim Bedell, Jane Carlsen, Martin Carlsen, Steve Coddon, Joe
Detling, Wayne E. Ehlebracht, Mark Goldberg, Stephen L.Hewitt, Peter Meyer, Roberta
Rice, and Kristyn Schmitz.
*Consent Agenda: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by
the Council and will be enacted by a roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of
these items unless a Councilmember or Citizen so requests, in which event the item will be
removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence.
OPEN MEETING - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Mayor opened the meeting at 7:41 P.M. and welcomed the people in attendance. The
pledge of allegiance was recited.
APPROVE AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA
Councilmember Weycker stated she would like Items A and D removed from the Consent
Agenda.
MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Hanus, to approve the agenda and consent
agenda with the removal of Items A and D. The vote was unanimously in favor.
Motion carried. 5-0.
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -JANUARY 25, 2000
CONSENT AGENDA
*1.0
CASE 99-43: VARIANCE REQUEST TO ALLOW AN 8' X 10' SHED IN A
FRONT YARD SETBACK: ROBERTA RICE. 4760 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE,
BLOCK 8. LOT 5 AND W 18' OF LOT 4. DEVON. 37870. PID//30-117-23 22
0084.
RESOLUTION//00-10:
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE
TO ALLOW A NONCONFORMING FRONT
YARD SETBACK OF 4 FEET IN ORDER TO
CONSTRUCT A DETACHED SHED, AT 4760
ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, BLOCK 8, LOT 5 &
W18' OF LOT 4, DEVON, PID # 30-11%23 22
0084.
Ahrens, Hanus, unanimously.
*1.1
CASE 99-44: VARIANCE REOUEST TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF
A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING ON A PROPERTY IN ZONE R-1 WHICH
DOES NOT MEET THE AREA REQUIREMENTS FOR THAT ZONE; DENNIS
KASIN. XXXX DORCHESTER. BLOCK 12. LOTS 27. 28. 29 AND THE E 25'
OF LOT 26. AVALON. 37850. PID # 19-11%23-31-0127.
RESOLUTION #00-11:
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE
TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A
SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING ON A
PROPERTY IN ZONE R-1 WHICH DOES
NOT MEET THE AREA REQUIREIVIENTS
FOR THAT ZONE; LOCATED AT XXXX
DORCHESTER, BLOCK 12, LOTS 27 THRU
29 INCL AND E 25' OF LOT 26 EXCEPT
ROAD, AVALON, PID # 19-117-23-31-0127, P
& Z CASE//99-44.
Ahrens, Hanus, unanimously.
*1.2
RESOLUTION APPROVING AN EXTENSION OF THE LICENSE
AGREEMENT (#A14569} WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY REGARDING
ELECTRONIC PROPRIETARY GEOGRAPHICAL DIGITIZED DATE BASE
(EPDB} AND AUTHORIZING THE ACTING CITY MANAGER TO SIGN THE
AGREEMENT.
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -JANUARY 25, 2000
RESOLUTION//00-12:
Ahrens, Hanus, unanimously.
RESOL~ION APPROVING AN
EXTENSION OF THE LICENSE
AGREEME~ (#A14569) WITH HENNEPIN
COUNTY REGARDING ELECTRONIC
PROPRIETARY GEOGRAPHICAL
DIGITIZED DATE BASE (EPDB) AND
AUTHORIZING THE ACTING CITY
MANAGER TO SIGN THE AGREEMENT.
*1.3
RESOLUTION APPROVING A PREMISES PERMIT RENEWAL
APPLICATION FOR THE AMERICAN LEGION POST #398 MOUND.
RESOLUTION #00-13:
Ahrens, Hanus, unanimously.
RESOLUTION APPROVING A PREMISES
PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FOR
THE AMERICAN LEGION POST #398 -
MOUND.
*1.4
SET DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER VACATION OF
UNIMPROVED WATERFORD ROAD AD.IACENT TO 2537 AND 2541
WEXFORD LANE LOCATED WITHIN THE R-2 SINGLE OR TWO FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT. BLOCK 7, LOT 1.2. 3.15 AND 16, PIDS
#'S NOT YET ASSIGNED. SETON. P & Z CASE g99-41. (SUGGESTED
DATE: FEBRUARY 8. 2000).
MOTION.
Ahrens, Hanus, unanimously.
'1.5
TREE REMOVAL LICENSE FOR STUMPF'S TREE SERVICE.
MOTION.
Ahrens, Hanus, unanimously.
*1.6
PAYMENT OF BILLS.
MOTION.
Ahrens, Hanus, unanimously.
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -JANUARY 25, 2000
1.7 MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 11, 2000. REGULAR MEETING.
Councilmember Weycker stated on page 230, the last paragraph should sta,te as follows:
"Councilmember Weycker stated Mr. Alwin had every intention~lete 27 acres
to the City of Mound, but he got frustrated with the communication issues and how the City
of Mound was approaching Mr. Alwin and he now had no intention of preserving the
property for the City of Mound.'
MOTION by Weycker, seconded by Hanus, to accept the minutes of January 11,
2000, as amended. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 5-0.
1.8
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT: //105-2000 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
SECTION 300:20. SUBD. 2: 305:00: 310:00: 311:00: 315:20: 365:05. SUBD. 2.
460:35 AND 350:25, SUBD. 1 OF THE CITY CODE RELATING TO PERMIT
APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS.
Councilmember Weycker asked, and Councilmember Hanus agreed, for clarification in the
ordinance where it noted each application must be accompanied by a "written certification.
The Acting City Manager stated staff would actually verify the applicant is up to date with
his/her taxes, assessments and bills before an application is approved.
Councilmember Hanus stated because the staff would be verifying this process and not the
applicant, he suggested the language to read as follows:
"Each application for a building permit shall be verified 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 and are up to date."
Councilmember Hanus stated each of the listed ordinances noted above as Item 1.8 should be
changed as stated above.
The Acting City Manager stated she will check with Joe Yeng, City Attorney, and have the
appropriate language inserted in all the applicable places.
Weycker moved and Hanus seconded the following:'
ORDINANCE #105-2000
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 300:20,
SUBD. 2; 305:00; 310:00; 311:00; 315:20; 365:05,
SUBD. 2, 460:35 AND 350:25, SUBD. 1 OF THE
CITY CODE RELATING TO PERMIT
APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carded.
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -]ANU/~,RY 25, 2000
COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT (PLEASE LIMIT
TO 3 MINUTES PER SUBJECT).
There were no comments or suggestions from citizens present.
1.9
RESOLUTION APPOINTING GERALD JONF~ TO THE DOCKS AND
COMMONS COMMISSION TO REPLACE ORV BURMA WHOSE TERM
EXPIRED DECEMBER 31. 1999. THIS TERM WILL EXPIRE DECEMBER
31. 2002.
The Acting City Manager stated she received the Dock and Commons minutes today and
they are recommending that Mr. Gerald Jones be appointed.
Mayor Meisel stated she like the other applicant in accordance with her written skills she
projected in her letter and appears to have a lot of insight into docks and commons.
Councilmember Hanus stated that was his first impression as well, but when the actual
interviews occurred, Mr. Jones projected an excitement in his voice and a great interest in
the program and seemed quite experienced. He stated Mr. Jones was talking more openly
and appeared less guarded.
Mark Goldberg, Chair of the Docks and Commons, statedthat Mr. Jones appeared to
understand the commons well and the other candidate did not seem the ideal candidate as
initially projected. Mr. Goldberg stated Mr. Jones appeared very pragmatic. He felt Mr.
Jones understood both sides and seemed to know how to balance the docks and commons.
Mr. Goldberg stated the vote was a 3-2 tally. Mr. Goldberg stated he spent about 20
minutes with each candidate.
Hanus moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION//00-14
RESOLUTION APPOINTING GERALD JONES TO
THE DOCKS AND COMMONS COMMISSION TO
REPLACE ORV BURMA WHOSE TERM EXPIRED
DECEMBER 31, 1999. THIS TERM WILL EXPIRE
DECEMBER 31, 2002.
Discussion
Weycker stated she would have appreciated some "female blood" in the docks
program.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 5-0.
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -JANUARY 25, 2000
1.10
RESOLUTION APPOINTING COUNCILMEMBERS AS COUNCIL
REPRESENTATIVES TO THE VARIOUS COMMISSIONS FOR THE YEAR
2000.
Mayor Meisel stated this matter was tabled at the previous meeting because of the absence of
two Councilmembers. Mayor Meisel stated Councilmember Weycker had a concern about
having Councilmember Hanus being the Council Representative for the Docks and Commons
Commission this year. Councilmember Weycker proposed that either Mayor Meisel or
Councilmember Brown be the representative.
Councilmember Weycker stated in 199~ the Mayor at that time stated the makeup of the
docks and commons was good and he ~as not against including Councilmember Hanus as the
representative, but the commissioners have changed, causing the makeup of individuals on
the docks to become unbalanced according to Councilmember Weycker's analysis.
Councilmember Hanus stated the makeup of the docks is set up to have three inlanders, two
abutting folks and the council representative could be an abutter, nonabutter or neither. He
stated from an inlander's prospective, the worse case scenario would be a 3 to 3 tie.
Mayor Meisel asked Councilmember Hanus if he has any prejudice on either side being on
the docks and commons. Councilmember Hanus stated he is more educated on one side than
the other, but he would not consider himself prejudice.
., C'6undh,.cmbor Wcyckcr 'St/ffe~t'*he iss_~ucs of the docks and commons axe those tyl~o ..£~-
._..2ssues that involve a skewed vote because of tho makeup of the Commission. ~
Mayor Meisel stated she would like to have all Councilmembers keep in mind the Docks and
Commons Commission is an advisory board.
Councilmember Hanus stated he does not want anything to do with hurting the program, so
he is open to other Councilmembers suggestions but would appreciate not closing down the
program. Councilmember Hanus further stated he is working for the whole City of Mound
as well as any other person committed to volunteer committees they have agreed to serve on.
Councilmember Brown stated the object of the committees is to do what is best for the City
overall.
Councilmember Weycker stated she is trying to provide a voice for the people who are not in
the commons program but have access to it which is the largest group of people in the City
of Mound.
Councilmember Hanus stated he does not have a problem if another Councilmember would
like to be the rep for this commission.
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -JANUARY 25, 2000
Mayor Meisel stated she has a problem with committing to this committee because she is a
private lakeshore owner, but assured the Councilmembers she would not be prejudice. More
importanfly, Mayor Meisel stated she does not have the time to take on another position on
another committee.
Councilmember Brown stated is aleady the Council Representative to the Planning
Commission and the Economic Development Commission and would not have the time to be
on another Commission.
Ahrens moved and Brown seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION//00-15:
RESOLUTION APPOINTING LEAH WEYCKER TO
THE PARK COMMISSION (POSC); BOB BROWN
TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION; BOB BROWN
TO THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
COMMISSION (EDC); AND MARK HANUS TO
THE DOCKS AND COMMONS ADVISORY
COMMISSION (DCAC) AS COUNCIL
REPRESENTATIVES FOR THE YEAR 2000.
Motion carried. 4-1, Weycker voting nay.
1.11
CASE g99-47: VARIANCE REQUEST TO ALLOW ADDITIONS TO AN
EXISTING STRUCTURE THAT WILL RESULT IN NON-CONFORMING
SETBACKS: STEPHEN L. HEWITT. 4949 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE. BLOCK 14,
LOT 3, DEVON, 37870, PID//9 25-117-24-11-0036.
The applicant requested a variances to remodel and add to the existing residence at 4849
Island View Drive. The associated variances are as follows:
Existing/Proposed Required Variance
Front Yard 1.5 feet 20 feet 18.5 feet
Side Yard 2 feet 6 feet 4 feet
Side Yard 3.4 feet 6 feet 2.6 feet
Lot Area 4000 sq. ft. 6000 sq. ft. 2000 sq. ft.
Hardcover 2046.72 sq. fi 1600 sq. ft. 46.72 sq. ft.
The proposal will essentially provide a new home for the property using the existing
foundation. The project will turn the home into a two-story house with an attached 2-stall
side entry garage. The existing side setbacks of the house remain essentially the same. The
added garage will require the large front yard variance. Lakeside setbacks as proposed meet
requirements. Hardcover will increase slightly from 49 to 51 percent.
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -JANUARY 25, 2000
The lakeside deck is cantilevered and encroaches into the sanitary sewer easement. Staff
would recommend the plans be modified to eliminate this encroachment.
The driveway is not long enough east/west to accommodate the turning radius of a typical
vehicle. This will result in the sharing of the adjacent driveway to the west. Although the
current owners may be amenable to this now, the situation could change. One way to
accommodate the proposal is would be for both property owners to have an easement on each
others property to accommodate vehicles turning.
The City Planner stated the Public Works Supt. is not supportive of the deck encroachment
into the sewer easement.
The City Planner stated the Planning Commission had lengthy discussions about this case.
He stated the Planning Commission discussed the two-foot setback on the garage, the
structure being so close to the right-of-way, and the neighboring house and sharing of
driveway access.
Staff recommends the City Council approve the variance as requested with the following
conditions:
Grading and drainage plans are approved by the City Engineer prior to building
permit issuance.
A driveway access easement is secured for the property and the adjacent driveway to
the west.
A hold harmless agreement be secured if the lakeside deck is allowed to encroach into
the sanitary sewer easement.
The City Planner stated the Planning Commission did not follow staff recommendation. He
stated they denied the variances because they felt the design of the house could be improved
as well as the house being proposed was too big for this piece of property. There was also
discussions that the hardcover would be slightly increased.
Councilmember Brown stated there was also concern by the Planning Commission that at
some point down the road the neighbors may not appreciate sharing a driveway.
Brown stated in the past the City does not allow structures to be built within sanitary sewer
easements. He stated if this would occur, there could be great problems that could occur in
the future. Secondly, he stated a two-foot variance for a garage was just denied to Mr.
Peterson who lives near Chateau.
Councilmember Hanus stated the conditions are not the same for Mr. Hewitt as they were for
Mr. Peterson.
Councilmember Hanus stated this is a buildable lot but it is extremely small. He stated
neither house nor garage is exorbitant. He stated everything appears to be compressed into
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 4ANUARY 25, 2000
this small lot. Councilmember Hanus stated any garage that faces the street on Island View
could have a joint provision between both party owners.
Councilmember Brown stated another reason for denial by the Planning Commission was
snow removal. He also stated the applicant is rebuilding over 50 percent of his house, so
why does the applicant not need to bring his house up to code with this remodeling project.
The City Planner stated this is a nonconforming structure not a nonconforming use. The City
Planner stated the variance the applicant requested is being asked to recognize in some
respect this is a nonconforming structure and also the variance for the house that is being
rebuilt would be recognized as a nonconforming structure.
Councilmember Brown stated the applicant is basically getting a new house and the
foundation would probably not support the new house. He stated once the applicant begins
the project and observes there is a need for a new foundation, he will be allowed a brand
new house that will not be conforming.
Councilmember Hanus stated he would be willing to work with the applicant to get this
variance accomplished.
The City Planner stated a number of garages on Island View have about a 1 to 2 foot setback
from the right-of-way.
Mayor Meisel stated as she drove down Island View she noticed the whole neighborhood is
built exactly the way the applicant is wanting to rebuild his house. She stated she would
have a hard time declining the variances because of this fact. She further stated that snow
removal by the city plow will probably wreck the applicant's garage.
Councilmember Brown stated why not have the applicant build a single-car garage instead of
a double-car garage. The City Planner stated if it would be a single garage the city code
would require an additional dedicated parking space.
Councilmember Ahrens stated the garage being proposed by the applicant is very small and
can barely fit two cars in the garage at the same time.
Councilmember Weycker asked if the applicant would consider a drive-in garage which could
be tucked under the house.
Councilmember Hanus stated he would approve the applicant's plan rather than a tuck under
garage because of the conditions would be better when backing out of the garage.
Councilmember Brown stated another major concern the Planning Commission had was the
fact this proposal would conflict with the Comprehensive Plan by the City of Mound.
Councilmember Hanus stated the Comprehensive Plan is a general plan and there will be
times certain incidents will not meet up with the Comprehensive Plan, such at today's case.
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -JANUARY 25, 2000
Councilmember Weycker stated the applicant's lot is very tight the way it sits. She stated
she can see how this house would conform to the neighborhood. She further stated she
opposes the deck size and with that thought in mind, the house would need to become
smaller. She stated the housing plans could be improved.
Councilmember Hanus stated he also is against the deck size and situation as well. He stated
if this size deck would be built in its location, there would be major problems if the sewer
would ever need to be examined for whatever reason. Hanus further stated a deck needs to
be planned for now that would not affect the easement. Councilmember Hanus stated there
is a hardship with the property.
Mayor Meisel stated there is a hardship with this lot, but she does not have an answer with
regard to the easement where the deck has been planned.
Councilmember Ahrens questioned the size of the deck being proposed by the applicant. Mr.
Hewitt stated the proposed deck is 11 feet. He further stated the deck could only be about 7
to 8 feet to keep off the sewer easement.
Councilmember Brown stated if we approve these variances, we would be setting precedence
for anyone on Island View Drive to rebuild their house in such a fashion. The consensus
agreed Island View would always be considered on a case-by-case basis.
Councilmember Ahrens asked how high the deck would be built and the applicant stated it
would be about 9 feet.
Steve Hewitt, 4841 Island View Drive. He stated he knew it was a difficult lot when he
purchased it. He stated he was optimistic when he bought the property for rebuilding it at
some point because of a 1995 case that had the exact same circumstances as his plan. Mr.
Hewitt stated he is proposing a nice home on the property. He further stated he has looked
as ways to tuck the garage under the house and he just cannot see making the house any
smaller than what he is proposing. He is very strong-minded about not lessening the house
size. He further stated the neighbor seems to not have a problem with the garage so close to
the roadway. He stated there would be less of an areas with a double garage, than the
current blacktop, where the snow could pile up and cause a problem. He stated if the west
foundation wall does not support the house he would put up a new wall. Mr. Hewitt stated
he would like a deck of 10 or 11 feet and the cantilever what an extra thing that does not
have to be included. He stated eventually the deck would cause a problem for the sewer
easement. The applicant stated he does not foresee anyone buying this small expensive piece
of property and building a small house that would have to be built to conform to the City
codes. If he would be allowed these variances, he could build a nice size house on a
hardship lot. The applicant does not want a tuck under garage because of the nature of
backing out would cause more danger than having a shared driveway.
10
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -JANUARY 25, 2000
There was discussions regarding the snow removal and the process of the plow turning the
blade or not. Mayor Meisel stated me plow does not turn its blade and the snow will fall
where it falls.
Councilmember Hanus stated there is an additional variance that would need to be requested
regarding the garage. He stated it was Section. 350.435, subd. 5(a). The garage doors on
this applicant's property would only be 15 feet, wherein the city codes states 20 feet.
Councilmember Hanus stated if a motion does get passed, he would suggest the language to
state: A deck with a minimum depth of 10 feet be provided for in this design and no portion
of the deck can protrude after the northerly easement line. Councilmember Hanus stated a
specific size deck does need to be included tonight, otherwise, there will be problems in the
future when the applicant sells the property and the new owner wants to put a deck on the
house.
Mr. Hewitt stated cutting back on the depth of the house would not be agreeable to him. He
stated he would rather lose a portion of the deck or have the deck completely removed rather
than any part of the house, because the house is already small enough the way it is to date.
He further stated a 7-foot deck would be appropriate to him.
Councilmember Brown restated he will not allow anything built on an easement.
Councilmember Hanus is concerned about the size of a 7-foot deck and if it is useable or
not. The applicant stated he currently has a 7-foot deck and it is useable, but not ideal.
Councilmember Ahrens suggested having the variance state an attached deck could be built
on to the house as long as it would not touch the sewer easement in any fashion.
Councilmembers Hanus and Weycker agreed.
The City Planner stated on page 319 of the packet the grading and drainage plans may need
to be updated on this property. Furthermore, he stated the variance for the driveway access
easement would encompass the entire driveway area between the north property line and both
garage doors and the easement would be used for access purposes only and not for parking.
The City Planner stated Mr. Hewitt and his neighbor would draw up an easement regarding
the driveway easement and it would then be reviewed by the City Attorney. This easement
would be required before the permit is issued and this easement would stay with the property
in perpetuity even if the property owners sell their property.
The Acting City Manager stated we do not have a resolution prepared and it will be
approved at the next meeting.
MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Ahrens, to direct staff to prepare a resolution for
approval with the remodeling at 4849 Island View Drive; that the variances be granted
with the addition of the added variance mentioned tonight regarding the side lot line as
11
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -JANUARY 25, 2000
proposed, with the exception of the lakeside decks or deck that none of the construction
is to cross the northerly easement line; that all other variances listed are approved; and
that the conditions in the staff report also be incorporated into the resolution with the
exception of No. 3.
Councilmember Hanus suggested the following findings in support of his motion:
Other garages on Island View are located much like this proposed one; this is an
undersized lot that is reduced by 1/3 by a sewer easement; a very similar situation
was granted in 1995 for this same property; and the house and garage footprint is
minimal in size as compared to other property in this area.
Discussion.
Councilmember Brown stated his reasons for opposing this motion are snow removal
problems, oversized house on this small lot, and the City could possibly be starting a
precedence.
CoUncilmember Weycker stated this plan is consistent with the neighborhood even
though it seems too big for the lot.
Mayor Meisel stated the Island View area is unique and we as Councilmembers have
to deal with each of these cases separately.
Councilmember Ahrens stated the City does have a responsibility to allow applicants
reasonable use of his/her property.
Motion carried. 4-1, Brown voting nay.
Mayor Meisel stated this resolution will be drafted and presented to Council on February 8, 2000.
1.12
CASE//99-48: VARIANCE REOUEST TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A
SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND A GARAGE ON A PROPERTY IN ZONE R-2
WHICH DOES NOT MEET THE AREA REQUIREMENTS FOR THAT ZONE;
STEVE CODDON 2217 CHATEAU LANE, BLOCK 1. LOT 18, L. P. CREVIER=S
SUBDIVISION OF PART OF LOT 36 LAFAYETTE PARK. 61570/950. PID # 13-117-
24-43-0059.
The applicant requested a variance to build a home on an undersized vacant parcel at 2217 Chateau
Lane. The associated variance is as follows:
Existing/Proposed
Required Variance
Lot Area 4800 sq. ft. 6000 sq. ft. 1200 sq. ft.
The property has been vacant for a number of years and recently underwent an ownership transfer.
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -JANUARY 25, 2000
The current property owner is seeking a variance that would allow this lot to become buildablc. A
site plan is provided along with typical house plans for a manufactured home.
Because the property is not used as a residential lot, the code gives it no special privileges to be
used as such. Whatever use the property had for residential purposes has expired, and the code
expects conformity to district lot area requirements before a residential use can be initiated.
Allowing the continued development of vacant undersized lots is not promoted by the
Comprehensive Plan housing policies or the zoning ordinance.
This portion of Chateau has a number of small lots similar to this but are developed. Given the
current conditions of the adjacent housing stock, this lot presents an opportunity for combination
with a redevelopment project. Staff would recommend this approach be taken when the opportunity
arises.
Staff recommends denial of the variance as requested.
Councilmember Brown stated at the Planning Commission meeting on January 10, 2000, the
applicant stated he was well aware the property was undersized and not buildable. The City Planner
agreed with this statement.
Councilmember Weycker asked why the City of Mound did not purchase the property for $1.00
when the opportunity arose. The Acting City Manager stated there was a title problem and it was
recommended a bad purchase for the City.
l'he City Attorney restated there were problems with the rifle, but furthermore, it was never sent
back to the Planning Commission for consideration and there was staff miscommunication that
occurred.
Councilmember Weycker stated it would be best to convince the applicant to sell it to some other
property owner near this lot in hopes of expanding the neighbor's lot size and get it up to standards,
rather than allowing a house to be built on a piece of property that is currently undersized.
Steve Coddon, 3615 Lyris Avenue, Orono. He presented an overview diagram of the above-
mentioned property. He stated this location is an overdeveloped area that is well established. He
stated he would like to put a home of the same size in the existing neighborhood. He stated he does
not want any variances or setbacks with this property; he would only like to improve the
neighborhood by building a home on this vacant lot. Mr. Coddon stated to his knowledge there has
been other variances granted with the same conditions as his. Mr. Coddon mentioned he submitted
an article in the Laker staring he was disappointed the Planning Commission denied his variance
request but allowed other similar variance requests in the past. (Mr. Coddon was going to submit
copies of the article to the Councilmembers, but the Councilmembers stated they had already seen
it). Mr. Coddon stated this is a reasonable use of this lot for a single family.
Councilmember Brown asked the applicant why he purchased the lot knowing it was undersized and
not buildable. Mr. Coddon stated he noticed the hardship with the land and felt a variance would be
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MIN-LrrES -JANUARY 25, 2000
Councilmember Brown stated Mr. Coddon cannot compare this vacant lot with the other cases he is
referring to because the other cases are all lot of house record lots and this is a vacant lot.
Mr. Coddon stated there was a house there quite a few years ago that a neighbor that currently lives
here can attest to.
Jim Bedell, 2627 Wilshire Boulevard. Mr. Befell stated he owns two homes that he rents out in the
neighborhood where the applicant purchased his lot. He stated he is here to speak on Mr.
Coddon's behalf and he is not interested in purchasing the property in question. Mr. Bedell stated
Mr. Coddon's plan to build a single family home on this lot would improve the neighborhood. He
stated the street has not gone under any redevelopment for many years. He stated the whole block
was going to be bought out by Tonka Toys, and previous to that there was a house located on this
lot. He thought this may have been in 1968. He further stated granting Mr. Coddon's request
would conform to the look of the neighborhood. Mr. Bedell stated the City of Mound is about 70
percent nonconforming anyway. He stated the City of Mound should grant Mr. Coddon's request
because of other past variances which have been similar to his case.
Councilmember Brown stated he is strongly against granting variances in general.
Councilmember Hanus stated the onbz new home_in this area that has beer[built, has been with a
combination of two lots. M-Ie stated'~e~w~~.~i~~of---,,-- -_-~_,~_~_~_ ~. __._thc oombined
1,_~ .a~l~more r'~'~m to work and were c°nf°rming'~l°n~e~s~-~Stated
this lot is a smaller lot to begin with. He stated the garage would have to be established on the side
or rear of this lot.
Mr. Coddon stated he is willing to put the garage wherever the City would propose him to. He
does not want any other variance granted, except having the right to build on this undersized vacant
lot.
Councilmember Hanus asked the applicant if this would be a one-story house and the applicant
stated it would be two-story if needed.
Mr. Bedell is confused with regard to allowing redevelopment on Island View on an existing lot
where the property is nonconforming and small, but here you have a lot that is vacant and will
propose new development for the good of the neighborhood.
Councilmember Brown stated this does not have lot of record because it is a vacant lot which was
nonconforming when the applicant bought it. He further stated because the lot is currently
nonconforming and vacant, the codes regarding lot of record do not apply.
Peter Meyer, 5748 Sunset Road. Mr. Meyer stated denying the applicant's variance would be
social injustice. He stated in all fairness, this house he is proposing meets all setbacks, but
unfortunately it is sized too small. He stated this house would be a nice house for the community
14
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -JANUARY 25, 2000
and there is a need for reasonably priced housing in the City of Mound. He does not understand the
~resistance.
The City Attorney stated the Councilmembers need to understand the equal protection act the
applicant is referring to. He stated this act is applied on a case by case basis. He stated the equal
protection claim is not applicable in this case. Mr. Coddon knew the limitations of the property
when he purchased it so he does not feel the applicant has a valid claim.
Councilmember Brown stated the vacant property is not currently used a residential lot and the code
does not allow it to be used such. He stated allowing a vacant undersized lot as a residential lot is
not promoted by the Comprehensive Plan.
Councilmember Weycker asked if this area will have any rezoning in the near future because of the
Comprehensive Plan. The City Planner stated this area is a medium density area in the
Comprehensive Plan. The Plan suggests that over time this area may be considered for higher
densities.
MOTION by Brown, to accept the resolution denying the applicant's variance according
to staff and Planning Connnission's recommendations.
There was discussion with the City Planner, Councilmember Hanus and the applicant
regarding an attached or detached garage being considered for this lot. The City
Planner stated the attached garage would have to meet the front yard setbacks and the
applicant is willing to comply. Councilmember Hanus stated if the garage is detached
it would have to be placed on the side or the rear of the house and the applicant
would also comply with this as well. It was decided a variance would be required to
allow the garage.
Councilmember Hanus stated the address in the resolution needs to be changed
appropriately.
Councilmember Brown's motion died for lack of a second.
Councilmember Weycker stated the issues being discussed now appear to be the same as
discussed with Mr. Hewitt's case from tonight's meeting; although, they are different
because Island View development will not be zoned differently in the future whereas this
vacant property, as well as others in this area, may be zoned as higher density in the near
future.
Mayor Meisel stated, and Councilmember Brown agreed, the problem with this lot is that it
is currently vacant and undersized.
Councilmember Brown stated if we allow this variance, we would be starting a precedent.
He stated there are a lot of lots in the City of Mound that are undersized and vacant.
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -JANUARY 25, 2000
Councilmember Weycker stated one case comes to mind regarding the wetland issue on
Three Points. The Acting City Manager stated these were undersized lots but it is a whole
different situation because they are located on wetlands.
Brown moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION//00-16:
Discussion.
RESOLUTION TO DENY A LOT AREA VARIANCE
TO BUILD A HOME ON A VACANT LOT AT 2217
ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, LOT 18, BLOCK 1, L.P.
CREVIER'S SUBDIVISION OF LOT 36,
LAFAYETTE PARK, PID # 13-117-24 43 0059, P &
Z CASE//99-48.
The City Planner stated the variance should be 1,200 square feet on the resolution.
Councilmember Hanus stated when people walk into a situation they know is a tricky
one, he would like to encourage them to talk to the City before moving forward.
Councilmember Weycker stated she had information to believe if lots are
nonconforming this will make it more difficult for insurance coverage.
Councilmember Hanus agreed with this statement. Councilmember Weycker stated
knowing this information, maybe we are setting this property up for a bad insurance
situation if it would be approved.
Motion carried. 4-1, Weycker voting nay.
1.13 EXECUTIVE SESSION: PENDING LITIGATION.
The City Attorney stated the purpose of tonight's Executive Session is to discuss
attorney/client matters between legal counsel and the City Council which are not public
information at this point in time.
The meeting was recessed at 9:50 p.m.
The City Council resumed its meeting at 10:35 p.m.
The City Attorney stated the City Council met in executive session with legal counsel
regarding a bill that the City received from the Westonka School District bill concerning the
old community center and received some legal advice and a status report.
INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS.
A. October, November and December monthly report from Len Harrell, Police Chief.
16
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 4ANUARY 25, 2000
B. Thank you note from Bob Shanley.
Co
Notice to the Save the Lake Recognition Banquet from the LMCD. Date: 2/10/00;
Place: Lord Fleteher's on the Lake; Time: 6:00 p.m. Please RSVP to LMCD by
2/3/00.
D. Association of Metropolitan Municipalities News.
E. POSC minutes from January 13, 2000.
Letter that was presented to the Docks and Commons Commission at their meeting on
January 20, 2000, by Ann Hiltsley regarding Pembroke Park Multiple Dock.
G. LMCD agenda for January 26, 2000 for 7:00 p.m.
Ho
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order and Memorandum to initiate
consolidation proceedings for the cities of St. Bonifacius and Minnetrista pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes 414.
Councilmember Brown stated he was asked by the Planning Commission when a new City
Manager comes on board would each member receives his/her certificate. Mayor Meisel
stated when the City Manag~k has been hired, there will be a get together and the certificates
will be distributed.
Mayor Meisel stated the Mercer Group will be meeting with City Council at City Hall on
January 31, 2000, at 6:30 p.m. She stated there are approximately 12-15 applications to be
reviewed.
ADJOURNMENT.
MOTION by Brown, seconded by Weycker, to adjourn the meeting at 10:45 p.m.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 5-0.
Francene C. Clark, Acting City Manager
Attest: Secretary
17
MOUND CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL MEETING
MONDAY, JANUARY 31, 2000
The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in a special session on
Monday, January 31, 2000, at 6:30 PM, in the Conference Room at 5341 Maywood Road, in said
City.
Those present were Mayor Pat Meisel, Councilmembers: Andrea Ahrens, Bob Brown, Mark
Hanus, Leah Weycker. Also in attendance were Acting City Manager Fran Clark, and consultant
Jim Mercer
The Mayor opened the meeting at 6:35 p.m.
REVIEW OF RESUMES FOR CITY MANAGER POSTION WITH CONSULTANT JIM
MERCER
Mercer provided an update on the search for a new City Manager. He stated that they had
received 52 applications, which he considered a good response. He added that there were a
_.number of good people that applied from all over the United States. Mercer stated that he had
narrowed the applications down to 17 people.
Ahrens asked if there were any resumes from Mound residents. Mercer clarified that there were
applicants from Mound. Ahrens also asked what criteria Mercer used to narrow the applicants
down to 17. Mercer said that he used the information that he received from the Council at the
pre-application meeting to determine who to choose. He reported that he had also contacted the
City Attorney and she told him how to proceed with this process. He then presented a packet to
each of the Councilmembers and Acting city Manager with lettered resumes.
Mercer went through the resumes by letter. He noted that Resume Z was a local person, and
even though he did not think that this person met the criteria for the job, he wanted to make the
Council aware that a local resident had applied for the position. He suggested that the Council
look over the resumes and provide feed back to him in a day or two. He asked that they narrow
the applicants down to seven or eight people.
Hanus asked if the Council should just send their votes to Mercer and then he would tally the
results. Mercer said that this was a good idea, and that he might need to meet with the Council
again if they each pick totally different people as candidates for the job.
Brown asked if it was against any policies to ask someone for their age on an application. Mayor
Meisel said that it was against federal laws to do so.
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES-JANUARY 31, 1999
Mercer explained that there were several Minnesotans who applied for the job, and who he thinks
could be qualified for the position. This might be useful because they know the system and they
would not have to move as far as others might.
Mercer went through Resume A and noted that this person was a City Manager in a community
of 4,500 people, and he/she had a Bachelor's Degree and a Master's Degree, both with honors.
This person also had 12 years of experience.
Resume B was from a person who was City Manager in Illinois, and they had been in the position
for three years. Mercer added that prior to this position, he/she had been a Planner in a county
government, and had also been in the private sector. This person had been a Planning Director,
and a City Administrator in Iowa. This person had a Master's Degree.
Hanus asked if any of these 17 applicants had been notified at this point. Mercer said that they
would not be notified until they made it onto the final list of applicants.
Mercer reported that the person who sent in Resume C was a City Administrator in Minnesota,
and he/she had Planning and Development experience in Wisconsin and Minnesota. This person
had 11 years of experience, and was currently working on a Master's Degree.
Resume D, .as Mercer exp}ained, was sent in by someone who was a City Manager in Alaska, and
a Public Works Director alter that. This person had a degree Fisheries Biology.
Brown asked if any applicants had a military background. Mercer said that if they did, it would
probably be listed on the resume.
Weycker noted that the Council should keep in mind that salaries in Alaska are drastically
different than they are here, and that this person's salary requirements were high because of that.
Mercer said that the person who sent in Resume E was currently a City Administrator in
Minnesota, and much of this person's career had been in Minnesota. This person had 16 years of
experience.
Resume F represented a person who worked in the State of Washington as a City Administrator.
Mercer noted that this person had moved around rapidly, and he would need to do some research
as to why this had happened.
Mercer reported that Resume G was from a person that he knew. He added that the person's
resume was not good, but the applicant was good person. The person had 25 years of experience,
a Bachelor's Degree in English, and a Master's of Fine Arts in Writing.
Mayor Meisel noted that she liked this person's five years of experience in the private sector.
Mercer said that he knew the person that had sent in Resume H as well.
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- JANUARY $1, 1999
Resume I was from someone who had been out of a job for a year, and Mercer said that he would
have to do a great deal of checking on this person.
Brown also noticed one reference listed, and Ahrens pointed out that most people did not provide
any references.
Mercer commented that Resume J was from a City Administrator in Minnesota. This person had
a Master's in Public Administration, and currently worked in a community of 3,500 people.
Resume K was from a person who was a City Administrator in a third tier suburb of Minneapolis.
Mercer pointed out that this person had military experience and had 16 years of public sector
experience.
Mercer stated that a City Administrator in Wisconsin sent in Resume L. Brown noticed that the
person did not want anyone in the town that he/she worked in to be contacted. This person
worked in the same town for six years, and the town was about the same size as Mound. He/she
had a Community and Economic Development background and had a Master's Degree.
Mercer said that Resume M was from a City Manager in Wisconsin for a community of 10,000
people. This person was not at the City any more and Mercer did not know why. Mercer noted
..... thht thig person was in the military as well. He said that this candidate worked for a private
company in Iowa. He said that he should do some more checking on this applicant.
Resume N was from a person who was a Village Administrator in Illinois for a village of 4,095
people. Mercer commented that this applicant appeared fairly new to the profession. This
applicant had a Master's Degree and TIF and redevelopment background. Mercer pointed out
that somebody new to the profession is not necessarily bad because this person might be hungry
for a job and have new ideas.
Resume O was from a person who winters in Texas, and has experience as a City Clerk and a Fire
Marshall. Mercer said that this person worked in small towns in Texas. The Council noted that
this person spoke four languages.
Mercer reported that Resume P was from someone who had worked in Minnesota for three years.
This person reviewed and processed TIF applications.
Hanus commented that they might be more interested in someone that did more than process TIF
applications. Mayor Meisel said that it is still important to have a basic understanding of the
applications.
Mercer said that Resume Q was from a City Manager in Iowa, and worked in a town of 5,600 for
four years. This person left this position and Mercer did not know why. This person also worked
as an Assistant City Manager of a large city in Michigan. This person was on the upper end of the
experience curve, and he/she had a good education and reputation.
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- JANUARY 31, 1999
The final Resume R was from a town administrator in New Hampshire. Mercer said that it
appeared that it was early in this person's career as he/she was a Management Intern in 1997.
This candidate received a Bachelor's Degree in 1996 and a Master's Degree in 1997.
Mercer told the Council that they should take some time to look at the resumes and get back to
him individually with each Councilmember's top seven or eight candidates.
Mayor Meisel pointed out that if some Councilmembers did not feel comfortable enough with the
candidates to recommend seven or eight, they should just pick who they feel comfortable with.
Ahrens commented that there is a lot of information that they did not have on many of these
candidates. Hanus recommended that they not throw out candidates because ora lack of
information, as this can be explored further later.
Mercer asked if the Council could get him their recommendations by Friday, February 4. He said
that he would tally up the results and then perform background checks on the applicants that they
like.
Mayor Meisel commented that she would rather do the interviews before the background checks
are done. She said that if she were doing it herself, she would do a background check on the
person that would be offered the job, and make the offer contingent upon and acceptable
background check.
Weycker asked if they could run into problems by offering a job without knowing a person's
background, and rescinding a job offer after ,~t was made.
Hanus remarked that they could use anything that they found that was negative in the background
check as a reason for rescinding the offer.
Mercer commented that he has done it both ways, and could do this however the Council chose to
do it. He went on to say that if they wanted to interview five people, it could potentially take
three weeks or more to do background checks. Mercer said that they would probably be safe
with making an offer contingent upon a background check.
Brown asked if it would be better for the Council to get together on Saturday morning to review
everyone's choices and make one recommendation to Mercer.
Weycker added that they were paying Mercer to do that for them. The Council concurred that
meeting on Saturday was not necessary.
Hanus asked what the chances were that a good candidate could slip away from them through this
process.
Mercer explained that this usually does not happen, but if he believed that good candidate was
being overlooked, he would push the Council to reconsider that applicant.
4
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES-JANUARY 31, 1999
Mercer asked the Council to set a date for the interviews, and he recommended that they be held
in two to three weeks. He added that it is always better to have the interviews on a Friday or a
Monday so the applicants can make travel plans. It could be a one or two day process, but
Mercer recommended that the Council use a one day interview process.
Hanus asked if interviews were ever done on a weekend. Mercer said that they are sometimes
held on weekends.
Brown added that a Saturday interview might not be a bad idea and they could put the candidates
up in a hotel.
The Council agreed that February 25 was the only day to hold the interviews because of vacations
that were planned by the Councilmembers. The interviews would be held at 10:00 a.m., 1:00 p.m.
and 3:00 p.m.
Mercer concluded by saying that he would provide a report to the Council that included sample
interview questions, evaluation forms and other interview strategies before the interviews.
"MOTION BY BROWN, SECONDED BY WEYCKER, TO ADJOURN THIS
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL. MOTION CARRIED 5-0.
The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m.
RESOLUTION # 00-
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE FRONT YARD, SIDE YARD, LOT AREA,
AND HARDCOVER VARIANCES FOR REMODELING AND
ADDITIONS TO THE RESIDENCE AT 4849 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE,
LOT 3, BLOCK 14, DEVON, PID # 25-117-24 11 0036
P & Z CASE #99-47
WHEREAS, the applicant, has requested variances to remodel and add to the
existing residence at 4849 Island View Ddve. The associated variances are as follows:
ExistinQ/Proposed ReQuired Vadance
Front Yard 1.5 feet 20 feet 18.5 feet
Side Yard 2 feet 6 feet 4 feet
Side Yard 3.4 feet 6 feet 2.6 feet
Lot Area 4000 sq. ft. 6000 sq. ft. 2000 sq. ff.
Hardcover 2046.72 sq. ft 1600 sq. ft. 446.72 sq. ft.
; and,
WHEREAS, the property is located within an R-lA Single Family Residential
Zoning District which according to City Code requires standards as indicated above;
and,
WHEREAS, the existing home is a one story structure and as proposed, the
request would allow the conversion to a two story structure with an attached 2 stall side
entry garage and a lakeside deck; and,
WHEREAS, the existing west foundation wall will remain and be used for the
new home. All other foundation walls will be removed and reconstructed at setbacks as
noted above; and,
WHEREAS, hardcover will increase from 49 to 51 percent as proposed; and,
WHEREAS, the attached garage will be a side entry with the door facing west.
The setback proposed is 15 feet from the side yard line which would not provide for an
adequate turning radius for vehicle circulation without utilizing the neighboring driveway
to the west; and,
WHEREAS, a sanitary sewer easement is located between the home and lake
which limits the location and size of the proposed construction; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and
recommended that the Council deny the variance as requested by the applicant; and,
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Mound, Minnesota, as follows:
1. The City does hereby approve the vadance with the following conditions:
a. Grading and drainage plans be reviewed and approved by the City
Engineer pdor to building permit issuance.
b. A private driveway easement be secured for the proposed ddveway
and adjacent driveway on the property located at 4853 Island View
Drive. The purposes of such easement being to allow cross property
access. The City Attorney shall review the proposed langua~g,e pdor to
recordingo,,-'C~-~,q.~.. ~ t~/'vQ~'~,- e,~ ~ ~
c. A lakeside deck be incorporated into the building plans as indicated in
the building plans however, no portion of the home or deck shall be
located within or extend over the sanitary sewer easement.
2. Approval of the variances are supported by the following findings:
a. The existing home was built prior to the enactment of this ordinance
and is a legal use of the property.
b. The property is undersized.
c. The sanitary sewer easement impacts the buildable area of the lot.
d. A previous vadance was granted for similar renovations plans.
e. The attached garage is a minimally sized.
3. This variance is approved for the following legally described property as
stated in the Hennepin County Property Information System:
LOT3, BLOCK 14, DEVON, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA.
612-3386838 HOISIN~TON KOEGLER ?29 P02 FEB 82 'B~ 15:58
NOTICE OF PUBLIC I4~ARING
CITY OF MOUND
The Mound City Council will hold a public hearing ~o consider a conditional use permit
and associated variances for site and building improvements to Mount Olive Lutheran
Church. The property is located at 5218 Bartlett Blvd at the comer of Wilshire and
Bartlett. The public hearing will be held at City Hall, $341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 p.m.
on February 22, 2000. Copies of the plans are available to the public upon request at City
Hall.
Jon Sutherland
Mound Building and Inspections Departmcm
February 8, 2000
RESOLUTION NO. 00-
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF 2000
GRANT APPLICATION FOR RECYCLING AND
EXECUTION OF GRANT AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statute, 115A.552, Counties shall ensure that
residents have an opportunity to recycle; and
WHEREAS, Hennepin County Ordinance 13 requires that each City implement and
maintain a recycling program to enable the County to meet its recycling goals; and
WHEREAS, Hennepin County has in 1994 passed a funding policy entitling each
City to receive SCORE funds, proportional to the numbers of eligible residential units in its
curbside collection program; and
WHEREAS, the City of Mound wishes to receive these funds.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council authorizes the
submittal of the 2000 grant application and further authorizes the Mayor and City Manager to
execute such grant agreement with the County.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember
by Councilmember
, and seconded
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
none.
Mayor
Attest: City Clerk
Hennepin County
An Equal Opportunity Employer
December 23, 1999
Ms. Joyce Nelson
City Of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, Minnesota 55364-1687
Dear Ms. Nelson:
Enclosed is the 1999 Municipal Recycling Grant Final Report/2000 Municipal Recycling
Grant Application. A new resolution from your governing board authorizing the
submittal of the 2000 grant application and authorizing the signing of the 2000 contract
should accompany your final report. Contracts cannot be executed without a new
resolution. The final reports and resolution are due February 15, 2000.
It is important that you get the final reports in on time. Your application and new grants
will not be processed until all final reports have been received. Score funds received
from the State for 2000 decreased slightly ($16,000) from 1999, but the effect on
individual municipalities should be minimal.
Once again funding will be based on the total number of households that have curbside
recycling services available. In Item B Part II, please list the total number of households
that have curbside recycling services available as of January 1, 2000. Each house should
be counted only once.
New' in 2000, there is an additional $100,000 for innovative projects through the new
Municipal Waste Abatement Incentive Fund. In the next month or two, a committee will
nun~ th,: new ,~,,,,~. ,~ may be a
bc formed to work out procedures for disb'tirsing money ~'-- - ~',"~"
good idea to start thinking about some potential projects. I will pass along more
information on this, as it is available. If you have any questions, please contact me at
(612) 348-5893.
Sincerely,
Daniel Ruiz
Senior Planning Analyst
DR/st
Enclosure
Department of Environmental Services
417 North Fifth Street
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401-1397
(612) 348-6509 FAX:(612) 348-8532
Environmental Info Line:(612) 348-6500
Recycled Paper
RESOLUTION NO.
APPROVING THE CREATION OF PUBLICLY-TRADED
COMPANY BY MEDIACOM LLC, PARENT OF MEDIACOM
MINNESOTA LLC, CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISEE
WHEREAS, on or about August 10, 1999, the City of Mound ("City") passed and
adopted Resolution No. 99-73, approving the transfer and assignment of the cable television
franchise ("Franchise") held by Triax Midwest Associates, L.P. ("Triax") to Mediacom
Minnesota LLC ("Mediacom Minnesota"), upon completion of the closing of the Triax and
Mediacom LLC ("Mediacom") Asset Purchase Agreement ("Closing"); and
WHEREAS, on or about November 5, 1999, Mediacom completed the Closing,
authorizing the Franchise transfer to Mediacom Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, on or about January 3, 2000, Mediacom completed the Franchise transfer
by providing the City with a signed acceptance of the Franchise and a certificate of existence in
the State of Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, on or about November 12, 1999, Mediacom Communications Corporation
("Mediacom Communications") filed a registration statement with the United States Securities
and Exchange Commission ("SEC") to become a publicly traded company and to issue voting
stock through an initial public offering, and in conjunction therewith, the owners of Mediacom
will exchange their membership interests for voting interests in Mediacom Communications
("Proposed Transaction"); and
WHEREAS, upon closing of the Proposed Transaction, Mediacom Communications will
become the new parent company to Mediacom; and
WHEREAS, Mediacom has stipulated that the Proposed Transaction and the creation of
Mediacom Communications will not change existing working control of Mediacom and
Mediacom Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, under the Franchise and applicable law, the Proposed Transaction and the
ownership of Mediacom by Mediacom Communications requires the City's consent; and
WHEREAS, the City has reviewed the registration statement filed with the SEC and the
legal, technical, and financial qualifications of Mediacom and Mediacom Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, based on information received and reviewed by the City, including the
memorandum dated January 20, 2000 prepared by the City's cable television consultants; Moss
& Barnett, A Professional Association, which is hereby incorporated by reference, the City finds
no reason to disapprove any required consent for the Proposed Transaction.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council for the City of Mound resolves as follows:
Mediacom Minnesota is the lawful holder of the Franchise and currently owns,
operates, and maintains a cable television system ("System") in the City.
The City consents to and approves the Proposed Transaction and the change of
ownership of Mediacom from its existing members to ownership by Mediacom
Communications.
The City acknowledges that the Proposed Transaction does not trigger any right it
may have to exercise any first purchase right or other right to acquire the system,
but only as such right applies to the Proposed Transaction now before the City.
In the event the Proposed Transaction is not completed, for any reasons, the
City's consent shall not be effective.
The City's consent to the Proposed Transaction is conditioned upon Mediacom
Minnesota reimbursing the City within thirty (30) days of the date of adoption of
this Resolution, for all reasonable costs, expenses and professional fees related to
the City's review and action on the Proposed Transaction.
This Resolution shall take effect and continue to remain in effect from and after the date
of its passage, approval and adoption.
A motion to approve the foregoing Resolution No.
Member and duly seconded by Council Member
was made by Council
The following Council Members voted in the affirmative.
The following Council Members voted in the negative:
Passed and adopted by this City Council for the City of Mound, Minnesota this
of January, 2000.
ATTEST:
CITY OF MOUND:
__ day
By: By:
Its:
BRIAN T. GROGAN
(612) 347-0340
E-Mail: GroganB~moss-bamett.com
LAW OFFICES
MOSS & BARNETT
A PRO~ESSlONa~, ASSOCIATION
4800 NORWEST CENTER
90 SOUTH SEVENTH STREET
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402-4129
TELEPHONE (612) 347-0300
F^CS]MmE (612) 339-6686
January 21, 2000
VIA U.S. MAIL
Ms. Francene Clark-Leisinger
City Clerk
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364-1687
Re: Initial Public Offering by Mediacom Communications Corporation
Dear Fran:
Mediacom Minnesota LLC ("Mediacom Minnesota") is the holder of the cable television
franchise in the City of Mound, Minnesota ("City"). It is an operating subsidiary of Mediacom
LLC ("Mediacom"). Mediacom has recently announced plans to raise additional capital to invest
in improved facilities and new services by means of an initial public offering ("[PO") of
Mediacom Communications Corporation ("Mediacom Communications") common stock.
Mediacom Communications would become the parent company of Mediacom and all of its
operating subsidiaries, including Mediacom Minnesota. The IPO is scheduled for early to mid-
February 2000.
The City has asked whether this proposed transaction requires its written approval under
Minnesota Statutes Section 238.083 and/or its cable television franchise agreement with
Mediacom.
Minnesota Statutes Section 238.083 states in part:
A sale or transfer of a franchise, including a sale or transfer by means of a
fundamental corporate change, requires the written approval of the franchising
authority.
Minnesota Statutes Section 238.083 defines "fundamental corporate change" as follows:
For purposes of this section, "fundamental corporate change" means the sale or
transfer of a majority of a corporation's assets; merger, including a parent and its
subsidiary corporation; consolidation; or creation of a subsidiary corporation.
The franchise agreement between the City and Mediacom Minnesota requires consenf~ '~: '-' '<'%
when there is an assignment, sale, or transfer of the franchise, which includes in part: .: .,,..,...:.~ .. 2
MOSS & BARNETT
A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION
Ms. Francene Clark-Leisinger
January 21, 2000
Page 2
(v) the sale, assignment or other transfer of capital stock or partnership,
membership or other equity interests in Grantee or any of its parents by one or
more of its existing shareholders, partners, members or other equity owners so as
to create a new Controlling Interest in Grantee.
The proposed transaction meets the franchise definition of a sale or transfer because the
ultimate parent, and new controlling interest in Mediacom Minnesota, will be Mediacom
Communications. The City's consent is thus required for this transaction to go forward, making
rev;e,~,, ,. ~,'-c*h~ ............,,,~,,,~ .... ~ ,~ch,,;-al, ~.ona~ c,~***~..~;~l q,,oli,q,c~ti~n~~.... ~,~. ~ ~,f the~ ,.. applio~ .... n,t necessary.
Under the proposed transaction, the franchisee will remain Mediacom Minnesota. It is
this entity that is the applicant seeking consent from the City. We have previously reviewed the
qualifications of Mediacom Minnesota, as well as Mediacom, in our Report to the City
Regarding Triax Midwest Associates, L.P. Proposed Assignment of the City's Cable Television
Franchise to Mediacom LLC dated August 4, 1999 ("Report"). In the Report, we concluded that
the City could not reasonably deny the applicant's request to own and operate the cable system.
First, this was true with regard to its legal qualifications. Since the franchisee will not
change after the IPO, nothing involved in the proposed transaction changes our analysis.
Second, this was true with regard to its technical qualifications. Mediacom has stipulated that
the members that now control Mediacom will control Mediacom Communications after the IPO.
With that stipulation, nothing involved in the proposed transaction changes our analysis. Third,
this was true with regard to its financial qualifications, subject to receipt of a guaranty from
Mediacom. Since that guaranty remains in effect after the IPO and Mediacom Minnesota will
likely benefit from the additional capital raised, nothing involved in the proposed transaction
changes our analysis.
In sum, the City's consent is needed for the proposed transaction to be consummated.
However, the fact~ of the proposed transaction indicate that the City should approve t_he
proposed transaction. I have attached a proposed resolution for the City's use.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
BTG/tlh/3oso34/l
Enclosures
CC2
Very truly yours,
Brian T. Grogan
Tom Bordwell, Mediacom Minnesota, LLC
Med acom
14162 Commerce Ave., Suite 100
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Email: tebordwell~tol, com
Phone: (612) 440-9680 ext. 222
Fax: (612) 440-9661
Tom Bordwell
Director of Government Relations
January 12,2000
Ms. Francene Clark-Leisinger
City Clerk
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364-1687
Dear Ms. Clark-Leisinger:
As recently announced in the press, Mediacom Communications Corporation has filed a
registration statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission to become a publicly traded company. We
are very excited about the opportunities this will bring to Mediacom's customers and communities.
Please be assured that the public offering will not change Mediacom or Mediacom Minnesota
LLC, the entity currently holding the franchise in the City of Mound. Upon closing of the public offering, the
owners of Mediacom LLC (which is currently the parent entity of Mediacom Minnesota LLC) will exchange their
membership interests for voting interests in Mediacom Communications Corporation (the proposed public entity).
As a result, the public entity will be the parent of Mediacom LLC which will continue to serve as the holding
company for all of our subsidiaries, including Mediacom Minnesota. This corporate vehicle will allow us to issue
additional voting stock in a public offering without changing the current members' control over Mediacom. After
the initial public offering, the members that now control Mediacom will control the public entity. Thus, Mediacom
and its operating subsidiaries will continue to operate under the existing control structure.
We ask that you pass the enclosed consent resolution at your next public meeting. The swift
passage of the resolution will help Mediacom realize its vision of rapidly deploying advanced cable and
communications services to all of its communities.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 440-9680x222. Thank you for your cooperation
and assistance.
cc: Brian Grogan
Sample Resolution
Whereas the City of Mound has supported services for its elderly and
disabled residents via Senior Community Services' Westonka Senior
Center with the allocation of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
funds
and
whereas the City of Mound feels that the provision of services for its
elderly and disabled residents is of great importance and should be
continued,
Therefore Be It Resolved that the City of Mound recommends to the
Consolidated Pool Selection Committee that CDBG funding of Senior
Community Services' Westonka Senior Center be continued.
Signed for the City of Mound
Date
SENIOR COMMUNITY SERVICES
10709 Wayzata Blvd., Suite 111, Minnetonka, MN 55305 Phone: (952) 541-1019
FAX: (952) 541-0841
BOARD OFDIRECTORS
Laurie LaFontaine
President
January 25, 2000
Dr. Chinyere (Ike) Njaka
1st Vice President
Francis Hagen
2nd Vice President
Mary Henning
Treasurer
Peter Coyle
Secretary
Dwight Johnson
Past President
Bob Bean
Member-at-Large
Marty Guritz
Member-at-Large
John C. Boeder
Senator Rudy Boschwitz
Scoff Brandt
Aiko Higuchi
Gordon Hughes
Gloria Johnson
Kevin Krueger
Ann Lenczewski
Kathleen Miller
Dotty O'Brlen
Senator Gen Olson
Curtis A. Pearson
Mary Tambornino
Leonard J. Thiel
Thomas Thorfinnson
Tom Ticen
Benjamin F. Withhart
Executive Director & C.E.O.
PROGRAMS
Mayor Pat Meisel and Council
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
Dear Mayor Meisel and Council Members:
Senior Community Services requests that the City of Mound pass,
and send back to us, a resolution favoring a continuation of
funding the senior programs'that the City has supported in the
past. A sample resolution is attached for your consideration. We
would like to include the resolution in our application to the
Consolidated Pool for the next Community Development Block
Grant year which must be submitted by March 17, 2000.
The contact person for our request is our Westonka Senior Center
Director, Cathy Bailey (472-6502). On behalf of the area seniors
who are the direct beneficiaries of the services, our thanks for your
continued support of the Westonka Senior Center. We look
forward to continuing cooperation between the City of Mound and
Senior Community Services.
Again, many thanks for your support.
Sincerely, ,-;
Ron Bloch
Program Administrator
· Multi-Purpose
Senior Centers
· Senior Outreach
· H.O.M.E.
City Administrator
A United Way
Agency
RESOLUTION NO. 00-
February 8, 2000
RF_3OLUTION FROM THE CITY OF MOUND TO THE
CONSOLIDATED POOL SELECTION COMMITI'EE RECOMMENDING
THAT CDBG FUNDING OF WESTONKA COMMUNITY
ACTION NETWORK (WECAN) BE CONTINUED
WHEREAS, the City of Mound has supported a variety of services, that the
Westonka Community Action Network (WECAN) provides to low and very low
income residents in western Hennepin County with the with the allocation of
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds; and
WHEREAS, these services include emergency housing and utility assistance,
job counseling, food and nutrition education, family support services, public
assistance intake services, and family mental health counseling; and
WHEREAS, in 1999 WECAN served over 700 families, over half of whom
are residents of Mound as listed in EXHIBITS A, B & C, attached and made a part
of this resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE be it resolved that the City Council of the City of
Mound
recommends to the Consolidated Pool Selection Committee that CDBG funding of the
Westonka Community Action Network (WECAN) be continued.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember
Councilmember
The following voted in the affirmative
and seconded by
The following voted in the negative:
Mayor
ATI'EST: City Clerk
EXHIBIT A
Z
~ 0
~0 0
0
EXHIBIT B
w 0
O0
o
~mmmm
EXHIBIT C
000001 ,
I i I ·
nn iversar~
Westonka Community
Action Network
· Family Support Ser~'ices · Meals on Wheels · Human Services · Job Development & Placement
1155 CounW Road 19
Minnetrista, MN 55364
(612) 472-0742
(612) 472-5589 (FAX)
SERVICE AREA
Gmenhel0 Moun0
Indel~endence Rockford
Loret~o St. Bonifacius
Maple P~ain S0nng Park
Miflneton~a Beach Tonka Bay
Minnetnsta Western 0rono
OFFICERS
Cmlg Anaeraon
St. 8ont-Minnetnstra Police
I:h3rothy McQueen
VIce
Communft~ Volunteer
Sandy $1mer
Head Start Manaqer
Marvin
Major of Independence
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Director of West HenneO/n Ps, olic Safety
Ma~y DeVInn®¥
Westonka Foodshelf Coordinator
Lan Hart, ell
Mound Police Chief
Community ~lunteer
Rmu~ Lamon
Business Owner Larson Pdntm¢
Sharon McM®namy-Cook
Norv~st Eank Vice President
Suman
Community Volunteer
Mi~Iy~ Nelaon
Pat~onal Sanker Mound Mae3uetTe
~andy OIItad
Parish Nurse
Chlrle~ Pugh
Community Volunteer
Ken Rlbe
Pastor of First Presbyterian C,~urch
B~3 Tomalka
Community Volunteer
Mirdl Watt
CommuniTy ~lunteer
Mark Winter
Crow River ~anK Vice Presioent
ADMINISTRATION
Klkl Sonnen
Executwe Director
K~ko Chltko
Family Advocate
Audrey O~land
Administrative Assistant
Meals on Wheels CoorOmator
Shirley Tulbe~g
Career Counselor/Jot) Oevetooer
February 2, 2000
Mayor Pat Meisel
And City Council Members
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
Dear Mayor Meisel and Council Members:
On behalf of the WeCAN Board of Directors, I am again asking the
city of Mound to support our request for Community Development
Block Grant (CDBG) funds.
WeCAN is a community-based human service organization,
dedicated to helping people achieve greater self-sufficiency and
family stability. We provide a variety of services to Iow income
residents in western Hennepin County, and in most cases WeCAN
is the only provider of these services in this area. In 1999, we
served over 700 families, over half of whom are residents of Mound.
Our services include emergency housing and utility assistance, job
counseling, food and nutrition education, family support services,
public assistance intake services, and family and individual mental
health counseling. Approximately ninety percent (90%) of those
families we serve have a total household income considered Iow or
very Iow. Enclosed is additional information about Mound residents
WeCAN served in 1999.
As you well know, your city's CDBG allocation is now part of a pool
of funds from communities receiving less than $75,000 annually in
CDBG funding. Mound has a long history of supporting WeCAN
operations, and your on-going support is essential to us. This year
WeCAN is requesting $15,000 from Consolidated CDBG funds.
If you continue to support WeCAN's mission of helping families
achieve greater self-sufficiency, we would appreciate a letter of
support or resolution from the City of Mound which affirms that
support by March 1, 2000. We will then submit your letter along with
our application for CDBG funds to Hennepin County. If you have
any questions or would like additional information, please feel free to
contact me. I would be honored to present WeCAN's mission and
accomplishments at a future city council meeting. And thank you for
your continued support!
Respectfully,
Edith J. Travers
Executive Director
Enclosure
PAYMENT BILLS
DATE: FEBRUARY 8, 2000
BILLS ACCOUNTS PAYABLE
BATCH#
#OOll
#0012
AMOUNT
$126,748.8o
$138,041.94
TOTAL BILLS $264,790.74
PAGE i P U R C H A S E J O U R N A L
AP-C02-O1 CITY OF MOUND
VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD
NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS
AOii1 000213
2108/00 2/08/00
A~RTOUCH CELLULAR/BELLEVUE VENDOR TOTAL
A020i 19678
2/08~00 2/08/00
AL'S MASTER PLUMBING VENDOR TOTAL
A0331 907884
2/08/00 2/08/00
AMSTERDAM PRINTING VENDOR TOTAL
A0333 O0013i
2/08/00 2/08/00
AMOCO OIL COMPANY VENDOR TOTAL
A0401 47727i
2/08/00 2/08/00
478161
2/08/00' 2/08/00
ASPEN E~UIPMENT VENDOR TOTAL
A0411 000121
2/08/00 2/08/00
ASSOCIATION OF MN EMERGENC VENDOR TOTAL
A0420 164352
164265
2/08/00 2/08/00
2~08~00 2~08~00
ASSOCIATED TRUCK E~UIPMEN~ VENDOR IOTAL
B0549 31255200
2~08/00 2106/00
31255100
.... 2/08/00- 2/08/00
18166100
18190300
18228200
2/08/00 2/08/00
2/08/00 2/08/00
2/08/00 2/08/00
AMOUNT
28.02
28.02
28.02
365.50
365.50
365.50
37.05
37.05
37.05
129.43
129.43
129.43
256.75
256.75
2~5.80
245.80
502.55
20.00
20.00
20.00
170.13
I70.13
357.05
357.05
527.18
330.i4
330.I4
IIi.95
ill.95
472.00
472.00
598.25
598.25
552.60
552.60
DESCRIPTION
THRU 01-20-00 CEL[ SERVICE
JRNL-CD
ACCOUNT NUMBER
01-4140-3220
lOlO
MENS ROOM MAIN FLOOR
JRNL-CD
01-4320-3830
1010
COLOR APPLICATION 50 PACK 01-4040-2100
JRNL-CD :
JAN 2000 GASOLINE CHARGES 73-7300-2210
JRNL-CD lOiO
HARNESS KIT W/ACCESSORIES 01-4280-2310
JRNL-CD ........ 10~6
CARTRIDGES W/JAM NUTS, TERMINA 01-4280-2310
JRNL-CD
2000 MEMBERSHIP DUES 01-4140-4150
JRNL-CD 1010
WESTERN PUMP (t) 01-4280-2310
JRNL-CD iOlO
WESTERN PUHP (2) CONTPOL BOX 01-4280-2310
JRNL-CD 1010
MISCELLANEOUS BAGS 71-7!00-2200
JRNL-CD 1010
MIX AND MISCELLANEOUS 71-7100-9540
JRNL-CD 1010
LIQUOR 71-7100-9510
JRNL-CD 1010
LINUOR 71-7100-9510
JRNL-CD 1010
LIQUOR 71-7100-9510
J~NL-CD
PAGE 2 P U R C H A S E J 0 U R N A L
AP-C02-01 CiTY OF HOUND
VENDOR iNVOICE DUE HOLD
NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER
BELLBOY CORPORATION
BO611 000113 CONCRETE SAND 01-4280-2340
2/08/00 2/08/00 JRNL-CD 1010
BOB WINKLER
B0765 128169
AHOUNT
vENDOR TOTAL 2064.94
669.90
669.90
O00114 1,358.43 CONCRETE SAND 01-4280-2340
2/0~/00 2/0~/00 1,358.43 JRNL-CD 1010
VENDOR TOTAL 2028.33
99.00 12-i5-99 THRU 12-15-00 TYPEWRI 01-4040-3800
2/08/00 2/08/00 99.00 JRNL-CD 1010
128170 99.00 12-15-99 THRU 12-15-00 TYPEWRI 01-4!90-3800
2/08/00 2/06/00 99.00 JRNL-CD lOlO
MACHINES SALES &~ VENDOR TOTAL 198.00
1,652.23 BULK ICE CONTROL 01-4280-2340
2/0~/00 2/0~/00 1,652.23 JRNL-CD 1010
1,838.ii BULK ICE CONTROL 01-4280-2340
2/08/00 2/08/00 1,838.11 JRNL-CD lOlO
DIVISION VENDOR TOTAL 3490.34
21.28 WINTER 8L. HD 01-4280-2310
21.28 WINTER BL. HD 73-7300-2310
21.28 WINTER BL. HD 78-7800-2310
2/08/00 2/08/00 63.84 JRNL-CD 1010
023087 i49.09 RUNNING BOARDS 01-4280-2310
1~9.09 RUNNING BOARDS 73-7300-5000
2/08/00 2/08/00 298.18 JRNL-CD lOiO
023944 2.96 MISCELLANEOUS CONNECTORS 01-4289-2250
2.96 MISCELLANEOUS CONNECTORS 73-7300-2250
2.96 MISCELLANEOUS CONNECTORS 7~-7800-2250
2/08/00 2/08/00 8.88 JRNL-CD 1010
024168 1.98 MISCELLANEOUS BATENDS 01-4280-2250
1.97 MISCELLANEOUS BATENDS 73-7300-2250
1.97 H!SCELLANEOU$ BATENDS 7~-7~00-2250
2/08/00 2/08/00 5.92 JRNL-CD 1010
VENDOR TOTAL 376.82
147.24 MISCELLANEOUS TAXABLE 71-7100-9550
2/08/00 2/Om/O0 1~?.24 JRNL-CD 1010
147.24
711.25 4476 DENBEIGH RIPRAP STUMP REH 81-4350-5110
711.25 JRNL-CD lOlO
711.25
--- ' '- !i --." "="-' :::~'~:::~'-~:':~ ~":::' L-. ::'!' -; .......
BUSINESS
C0820 2014735~
20148876
,RGILL SALT
C0859 024513
CHAMPION AuTO
C0970 61380187
COCA COLA BOTTLING-MIDWEST VENDOR TOTAL
C1019 13~7
2108100 2108/00
CONCEPT LANDSCAPING. iNC. VENDOR TOTAL
PAGE 3
AP-C02-O1
PURCHASE JOURNAL
CITY OF MOUND
VENDOR INVOICE DuE HOLD
NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS
AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT NUMBER
Cl106 125780
2/08/00 2/08/00
i5.65 01-10-00 DELIVERY CHARGES
15.65 JRNL-CD
01-4040-3210
1010
CORPORATE EXPRESS DELIVERY VENDOR TOTAL
15.65
C1119 148845
2/08/00 2/08/00
584.69 ALUMINUM SADDLE BOX
58~.69 JRNL-CD
01-4340-5000
1010
CRYSTEEL DIST INC. VENDOR TOTAL
Di~O0 83861
2/08/00 2/08/00
584.69
139.00 BEER
139.00 JRNL-CD
71-7100-9530
1010
83632
2/08/00 2/0~/00
542.50 BEER
542.50 JRNL-CD
71-7100-9530
1010
84165
2/06/00 2/08/00
1,899.55 BEER
1,899.55 JRNL-CD
71-7100-9530
1010
84166
2/08/00 2/08/00
36.80 MISCELLANEOUS NON-TAXABLE
36.80 jRNL-CD
71-7100-9550
1010
DAY DISTRIBUTING COMPANY VENDOR TOTAL
D1258 731021
2/08/00 2/08/00
DEPT OF NATURAL RESOURCES VENDOR TOTAL
2617.85
849.00 1999 WATER APPROPRIATION FEE
849.00 JRNL-CD
849.00
73-7300-4200
IOlO
D1300 032245
DIXCO ENGRAVING
2~08~00
2/08/00
VENDOR TOTAL
89.14 WARNING SIGNS (6)
89.14 JRNL-CD
89.14
01-4340-2330
1010
E1420 576968
2~08~00 2~08~00
73.00 BEER
73.00 JRNL-CD
71-7100-9530
1010
578534
2/08/00 2/08/00
575.30 BEER
575.30 JRNL-CD
71-7100-9530
1010
581316
2/08/00 2/08/00
4,398.70 BEER
4,398.70 JRNL-CD
71-7100-0530
1010
EAST SIDE BEVERAGE VENDOR TOTAL
5047.00
E1450 16900
2/08/00 2/0~/00
4,565.00 DEC 99 MFiO0-02 PROJECT MANAGE
4,565.00 JRNL-CD
55-5~80-3100
1010
16899
2/08/00 2/08/00
2,343.75 DEC 99 MFiO0-O1 DOWNTOWN DISTR
2,343.75 JRNL-CD
55-5880-3100
1010
EHLERS & ASSOCIATES INC VENDOR TOTAL
6908.75
EISi5 252
6,779.35 JAN 2000 CURbSIDE RECYCLING 70-4270-4200
2/08/00 2/08/00 6,779.35 JRNL-CD iOlO
PAGE 4
AP-C02-01
VENDOR INVOICE DUE
NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DAlE
E-Z RECYCLING INC
F1579 811933
FIREHOUSE MAGAZINE
G1750 261716
HOLD
STATUS
VENDOR TOTAL
2/08/00 2/08/00
VENDOR TOTAL
2/08/00
257072
719 - ' -
261717
261718
266333
270930
...... 270927
AMO
PURCHASE JOURNAL
CITY OF MOUND
UNT DESCRIPTION
266332
G & K SERVICES
2108/00
2/08/00 2/08/00
2/08/00 2/08/00
2108100 2/08/00
2108/00 2106/00
2/08/00 2/Ob/O0
2/08100 2/08100
2/08/00
6779.
27.
27.
27.
35
97
97
97
19.05
19.05
19.05
22.60
22.60
22.59
124.94
26.41
26.41
26.41
48.31
48.30
48.30
224 .i4
19.82
19.82
35.09
35.09
20.95
20.95
ACCOUNT NUMBER
2000 SUBSCRIPTION ONE YEAR 22-4170-4130
JRNL-CD 1010
MATS 01-4280-2250
MATS 73-7300-2250
MATS 78-7800-2250
UNIFORMS 01-4280-2240
UNIFORMS 73-7300-2240
UNIFORMS 78-7800-2240
JRNL-CD lOlO
MATS 01-4280-2250
MATS 73-7300-2250
MATS 78-7800-2250
UNIFORMS 01-4280-2240
UNIFORMS 73-7300-2240
UNIFORMS 78-7800-2240
JRNL-CD lOiO
MATS
JRNL-CD
71-7100-4210
1010
MATS - 22-4170-2230
JRNL-CD 1010
MATS 22-4170-2230
JRNL-CD 1010
108.44 MATS 01-4320-4210
108.44 JRNL-CD 1010
19
19
19
19
19
27
27
27
141
.82 MATS 71-7100-4210
.82 JRNL-CD 1UlO
.51
.51
.51
.70
.69
.69
.6i
MATS 01-4280-2250
MATS 73-7300-2250
MATS 78-7800-2250
UNIFORMS 01-4280-2240
UNIFORMS 73-7300-2240
UNIFORMS 7~-7800-2240
JRNL-CD 1010
MATS 01-4280-2250
MATS 73-7300-2250
MATS 76-7800-2250
UNIFORMS 01-4280-2240
UNIFORMS 73-7300-2240
UNIFORMS 78-7800-2240
JRNL-CD 1010
17.39
17.39
i7.39
36.72
36.72
36.71
2/08/00 2/08/00 I62.32
VENDOR TOTAL 857.13
· "~ . ~:.._:]' L "-': -
PAGE 5
AP-C02-O1
VENDOR
NO. INVOICE NMBR
G1800 991231
46565
46683
000131
4683i
GARY'S DIESEL
G-1890 120088145
GLENWOOD INGLEWOOD
G1912 058874
059012
GOODYEAR TIRE
G1972 156208
PURCHASE JOURNAL
CITY OF HOUND
INVOICE DUE HOLD
DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUH~ER
209.22 INTEREST F/C THRU i2-31-99 22-4170-3820
2/08/00 2/08/00 209.22 JRNL-CD
315.ii REPAIR P/S LEAK LADDER TRUCK 22-4170-3820
2/08/00 2/06/00 315.1! JRNL-CD lOiO
88.54 NUT AND GUIDES FOR #4 22-4170-3820
2/08/00 2/08/00 88.54 JRNL-CD
9.20 INTEREST F/C THRU 01-31-00 22-4170-3820
2/08/00 2/08/00 9.20 JRNL-CD
16.20 CLAMPS, ETC. 01-4280-3810
2/08/00 2/08/00 16.20 JRNL-CD i010
SERVICE
VENDOR TOTAL 638.27
2/08/00 2/08/00
21.50
21.50
43.00
WATER #5158500
WATER #5158500
JRNL-CD
VENDOR TOTAL 43.00
2/08/00 2/06/00
01-4020-2200
01-4140-4100
1010
2108/00 2~08100
215.60 TIRES (4) ' 01~4140~38i0
215.60 JRNL-CD
DISTRIBUTION VENDOR TOTAL
I66.16 TIRES (4) 01-4140-3810
156.16 JRNL-CD 1010
2/08/00 2/08/00
351.76
259.57 WINE 71-7100-9520
259.57 JRNL-CD 1010
166819 1,695.06 LIQUOR 71-7100-9510
2/08/00 2/08/00 1,695.06 JRNL-CD 1010
168764 44.68 MIX 71-7100-9540
2/08/00 2/06/00 44.68 JRNL-CD 1010
i68783 570.86 LIQUOR 71-7100-9510
2/08/00 2/06/00 570.86 JRNL-CD
i6B868 1,020.76 WINE
2/08/00 2/08/00 1,020.76 JRNL-CD
COMPANY VENDOR TOTAL 3590.93
2/08/00 2/08/00
71-7100-9520
1010
GRIGGS COOPER
G1977 99123i
211.10 DEC 99 472-3555 22-4170-3220
i~O.?l DEC 99 472-3093 71-7100-3220
21.35 DEC 99 472-0646 01-4340-3220
413.i6 JRNL-CD 1010
O001Ig-A 714.43 THRU 01-19-00 REGULATED SERVIC 01-4320-3220
158.84 THRU Oi-ig-o0 NON-REGULATED SE 01-4320-3220
PAGE 6 P U R C H A S E J 0 U R N A L
AP-C02-OZ CITY OF HOUND
VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD
NO. INVOICE NKBR DATE DATE STATUS DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUHBER
AHOUNT
13.07
i5.29
20.64
6.42
I6.48
I4.24
2/08/00 2/08/00 959.41
OOOi19-B 303.25
365.80
413.23
2108/00 2108100 1,082.28
000119-C 674.67
21.30
80.69
2/08/00 2/08/00 776.66
-~'T E MINNESOTA ...... VENDOR TOTAL 3231.51
H2015 SRVCEi4518 930.00
2/08/00 2/08/00 930.00
RCO CPS WATERWORKS VENDOR TOTAL 930.00
H2075 660558 38.00
38.00
2/08/00 2/08/00 76.00
HEALTHCOMP EVAULATION SER* VENDOR TOTAL 76.00
H2283 000127 247.43
2/08/00 2/08/00 247.43
HOME DEPOT/GECF VENDOR TOTAL 247.43
I2309 23558162 I00.98
2/08/00 2108100 100.98
23554023 309.24
2/08/00 2/08/00 309.24
23552149 43.40
2/08/00 2/08/00 43.40
23548447 297.50
2/08/00 2/06/00 297.50
235492i 33.i0
33.10
33.I0
2/08/00 2/08/00 99.30
IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS VENDOR TOTAL 850.42
I2340 991228-B 30.00
THRU 01-19-00 LONG D1STANCE 01-&020-3220
THRU 01-19-00 LONG DISTANCE 01-4090-3220
THRU 01-19-00 LONG DISTANCE 01-4040-3220
THRU Ol-Ig-O0 LONG DISTANCE 01-4095-3220
THRU 01-i9-00 LONG DISTANCE 01-4190-3220
THRU 01-19-00 LONG DISTANCE 01-~340-3220
JRNL-CD 1010
TH~U 01-19-00 472-1251 01-&280-3220
THRU ~1-19-00 472-1251 73-7300-3220
THRU Ol-I9-OO 472-125i 76-7800-3220
JRNL-CD 1010
THRU 01-I9-00 REGULATED SERVIC 01-4140-3220
THRU 01-19-00 NON-REGULATED SE 01-4140-3220
THRU 01-19-00 LONG DISTANCE 01-4140-3220
JRNL-CD 1010
i2-13-99 ANNUAL PROTECTION SER 73-7300-4200
JRNL-CD lO1'0
DRUG SCREENING 01-4280-3100
DRUG SCREENING 01-4340-3100
JRNL-CD 1010
SgOVELS, RAKES, BROOMS, ETC 01-4340-2200
JRNL-CD 1010
01-24-00 THRU
JRNL-CD
01-19-00 THRU
JRNL-CD
12-06-99 THRU
JRNL-CD
12-i0-99 THRU
JRNL-CD
10-12-99 THRU
10-12-99 THRU
10-12-99 THRU
JRNL-CD
02-24-00 MAINTEN
01-i9-200i MAINT
0i-I0-00 MAINTEN
01-06-00 MAINTEN
D 1-12-00 MAINTEN
0 1-12-00 MA]NTEN
0 1-12-00 MA1NTEN
0i-4140-2140
1010
22-4170-3820
1010
01-4320-3800
1010
01-&320-3800
1010
01-42S0-2140
73-7300-2140
78-7800-2140
1010
PAGE 7
AP-C02-01
PURCHASE JOURNAL
CITY OF MOUND
VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD
NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS
AHOUNT DESCRIPTION
~CCOUNT NUMBER
2/08/00 2/08/00 30.00 JRNL-CD 1010
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION VENDOR TOTAL
30.00
I2360 99904411
2108/00 2108100
85.00 2000 ANNUAL DUES 01-4!90-4130
85.00 JRNL-CD 1010
INTERNATL CONFRNC 8LDG OF* VENDOR TOTAL
85.00
J2579 1071631
2/08/00 2/08/00
1,111.I0 WINE 71-7100-9520
1,iil.IO JRNL-CD 1010
1071630
2/08/00 2/06/00
1,560.50 LIQUOR 71-7100-9510
1,560.50 JRNL-CD 1010
1074037
2/08/00 2/08/00
586.75 LIQUOR 71-7100-9510
586.75 JRNL-CD 1010
1074038
2/08/00 2~08~00
024.60 WINE 71-7100-9520
624.60 JRNL-CD 1010
jOHNSON-'BROTHERS L'I~UOR
VENDOR TOTAL
3882.95
L2811 10427
2/08/00 2/08/00
93.21 WORK ORDERS (1000) 73-7300-2120
93.21 WORK ORDERS (iO00) 78-7800-212~
186.42 JRNL-CD
10428
2/08/00 2/08/00
221.61 PRINTING ......... 01'4020-3500 ........
221.61 JRNL-CD 1010
10437
2/08/00 2/OB/O0
667.68 PRINTING OF TIF SURVEYS' 55-5880-3100
667.68 JRNL-CD 1010
[ARSON PRINTING & GRAPHICS VENDOR TOTAL
i075.7I
L2822 1229729
1230661
2/08/00 2/08/00
2108100 2108/00
134.60 SHOP SUPPLIES, ETC 01-4280-2250
134.59 SHOP SUPPLIES, ETC - 73-7300-2250
134.59 SHOP SUPPLIES, ETC 78-780g-2250
403.78 JRNL-CD 1010
40.31 SHOP SUPPLIES, ETC 01-4280-2250
40.31 SHOP SUPPLIES, ETC 73-7300-2250
40.3I SHUP SUPPLIES, ETC 78-7800-2250
120.93 JRNL-CD iOlO
LAWSON PRODUCTS, INC.
VENDOR TOTAL
524.71
L2840 7249
2/08/00 2/08/00
55.00 11-17-99 POLICY ADOPTION CONFE 01-4090-4110
55.00 JRNL-CD IOiO
LEAGUE OF MN CITIES VENDOR TOTAL
55.00
L285i 00020i
145.65 02/01/00--02/02/0i WORKERS COM 01-4020-3600
234.92 02/01/00--02/02/0i WORKERS EOM 01-4040-3600
324.i9 02/01/00--02/02/0i WORKERS COM 01-4090-3600
7,399.94 02/01/00--02/02/0I WORKERS COM 01-4140-3600
PAGE 8 P U R C H A S E J O U R N A L
AP-C02-O1 CITY OF MOUND
V,E-NDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD
NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS ACCOUNT NUMBER
AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
375.87 02/01/00--02/02/01 WORKERS COM
2,715.66 02/01/00--02/02/01 WORKERS COM
742.34 02/01/00--02/02/01 WORKERS CUM
8,997.39 02/01/00--02/02/01 WORKERS COM
1,301.45 02/01/00--02/02/01 WORKERS COM
1,869.95 02/01/00--02/02/01 WORKERS COM
2,762.64 02/01/00--02/02/01 WORKERS EOM
2/08/00 2/08/00 26,870.00 JRNL-CD
LEAGUE OF MN CITIES INS T* VENDOR TOTAL 26870.00
L2920 11045 52.94 GAS SPRING
2/08/00 2/08/00 52.94 JRNL-CD
LONG LAKE TRACTOR & EOUIP* VENDOR TOTAL 52.94
L2926 009085 1,514.43 TRIMMER AND AUTO CUT
2/08/00 2/08/00 1,514.43 JRNL-CD
LONG LAKE POWER EOUIPMENT VENDOR TOTAL 1514.43
M3030 107055 3,048.90 BEER
2/08/00 2/08/00 3,048.90 JRNL-CD
VI'~ DISTRIBUTOR VENDOR TOTAL 3048.90 _v
M308I 000104 224.13 TRAVEL ADVANCE
2/08/00 2/08/00 224.i3 JRNL-CD
McKINLEY, JOHN VENDOR TOTAL 224.13
M3083 687455 670.76 MEDICAL SUPPLIES
2/08/00 2/08/00 670.76 JRNL-CD
MOS MATRX MEDICAL INC. VENDOR TOTAL 670.76
H3!30 1377 45.00 2000 HEMBERSHIP DUES
2/08/00 2/08/00 45.00 JRNL-CD
METRO AREA MGMT ASSN VENDOR TOTAL 45.00
M3170 991031 4,158.00 OCT 99 SAC CHARGES
2/08/00 2/0~/00 4,I5m.O0 JRNL-CD
991130 5,i97.50 NOV 99 SAC CHARGES
2/08/00 2/Ob/O0 5,197.50 JRNL-CD
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ENVI* VENDOR TOTAL 9355.50
M3470 31005 72.50 COLIFORM MF-WATER TESTS
2/08/00 2/OB/O0 72.50 JRNL-CD
31603 58.00 COLIFORM MF-WATER TESTS
2/08/00 2/08/00 58.00 JRNL-CD
MN VALLEY TESTING LABORATO VENDOR TOTAL i30.50
01-4190-3600
01-A280-3600
01-A340-3600
22-4170-3600
71-7100-3600
73-7300-3600
78-7800-3600
1010
01-4280-2310
1010
01-4340-5000
1010
71-7100-9530
1010
01-4140-4110
1010
01-4140-2270
1010
01-4040-4130
1010
78-2304-0000
i010
78-2304-0000
1010
73-7300-4215
1010
73-7300-4215
1010
PAGE 9
AP-C02-Oi
VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD
NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS
M3500 000201
2/08/00 2/08/00
MOUND FIRE RELIEF ASSN VENDOR TOTAL
M3520 000106
MOUND POSTMASTER
M3632 000201
MUNICI-PALS
M3633 0001025
2/08/00 2/08/00
VENDOR TOTAL
2/08/00 2/08/00
VENDOR TOTAL
2/08/00 2/08/00
MUNIMETRIX SYSTEMS CORP VENDOR TOTAL
-N3701 '000101 -
2/08/00 2/08/00
NATL VOLUNTEER FIRE COUNCI VENDOR TOTAL
N3737 991231
NEXTEL
N3740 TI-0040541
2/08/00 2/08/00
COMMUNICATIONS, INC VENDOR TOTAL
NEWMAN SIGNS
N3741 000131
2/08/00 2/0S/00
VENDOR TOTAL
PURCHASE JOURNAL
CITY OF HOUND
AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT NUMBER
8,484.17 FEB 2000 FIRE RELIEF 95-9500-1400
8,484.17 JRNL-CD i010
8484.17
100.00 2000 BUSINESS REPLY PERMIT 01-4320-3210
300.00 2000 BUSINESS REPLY ACCOUNT 01-4320-3210
100.00 2000 FIRST CLASS PRES. 01-4320-3210
100.00 2000 STNADARD BULK (A) 01-4320-3210
600.00 JRNL-CD 1010
600.00
20.00 2000 MEMBERSHIP DUES 01-4040-4130
20.00 JRNL-CD 1010
20 .gO
790.00 01/01/00-12/31/01 + 3 MONTHS 01-4040-3800
790.00 JRNL-CD 1010
790.00
50.00 2000 ANNUAL' MEMBERSHIP DUES 22-4170-4130
·
50.00 JRNL-CD 1010
50.00
70.00 THRU I2-31-99 6812 FACKLER 01-4340-3220
70.00 THRU 12-31-99 6813 TOM ~1-3450-3220
23.34 THRU 12-31-99 681I SKINNER 01-4280-3950
23.33 THRU 12-31-99 6811 SKINNER 73-7300-3950
23.33 THRU 12-31-99 6811 SKINNER 78-7800-3950
50.01 THRU 12-31-99 6814 HEITZ D 01-4280-3950
50.01 THRU 12-31-99 6815 JOHNSON 01-4280-3950
50.01 THRU 12-31-99 6~15 HENCE 73-7300-3950
50.01 THRU i2-31-99 68i? SHAI~LEY 73-7300-3950
50.01 THRU 12-31-99 6818 HARDINA 78-7800-3950
50.01 THRU 12-31-99'6819 K1VISTO - 78-7800-3950
50.01 THRU 12-31-99 6820 GRADY 01-4280-3950
50.00 THRU 12-31-99 6821 HETIZ 01-4280-3950
i6.33 THRU i2-31-99 6822 NELSON 01-4280-3950
16.33 THRU 12-31-99 6822 NELSON 73-7300-3950
16.33 THRU 12-31-99 6822 NELSON 78-7'800-3950
659.06 JRNL-CD 1010
659.06
53.44 LETTERS 01-4280-2360
53.44 JRNL-CD 1010
53.44
31.77 MILEAGE EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 01-4140-4110
2/08/00 2/05/00 31.77 JRNL-CD 1010
PR
PAGE 10
AP-C02-01
VENDOR
NO. INVOICE NMBR
NICCUM, DANIEL
' ~q3801 82218353
PURCHASE JOURNAL
CITY OF MOUND
INVOICE DUE HOLD
DATE DATE STATUS AHOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER
VENDOR TOTAL
2/08/00 2/08/00
82186795
2/08/00 2/08/00
NORTHERN TOOL AND E@UIPMEN VENDOR TOTAL
03870 087183946-03
2/08/00 2/08/00
OFFICE DEPOT VENDOR TOTAL
P3951 14186
PETTiBONE & CO
P4000 40107046
2/08/00 2/08/00
VENDOR TOTAL
2/08/00 2/08/00
VENDOR TOTAL
PEPSI-COLA COMPANY
P4021 572919
2/OB/O0 2108100
572920
PHILLIPS WINE
P4038 227150
2108100
PINtJACLE DISTRIBUTING
P4049 000201
PLUNKETT'S, INC
P4111 000210
2/08/00 2/08/00
SPIRITS, * VENDO~ TOTAL
2/08/00
VENDOk TOTAL
2/08/00 2/08/00
VENDOR TOTAL
2/08/00 2/08/00
VENDOR TOTAL
PRE-PAID
2/08/00 2/08/00
PROTECTION ONE
P4115 000202
31.77
23.40
23.40
23.40
70.20
320.46
320.46
390.66
1.58
1.58
1.58
379.64
115.34
99.89
182.83
777.70
777.70
69.40
69.40
69.40
578.50
578.50
1,382.25
1,3E2.25
I960.75
579.99
579.99
579.99
92.I5
92.15
92.i5
140.00
140.00
140.00
5.20
5.20
BLADE GUIDE ASSY, POLE TRAILER 01-4280-2310
BLADE GUIDE ASSY, POLE TRAILER 73-7300-2310
~LADE GUIDE ASSY, POLE TRAILER 78-7800-2310
JRNL-CD 1010
S~IHG JACK, FENDERS, HUB SET 01-4340-3820
JRNL-CD 1010
POUCH,ZIPPER,CLASS 01-4040-2100
JRNL-CD 1010
MINUTE BOOKS W/FIlLER-SHEETS
MINUTE BOOKS W/FILLER SHEETS
MINUTE BOOKS W/FILLER SHEETS
MINUTE BOOKS W/FILLER SHEETS
JRNL-CD
MISCELLANEOUS TAXABLE
JRNL-CD
LIQUOR
JRNL-CD
wINE
JRNL-CD
CIGARETTES
JRNL-CD
JAN FEB MARCH 2000 PEST CONTRO
JRNL-CD
02/01/00--04/30/00 MONITORING
JRNL-CD
LINQUIST RCPT ;;47214
JRNL-CD
01-4020-4120
01-4190-4120
81-4350-2200
01-4340-4120
IOlO
71-7100-9550
1010
71-7t0~-9510
t010
71-7100-9520
lOIO
71-7100-9550
1010
01-4320-4200
1010
01-4320-3100
lOlO
01-2040-0000
1010
PAGE 11
AP-C02-O1
VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD
NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS
PRUDENTIAL LIFE INSURANCE VENDOR TOTAL
Q4171 797268-00
797556-00
799720-00
799719-00
799215-00
2/08/00 2/06/00
2/08/00 2/08/00
2~08~00 2108100
2/08/00 2/08/00
2/08/00
QOA~IT~ WINE & SPIRITS
2/06/00
VENDOR TOTAL
R4209 1404
RANDY'S SANITATION
R4240 184701
2/08/00 2/08/00
VENDOR TOTAL
2/08/00 2/08/00
REMEDY STAFFING VENDOR TOTAL
R4290 55128
RON'S ICE COMPANY
R4300 000131
2/08/00 2/08/00
VENDOR TOTAL
2/08/00 2/08100
ROTARY CLUB OF MOUND VENDOR TOTAL
S4430 000104
2/08/00 2/0~/00
SOS PRINTING VENDOR TOTAL
54431 000117
2/08/00 2/06/00
SOS VACUUM CLEANER SERVICE VENDOR TOTAL
S4461 SI85345
2/08/00 2/08/00
ST. JOSEPH E~UIPMENT INC. VENDOR TOTAL
PURCHASE JOURNAL
CITY OF MOUND
AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
5.20
7,179.75 LIQUOR
7,179.75 JRNL-CD
2,372.07 WINE
2,372.07 JRNL-CD
131.67 WINE
131.67 JRNL~CD
757.35 WINE
757.35 JRNL-CD
2,928.75 LIQUOR
2,928.75 JRNL-CD
13369.59
101.26 JAN 2000 TRASH SERVICE
101.26 JRNL-CD
101.26
17.00 WEEK ENDING 01-09-00 SECRETARY
680.00 WEEK ENDING 01-16-00 SECRETARY
697.00 JRNL-CD
697.00
94.86 MISCELLANEOUS
94.86 JRNL-CD
94.86
i56.50 JAN FEB MARCH 2000 3RD GTR DdE
156.50 JRNL-CD
I56.50
53.09 BUSINESS CARDS FOR ALEXANDEF.
53.09 JRNL-CD
53.09
39.48 VACUUM CLEANER REPAIR
39.48 JRNL-CD
39.48
33.06 PLOW BOLTS AND NuTS
33.06 JRNL-CD
33.06
ACCOUNT NUMBER
71-7100-9510
1010
71-7100-9520
1010
71-7100-9520
IOiO
71-7100-9520
iOiO
71-7100-9510
1010
01-4320-3750
1010
01-4190-3100
01-4190-3100
1010
71-7100-9550
1010
01-4140-4120
1010
01-4140-3500
1010
71-7100-3820
1010
01-4280-2310
iOIO
PAGE i2 P U R C H A S E J C U k N A L
AP-C02,0i CITY OF MOUND
VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD
NO. INVOICE NMSR DATE DATE STATUS
~4600 147356.1
148528.1
149178.1
STREICHER'S
S4610 i27364
126935
2/08/00 2/08/00
2/08/00 2/08/00
2/08/00 2/08/00
VENDOR TOTAL
2/08/00
2~08~00
i27261
............... 2/08/00
SUBURBAN TIRE COMPANY
703 000125
T-CHEK SYSTEMS LLC
T4730 724
825
THE LAKER
T4770 183804
183805
156952
THORPE DISTRIBUTING
T4808 12337
i2341
12347
12361
2/08/00
2/08/00
2/08/00
VENDOR TOTAL
2/08/00 2/08/00
VENDOR TOTAL
2/08/00 2~08~00
2/08/00 2/08/00
VENDOR TOTAL
2/08100 2108100
2/08/00 2108100
2/Og/00 2/06/00
COMPAN VENDOR TOTAL
2~08~00 2/08/00
2/08/00 2/08/00
2/08/00 2108100
AMOUNT
lO0.00
100.00
102.08
102.08
37.85
37.85
239.93
379.14
379.14
156.56
156.56
17.98
i7.98
553.68
25.00 TRANWEB
25.00 JRNL-CD
25.00
82.39
82.39
37.45
37.45
119.84
9,763.10 BEER
9,763.10 JRNL-CD
379.00 BEER KEGS
379.00 JRNL-CD
I0154.20
137.63
137.63
174.38
174.38
171.50
171.50
257.00
DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER
SAFETY SUPPLIES 01-4140-2270
JRNL-CD i010
FLASHLIGHT,CHARGER, SULB, ETC 01-4280-2310
JRNL-CD 1010
HOUSING ASSY W/SPOT LIGHT 01-4140-3810
JRNL-CD 1010
12X165 TIRES (4) 01-4280-2310
JRNL-CD lOIO
TOWMASTER TRAILER (3) 01-4340-3820
JRNL-CD 1010
TURF SAVER 01-4340-3820
JRNL-CD ............ 1010
WEBSITE PUBLICATION 01-4320-2100
1010
2000 BUDGET PUBLICATION
JRNL-CD
UNIMPROVED VACATION
JRNL-CO
MISCELLANEOUS TAXABLE
JRNL-CO
01-13-00 POSC MTG
JRNL-CD
01-1~-00 COW MTG
JRNL-CD
01-20-00 DCAC MTG
JRNL-CD
01-24-00 PLANNING COM~ HTG
01-4020-3510
1010
01-4020-3510
1010
71-7100-9550
1010
71-7100-9530
lOIO
71-7100-9530
1010
01-4340-4200
1010
01-4020-3100
1010
81-4350-4200
iOIO
01-4190-4200
PAGE 13
AP-C02-01
VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD
NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS
2/08/00 2/08/00
TIME SAVER OFF SITE SECRE* VENDOR TOTAL
T4831 295791
2/08/00 2/08/00
TOLL GAS & WELDING SdPPLY VENDOR TOTAL
T4965 237469
2/08/00 2/08/00
THYSSEN LAGER~UIST ELEVATO VENDOR TOTAL
T4985 241673-0
240459-0
2108100
2108/00
TWIN CITY OFFICE
U5030 6018711
US FILTER
U5033 CNA200556
2/08/00 2/08/00
SUPPLY CO VENDOR TOTAL
2~08~00 2/08/00
VENDOR TOTAL
2/08/00 2/08/00
PURCHASE JOURNAL
CITY OF MOUND
AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER
309.88 01-25-00 CTY COUNCI'L HRA MTG 01-4020-3100
566.88 JRNL-CD 1010
i050.39
84.66 MISCELLANEOUS WELDING SUPPLIES 01-4280-2250
84.06 MISCELLANEOUS WELDING SUPPLIES 73-7300-2250
84.66 MISCELLANEOUS WELDING SUPPLIES 78-7800-2250
253.98 JRNL-CD 1010
253.98
147.92 FEB 2000 ELEVATOR SERVICE 01-4320-4200
147.92 JRNL-CD lglO
147.92
16.29 OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4040-2200
16.29 OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4090-2200
I6.29 OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4140-2200
i6.29 OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4190-2200
16.29 OFFICE SUPPLIES ' - - 01-4340-2200
5.43 OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4280-2200
5.43 OFFICE SUPPLIES 71-7100-220~
8.15 OFFICE SUPPLIES 73-7300-2200
8.14 OFFICE SUPPLIES 78-7800-2200
31.42 OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4190-2200
7.03 OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4040-2200
5.53 OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4140-2200
i52.58 JRNL-CD lOiO
11.23 OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4040-2200
11.23 OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4090-2200
11.23 OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4190-2200
!i.23 OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4190-2200
11.23 OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4340-2200
3.74 OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4280-2200
3.74 OFFICE SUPPLIES 71-7100-2200
5.61 OFFICE SUPPLIES 73-7300-2200
5.57 OFFICE SUPPLIES 78-7800-2200
4.97 OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4280-2200
4.97 OFFICE SUPPLIES 73-7300-2200
4.96 OFFICE SUPPLIES 78-7800-2200
179.i4 OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4190-2200
268.85 JRNL-CD lOlO
421.43
851.32 6" GATE VALVE,VALVE 5OX,ETC. 73-7300-2300
551.32 JRNL-CD i010
65t.32
1.80 THRU 12-31-99 FAX REQUESTS 01-4140-4100
1.80 JRNL-CD lOlO
PAGE
AP-C02-O1
VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD
NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS
-b.S. WEST COMMUNICATIONS * VENDOR TOTAL
W5420 17402
2108/00 2108100
WATER SPECIALISTS, INC. VENDOR TOTAL
W5492 000201
2108100 2/OhiO0
WEST METRO BUILDING MAINT. VENDOR TOTAL
W5571 991231
................ 2/08/00 2/08/00
WESTONKA MECHANICAL CONTR* VENDOR IOTAL
Z5850 19606
2108/00 2/08/00
19633
ZACK'S INC
Z6056 000112
GREG PEDERSON
Z6590 000201
DOHINIC 6USINARO
Z6607 000202
JANSSEN, SHAWN
2/08/00 2/06/00
VENDOR TOTAL
2/08100 2108100
VENDOR TOTAL
2/08/00 2/08/00
VENDOR TOTAL
2/0&/00 2/08/00
VENDOR TOTAL
TOTAL ALL VENDORS
PURCHASE JOURNAL
CITY OF MOUND
AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
1.80
74.55
74.55
74.55
223.65
01-14-00 50# SOLAR SALT
01-14-00 50# SOLAR SALT
01-14-00 50# SOLAR SALT
JRNL-CD
223.65
1,i26.00 FEB 2000 CLEANING
91.33 FEB 2000 CLEANING
91.33 FEB 2000 CLEANING
91.34 FEB 2000 CLEANING
1,400.00 JRNL-CD
1400.00
ACCOUNT NUMBER
01-4280-2200
73-7300-2200
78-7800-2200
1010
01-4320-4210
01-4280-4200
73-7300-4200
78-7800-4200
1010
233.00 PHYSICAL FOR EMPLOYEMENT GIESE 73-7300-4200
233.00 JRNL-CD iOlO
233.00
149.41 INDUSTRIAL CLEANER, ETC 01-4280-2250
i49.40 INDUSTRIAL CLEANER, ETC 73-7300-2250
149.40 INDUSTRIAL CLEANER, ET~- 78-7800-2250
44~.2i JRNL-CD lOlO
105.79 ALLOY CHAIN,GR~B HOOK,SLIP HO0 0~-4280-2250
105.79 ALLOY CHAIN,GRAB HOOK,SLIP HO0 73-7300-2250
i05.79 ALLOY CHAIN,GRAB HOOK,SLIP MO0 78-7800-2250
317.37 JRNL-CD 1010
765.58
207.28 REIMBURSEMENT FOR Y2K ROLLOVER
207.28 JRNL-CD
22-4170-2200
1010
207.28
129.12 01-11-00 & 01-25-00 MTG TAPING
129.12 JRNL-CD
01-4030-3100
1010
129.12
55.08 WATER REFUND 79-3895-0000
55.08 JRNL-CD 1010
55.08
138,041.94
MEMORANDUM
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
]l[r
To: Mound Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Loren Gordon, AICP
Date: February 2, 2000
Subject: Waterford Road Vacation Case # 99-41
DISCUSSION: The vacation request is prompted by the desire of the property owner to have
private lakeshore frontage and reduce variances to put in a dock. The area requested for vacation
is located in the Seton development just south of its intersection with Longford Road. A survey
shows the proposed area adjacent to lots 14 and 15 of Block 7, Seton measuring 89.09 feet in
length. The right-of-way has a 30 feet width. If vacated, the adjacent properties, 2537 and 2541
Wexford Lane, would receive the full 30 width because property west of Waterford is City
owned.
Within the Waterford Road right-of-way, there is approximately 38 feet of shoreline as measured
at the normal OHW of 929.4 feet. If vacated, 38 lineal feet would be subtracted from the City's
total public lands frontage which is administered by the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
(LMCD). Vacation would result in the loss of aA of a boat storage unit (BSU) from the City's
total allowance of public dock sites.
The proposed dock would be a 3 finger dock originating from the south lot of the twinhome
parcel. The south parcel has about 42 feet of lake frontage and is afforded dock fights with
LMCD approval. The applicant has submitted an application to the LMCD for variances to length
(350 feet dock - 100 feet is the maximum), dock use area and side setbacks (the convergence of
the extended property lines restrict channel access). The LMCD Board has given conditional
approval of the dock variance request based on the City's action regarding Waterford Lane.
Based on LMCD regulations, if Waterford Lane is vacated the Board would not need to grant a
sideyard setback variance. If that portion of Waterford Lane remains with the City, the Board
would need to consider granting a variance for a sideyard setback. It appears that the dock will
receive the necessary approvals to be built regardless of the action the City chooses to take.
The issue at hand for the City is really a matter of shoreline policy and resulting public benefit.
This particular right-of-way is like many others in channel areas were there are platted streets that
are underwater. The reviews of the three City Commissions, Planning, Park and Open Space, and
Docks and Commons reflect the view of each on varying policies.
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax(612) 33845838
p. 2
Waterford Lane Vacation
February 3, 2000
The Planning Commission's review of issues is most specific to the use of public land.
Their recommendation reflects the goal of putting public lands which have no real public
use back into private ownership. The Planning Commission has no real involvement in
dock related issues, so it was not a point of discussion in their recommendation. Their
recommendation was to approve the vacation request.
The Park and Open Space Commission's review addressed that fact that there would be
a loss of public shoreline which would reduce the City's total lineal frontage. The
Commission stated that for this reason, the vacation was not in the City's best interest.
Their recommendation was to deny the vacation request.
The Docks and Commons Commission's review addressed the advantages private
shoreline for valuation purposes for the City. Their recommendation was to approve the
vacation request.
City Staff also provided input at each Commission meeting and the full reports and
recommendations are provided in the packet material. The recommendations are:
· Planning Staff- Approve the vacation request
· Parks Staff- Deny the vacation request
· Engineering Staff- Approve the vacation request
Additional comments were provided from outside agencies, DNR Waters Division and DNR
Trails and Waterways. Their recommendations are provided in the packet material and are
summarized as follows:
· DNR Waters Division - Because most of Waterford Lane is below the 929.4 lake level,
they have no opposition to the vacation.
· DNR Trails and Waterways - Strongly recommended denial of the vacation request citing
that standards for public use and access would be significantly compromised.
RECOMMENDATION: The City Council has a number of viewpoints to consider in
determining if Waterford Lane has benefit to the public. Regardless of what the decision the City
makes on the vacation, it does appear the LMCD will approve the necessary variances to allow
the dock to be built as proposed. This item is really a non-issue in this case. If the City's intent is
to preserve as many options as possible in the dock program for its residents by preserving City
lake frontage, vacation would be inconsistent with the goals of this program. At present, there is
roughly a cushion of 75 spaces in the program, but that number could be reduced if Woodland
Point frontage is taken from the program. Waterford Lane provides lineal frontage to the City's
dock program and vacating it would reduce the overall frontage and BSU count. This issue has
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
p. 3
g?aterforcl Lane Vacation
February 3, 2000
the greatest impact on the public and outweighs one parcel gaining lake frontage. After
considering all the available information and recommendations from various parties, it is my
recommendation that the Council not vacate Waterford Lane as requested.
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
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 2541 WEXFORD LANE LOCATED WITHIN
THE R-2 SINGLE 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 City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota,
will meet in the Council Chambers, 534! Maywood Road, at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday,
February 8, 2000 to consider the approval of unimproved Waterford Road Street
Vacation adjacent to 2537 and 254! Wexford Lane located within the R-2 Single or Two
Family Residential zoning distdct~
All persons appearing at said headng with reference to the above will be given the
opportunity to be heard at this meeting.
Fran Clark, City Clerk
Mailed to property owners within 350 feet of affected prope..rty on January 26, 2000.
Published in the Laker, January 28, 2000,
pnnted on recycled paper
David and Patricia Berg
2543 Tyrone Lane
Mound, MN 55364
Ronald W Bergquist
2540 Wexford Lane
Mound, MN 55364
Kevin Patrick Boran
2551 Tyrone Lane
Mound, MN 55364
James and Aimmee Chelman
4786 Carrick Road
Mound, MN 55364
Leroy and Diane Bryan
2544 Wexford Lane
Mound, MN 55364
Phillip Fisk
4790 Carrick Rd
Mound, MN 55364
James & Geraldine Gefre
4800 Carrick Road
Mound, MN 55364
JS Peterson HR Wolverton
2561 Wexford Lane
Mound, MN 55364
Sandra Hayward
4792 Carrick Road
Mound, MN 55364
John Hodgester
4008 Inglewood Ave S
Edina, MN 55416
DS Davidson & MM Pugh
4828 Longford Road
Mound, MN 55364
Bemard McVey
4807 Longford Road
Mound, MN 55364
Evelyn Nitz
34 12th Ave N #418
Hopkins, MN 55343
Richard Oliver
4824 Longford Road
Mound, MN 55364
Douglas Roske
4820 Longford Road
Mound, MN 55364
Daniel Swanson
2560 Wexford Lane
Mound, MN 55364
Brenshell Homes, Inc et al
4900 Tuxedo Blvd
Mound, MN 55364
Donald Wartman
4816 Longford Road
Mound, MN 55364
~12-~868~8 HOISINGTON KOEGLER 719 P18 FEB 02 '00
Mound Planning Commission Minutes, ,January 24. ~_000
MI$CEI..I..AN£OU$ INFORMATiON:
WEXFORD LANE VACATION.
Sutherland presented this case. in November, 1999, the Planning Commission
approved the Wexford Lane vacation. Sutherland stated the Planning Commission may
have a different view of the vacation after having reviewed Mr. Fackler's letter, Martha
Roger's letter of the DNR and Ceil Strauss' letter, a hydrologist. The Park Commission
does not favor the vacation, neither does the DNR, but the hydrologist is in favor
because of having no access made possible. Sutherland stated with the two
recommendations to keep the property and one recommendation to not keep the
property, does the Planning Commission want to restate its original recommendation.
Mueller stated he would like to have the property vacated as previously decided by the
Planning Commission. He stated the property was going to be used initially as a
roadway, and this not going to happen now.
Brown stated this property is not included in the Mr. Fackler's lineal footage for the lake.
Burma stated the lineal footage involved appeared to come as a total loss of land. He
stated the dock commission voted not to keep this land and it will not provide an access
the City would want.
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Burma, to vacate the Wexford Lane
property.
Discussion.
Weiland stated he will not agree to this vacation because of the notation made by a
letter dated January 5, 2000, from Martha Reger of the DNR stating:
"The citizens of Minnesota have a right 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 devotes considerable effort to providing the
public with free and adequate access to our lakes 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 limited to, shore fishing, canoe/carry in
access, winter access (by car, snowmobile or foot), swimming, picnic area and
observation/natural area. 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 throuc~h a vacation.
Brown stated he strongly disagrees with Weiland because this property is not even
counted in our dock program so we are not losing any lineal footage. Mueller agreed
and further stated no access is lost also.
18
5,"5
812-Z~8~8~8 HOISINGTON KQEGLER 719 Pig FEB 82 '00 1~:07
Mound Planning Commission Minutes. January 24. 2000
Brown called the question.
MOTION CARRIED. Michael, Burma, Clapsaddle, Mueller, Voss and Brown
voting aye; Glister, Hasse and Weiland voting nay. 6-3.
19
Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission January 20, 2000
6a.
DISCUSS: STREET VACATION ADJACENT TO 2537 & 2541 WATERFORD
ROAD
Park Director Fackler summarized the request for the vacation of the property adjacent
to 2537 and 2541 Waterford Road, explaining the issue of linear footage of shoreline,
which is very important to the dock program. He also summarized staff recommendation
of the option of supporting a side setback variance from the LMCD, which allows the
applicant to get their dock, and does not require the City to vacate the property.
Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission January 20, 2000
Mr. Thomas Stokes addressed the Commission at this time summarizing the desire of the
homeowners for a dock, and the variances from the LMCD which are needed for a dock
at this site. Vacation of the property by the City would alleviate the need to receive 3
variances from the LMCD.
Discussion followed by all concerning the actual value of this property to the City. The
basic agreement is that the major advantage is 38 feet of linear lakeshore which can be
used to determine Mound BSU's.
10:30 p.m. Acting Chair Goldberg tabled the meeting.
Motion made by Goldberg, seconded by Ahrens to extend the meeting for an
additional 15 minutes. Motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Burma stated that if the variances will accomplish the same thing, in
allowing the dock, then the City can still keep the 38 feet as well.
Motion made by Ahrens, seconded by Burma, to recommend approval of the
vacation as requested. Motion carried 4/1 (Eurich opposed).
10:45 p.m. Acting Chair Goldberg tabled the meeting. Motion by Goldberg,
seconded by Burma to extend the meeting for an additional 15 minutes. Motion
carried unanimously.
Commissioner Eurich stated that the dock could be installed without the City vacating this
38 feet. This would be the first choice, as it would benefit both the City and the applicant.
If the LMCD does not grant the variances, the applicant can return to the City and reapply
for the vacation.
Mr. Stokes stated his concern that the people with this dock maintain their own dock, and
he would not be in favor of a fee increase in this case.
11:00 p.m. Acting Chair Goldberg tabled the meeting. Motion by Burma, seconded
by Goldberg, to extend the meeting for an additional 5 minutes. Motion carried
unanimously.
1.1 APPLICATION FOR A VACATION OF WATERFORD ROAD.
The Acting City Manager presented the case. She stated the dockage for the twin homes
being built on Wexford would not be utilized on public shoreline. She stated the application
was not forwarded to the appropriate chain of people, specifically the Park Director, City
Clerk and the DNR, before it went to the Planning Commission.
Councilmember Weycker stated there would be approximately 35 feet of lakeshore for the
City that would be lost with this vacation. The Acting City Manager agreed.
Councilmember Brown stated the Planning Commission did not have the letter from DNR
representative, Martha Reger dated January 5, 2000, when they recommended approval of
the vacation in November, 1999.
MOUND COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE REGULAR MINUTES -JANUARY 18, 2000
Councilmember Ahrens stated it would appear the City would be required to get the DN-R to
approve this vacation. She further stated this vacation is not in an area that is useable for the
City of Mound. She is in favor of vacating this property.
Councilmember Hanus questioned the calculations made by Jim Fackler in determining the
shoreline footage. He stated property under water cannot be counted as shoreline footage
and this may have been included in the total evaluation of public shoreline in Mound.
Councilmember Brown agreed.
Councilmember Hanus stated he would like to absorb the information presented tonight and
discuss it further at the a future City Council meeting when Jim Fackler and the applicant
would be present to answer his questions. Mayor Meisel agreed.
The consensus agreed to review the April minutes presented in the packet tonight which
would present more information.
Councilmember Ahrens does not want to see another commons dock proposed on this 35 feet
of property if the vacation does not get passed.
Mayor Meisel excused herself at 7:15 p.m. to have a work with School Superintendent Dr.
Pam Myers who asked to 'speak with her.
Councilmember Brown stated the City of Mound has the ability to put out 475 docks and
they currently only have 396 docks that are being used. He stated the 30 feet of shoreline
would not make too much of a difference and it appears we do not need it.
Mayor Meisel returned to the meeting at 7:20 p.m.
The Acting City Manager stated that in the past very little land has been vacated that was
public shoreline.
Councilmember Hanus reviewed Mr. Fackler's breakdown briefly regarding useable
shoreline that is city owned land for the City of Mound and it appears the shoreline he is
including with his calculations may be inaccurate. Again, Councilmember Hanus would like
to discuss this further with Mr. Fackler at a future City Council meeting.
Mayor Meisel agreed the calculation for useable shoreline footage needs to be reviewed with
more emphasis put on accuracy and detail.
Mr. Beise stated he would not disapprove of this vacation because of the footage, although,
he would disapprove of it because the only reason the applicant wants to be given this
property is to remove one of his three variances in existence.
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION
January 13, 2000
Present were: Commissioners Peter Meyer, Norman Domholt, Tom Casey, John Beise;
and City Council Representative Leah Weycker. Also present were Park Director Jim
Fackler, and Secretary Kristine Kitzman, Thomas Stokes, Rochard Oliver and Steve
Behnke.
Absent: Commissioner Christina Cooper
5. DISCUSS: STREET VACATION ADJACENT TO 2537 & 2541 WATERFORD RD.
Mr. Steve Behnke, Mr. Thomas Stokes, and Mr. Oliver were in attendance to discuss this
issue.
Park Director Fackler summarized the request for vacation in order to put in a dock. This
request did pass at the Planning Commission. However, they did not have the memo from
Fackler, and the letter from Martha Reger who is with the Department of Natural
Resources, both of which are not in favor of the vacation of the property. However, staff
does recommend supporting a side setback variance from the LMCD. The reason for this
is that the City of Mound is getting rather close to having to count every BSU right now,
and lineal footage is the key factor in this equation. Vacation of this property would cost
the City 38 feet of lakeshore, which may have an impact on the total number of BSU's the
City of Mound can license.
Commissioner Casey asked for clarification on what variance the City of Mound would
need to grant.
Park Director Fackler clarified that the variances needed would actually be from the LMCD.
The City of Mound would supply a supporting statement to the LMCD regarding the
variances needed in order to avoid the necessity of vacating the property but still allowing
the applicant's the ability to build their dock.
Councilmember Weycker questioned why the stem of the dock could not be moved south,
thereby avoiding the need for vacation or variances.
Mr. Behuke then addressed the Commission, stating that the LMCD would like to keep the
length of the dock as short as possible, and moving the stem would lengthen the stem
quite a bit.
Commissioner Casey questioned whether the vacation of the property was a benefit to the
citizens of Mound, as that is the criteria needed for the POSC to support this application.
Mr. Behuke stated that, while the City would lose 38 linear feet of its shoreline, it would
effectively gain three docksites. While the 38 linear feet may cost the City one public
docksite, it would allow the 3-finger dock to be installed, thereby providing a place for at
least one, possibly two boats that are now in the dock program to move to this private
dock. There would be a net increase in the d~. ites in the City, whether public or
private.
stated that with a side s~riance from the LMCD, the
Councilmember
Weycker
applicants would be able to build their dock, and'G~wouldthe keep the 38 feet of
lakeshore in their BSU equation, and this seems to be the best situation all the way
around.
Commissioner Domholt questioned whether this 38 feet would be much of a loss, since it
is rather marshy and cannot be used to install a city dock.
Councilmember Weycker stated that the city uses a lot of "unusable" shoreline in it's
equation, as the BSU's are figured on a total number of linear feet, not on any specific
area. Unusable shoreline is figured in, and docks are more dense in usable areas.
Commissioners Casey and Meyer both stated that vacating this property does not seem
to be in the best interest of the citizens of Mound, especially since a side setback variance
would accomplish much the same thing.
Motion made by Weycker, seconded by Casey to recommend denial of the
vacation of the Waterford Road property. Motion carried unanimously.
Commissioners Casey and Beise stated that if the variances were not granted from the
LMCD allowing this dock, it would affect the attitude of what is in the public's best interest.
The side setback variance would be a much better answer for the City of Mound. If the
variances are not granted, this issue should be revisited.
CITY OF MOUND
Memorandum
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
POSAC and DCAC /
Jim Fack!er, Park Director'
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 Minnetonka under the cities control
to be lost.
printed on recycled paper
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
Memorandum
January 7, 2000
TO: DCAC and POSAC
FROM: Jim Fackler, Park Director
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.
prlnted on recycled paper
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
9925 Valley View Road, Eden Prairie, MN $53~4
612-826-6769, 612-826-6767(fax)
January 5, 2000
Mr. Jim Fackler
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, :MN 55364
Dear Jim:
This letter is in reference to tahe 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~,3, 15, and 16, no PED's, P&Z 99-41.
Please be advised that the State of,Wmnesota, Department of Natural Resources, Division of
Trails and Waterways opposes the proposed vacation of the above described property,
particularly with respe,,"t 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 dedicated provides a means
of access to Lake Mirmetonka and was dedicated to public use forever via the Seton Plat back in
1913.
The citizens of Minnesota have a right to use all of the public waters in our state. Any attempt to
preclude acc, ess should be carefully considered. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
devotes considerable effort to providing the public with free and adequate access to our lake,
and river throughout the state. The public includes persons other than those in the immediate
vicirdty. Our goal is to preserve and protect the public's right to ALL forms of access. This
access can include, but is not Iim/ted to, shore fishing, canoe/carry in access, winter access Coy
car, snowmobile 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 "siven" to adja;ent neighbors through a vacation.
DNR Information: 612-296-6157. 1-8U0-766-6000 · 7'I'Y: 61_.2.,296-54:q4. I-X{x)-657-3929
All ~4ual L.~l~ttuni'ty I':mpl~r ~1~ !aT'illl~.d o. Rc.:2clc~t P:,~.r Co0t:~inln~ ~
Wh,, V~lu:~ ~ve~i~y ~ Minimum ot 10'~ P~,~l-C',m~u:ncr ~;~s~e
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 satisfied. Thc
standard is justifiably high because if the property is vacated the public will lose forever access to
l~ublic water. It is important to preserve public lakeshore for thc public becaus~ development
occurring on lakes impairs and ot~en eliminates the public's enjoyment of lakes by those members
ofthe public who do not own lakcshore property: often times because they can not afford it.
As a matter of law, it does not matter tMt the property may have becn 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 docs not matter that thc property is undeveloped. Finally, it
does not matter if there are other public access sites on the lake or that if the l~ropertv is vacated
it may be returned to the tax rolls. The ~sentiaJ and only issue is. whether the property is
useless both currently and in the future using the unrestricted definition of"usctcss" ascribed to it
by the Court in the ~ of InRe Application o/Baldwin, 218 ~nn. 11, I5 N.W.2d 184 (1944):
not serving or not capable of serving any public valuable purpose; being of no
use; having or being of no use; unserviceable; producing no good end;
answering no desired purpose.
Ii'the facts show that the property is useable in its current state for it~ 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 well-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 thc 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
DNR WATERS
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
NO¥ 5
PHONE: 651-772-7914 FAX: 651-772-7977
SUBJECT:
Vacation of Waterford Lane adjacentto 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.
Mueiler stated it appears the dimension of lineal shoreline that would be lost would be
about 25 feet. Brown agreed with Mueller 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 ~vo 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 proposed 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 st=_ted 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 Plennlna ~omm~ssion Minutes - November ~. 19gg
Mueller asked if there would be an a~reement 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 Mueller, seconded by C[apsaddle, to accept the vacation
accordin§ to staff recommendations with review and approval by the City
Attorney. MOTION CARRIED. 7-0.
Chair~t~,,,,=_.'. '~'~"~ informed Mr. -,A.:=nnk=_ this sase would be presented to City. Council on
PLANNING REPORT
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
TO: Mound Council. Plamning Commission and Staff
FROM: Loren Gordon, .MCP
DATE: November $ 1999
SUBJECT: Street Vacation
.',.kPPLICA_NT: Richm-d Oliver
CASE NUMBER: 9%41
HKG FILE NUMBER: 9~,-f
LOCATION: Adiac.'n: ,'.o 2557' and 2'fzl \Va,:erford Road
ZONING: R:sid:ndai DisrAc: R-2
COMPtLEHENSIVE PLAN: Residential
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: A request to vacate a portion of Waterford Lane adjacent to
2537 and.25zl Waterford Road. The request is prompted by the developers desire to create a
dock sit~. accessible by Seton Channel. Almost all of Waterford Lane is ande,-"water and ser,'es no
purpose to the Cit.'.'. There are no Ci5' utilities witkin 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.
Almost all of it is under, rater however.
RECO.XlMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recormmend Council
approve the seres: vacation as requested.
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(6t1) 338-0800 Fax(612) 338-6838
Engineering Planning Surveying
FRA
RECEIVED
OV 0 I
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
October 29. lc;e9
· ,"- -ln -I - Znmir,~.
TO: Jori Su.,c,,,~nc. ?!an2inz & ...... ~
FROM: Job..,'1 Cameron. C2v En?.ineer
SUBJECT:
City of Mound
Street Vacation - Waterford Lane
Case '=.'99-41
MFR& #12680
As requested we have reviewed the proposed vacation of Waterford Lane adjacent to Lots 14 and 15,
Brock 7, Seton and have no o~ection to the street vacation. This portion of Waterford Lane is
unusable as street fight-of-way with over 9_~ percent of the area below elevation 929.4, the ordina_w
high water (OHW) of Lake ,Mimnetonka. There are no Cit-:,.' utilities located in this section of
Waterford .Road. The propexy to the :,,-est is owned by the CiD' of Mound and is also wetlmnd.
st'main: moui2580:correaponde.nz:'.sutherlznd10-29
15050 23rd Avenue North . Plymouth. Minnesota · 55447
phone 612/476-6010 · fax 51Z'476-$532
e-maih mfra,Cmfra.com
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
September 28, 1999
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
BJrlmea~a;kowl~r~fP~nkeDa~r;~tO~g~ ~'/O~ 'Dedicated
COKLIaOnS.
From reviewing the information that I provided to the city
attorney for the c'Jrrent litigation at Woodland Point the
numbers are as follows:
Current LMCD BSU's With Woodland Pt. LnFt. 590 BSU
Adjusted LMCD BSU's Without Woodland Pt. LnFt. 550 BSU
1999 BSU Count With Out Woodland Pt. 507 BSU
City Claimed Shoreline Lineal Footage 29,500 LnFt
Woodland Point Lineal Footage
( Does not include Canary Beach )
BSU's Allowed For Woodland Point
Woodland Pt. Current Boat Count
Dreamwood Common Lineal Footage
Dreamwood Common Current Boat Count
Wychwood Common Lineal Footage
Wychwood Common Current Boat Count
1,995 LnFt
39.9 BSU
Unknown
1,360 LnFt
46 BSU
1,030 LnFt
28 BSU
If the dedicated commons were lost the combined totals would
be:
Total Lineal Footage Removed
Adjusted BSU's Allowed For Dock Program
Adjusted Dock Program LMCD Allowed BSU's
Estimated BSU Use Per Future Season's
4,385 LnFt
25,115 LnFt
502 BSU
438 BSU
prinfed on recycled paper
Application for
5TREFT / EASEMENT VACATION
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620
OCT j. 5 1999
C~f ;'= ,':~?"'
MOUND o-,u,,,,,,,~ ,.._
, L,,,~,,,,,~ & IN~,'r.
Case Nc
qcl
Application
Distribution:
lC' ]~ ':~ Ci~ Engineer '~ lO -i ~ -fiq Poiice Dept. ~ !L~ -i ~":)'t GTE ~
~e~t. ~ Ctzer
Please ~/pe or print t,Ee fcllcwing infcrmaticn:
....... ?,..-~'...,.-, ,, ,~,..:.~. ~ ~-,. ,--.Y,.
ADJACENT
PRC~ER,"Y
(A~mL:CANT'S
PROPERTY)
ZCNING
DIST-~C-
DESC~tPTICN
OF STREET
VAC~-£D
SuBdivision
Circle:
If /
:j -
RE.zSCN
FCA
RE2UEST
IS TNERE ~
PUBLIC NEED
FOR TNI$
L~NO9
Print Applicant's Name
I
Date~
Print Applicant's Name
Applicant's Signature
Date
CiTY OF MOUND
53~: MA'/WC~D RC4O
MOL;NO. MI,"~N~SCTA 5536~"-'
:6;2.-'72-0600
:,:X r-.'2
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 AHD 271 WEXFORD LANE LOCATED WITHIN
THE R-2 SINGLE OR TWO FAMILY RESiDENTiAL ZONING DISTRICT, BLOC;~ 7,
LOTS 1, 2, 3, i5,& 16
PtDS # NOT YET ASS;GNED
P & Z 99-41
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the Planning Commission of the City of
Mound, Minnesota, will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, at
7:30 p.m. on Mondav, November 8. 1999 ;o consider 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 zcning district.
All persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above will be
given the opportunity to be heard at this meeting. -~ .~.~
//.-----¢-,-< '%./ f/ t/
'K-r, ls4_~,q~,st, Pr'a/r~mng Secretary
Mailed to property owners within 350 feet of affected property cn October 20. 1999
Published in the Laker, October 23, 1999
Affidavit of Publication
NO~CE OF & PUSLJC HEARING
TO CONSIDER THE APP;~OVAL OF
UNIMPROVED WATERFOR.'7 ROAD
5"TREE:T VACATION ADJAC.'~NT 'fO
~37 &NO 2541 WE~FOR:~
LOCATED WITHIN THE R-2
0R ~0 FAMILY RESIDg~IAL
ZONING DISTRICT, BI.C-:X 7,
LOTS ~. ~ 3. 15. ~ ~
Pl~ ~ NOT Y~ AG~;GNED
~TiCE IS HERE~Y GIVEN, ~a{
Piston9 ~mm~s~on o~ ~e ~ of
Minnesota, will mee[ ~n ~e Council
p.m. on ~edav November ~
coesi~er ~e aODrOval of ummDroved
~te~ord ~d S&eet Va~fi~ a~a~nt
2~7 a~ ~41 Wezford L~e b~
· e R-2 ~ngle or Two F~i~
' '~i~ ~,~i'
.... ,,~ ..... ..~ ..... .~.
F,= :~.. .'t'F .''~-
Afl ;ers:ms a:oearmG ~; S~c ~ear',m~
wi:~ refere~ :o L~e ~ove ~ll ~
op~r~mr/:3 ~ near~ a: ~is
Kris L~ncu{s:. P~ning
(Pu~-~ ~n The L~er ~ ~.
State of Minnesota, County of 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 compiled with ail the
requirements constituting qualifications ;ZS a
qualified newspaper, as provided by Minnesota
Statute 331A.02. 331A.37, and other applicable
laws, as amended.
B.)Tneprinted PubLic He=--"".'*.;
e~.cn week for ~ succ~s~:,'/e .reeks:
the 2~' Oct o'ce- 19~9
--,- ~ ~,/of '
and ,NaS thereafter primed and pubiished ever'/
Ssturda¥, to and inc!udiog Saturday,
the day of
lg '
/ Ad'thc,'ized Agent
Subscribed and sworn to me on :his
23r."] day of October ,19 99_~..._.
....... -- --~ Public
~west ~ssi~ed [ate paid by commercial users
tot ~mparable space: 512.90 per inch,
Maximum rate 3~iowed by Isw ~or ~bove ma~er: $12.90.
Rate actually charged for above ma~er: $7.39 per inch.
Each additional successive week: ~.14.
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR
RICHARD OLIVER
IN BLOCK 7. SETON
HENNE,mIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA
RECEIVED
OCT 15 ~
t~C' J!ID PLA ~ 1,~ ~,
RECEIVED ~-~ '', ',_3 ;'. <.
OCT 15 1999 ~ ', ',~~'?.t0o ~o
', ';~1
, , / ~' " -'-{'.'.'; ' (~) ~ . '" ~ 57} ,,~ , ,
' ~, 'f /,/ / ~' I ~ ~'~_...~0 ~0 ',,~0,' 40 ~0'. :.~0
/ / ~ z ~ ~~~ ~:'., ~ .......
.' /~ ,; ~ ~ j ~):,:'W' - ~--_
......... / .... / ~ / ...... . ~4~-z ~ ~ ~ ' ~' '," ~ ~ ~
.' ~ ~ ,' ~; ~ o ~°:s ~z(a)~l ~xo ,I = ~40) 2;' ~ o (33)
/ ~ ~ ,' ~ t~ ~ , ~ ~1 ~', ~ '/j ~ , /
- ~ ~ : o , ~9 ~ / 7 ~ ~ ~[~1 ~,,'~[ ' -- ' ~fl ~ ~) ,' '
' /1 -- , : : ,~ ,. ..... : ~,,j:' , ~~ , -,' --~.~
~ o ~), ~ , o ~ ."1'".. o ', . (s (7~t ~?~? ~
.'-. t% ~ , --*~ ' · ~ ' ,~ ,
. b:~i % .... ~__%_ ~,,",~,:~.-._~ ,~ ,. ~, ~ ~,~ 4q~,~/";'~ ~ '
MINUTES- MOUND CITY COUNCIL - APRIL 13, 1999
MOTION by Melsel, 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 I, 2, 3, 14 & 15, BLOCK 7, SETON, PID #24-117-24 11 0019.
1.14
PUBLIC ItEARING: 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 Commissio:~ recommended
approval of the subdivisic~ 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.
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
al~d Wexford Lane.
Parcel B can use the existing services that presently s6rvice 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.
A more complete grading plan will need to be fu~ished 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.
Co
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 sen'ed with smfitary sewer.
The Planner also suggested adding the following as a condition of the subdivision section of
the proposed resolution, as follows:
MINUTES- MOUND CITY COUNCIL - APRIL 13,
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:
1. Ron Bergquist, 2540 Wexford Lane
2. Gordy McVey, 4807 Longford Road
The reasons were as follows:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Increasexl 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 wan.: 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.
MINUTE8- MOUND CITY COUNCIL - APRIL 13. 1999
Brown moved and Hanus seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION ,f'99-32
RESOLUTION APPROVING A M~NOR
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-
117-24 11 0019, P & Z CASES/~99-06 & 99-07
Hanus asked that the following be added to the proposed resolution as discussed
previously:
l. 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.
MEMORANDUM
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
]'nl
To: Mound Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Loren Gordon, AICP
Date: February 2, 2000
Subject: Comprehensive Plan Public Heating continuation
As requested by the Council at the November 23, 1999 m~eting, this is a continuance of the
Comprehensive Plan pubic hearing. The purpose of continuing to this meeting was to allow the
Planning Commission time to provide the Council with a recommendation on the Surface Water
Management Plan. (The Planning Commission has recommended Council approval of the
Comprehensive Plan with revisions at the November 22, 1999 meeting.) At this time, the Planning
Commission does not have a formal recommendation for the Council on the SWMP. The SWMP
was on both meeting agendas in January and at the last meeting, the Commission asked that the
Council grant an additional 30 days to complete their review. The Commission is proceeding with
the review but had some concerns regarding buffering of lakes and wetlands. This issue appears to
be resolved and the remainder of the review will probably take less time.
In terms of the impact on Comprehensive Plan adoption, there are a couple ways the Council
could proceed. The first is to approve the Comprehensive Plan absent a SWMP. The
Comprehensive Plan would then be sent to the Metropolitan Council which would take no formal
review action until the SWMP was received. This approach would suggest to the Met Council the
City is making a gesture of good faith in submitting the Plan which was due on December 31,
1999. Alter City approval of the SWMP, it would be sent to the Met Council to complete the
required submittal information. Only after a complete submittal is received will the Met Council
start the time clock on the 60 day window for formal review.
The second approach is to postpone action on the Comprehensive Plan until the SWMP is
completed. A further continuance of the scheduled Public Hearing would be needed.
A third approach the Council could consider is to take action on both Plans. The SWMP does not
need a formal recommendation from the Planning Commission for Council consideration and
formal motions of approval would secure approval of each plan. Resolutions would be prepared
for the February 22~ meeting stating the City has approved the Plans and is submitting them
consistent with provisions provided in Minnesota State Statute.
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
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 CITY 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 Mueller, 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 1.and 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 CARRYED. 7-
0.
MOUND C1TY 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 corner 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 CARRIED. 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 CARRIEI~. 6-1, Clapsaddle voting nay.
Clapsaddle voted nay because of the change noted to the pedestrian district section of
Land Llse.
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 CARRIEI~.
7-0.
MOTION by Clapsaddle, seconded by Mueiler, 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.
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 part.
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 hearing 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 all 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 Goals and Polices section under Recreation the fu'st 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 sOling off more of its
property, or ballfiOds, 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 ballfiOds that surrounding cities provide for
the citizens. She would like the City of Mound to be more aggressive about this matter.
10
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTF_~ - NOVEMBER 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 hearing 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.
I1
MOUND C1TY COUNCIL MINUTES - NOVEMBER 23, 1999
John 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 ltanus, seconded by Weycker to continue discussions of the
Comprehensive Plan and to allow the Planning Commi~ion 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
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUN D, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
January 24, 2000
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor/City Council
FROM: Jim Fackler, Park Director
SUBJECT: Twin Park Access Multiple Slip Dock For 2000
The DCAC recommends that a City Multiple Slip Dock be
installed at the Twin Park access. They have found by
meeting with the current dock site holders and abutting
property owners that a H dock could be installed to
accommodate four boats. The site has the size to allow two
more slips and the DCAC will review this addition in the
future.
The site location has 99.8 lnft of shoreline of which the
dock would use 27.5'. A LMCD required 10' foot setback to
the private properties would be allowed for so a boat with a
10' beam in slip l&4 would leave 26.15' for the set back.
The design will be for two 24'X 10' slips (2&3) and two
27.5'X 10' slips (l&4).
A copy of the site survey is attached along with a dock
design.
printed on recycled paper
Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission January 20, 2000
6. DISCUSS: PROPOSED MULTIPLE SLIP DOCK LOCATIONS AT WATERBURY
AND TWIN PARK ACCESSES
WATERBURY ACCESS
Park Director Fackler summarized the proposed multiple slip dock at Waterbury Access.
Councilmember Hanus asked if the configuration could be changed to accommodate five
boats, rather than four, still staying within the setbacks.
4
Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission January 20, 2000
Commissioner Burma stated he would like to be able to add another boat, but it may get
pretty tight with that many boats.
Commissioner Eurich stated he also thinks it may get fairly congested by adding a fifth
boat.
Nancy Clough stated there is not adequate parking there for five cars, only for three. She
stated that four cars is tight, but it may fit.
Mike Chitko stated it would be nice to have a transient spot there for visitors, for a small
boat, for a short amount of time.
Park Director Fackler stated a small boat would probably work either parallel to the shore,
or possibly in front of spot number 4, on the stem of the dock.
Mike Chitko stated that the proposed multiple configuration looks nice, and he is in favor
of adding the fourth spot if it helps someone get off the waiting list.
Nancy Clough stated that docks are not shared here, and all three owners have one boat.
They have worked very hard to get to this point, and they would like to take the next step
of getting a multiple dock at this site.
Councilmember Hanus asked if there has been any problems with trespassers at this site.
Ms. Clough answered with the question of who has the liability when the multiple dock
is in.
Park Director Fackler stated the City has insurance for the multiple docks.
Mr. Chitko stated there really hasn't been any vandalism or theft, and he has been there
for 8 years.
Motion made by Burma, seconded by Eurich, to recommend approval of the
proposed multiple slip dock configuration for Waterbury Access, which adds
an additional slip at this site, from 3 to 4. Motion carried unanimously.
5
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
January 24, 2000
MEMORANDUM
TO: Dock Site Holders & Abutting Property Owners
FROM: Jim Fack!er, Park Director
SUBJECT: Twin Park & Waterbury Access Multiple Slip Dcck For
2000.
The Dock & Commons Advisory Commission (DCAC) has
recommended that City Multiple Slip Docks be installed at
the Twin Park and Waterbury accesses. This was discussed at
the regular scheduled DCAC meeting January 20, 2000 that you
were sent a mailed notice of.
At this meeting dock site holders and abutting property
owners were allowed to voice their feelings about a city
dock. The recommendation that was passed by the DCAC is to
install a H shaped dock at both sites that will accommodate
four boats on each one. Enclosed are site surveys and dock
design drawings.
This recommendation will go to the City Council on February
8, 2000, 7:30pm Mound City Hall 5341 Maywood Road for final
approval.
Your input on this matter can be heard at the Council
meeting or in writing if received prior to February 8th.
printed on recycled paper
MEMORANDUM
To:
From:
Date:
Subject:
Twin Park Docksite Holders
Tom McCaffrey
January 3, 2000
Proposed Additions To The Mound Multiple Dock System
The January 20, 2000 Dock and Commons Advisory Commission will discuss additions to the
Mound Multiple Dock System.
The Twin Park location is being considered for a new multiple dock location in 2000. This
meeting will start at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers, at Mound City Hall, 5341 Ma,vwood
Road. Please plan on attending. If you are unable to attend please call me at 472-0613 to discuss
this proposal.
Thank you.
,," !
Gerald Jones
6038 Chestnut Road
Mound, MN 55364
Alan Falevsky
6152 Ridgewood Road
Mound, MN 55364
Eric Figenskau
30'/0 I-Iighlanc~ Igl¥c[.
Mound, MN 55364
yron Peterson
3100 Highland Blvd.
Mound, MN 55364
Kent Christensen
2971 Oaklawn Lane
Address Labels
Laser
5160®
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUN D, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
January 24, 2000
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
Mayor/City Council ~~
Jim Fackler, Park Director'S. !/
Waterbury Access Multiple Sli~ Dock For 2000
The DCAC recommends that a City Multiple Slip Dock be
installed at the Waterbury access. They have found by
meeting with the current dock site holders and abutting
property owners that a H shaped dock could be installed to
accommodate four boats.
The site location has 65.3 lnft of shoreline of which 27.5'
would be used for the dock. There would be 5' setbacks
required by the LMCD to the private property while allowing
for two 24'X 8' slips, two 24'X 10' slips at a dock that
extends 48' into the lake.
A copy of the site survey and the dock plan is attached.
_~ ~. .~ ~ prtntecl on recyclecl paper
Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission January 20, 2000
6. DISCUSS: PROPOSED MULTIPLE SLIP DOCK LOCATIONS AT WATERBURY
AND TWIN PARK ACCESSES
WATERBURY ACCESS
Park Director Fackler summarized the proposed multiple slip dock at Waterbury Access.
Councilmember Hanus asked if the configuration could be changed to accommodate five
boats, rather than four, still staying within the setbacks.
Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission January 20, 2000
Commissioner Burma stated he would like to be able to add another boat, but it may get
pretty tight with that many boats.
Commissioner Eurich stated he also thinks it may get fairly congested by adding a fifth
boat.
Nancy Clough stated there is not adequate parking there for five cars, only for three. She
stated that four cars is tight, but it may fit.
Mike Chitko stated it would be nice to have a transient spot there for visitors, for a small
boat, for a short amount of time.
Park Director Fackler stated a small boat would probably work either parallel to the shore,
or possibly in front of spot number 4, on the stem of the dock.
Mike Chitko stated that the proposed multiple configuration looks nice, and he is in favor
of adding the fourth spot if it helps someone get off the waiting list.
Nancy Clough stated that docks are not shared here, and all three owners have one boat.
They have worked very hard to get to this point, and they would like to take the next step
of getting a multiple dock at this site.
Councilm ember Hanus asked if there has been any problem s with trespassers at this site.
Ms. Clough answered with the question of who has the liability when the multiple dock
is in.
Park Director Fackler stated the City has insurance for the multiple docks.
Mr. Chitko stated there really hasn't been any vandalism or theft, and he has been there
for 8 years.
Motion made by Burma, seconded by Eurich, to recommend approval of the
proposed multiple slip dock configuration for Waterbury Access, which adds
an additional slip at this site, from 3 to 4. Motion carried unanimously.
5
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUN D, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
January 24, 2000
MEMORANDUM
TO: Dock Site Holders & Abutting Property Owners
FROM: Jim Fackler, Park Director
SUBJECT: Twin Park & Waterbury Access Multiple Slip Dock For
2000.
The Dock & Commons Advisory Commission (DCAC) has
recommended that City Multiple Slip Docks be installed at
the Twin Park and Waterbury accesses. This was discussed at
the regular scheduled DCAC meeting January 20, 2000 that you
were sent a mailed notice of.
At this meeting dock site holders and abutting property
owners were allowed to voice their feelings about a city
dock. The recommendation that was passed by the DCAC is to
install a H shaped dock at both sites that will accommodate
four boats on each one. Enclesed are site surveys and dock
design drawings.
This recommendation will go to the City Council on February
8, 2000, 7:30pm Mound City Hall 5341 Maywood Road for final
approval.
Your input on this matter can be heard at the Council
meeting or in writing if received prior to February 8th.
prmted on recycled paper
MEMORANDUM
To~
Waterbury Docksite Holders
From: Tom McCaffrey
Date: January 3, 2000
Subject:
Proposed Additions To The Mound Multiple Dock System
The January 20, 2000 Dock and Commons Advisory Commission will discuss additions to the
Mound Multiple Dock System.
The Waterbury location is being considered for a new multiple dock location in 2000. This
meeting will start at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers, at Mound City Hall, 5341 Maywood
Road. Please plan on attending. If you are unable to attend please call me at 472-0613 to discuss
this proposal.
Thank you.
-o ?
< 2~.$
54
-,' Sketch
..,,
,ir).i~))~'~ ~2;~,?-~o~ ~o~, ,
of Lot 53, Whipple Shores
I"-- 40'
'",~..L I,-~, PRE'PARED Fn~-
Anthony Ch[tko
330t Warner Lane
.Mound. M'N 55364
Peter Martin
5325 WaterbuD' Road
Mound, MN 55364
Greg Cole
3260 Gladstone Lane
Mound. MN .... 64
Larry Olson
x252 Warner Road
Mound. N~ 55364
Nancy Clough
5132 Waterbur;,.' Road
Mound. MN 55364
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Mayor and City Council
Tom McCaffrey, Dock Inspector
January 25, 2000
Approval of 2000 Dock Location Map with changes
The two item following are my recommended changes to the Dock Location Map.
1. Remove docksite 61130 at Ridgewood Park. This docksite came open and removing this
site will allow us to meet LMCD set back requirements.
2. Add Waterbury multiple slip dock site location.
3. Add Twin Park multiple slip dock site location.
printed on recycled paper
REC# Site_# Shore_Type Land_Name Misc._Info. Slip_Size
1
2
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
00010
00030
00050
00070
00115
00125
00145
00155
00195
00215
00235
00255
00275
00295
00315
00335
00355
00385
00490
00550
00580
00610
00640
00670
00700
00730
00760
00790
00820
00850
00880
00910
00940
00970
01000
01030
01060
01090
01120
01150
01170
01200
01530
01560
01600
01650
01880
01900
01920
01940
01960
01980
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
D
D
D
D
D
D
Avocet Lane
Avocet Lane
Avocet Lane
Avocet Lane
Bluebird Lane
Bluebird Lane
Canary Lane
Canary Lane
Dove Lane
Dove Lane
Dove Lane
Dove Lane
Dove Lane
Dove Lane
Dove Lane
Dove Lane
Dove Lane
Dove Lane
Wawonaissa Common
Wawonalssa Common
Wawonalssa Common
Wawonalssa Common
Wawonalssa Common
Wawona;ssa Common
Wawonalssa Common
Wawonaissa Common
Wawonalssa Common
Wawonalssa Common
Wawonaissa Common
Wawona;ssa Common
Wawona~ssa Common
Wawona~ssa Common
Wawonaissa Common
Wawona;ssa Common
Wawona~ssa Common
Wawona~ssa Common
Wawona~ssa Common
Waurika Common
Waurika Common
Waurika Common
Waurika Common
Waurika Common
Waurika Common
Waurika Common
Waurika Common
Waurika Common
Waurika Common
Waurika Common
Waurika Common
Waurika Common
Waurika Common
Waurika Common
REC# Site_# Shore_Type Land_Name Misc.,Info. Slip_Si~~
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
02000
02020
02040
02060
02080
02100
02180
02200
02220
02250
02280
02310
02340
02370
02400
02430
02460
02490
02520
02550
02605
02635
02665
02695
02720
02750
02810
02840
02870
02900
02930
04070
04110
10020
10050
10070
10090
10220
10250
10280
10310
10340
10370
10400
10430
10460
10490
10520
10550
10580
10610
10640
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Waurika Common
Waurika Common
Waurika Common
Waurika Common
Waurika Common
Waurika Common
Waurika Common
Waurika Common
Waurika Common
Waurika Common
Waurika Common
Waurika Common
Waurika Common
Waurika Common
Waurika Common
Waurika Common
Waurika Common
Waurika Common
Waurika Common
Waurika Common
Pebble Beach Comm
Pebble Beach Comm
Pebble Beach Comm
Pebble Beach Comm
Pebble Beach Comm
Pebble Beach Comm
Three Pts. Blvd.
Three Pts.. Blvd.
Three Pts. Blvd.
Three Pts. Blvd.
Three Pts. Blvd.
Beachside (North)
Beachside (North)
Shorewood Lane
Beachside (South)
Beachside (South)
Beachside (South)
Crescent Park
Crescent Park
Crescent Park
Crescent Park
Crescent Park
Crescent Park
Crescent Park
Crescent Park
Crescent Park
Crescent Park
Crescent Park
Crescent Park
Crescent Park
Crescent Park
Crescent Park
REC# Site_# Shore_Type Land_Name Misc._Info. Slip_Size
105 10670
106 10700
107 12430
108 12460
109 12490
110 12520
111 12550
112 12580
113 12610
114 12640
115 12670
116 12700
117 12730
118 12760
119 12790
120 12820
121 12850
122 12880
123 12910
124 12940
125 12970
126 13000
127 13030
128 13060
129 13090
130 13120
131 13150
132 13180
133 13210
134 13240
135 13270
136 13300
137 13330
138 13360
139 13390
140 13420
141 13450
142 13480
143 13510
144 13540
145 13570
146 13600
147 13630
148 13660
149 13690
150 13720
151 13750
152 13780
153 13810
154 19950
155 20130
156 20160
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Crescent Park
Crescent Park
Wren Road
Wiota Common
Wiota Common
Wiota Common
Wiota Common
Wiota Common
Wiota Common
Wiota Common
Wiota Common
Wiota Common
Wiota Common
Wiota Common
Wiota Common
Wiota Common
Wiota Common
Wiota Common
Wiota Common
Wiota Common
Wiota Common
Wiota Common
Wiota Common
Wiota Common
Wiota common
Wiota Common
Wiota Common
Wiota Common
Wiota Common
Wiota Common
Wiota Common
Wiota Common
Wiota Common
Wiota Common
Wiota Common
Wiota Common
Wiota Common
Wiota Common
Wiota Common
Wiota Common
Wiota Common
Wiota Common
Wiota Common
Wiota Common
Wiota Common
Wiota Common
Wiota Common
Wiota Common
Wiota Common
Peabody St.
Water Bank Common
Water Bank Common
REC#
Site
Shore_Type Land_Name
Misc. Info.
Slip_Siz~
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
20190
20220
20250
20280
20310
20340
20370
20400
20430
20460
20490
20520
20550
20580
20610
20640
20670
20700
20730
20760
20790
20810
20830
20860
20890
20920
20950
20980
21110
21140
21170
21200
21230
22180
22200
22220
22240
22260
22330
22360
22390
22420
22450
22480
22510
22540
22570
22600
22910
22990
23050
23070
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Water Bank Common
Water Bank Common
Water Bank Common
Water Bank Common
Water Bank Common
Water Bank Common
Water Bank Common
Water Bank Common
Water Bank Common
Water Bank Common
Water Bank Common
Water Bank Common
Water Bank Common
Water Bank Common
Water Bank Common
Water Bank Common
Water Bank Common
Water Bank Common
Water Bank Common
Waterside Common
Waterside Common
Waterside Common
Centerview Lane
Centerview Lane
Centerview Lane
Centerview Lane
Centerview Lane
Centerview Lane
Centerview Lane
Centerview Lane
Centerview Lane
Centerview Lane
Centerview Lane
Waterside Common
Waterside Common
Waterside Common
Waterside Common
Waterside Common
Waterside Common
Waterside Common
Waterside Common
Waterside Common
Waterside Common
Waterside Common
Waterside Common
Waterside Common
Waterside Common
Waterside Common
Morton Lane
North Park
North Park
North Park
REC# Site_# Shore_Type Land_Name Misc._Info. Slip_Size
209
210
211
212
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
23090
23150
23200A
23200B
2~200C
23200D
23200E
23200F
23275
23325
30020
30030
30100A
30100B
30100C
30100D
30100E
30100F
30100G
30100H
30100I
30100J
30100K
30100L
30250
30270
30300
30330
30350
30370
30450
30510
30590
30670
30710
30950A
30950B
30950C
30950D
30950E
30950F
30954A
30954B
31210
31240
31270
31300
31330
31360
31390
31420~
31450
D Lake Blvd.
D Lake Blvd.
D Multiple Lake Blvd.
D Multiple Lake Blvd.
D Multiple Lake Dlvd.
D Multiple Lake Blvd.
D Multiple Lake Blvd.
D Multiple Lake Blvd.
D Chateau Lane
D Arbor Lane
D Norwood Lane
D Norwood Lane
D Multiple Carlson Park
D Multiple Carlson Park
D Multiple Carlson Park
D Multiple Carlson Park
D Multiple Carlson Park
D Multiple Carlson Park
D Multiple Carlson Park
D Multiple Carlson Park
D Multiple Carlson Park
D Multiple Carlson Park
D Multiple Carlson Park
D Multiple Carlson Park
D
D
D
D
D
D
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Inwood Road
Inwood Road
Avon Drive
Emerald Drive
Emerald Drive
Emerald Drive
Longford Road
Longford Road
Longford Road
Longford Road
Longford Road
Longford Road
Longford Road
Longford Road
Longford Road
Longford Road
Longford Road
Longford Road
Longford Road
Kenmore Common
Kenmore Common
Kenmore Common
Kenmore Common
Kenmore Common
Kenmore Common
Kenmore Common
Kenmore Common
Kenmore Common
Temporary Slip
27.5 X 10
24 X 10
24 X 10
27.5 X 10
18 X 8
18 X 8
24 X 10
24 X 10
24 X 10
24 X 10
24 X 10
24 X 10
24 X 10
24 X 10
24 X 10
24 X 10
24 X 10
24 X 10
REC#
Site
Shore_Type Land_Name
Misc. Info.
Slip_Siz~
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
31480
31510
31540
31570
31600
31630
31680
31710
31740
31770
31800
31830
31860
31890
31920
31950
31980
32010
32040
32070
32100
32130
32160
32190
32220
32250
32280
32310
32340
32600
32670
32760
32790
32820
32940
33287
33347
33407
33447
33487
33525
40550A
40550B
40550C
40550D
40550E
40550F
40550G
40550H
40550I
40550J
40550K
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
C
C
C
Kenmore Common
Kenmore Common
Kenmore Common
Kenmore Common
Kenmore Common
Kenmore Common
Excelsior Lane
Excelsior Lane
Excelsior Lane
Excelsior Lane
Excelsior Lane
Excelsior Lane
Excelsior Lane
Excelsior Lane
Excelsior Lane
Excelsior Lane
Excelsior Lane
Excelsior Lane
Excelsior Lane
Excelsior Lane
Excelsior Lane
Excelsior Lane
Excelsior Lane
Excelsior Lane
Excelsior Lane
Excelsior Lane
Excelsior Lane
Excelsior Lane
Excelsior Lane
Kells Road
Stratford Lane
Stratford Lane
Stratford Lane
Stratford Lane
Stratford Lane
Stratford Lane
Stratford Lane
Stratford Lane
Stratford Lane
Stratford Lane
Stratford Lane
D Multiple Avalon Park
D Multiple Avalon Park
D Multiple Avalon Park
D Multiple Avalon Park
D Multiple Avalon Park
D Multiple Avalon Park
D Multiple Avalon Park
D Multiple Avalon Park
D Multiple Avalon Park
D Multiple Avalon Park
D Multiple Avalon Park
2nd Small W/C Slip
2nd Small W/C Slip
Temporary 2nd W/C
35.5 X 10
32 X 10
32 X 10
32 X 10
32 X 10
35.5 X 10
32 X 10
32 X 10
75 sqft
75 sqft
75 sqft
REC# Site_# Shore_Type Land_Name Misc._Info. Slip_Size
313 40550L
314 40820A
315 40820B
316 40820C
317 40820D
318 40820E
319 40820F
320 40820G
321 40820H
322 40820I
323 40820J
324 40820K
325 40820L
326 40945
327 40995
'328 41020
329 41050
330 41080
331 41110
332 41140
333 41170
334 41227
335 41272
336 41319
337 41377
338 41437
339 41650
340 41750
341 41854
342 41933
343 42008
344 42059
345 42091
346 42121
347 42172
348 42227
349 42277
350 42314
351 42351
352 42406
353 42461
354 42511
355 42556
356 42586
357 42626
358 42691
359 42791
360 42800A
361 42800B
362 42800C
363 42800D
364 42800E
Multiple Avalon Park
Multiple Devon Common
Multiple Devon Common
Multiple Devon Common
Multiple Devon Common
Multiple Devon Common
Multiple Devon Common
Multiple Devon Common
Multiple Devon Common
Multiple Devon Common
Multiple Devon Common
Multiple Devon Common
Multiple Devon Common
Devon Common
Devon Common
Devon Common
Devon Common
Devon Common
Devon Common
Devon Common
Devon Common
Devon Common
Devon Common
Devon Common
Devon Common
Devon Common
Devon Common
Devon Common
Devon Common
Devon Common
Devon Common
Devon Common
Devon Common
Devon Common
Devon Common
Devon Common
Devon Common
Devon Common
Devon Common
Devon Common
Devon Common
Devon Common
Devon Common
Devon Common
Devon Common
Devon Common
Devon Common
Multiple Devon Common
Multiple Devon Common
Multiple Devon Common
Multiple Devon Common
Multiple Devon Common
Temporary 2nd W/C
75 sqft
35.5 X 10
24 x lO
24 X 10
24 X 10
24 X 10
24 x 10
24 X 10
24 X 10
24 x 10
18 X 8
18 X 8
18 X 8
27.5 X 10
24 X 10
24 X 10
24 X 10
24 X 10
REC#
Site_#
Shore_Type Land_Name
Misc. Info.
Slip_size
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
40O
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
42800F
42800G
42800H
42800I
42931
42961
42990
43020
43080
43120
43180
43235
43300A
43300B
43300C
43300D
43300E
43420
43450
43520
43575
43647
43727
43770
43800
43840
43882
43942
44002
44097
44160
44193
44243
44408
50238A
50238B
50238C
50238D
50400
50430
50460
50490
50520
50550
50580
50610
50640
50670
50700
50730
50760
50790
B Multiple Devon Common
B Multiple Devon Common
B Multiple Devon Common
B Multiple Devon Common
B Devon Common
B Devon Common
B Devon Common
B Devon Common
C Devon Common
C Devon Common
C Devon Common
C Devon Common
B Multiple Devon Common
B Multiple Devon Common
B Multiple Devon Common
B Multiple Devon Common
B Multiple Devon Common
B Devon Common
C Devon Common
C Devon Common
C Devon Common
C Devon Common
C Devon Common
C Devon Common
C Devon Common
C Devon Common
C Devon Common
C Devon Common
C Devon Common
C Devon Common
C Devon Common
C Devon Common
C Devon Common
C Devon Common
D Multiple Waterbury Road
D Multiple Waterbury Road
D Multiple Waterbury Road
D Multiple Waterbury Road
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
C
D
D
D
D
D
D
Brighton Blvd.
Brighton Blvd.
Brighton Blvd.
Brighton Blvd.
Brighton Blvd.
Brighton Blvd.
Brighton Blvd.
Brighton Blvd.
Brighton Blvd.
Brighton Blvd.
Brighton Blvd.
Brighton Blvd.
Brighton Blvd.
Brighton Common
Temporary Slip
Temporary Slip
Temporary Dock Site
Temporary Slip
27.5 X _~
18 X 8
27.5 X 10
18 X 8
27.5 X 10
24 X 10
24 X 10
27.5 X 10
18 X 8
24 X 8
24 X 10
24 X 10
24 X 8
REC# Site_# Shore_Type Land_Name Misc._Info. Slip_Size
417 50820
418 50850
419 50880
420 50910
421 50940
422 50970
423 51030
424 51105
425 51135
426 51195
427 51315
428 51375
429 51435
430 51495
431 51555
432 51675
433 51705
434 51735
435 51795
436 51850
437 51885
438 54970
439 55000
440 55030
441 55060
442 55090
443 55120
444 55150
445 55180
446 60640
447 60685
448 60765A
449 60765B
450 60765C
451 60765D
452 60900A
453 60900B
454 60900C
455 60900D
456 60900E
457 60900F
458 60900G
459 60900H
460 60900I
461 60940
462 60965
463 60985
464 61010
465 61030
466 61050
467 61070
468 61090
D Brighton Common
D Brighton Common
D Brighton Common
C Brighton Common
C Brighton Common
C Brighton Common
c Brighton Common
C Brighton Common
C Brighton Common
C Brighton Common
C Brighton Common
C Brighton Common
C Brighton Common
C Brighton Common
C Brighton Common
C Brighton Common
C Brighton Common
C Brighton Common
C Brighton Common
C Brighton Common
C Brighton Common
D Lost Lake Park
D Lost Lake Park
D Lost Lake Park
D Lost Lake Park
D Lost Lake Park
D Lost Lake Park
D Lost Lake Park
D Lost Lake Park
D Idelwood Road
D Idelwood Road
D Multiple Twin Park
D Multiple Twin Park
D Multiple Twin Park
D Multiple Twin Park
D Multiple Highland Park
D Multiple Highland Park
D Multiple Highland Park
D Multiple Highland Park
D Multiple Highland Park
D Multiple Highland Park
D Multiple Highland Park
D Multiple Highland Park
D Multiple Highland Park
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Highland Park
Highland Park
Ridgewood Park
Ridgewood Park
Ridgewood Park
Ridgewood Park
Ridgewood Park
Ridgewood Park
Two more slips
possible in future
at this dock.
Temporary Slip
Temporary 2nd W/C
Temporary 2nd W/C
27.5 X 10
24 X 10
24 X 10
27.5 X 10
27.5 X 10
24 X 10
24 X 10
24 X 10
24 X 10
27.5 X 10
18 X 8
75 sqft
75 sqft
REC# Site_# Shore_Type Land_Name Misc._Info. Slip_Size
469
470
471
472
473
474
61110
61150
61190
61215
61240
61265
D Ridgewood Park
D Ridgewood Park
D Lagoon Park
D Lagoon Park
D Lagoon Park
D Lagoon Park
CITY OF MOUND
February 1, 2000
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor/City Council & DCAC
FROM: Jim Fackler, Park Director
SUBJECT: 2000 City Multiple Slip Dock Sites Configurations.
Listed below are the current design of the existing nine
City Multiple Slip Dock sites:
HIGHLAND END PARK,
Five Slips 24'X 10' (B,C,D,F)
Two Slips 27.5X 10' (A,F)
One Slip 18'X 8' (G) Temporary Site
Two Slips 75 sqft (H,I) Small Watercraft
AVALON PARK,
Two Slips
Six Slips
Four Slips
35.5'X 10' (A,F)
32'X 10' (B,C,D,E,G,H)
75 sqft (I,J,K,L) Small Watercraft
CARLSON PARK,
Twelve Slips 24'X 10'
DEVON LANE ACCESS,
Three Slips 27.5'X 10' (A,F,H)
Four Slips 24'X 10' (B,C,D,E)
Two Slips 18'X 8' (G,I)
Note: H and I are Temporary Sites.
Dock site #42931 is a Temporary Dock Site.
prlnted on recycled paper
PEMBROKE PARK,
One Slip
Nine Slips
Two Slips
35.5'X 10' (A)
24'X 10' (B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I)
18'X 8" (J,K,L)
AMHURST ACCESS, Two Slips
Two Slips
One Slip
27.5'X 10' (A,D)
24'X 10' (B,C)
18'X 8' (E) Temporary Site
LAKE BOULEVARD ACCESS,
Two Slips 27.5'X 10' (A,D)
Two Slips 24'X 10' (B,C)
Two Slips 18'X 8' (E,F)
Note: Slip F is a Temporary Site.
TWIN PARK
Two Slips 27.5'X 10' (A,D)
Two Slips 24'X 10' (B,C)
Note: Two Slips Maybe Added In Future.
WATERBURY ACCESS
Two Slips 24'X 8' (A,D)
Two Slips 24'X 10' (B,C)
GENERAL FUND
Council
Promotions
Cable TV
City ManageflClerk
Elections
Assessing
Finance
Computer
Legal
Police
Civil Defense
Planning/Inspections
Streets
City Property
Parks
Summer Recreation
Contingencies
Transfers
CITY OF MOUND
BUDGET EXPENDITURES REPORT
Dec. 1999
Dec. 1999 YTD
BUDGET EXPENSE EXPENSE
100.00%
PERCENT
VARIANCE EXPENDED
73,000 3,425 74,940 (1,940) 102.66%
4,000 0 4,000 0 100.00%
1,500 3,537 11,039 (9,539) 735.93%
196,900 14,137 210,659 (13,759) 106.99%
3,150 0 258 2,892 8.19%
64,800 24 65,792 (992) 101.53%
176,020 19,928 150,067 25,953 85.26%
27,550 1,986 15,675 11,875 56.90%
103,480 8,225 114,364 (10,884) 110.52%
,048,010 126,614 927,008 121,002 88.45%
4,960 23 4,763 197 96.03%
224,370 29,837 232,948 (8,578) 103.82%
472,050 90,272 609,248 (137,198) 129.06%
82,690 3,881 80,292 2,398 97.10%
170,950 12,362 166,103 4,847 97.16%
38,410 38,410 38,410 0 100.00%
20,000 13,005 13,094 6,906 65.47%
181,740 15,145 181,740 0 100.00%
GENERAL FUND TOTAL 2,893,580
380,811 2,900,400
(6,820) 100.24%
Area Fire
Service Fund 409,680 44,019 340,156 69,524 83.03%
TIF 1-2 0 56,002 196,587 (196,587)
Recycling Fund 126,780 7,965 106,766 20,014 84.21%
Liquor Fund 227,890 25,572 236,994 (9,104) 103.99%
Water Fund 429,150 48,830 441,162 (12,012) 102.80%
Sewer Fund 903,390 68,707 900,255 3,135 99.65%
Cemetery Fund 6,970 283 5,174 1,796 74.23%
Dock Fund 92,710 2,443 81,729 10,981 88.16%
Exp-98
02~02~2000
Gino
GENERAL FUND
Taxes
Business Licenses
Non-Business
Licenses and
Permits
Intergovernmental
Charges for
Services
Court Fines
Other Revenue
Transfers
from Other Funds
Charges to Other
Departments
CITY OF MOUND
BUDGET REVENUE REPORT
Dec. 1999
Dec. 1999 YTD
BUDGET'REVENUE REVENUE
1,253,280 615,462 1,250,364
4,550 10 4,286
114,000 10,040 184,374
960,560 423,853 989,520
59,700 1,940 73,112
100,000 26,536 102,815
63,500 74,874 101,740
133,560 133,560 133,560
12,000 718 12,308
VARIANCE
100.00%
PERCENT
RECEIVED
(2,916) 99.77%
(264) 94.20%
70,374 161.73%
28,960 103.01%
13,412 122.47%
2,815 102.82%
38,240 160.22%
0 100.00%
308 102.57%
TOTAL REVENUE
2,701,150 1,286,993 2.852,079 150.929 105.59%
FIRE FUND
RECYCLING FUND
LIQUOR FUND
WATER FUND
SEWER FUND
CEMETERY FUND
DOCK FUND
409,680 17,420 420,535
127,600 10,037 124,296
1,650,000 211,989 1,784,389
451,000 99,322 517,803
924,000 131,764~ 1,030,695
5,100 1,579 4,249
79,800 14,396 82,369
10,855 102.65%
(3,304) 97.41%
134,389 108.14%
66,803 114.81%
106,695 111.55%
(851) 83.31%
2,569 103.22%
02~02~2000
rev98
Gino
PuB'£:iC ' FINANCE
CREDIT PROFILE
December 10, 1999
Analysts:
La Verne Thomas
8-2105
Forrester
212-438-2001
City of Mound, Minnesota
AFFIRMED
$1.16 mil GO bnds
OUTLOOK: STABLE
A
RATIONALE
The rating on Mound, Minn.'s bonds reflects the full faith and general obligation credit pledge of
the town.
Other rating factors include:
· Sound growth in marker values of the tax base,
· Above-average wealth and consistently low rates of unemployment, and
· Sound financial position and conservative fiscal policies.
These factors are offset by high overall net debt burden attributable to rapid population
growth and the potential impact on debt burden once it develops and approves its capital
improvement plan in 2000.
Mound (population 10,006) is a suburban, residential community in the western Minneapolis-
St. Paul area in Hennepin County. The small commercial sector includes businesses in the
downtown area employing fewer than 250 workers. Robust economic expansion in the region
has positively affected Mound's economic demographics. Mound residents have easy access to the
Twin Cities' tight labor market, which accounts for residential valuation that increased 26%
from 1995-1999. Average wealth gre~ faster on from 1996-1997 and is 37%-40% higher than
state and national averages, which demonstrates its participation in a diverse, broad economy.
The unemployment rate in Hennepin County, at 1.8%, has consistently remained below the state
average since 1990.
Its financial position remains sound and conservatively managed. Property tax revenue
provided half of total fiscal 1998's revenue of $3.1 million. An unreserved general fund balance
of $1.5 million {53% of expenditures) supplies a local source of financing for capital projects and
provides a financial buffer. The budget for fiscal year-ending Dec. 31, 1999 totals $2.8 million
and is balanced, with a 12% increase in the property tax revenue. The 1999 financial forecast
projects a small operating surplus.
The overall net debt burden is high, attributable to public education and the town's share of
county debt, accounting for 55% and 12% of total debt, respectively. Direct debt is a low $167
per capita, tess than 1% of market valuation. Mound is quantif3'ing a capital plan that could
result in the issuance of additional debt in spring 2000. Financing for economic development in
the downtown area is being considered, but is unlikely to result in the issuance of GO bonds for
this purpose.
Standard & Poor's ~,
Publish~ by Standard & Poor's. a Division of The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. ExeoJfive officss: 1221 Avenue of the Americas, New York. N.Y. 10020. Editorial offices: 55 Water Street.
New Yo~k. N.Y. 10041 Subscriber semices: (212} 438-72~0. Copyright 1999 by The Mcgraw-Hill Companies. inc. Reproduction in ,atmle or in part prohibited except by permission.
MINUTES - EDC- JANUARY 20,2000
The meeting was called to order at .approximately 7:10 a.m., by Paul Meisel,
Members present: Lonnie Weber, Sharon McMenamy-Cook, Mark Brewer, Jerry
Pietrowsld, and Paul Meisel. Others present were Mayor Pat Meisel, Bob Brown,
Gino Businaro, Fran Clark, Bruce Chamberlain, and Sue Cathers.
INTERVIEW OF CANDIDATES ·
The' Commission was hoping to interview the following four candidates:
Blievernicht, Suzanne Claywell, John Royer and Mark winter.
Kim
Paul Meisel introduced the first candidate, Suzanne Claywell. He explained to her
that the EDC is an advisory commission to the City Council, regarding the economic
development of Mound. Suzanne shared with the Board why she believed she would
be an asset to the EDC. She shared some ideas on how to draw more people into
Mound by beautifying the City and how to make it more appealing for commerce.
Bob Brown stated that Mark Winter, was unable to attend the meeting, due to having
a 'previous commitment. Bob pointed out that Mark had previously been interviewed
for a position. He is very interested in being an EDC member and though he was
unable to be at this interview, he would still like to be considered for the position.
John Royer had stated he would try to attend this meeting and be interviewed but was
unsure if could be here this morning. He did not show up.
Kim,Blievernicht also did not show for an interview.
Due to two candidates not showing up at the meeting, the interview process was
tabled until 8:00 a.m. to see if the candidates were just late.
There was a discussion on the effects of Sharon McMenamy-Cook retiring from
Norwest Bank and not being a resident of Mound. The City Ordinance states that the
qualifications of the members of the Commission shall be those who, in the judgment
of the Council, are representative of the community and are qualified by training and
experience and interest useful for the fulfillment of the Commission's responsibility in
economic development. The general consensus was that Sharon has been an EDC
member for so many years, and with the enthusiasm and knowledge she brings to the
commission, it would be a shame to lose her expertise. She was asked to continue
coming to the EDC meetings and giving her input, even though she would no longer
be a voting member.
EDC MINUTES - JANUARY 20, 2000
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Sharon McMenamy-Cook made a correction in last month's minutes. On the motion
to adjourn, her name was typed as Shirley instead of Sharon. A second correction
was that the minutes showed the next meeting as January 13th, instead of the 20th.
MOTION made by Weber and seconded by Brewer to approve the
December 16, 2000 minutes as amended. The motion was unanimously
approved.
HISTORICAL SOCIETY PRESENTATION
Sue Cathers was introduced to the EDC members by Paul Meisel. She served with
the design team for Mound Visions for several years. She would like to do a
presentation to the Mound Historical Society again this year, coordinating promotional
efforts with the EDC using our concept plan and giving an update on what is
happening with the downtown area. There was a discussion on updating the time-line
and possibly using Bill Beard's Architectural design. Bill Beard will be asked to
approve the City using his concept plan, prior to putting it in the paper. Mayor
Meisel, stated there will be a meeting with Bill Beard soon but even though it is
looking good, this is still simply a concept and the bottom line is that it has not yet
been approved. Sue's presentation will be Saturday, March 18th from 10:30 to noon.
The meeting will possibly be at Mt. Olive Church. Sue was asked to give Fran
Clark a copy of her article so it could go into the City newsletter Fran stated that
because it comes out quarterly, it may not be out until the end of March, but she will
check on it. The members encouraged Sue on her endeavors and stated they really
appreciated the presentation last year.
UPDATE ON AUDITORS ROAD
REDEVELOPMENT.
& LAKE LANGDON AREA
Bruce Chamberlain stated that the demolition on Auditor's Road will not start until
the end of next summer.
Mayor Meisel banded out the rough draft answering some of the main questions
asked by citizens regarding the redevelopment of Auditors Road and Lake Langdon,
i.e., What can you tell me about the plans to redevelop downtown Mound? How will
the redevelopment be financed and what will it cost? What is Tax Increment
Financing and when will the redevelopment occur? This will be going out to every
EDC MINUTES - JANUARY 20, 2000
household very soon.
Bruce Chamberlain stated he hopes to have a concept plan for the old high school
property by the March meeting. He stated that Bill Beard is working with Sid Inman
and Jim Prosser to work out the financing issues with the redevelopment project.
There are some negotiations between the two parties about what is going to be in the
project and how it will be financed.
Bruce stated Bill Beard brought up the fact that we do not have enough docks on Lost
lake to accommodate all the homes in this area. He suggested we look at having a
structured marina. This would be a marina where your boat would be stored in a
structure on the Lost Lake site and you would get your boat by calling at least an
hour prior to using it. The boat would be put in and taken out of the water by a fork
lift each time it is used. "It would also be filled with gas prior to the owner picking
it up. There are presently a couple of different marinas on the lake that do this.
Because the relocation, of County Rd. 15 will not be done until 2002, some portions
of Auditors Road also cannot be done. Bruce asked Bill Beard last week to look
critically at how much he thought he could possibly develop on Auditors Road as part
of the first phase. Bill stated he had concerns about parking problems if he went too
far east prior to the road being done. He wants his focus to be on Lake Langdon for
the first phase of the project. Bruce suggested they try to develop as much on
Auditors Road as possible as part of the first phase.
Brown asked what assurance the City has that the developers have the moneys needed
to finish projects once they are started. It was explained there is no assurance at this
point, because we would sign a final development agreement for the amount of
development that is going to occur as part of the first phase. Beyond that point, we
only have a preliminary development agreement until we are ready to move onto the
second phase. If, at that point, the developer states he does not have enough money
to do finish the second phase, we can then move on to find another developer. We
presently have a one year time-line in the preliminary development agreement that we
signed last May. At that point the City and the developer have the option of whether
or not to extend it. Bruce stated he was more concerned about the preliminary
agreement that was signed for the hotel site, which was extended for two years as
they have shown no movement at all. However, this will expire this June. Bruce
explained that the developer we are presently working with, Bill Beard, realizes that
the way to make this entire project work is critical mass of the entire project. If he
builds only a piece of this, it would be very difficult to sell this piece without the rest
of the redevelopment. The amenities and environment is what will sell the homes in
Phase I of the project.
EDC MINUTES - JANUARY 20, 2000
Because of the delay in moving the Post Office to a permanent location, the Green
Way Project will not be developed at all in the year 2000. Therefore, the Brick
Program will actually have another year before closing the purchase of bricks. Bob
Brown suggested that because the first five people purchased their bricks on the first
day, it would be nice to have them as part of the program when the bricks are laid.
It was a well, accepted idea. It was also suggested that these names be mentioned in
the paper and put on temporary bricks to be used as a promotion for the program.
Paul Meisel offered to make a wood display box so the display could, be moved
throughout the area.
REVISIT OF DISCUSSION OF THE EDC CANDII)ATES
There were no candidates waiting to be interviewed at 8:00. Paul Meisel pointed out
that it is difficult, at best, to make a decision when three out of the four candidates
were not present to be interviewed. It was the general consensus to wait until next
month to make a decision on filling the position. Sharon McMenamy-Cook offered to
contact the candidates to find out why they were not able to make it to this meeting
and to find out if they are really interested in being an EDC member.
UPDATE ON POST OFFICE RELOCATION
Bruce Chamberlain stated that our intent was to get the Post Office into a temporary
location so we could complete the Canal and Greenway Project We wanted to relocate
them across the street in a modular building for their retail operation. The sorting
operation would have to be in the Balboa building. After looking at that site and
putting the numbers together, the lease improvements would be approximately
$300,000. This was $200,000 more than expected to relocate them. Bruce explained
that even though this would be a temporary location, the Post Office needs security,
air conditioning, floors that are stressed for a certain weight, so much cubic feet per
minute of air flow, and basically everything needed as though it was a permanent
facility. Because of this cost to the City, we cannot feasibly move the Post Office
until we have a permanent location for them. Therefore, the Greenway and Canal
Project will need to be delayed another year. It was pointed out that though we will
not lose any grant money due to this delay, it may appear like we are moving very
slowly on this project.
COMMUNITY CENTER SITE UPDATE
We are presently negotiating with the new developer of the Community Site, Larry
EDC MINUTES - JANUARY 20, 2000
Olson. He is with Metro Plains Development. They mostly deal with senior and
affordable housing projects. They also own approximately 100,000 sq. feet of retail
around the Twin City area.
Brewer asked how this would affect our project if they are planning to build
something that does not comply with our concept for that piece of property. Mayor
Meisel pointed out that we have ordinances and laws within our planning that gives
the City some control, however, we cannot tell them what we do and do not want.
This is also in the TIF District, so we have some control that way. Bruce has been
working with them and they are willing to carve out room property for the new Post
Office and to work with the City on our visions. Bruce stated they have been given a
couple concepts of how the Post Office could fit in with other retail on that site and
they are now working on a way to add that with what they had envisioned for
development. We don't have a concept plan for that overall site like we did for the
rest of the downtown area, but we have suggested to them that it seemed to make
sense to organize the residential area around some type of central green that is linked
with a greenway and connected with the core of downtown, through the retail site.
OLD BUSINESS
None.
NEW.BUSINESS
None.
MOTION made by Mark Brewer, seconded by Bob Brown to adjourn the
meeting. The motion was passed unanimously.
The next meeting will be February 17th. Bob Brown offered to bring the rolls.
PROJECT FO~i~R A
U T U IR E
Community Survey
of
Tobacco Attitudes
Mound Tobacco Free Furore for Youth
Mound Tobacco Free Future for
Results of the Community Survey of Tobacco Attitudes
Executive Summary, January 2000
The goal of the Mound Tobacco Free Future for Youth (TFF)~ is to reduce youth smoking. One
way of accomplishing this goal is to change community attitudes and policies about tobacco use,
primarily in the presence of youth. To help achieve this goal, the Mound Tobacco Free Future
for Youth group developed and conducted a community survey during the summer and fall
months of 1999. The group collected 1,210 surveys at various community events and gathering
places, such as Mound City Days, a Little League Game, Senior Center, health and medical
clinics, and primary schools. The group attempted to collect surveys from both non-smokers and
smokers. Of all of the people who completed the survey, 188 said they used tobacco. After
collecting the surveys, the group tallied the responses to create a picture of attitudes of tobacco
use among Mound residents and those who support our community businesses.
The following is a summary of what Mound Tobacco Free Future for Youth learned from the
survey:
· 89% agree that second-hand smoke is dangerous
· 94% said they would go to smoke-free restaurants
· 82% of smokers said they would go to a smoke-free restaurant
· 82% are concerned about adults and older youth role-modeling tobacco use to younger youth · 60% of smokers are concerned about role-modeling tobacco use
· 87% agree that workplaces where youth are employed should be tobacco-free
· 62% of smokers said that places where youth are employed should be tobacco-free
· 80% agree that workplaces should be tobacco-free environments
· 69% agree that parks and playgrounds should be tobacco-free
Overwhelmingly, both smokers and non-smokers agree that second-hand smoke is dangerous and
believe that workplaces where youth work should be tobacco-free. Quite often, these places
include restaurants. The Mound Tobacco Free Future for Youth group recommends community-
wide policies to create more tobacco-free spaces for youth. Such policies will protect youth and
adults from the dangers of second-hand smoke and limit the opportunity to role-model smoking
to youth.
For more information, please read the full report titled "A Report from the Mound Tobacco Free
Future for Youth Project: Results of the Community Survey of Tobacco Attitudes, January
2000."
~ The Mound TFF project is pan of a larger research study funded by the National Cancer Institute and directed by
Dr. Jean Forster of the University of Minnesota, School of Public Health.
HELP US HELP OUR MOUND YOUTH!
obaccoFree
F U g"iJ'~n
Mound Tobacco Free Future for Youth is a group trying to reduce youth tobacco use.
Please take a few minutes to answer the following questions by circling "Y" for yes or "N" for no.
1. Do you live in Mound? Y N
If no, please indicate what city you live in
2. Do you shop, go to restaurants or use other Y N
businesses or services in Mound?
3. Do you use tobacco products?
Y N
4. Would you go to smoke-free restaurants? Y N
Please rank the following by circling the appropriate number.
Public parks and playgrounds should be tobacco free environments.
Strongly agree Strongly disagree
1 2 3 4 5
Workplaces should be tobacco free environments.
Strongly agree
1 2 3
Strongly disagree
4 5
Workplaces where youth are employed should be tobacco free environments.
Strongly agree Strongly disagree
1 2 3 4 5
o
Second-hand smoke is dangerous.
Strongly agree
1 2
Strongly disagree
3 4 5
How concerned are you about youth and adults role-modeling tobacco use?
Very concerned Not concerned
1 2 3 4 5
Please mark an "x" by the appropriate age range: under 12 12-14 ,.,
15-17
adult
Thank you for your time and be sure to get a free pencil!!
PROJECT FOR A
~.~'/ObaccoF ~
U T U R E
Mound Tobacco Free Future
for Youth
Members
PROJECT A
FO~
~FUTURE
MOUND TOBACCO FREE FUTURE
FOR YOUTH
Youth Members
Shanna Henderson
Hannah Julien
David Meikle
Jamie Palm
Matt Palm
Rachel Slavik
Community Members
Cathy Bailey
Sue Cathers
Len Harrell
Mary Harrell
Dotty 0'Brien
Dr. Kenneth Romness
Troy Tasche
Leo Utecht
Lois VanDyke
Elaine Winter
573
PROJECT FOR A
?bbaccoV ~a~
U T U R E
University of Minnesota
of
Mound Westonka
8th, 9th, and 10th Grade Students
Percent of Respondents
Z
7_
Percent of Respondents
A 1998 University of Minnesota survey of approximately 435
8th, 9~ and 10~h grade students from the Mound Westonka High
School found that by allowing other adults and youth to smoke
in their homes and cars, parents increase their child's exposure
to role-models of tobacco use.
Mound W estonka results showed that:
* Youth who come from homes where smoking is
permitted are 1.9 times more likely to become monthly
smokers.
· Of the students surveyed, 50% of their parents allow
smoking at home.
* Youth whose 15arents allow smoking in the car are 2.9
times more likely to become monthly smokers.
-~ Of the students surveyed, 45% of their parents allow
smoking in the car. ~
PROJECT FOR A
~:obaccoF ~
F U T U R r:
Community Awareness
Mound Tobacco Free Furore for Youth
· On the one hand
the Editor:
A mother, says to her younger
.child, "Do you smoke?" (The
mother is helping her fill out a
survey.) "No, bern. use I'm a kid,"
thc child says.
What this little girl said is both
good and bad. On one hand, it is
good for children to believe 'that
smoking should be only an adult
activity;' maybe that will enable
them to makethe decision to be
'smoke-free as an adult, rather than
smoking as a.child and, hence,
smoking as an adult.
But on the other hand, children
may start, to smoke earlier if they
believe it is only 'an adult activity
because that will make them feel
like an adult, a desire of almost
every under-aged person that I
know of. - -
David Meikle
Age 17, MWHS Seninr
Group fights youth smoking
By Carol Weber, Mound Tobacco
Free Future for Youth
Every day, about 3,000
American youth start ~moking. Of
those, approximately 750 will die
from smoking-related causes. The
average agea youth starts smoking
is around age 13. Youth typically
become daily smokers by the age
of 14-and-a-half.
Mound Tobacco Free Future
for Youth is a local group working
to reduce youth tobacco use in
Mound, focusing on reducing
youth social exposure to tobacco.
This group stems from a University
of Minnesota research project
funded by the National Cancer
Institute.
Social exposure to tobacco
includes the availability of tobacco
from parents, other adults, teens
and peers. According to a
University of Minnesota survey of
Mound Westonka students, 16
pement of eighth-, 21 percent of
ninth- and 35 percent of 10th-
grade students stated that they
smoked monthly. Youth who
smoked monthly were most likely
to receive their cigarettes from a
social source -- 92 percent' from a
friend.
Social exposure to tobacco also
includes the influence of role
models who use tobacco in
settings where youth are present
and youth then see that tobacco
use is okay. The U of M survey of
Mound'Westonka eighth-, ninth-,
and 10th-grade students showed
that youth who come from homes
where smoking is permitted are
twice as likely to become monthly
smokers. Youth whose parents
allow smoking in the car are nearly
three times as likely to become
monthly smokers.
Smoking affects all of us.
Second-hand smoke particuarly
affects the health of infants and
children. Children whose parents
smoke have more chest colds, ear
infections, bronchitis, pneumonia
and asthma. These children are
also at a greater risk of developing
lung cancer or heart disease in the
future.
Mound Tobacco Free Future
for Youth is working to show
youth that the community does
care about them using tobacco.
While 32 percent of the students
who stated they did not smoke felt
the community cared a gr~t deal
about them, only 11 percent of the
youth who did smoke felt that the
community cared a great deal
about them.
For more information, call
Mound Tobacco Free Future for
Youth at 470-0629. Decide to be
Tobacco Free -- Talk to Kids so
They Don't Start.
Hilltop Primary winners: (back row) Ben Myers, Marleena
Hackbarth, Paige.:RobertSon;~ lfront .row).$amson ~Hulme, Mound
TobaccoFree Future volunteer Dotty O'Brien, and'Scan Hannigan.
Shirley Hills. Primary .winners:..-0..to r).David Cape~l, Colton Hall,
Mound Tobacco Free Future volunteer Elaine Winter, Ashley
Quam, Andy Walsh, NicheleWoicott. -- .
Stud.ents win Beanie Babies
frOm. i'Tobacco Free' group
'Ten WeSwnka students are the
lusty' winners of Beanie Babies
provided by the Mound Tobacco
Free Future group. ~ .-
The drawing .WhS tied, to_.a
survey conducted in rcccnt
months by 'the Mound Tobacco
Free Future. The purpose.. of the
s.tu~cy was to measure, people's
feelings about having 'tobacco-'
B ie aby awi g.
The Mound Tobacco 'Free
Futura project is. afFdiated with a
reseamh project funded by a grant
from the National Cancer Institute
and · administered by the
University of Minnesota School
of Public Health.
The ..eight communities
involved each have volunteer
fro: spaces for' youth in the city of · groups working to reduce youth ;;:..
Mound. When parents completed tobacco'-:"~use.. 'For more~.~.'
the survey, they wereable"to..i::~:~.i~nformation :about the Mound :~'
register their children for the :" :~o~.~.;-'~ 470-0629. ~i'i
in an effortrrO:ieducc ygutl~ si3eial
thcnu~ o,f. ypath smoka's in this
Organizer.Carol Weber
· :'.:s'~:.-'.-:;..: .' ,.' :aged students, to confront and addres
~::~'e;i:iL,.,. :.., .:-theissuc of'tobacco USe by the corn-
:/' :i: mmv'" youth. Sh, e ~ spo~.~ to'
'" i" port for the pm. pet and [m offer~l
i limil.'YOuth access to tobacco.
. t:, Wetm says. thc project is a"work, in
· ,~ pmgress';,.which:is CUtTendy funded
.solutions which are
being addressed include
!' 'incrrased awareness'of theinflucnce of
· . i"' ad~it_ ~.use. o~ youth; commani-
use by youth;
/ou~; poli-
i community standards that Will not tol-
l eram smoking in front of youth or pro-
riding tobacco to youth.
Subinitted to "the Laked' by Lorrie
~p Nc~es
The hazards of smoking
'To the Editor: avoid, smOking and smoke
exposure. Be one of these'
Let us all be COnstantly be responsible individuals and you
~minded of the hazards of smo- '
will be a wonderful example and}
~ldng. Early heart disease, strokes, :role model for our young people. ::"
"pulmonary failure, emphysema, Please support thc Committ~..,_ '.
cancer Of the lung and mouth, early for a Tobacco Free Future in'~. '
wrinkling and addiction are. among ' ' ~:'~-~'~
Mound community. '.'-:.
thc many problems.' ' ' :i .....
Smoking is almosi a sure bet Charles V. Carlson, M.D.
against future good health and Kenneth B. Romness, M.D.
fitness. Responsible people do Mound, MN
AT A RE~N~ Little LeagUe baseball day at Wolner Field, parents
who completed a. survey for the Tobacco Free Future for Youth
· C~mmittee. Were eligible for a drawing for a free Beanie Baby..
'MWHS. Senior David Meiide, a committee me~ber,~ is pictured
above With'~ hi~ three helpers who were in charge of the drawing. The
winners were Tim Wilkinson, Susan Millar, Nathan Davis, Tami
Steele.and~ Kathy. Hejna.
~ .; . .~. ~ . .' -.~ ...... '~':!?i:!:. .... '..,:
· . A sign. that sayS 'it all
~ To the Editor: sign said simply, "Smoking' causes.
i.'; fatal discases~ and was signed by
'. AS a member'of the Mound the Irish G°Vemment.
Community Strategy Team for a,. . Maybe we should put this tl~e
~,i Tobacco Free Futu~ for our youth, of'sign'in our restaurants and bars:
i~I was interested in a sign .I
"~observed in a. bar in Ireland. (A Dotty o'Brien'
bar is really a respa .tu~nt there, as a Mound, MN
'Pub is what we call a bar.) Tha
Page 8 - THE LAKER - Saturday; Oct. 2, 1999
'"-THE AMERICAN HEART ASSOCiaTION, under the 'Calling it
~/Quits' program, recognized Thrifty White for being an
establishment that no longer sells, tobacco products. Thrifty
White was nominated by the Moufid Tobacco Free Future for
Youth group. This group is raising' community awareness about
the problem of youth tobacco use and is trying to reduce youth
smoking. If you have any questions,'.~lease call 470-0629. 'Help us
help our youth be tobacco..free,' sai,d a group spokesperson.
PROJECT FOR A
.;/bbaccoF'~
U T U IR t
Tobacco Tidbits
Mound Tobacco Free Furore for yOuth
HOW DOES SMOKING AFFECT CI4]LDREN?
"My parents had smoked most of my life and they had quit for 3 years. I
found out they started again so I thought it was ok for me to smoke. Then my
friends and I smoked together and of course we thought we were really cool.
The years went by and my parents kept smoking and so did I. So here I am
16, still smoking, and trying everythingI can to quit. I know it will kill me,
and it gets me into trouble, but its become normal to smoke. Its something
I've dOne almost everyday for four yem and I can't stop just like that. I
hope more kids will read this and realize it's not a joke. It can and will
happen." ,
MWHS student
Smoldag affects all of us, not only the person ~rnoking. Second-hand smoke
particularly affects the health of infants and children.
Children whose parents smoke.'..
~have more chest colds, ear infections, bronchitis, pneumonia, and asthma.
~are at greater risk of developing lung cancer or heart disease in the future.
~,may be more likely to smoke when they grow up.
Asthmatic children whose parents smoke...
~,have more frequent and more severe attacks of asthma.
Smoking during pregnancy...
~,increases the risk of miscarriage and other birth problem~.
Babies of mothers who smoked during pregnancy...
~may be smaller and at a greater risk of health issues.
~have a greater chance of dying suddenly and unexpected during their first year
~are more likely to be hospitalized for severe bronchitis or pneumonia during their
first year.
How Does Second-hand Smoke Affect Children?
Smoking affects all of us, not only the person smoking. Second-hand smoke
PartiCularly affects the health'of infants and children because their bodies are still
developing.
Second-hand smoke is linked to:
· Increased risk of miscarriage.
· A higher risk of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) for infants, a leading cause
of death in infants from one month to one year of age.
· Lower weight babies at birth which are at greater risk for health problems in their
first year.
· More babies being hospitalized for severe bronchitis or pneumonia during their
.... first year.
· 26,000 new asthma cases in children yearly.
· 300,000 cases of bronchitis and pneumonia in toddlers yearly - 15,000 which
require hospitalization.
· Increased middle ear infections and fluid in the middle ear.
· Increased absenteeism in schools: children exposed to second-hand smoke miss
one-third more school days each year.
~Money Saved Over One Year From Not Smoking Ci§arettes!
Pack
1/2 Packs
2 Packs
* If yearly savings are invested at 5% compounded annually.
TOTRL P, 02
CITY OF MOUND
DOCK AND COMMONS ADVISORY COMMISSION
JANUARY 20, 2000
Present were: Commissioners Mark Goldberg, Frank Ahrens, Orvin Burma and Greg
Eurich, and Council Representative Mark Hanus. Also present were Park Director Jim
Fackler, Dock Inspector Tom McCaffrey, and Secretary Kristine Kitzman.
Absent and excused: Chair Jim Funk
Acting Chair Goldberg called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
Also present:
David Mongeon, 5132 Waterbury Road
Nancy Clough, 5132 Waterbury Road
Carolyln Schmidt, 3001 Island View Drive
Mike Chitko, 3301 Warner Lane
Thomas Stokes, 5201 Waterbury Road
Gerald Jones, 6038 Chestnut Road
Kent Christiansen, 2971 Oaklawn Lane
Byron Petersen, 3100 Highland Blvd.
Ann Hiltsley, 3105 Island View Drive
Todd Rask, 5109 Drummond Road
1. MINUTES
Motion was made by Eurich, seconded by Hanus, to approve the minutes of
the December 16, 1999 DCAC meeting as presented. Motion carried
unanimously.
2. AGENDA CHANGES
Fackler reported that Steve Behunke will not be present tonight, and this item is moved
to 6a.
Commissioner Burma questioned why the Pembroke Dock issue was not on the agenda.
Discussion took place with the Commissioners and the citizens present, particularly Ann
Hiltsley, who represents the Pembroke neighborhood group regarding whether there has
been neighborhood meetings, whether this issue should be discussed here at the DCAC,
or at the City Council level.
Acting Chair Goldberg stated that agenda changes are under discussion right now, and
if this is going to be discussed further, it must be put on the agenda and discussed in
turn.
Commissioner Burma stated it may be better to hold this discussion in February, so the
neighborhood could meet with City Council Representative Bob Brown.
Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission January 20, 2000
Commissioner Eurich agreed with Burma.
Acting Chair Goldberg stated this issue would be on the February agenda, and a
neighborhood meeting will be held. Goldberg asked if Commissioner Burma would
continue to represent this issue on the DCAC.
Commissioner Burma stated he would be willing but if it would cause problems if he
stayed on the DCAC through this issue, he would recommend Commissioner Ahrens take
over.
Agenda approved as amended.
3. ELECTION OF OFFICERS OF 2000
Motion made by Ahrens, seconded by Burma, to nominate Jim Funk for Chair,
and Mark Goldberg for Vice Chair for 2000. Motion carried unanimously.
4. INTERVIEW APPLICANTS FOR DCAC VACANCY
Carolyn Schmidt, 3001 Island View Drive, addressed the Commission regarding her
interest in serving on the DCAC. Ms. Schmidt stated she did sit on the POSC for
approximately 6 years, ending 3 years ago. The DCAC was formed the year she left, and
she was very glad to see that the docks were getting the attention they deserve. She is
a member of the Avalon Multiple Dock, and feels she can be a good representative as
a participant of the docks program.
Acting Chair Goldberg asked what Ms. Schmidt sees as being the main issues of the
Docks Program.
Ms. Schmidt answered that making sure the dock program continues to be self sufficient,
and changes with the times to ensure the program continues.
Acting Chair Goldberg asked what the "hot issues" are between the abutters and
nonabutters.
Ms. Schmidt stated that as a nonabutter, her most important goal would be to make sure
the program continues to exist, as it has been very important to her family to have access
to the lake. She is not sure what the "hot issues" for abutters are, but would guess that
overuse, and over accessibility may be hot issues for some of them.
Acting Chair Goldberg asked if she liked being on the multiple dock.
Ms. Schmidt stated that it is nice to not have to put in and take out the dock. The
neighborhood is wonderful, and after some of the minor "bugs" were worked out, it is
working very well.
Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission
January 20, 2000
Acting Chair Goldberg asked what her opinion is of the current City Council versus the
previous City Council.
Ms. Schmidt stated she has not followed the current City Council close enough to have
made a decision.. However, it is very important that the dock program continues,
regardless of the problematic issues. Those issues simply need to be worked out until
the program can continue.
Councilmember Hanus questioned whether Ms. Schmidt thinks the system is moving in
the right direction, and if not, what could the Commission improve on.
Ms. Schmidt stated she feels it has generally been going well. The details seem to get
dragged out at times, but the general direction seems to be very good.
Commissioner Ahrens asked if she would favor individual docks in front of homes, or
multiple docks in front of a commons area.
Ms. Schmidt stated she favors both, as long as the system continues to work. She noted
it continues to work well in particular neighborhoods and the individual places really
decide which option is better.
Commissioner Burma asked how Ms. Schmidt felt about the fact that the Mayor has
suggested raising the dock fees, to be spent for rip rap, stairways, etc.
Ms. Schmidt stated it is very appropriate to increase rates, as there has not been a
significant rate increase for many years. The fees should definitely be used to enhance
the docks program, such as rip rap, and upkeep of the docks.
Ms. Schmidt then stepped out and Mr. Gerald Jones addressed the Commission.
Mr. Gerald Jones, 5341 Maywood Road, stated he would be interested in having a voice
on the Dock Commission, as a dock holder. Mr. Jones stated he is in favor of the
multiple dock program.
Acting Chair Goldberg asked what he liked about multiples.
Mr. Jones stated you can use maximum amount of boats with minimal amount of space.
Also, they look a lot nicer and cleaner, and they are all conformed. He is not currently
on a multiple, he is at Twin Parks.
Acting Chair Goldberg asked what the "hot issues" are now.
Mr. Jones replied Pembroke, as you have to work around what everyone wants.
Acting Chair Goldberg then asked what the "hot issues" are between abutters and
nonabutters.
3
Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission January 20, 2000
Mr. Jones stated that not everybody can live on the water, and everybody should have
some kind of access to the water. However, he can understand how an abutter feels
when there are people in front of their house.
Commissioner Ahrens asked which scenario he agreed with more, a multiple dock in front
of commons, or single docks in front of other people's homes.
Mr. Jones stated that he would prefer to not have anybody walking through somebody
else's yard if at all possible.
Commissioner Burma asked Mr. Jones about his feelings of raising the rates on the dock
program, and using these funds to improve the commons docks areas such as rip rap
and stairways etc.
Mr. Jones stated that the rates are more than reasonable, and he would be in favor of
raising the rates, and definitely maintaining the docks and lakeshore should be the most
important issues.
Commissioner Eurich asked how Mr. Jones might handle any controversial issues as they
came.
Mr. Jones stated each issue would be individual, depending on the situation.
Councilmember Hanus asked if Mr. Jones has seen a lot of the public docks besides his
own,
Mr. Jones stated he has seen many of the different areas around the City.
Acting Chair Goldberg thanked Mr. Jones, and consensus was reached that deliberations
would be done at the end of the meeting.
DISCUSS: STREET VACATION ADJACENT TO 2537 & 2541 WATERFORD
ROAD
Moved to 6a.
Sm
DISCUSS: PROPOSED MULTIPLE SLIP DOCK LOCATIONS AT WATERBURY
AND TWIN PARK ACCESSES
WATERBURY ACCESS
Park Director Fackler summarized the proposed multiple slip dock at Waterbury Access.
Councilmember Hanus asked if the configuration could be changed to accommodate five
boats, rather than four, still staying within the setbacks.
4
Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission January 20, 2000
Commissioner Burma stated he would like to be able to add another boat, but it may get
pretty tight with that many boats.
Commissioner Eurich stated he also thinks it may get fairly congested by adding a fifth
boat.
Nancy Clough stated there is not adequate parking there for five cars, only for three. She
Stated that four cars is tight, but it may fit.
Mike Chitko stated it would be nice to have a transient spot there for visitors, for a small
boat, for a short amount of time.
Park Director Fackler stated a small boat would probably work either parallel to the shore,
or possibly in front of spot number 4, on the stem of the dock.
Mike Chitko stated that the proposed multiple configuration looks nice, and he is in favor
of adding the fourth spot if it helps someone get off the waiting list.
Nancy Clough stated that docks are not shared here, and all three owners have one boat.
They have worked very hard to get to this point, and they would like to take the next step
of getting a multiple dock at this site.
Councilm ember Hanus asked if there has been any problem s with trespassers at this site.
Ms. Clough answered with the question of who has the liability when the multiple dock
is in.
Park Director Fackler stated the City has insurance for the multiple docks.
Mr. Chitko stated there really hasn't been any vandalism or theft, and he has been there
for 8 years.
Motion made by Burma, seconded by Eurich, to recommend approval of the
proposed multiple slip dock configuration for Waterbury Access, which adds
an additional slip at this site, from 3 to 4. Motion carried unanimously.
TWIN PARK ACCESS
Park Director Fackler summarized the proposed multiple slip dock at Twin Park Access.
Dock Inspector McCaffrey stated right now there are 3 dock sites, with 4 boats.
Mr. Ken Christensen stated he owns 2 boats.
Mr. Byron Peterson stated he is against putting this many boats at this site. He indicated
that this type of commercial installation does not belong in the middle of a residential
Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission January 20, 2000
neighborhood, and it will lower the property values. He suggested that 4 dock sites,
rather than 6, would be more than enough.
Councilmember Hanus asked if Mr. Peterson would prefer 6 single docks rather than the
multiple.
Mr. Peterson replied that 4 docks would be enough, single or multiple. He would not be
in favor of 6 docks in any case.
Mr. Ken Christensen stated that he agrees with Mr. Peterson about the number of boats.
He also felt 6 would be too many, 4 would be better. Mr. Christensen stated he knows
that going to a multiple will limit him to one boat, whereas now he has 2, and he is
prepared to do that. He thinks the system is overall very good, but believes that too
many boats could change that opinion.
Mr. Peterson then brought up his concerns regarding the ravine that runs from the
highlands down to the lake, which is eroding very quickly and is now quite deep.
Park Director Fackler stated that the Storm Water Management Plan is addressing this
problem, and others like it.
Commissioner Burma stated that this site is very similar to the Avalon site, and he is
concerned because the setbacks are met with the 6 boats. He noted that going down to
4 boats sounds like it would be taking opportunity away from potential dock site holders
to make the private property owners happy, which is not what the dock program is about.
The setbacks are in place to allow for private property owners, and if these are met, the
Commission should try to add more slips to accommodate more slip holders. Also, there
is good screening vegetation around this site which makes it even more attractive to add
the 6 slips.
Commissioner Eurich agreed that the 6 slip configuration would work very well at this site,
and it would help with the waiting list.
Mr. Christensen stated he would like to see the setbacks published to the individuals
involved, especially those who put in their own docks.
Councilmember Hanus asked if a quick study could be done regarding the parking at this
site, as the neighborhood has indicated it is an issue, and others have stated it would not
be a problem.
Mr. Christensen stated that there is a pumping station there, and runoff from the ravine.
However, turnaround space on the lane is the problem. He noted that cars could park
up the lane on both sides, but then there is no space to turn around.
Acting Chair Goldberg added that it is not too far off in the future when the City will reach
it's maximum BSU's. Also, there are now 3 boats there, and going up to 6 boats seems
Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission January 20, 2000
to be a fairly large jump. At Avalon, there were the same number of boats, it was only
a transition to the multiple dock, not an addition of boats.
Mr. Christensen stated that if there were some parking controls, that may help with the
situation, and 6 boats possibly would work.
Acting Chair Goldberg suggested putting in the 6 slip dock, with the slips 5 and 6
temporary, to be revisited in a year.
Commissioner Ahrens suggested putting in the 4 slip dock first, with the stipulation that
it would be revisited in a year with an eye to expansion.
Councilmember Hanus stated that it must be made PERFECTLY CLEAR in the minutes
that this dock site will be revisited with an eye to expansion to 6 boats. There is
ABSOLUTELY NO GUARANTEE that it will stay only 4 boats.
Motion by Burma, seconded by Eurich, to recommend approval of the
proposed 6 slip multiple dock configuration, with the stipulation that slips 5
and 6 are temporary for 1 year, for the site to be revisited. Motion failed 2/3
(Burma and Eurich voted aye. Goldberg, Ahrens, and Hanus voted nay).
Motion by Goldberg, seconded by Ahrens, to recommend approval of the 4
slip, H-shaped dock configuration for the Twin Park Access, with the
stipulation that this site will be revisited in one year with an eye to expansion
to 6 slips. Abutting property owners shall be made aware IN WRITING that
this multiple dock may change to 6 slips after one year. Motion carried 3/2
(Ahrens, Hanus, and Goldberg voted aye. Eurich and Burma voted nay).
10:00 p.m. Acting Chair Goldberg tabled the meeting. Motion by Burma, seconded
by Ahrens, to continue the meeting for an additional 30 minutes. Motion carried
unanimously.
Sa.
DISCUSS: STREET VACATION ADJACENT TO 2537 & 2541 WATERFORD
ROAD
Park Director Fackler summarized the request for the vacation of the property adjacent
to 2537 and 2541 Waterford Road, explaining the issue of linear footage of shoreline,
which is very important to the dock program. He also summarized staff recommendation
of the option of supporting a side setback variance from the LMCD, which allows the
applicant to get their dock, and does not require the City to vacate the property.
Mr. Thomas Stokes addressed the Commission at this time summarizing the desire of the
homeowners for a dock, and the variances from the LMCD which are needed for a dock
at this site. Vacation of the property by the City would alleviate the need to receive 3
variances from the LMCD.
7
Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission January 20, 2000
Discussion followed by all concerning the actual value of this property to the City. The
basic agreement is that the major advantage is 38 feet of linear lakeshore which can be
used to determine Mound BSU's.
10:30 p.m. Acting Chair Goldberg tabled the meeting.
Motion made by Goldberg, seconded by Ahrens to extend the meeting for an
additional 15 minutes. Motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Burma stated that if the variances will accomplish the same thing, in
allowing the dock, then the City can still keep the 38 feet as well.
Motion made by Ahrens, seconded by Burma, to recommend approval of the
vacation as requested. Motion carried 4/1 (Eurich opposed).
10:45 p.m. Acting Chair Goldberg tabled the meeting. Motion by Goldberg,
seconded by Burma to extend the meeting for an additional 15 minutes. Motion
carried unanimously.
Commissioner Eurich stated that the dock could be installed without the City vacating this
38 feet. This would be the first choice, as it would benefit both the City and the applicant.
If the LMCD does not grant the variances, the applicant can return to the City and reapply
for the vacation.
Mr. Stokes stated his concern that the people with this dock maintain their own dock, and
he would not be in favor of a fee increase in this case.
11:00 p.m. Acting Chair Goldberg tabled the meeting. Motion by Burma, seconded
by Goldberg, to extend the meeting for an additional 5 minutes. Motion carried
unanimously.
7. RECOMMENDATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE DCAC
A vote was held for the vacant DCAC position. Results were: Gerald Jones - 7;
Carol Schmidt - 8. Gerald Jones will be recommended to the City Council for the newly
appointment to the DCAC.
8. DISCUSS: MULTIPLE SLIP DOCK OBJECTIVES AND TRANSITIONS
Continued to next meeting.
9. REVIEW: 2000 CALENDAR
Continued to next meeting.
10 REVIEW: WORK RULES
8
Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission January 20, 2000
Continued to next meeting.
11. DISCUSS: FEBRUARY DCAC AGENDA
To be included on the February agenda are:
1. Discuss: Pembroke issues
2. Discuss: Multiple Slip Dock Objectives and Transitions
3. Review: 2000 Calendar
4. Review: Work Rules
12.
13.
14.
FYI
A) CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
B) PARK & OPEN SPACE ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES
C) PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
D) LMCD INFORMATION
MONTHLY CALENDAR
LETrER OF RESIGNATION
UPDATED COMMISSION MEMBER LIST
REPORTS
A) CITY COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE
No report at this time.
B) PARK DIRECTOR
No report at this time.
C) DOCK INSPECTOR
No report at this time.
ADJOURN
Motion made by Hanus, seconded by Goldberg, to adjourn the meeting at
11:05 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
MINUTES
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, JANUARY 24, 2000
Those present: Chair Geoff Michael; Commissioners: Orv Burma, Jerry Clapsaddle,
Becky Glister, Cklair Hasse, Michael Mueller, Bill Voss, Frank Weiland; Council Liaison
Bob Brown. Staff present: City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland,
and Secretary Sue McCulloch.
The following public were present: Dan Parks and Peter Meyer.
Chair Michael welcomed the public and called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m.
Chair Michael stated before he would request a motion to apprcve the January 10,
2000, minutes, he would like to restate an election for Chair and Co-Chair of the
Ptanning Commissicn took place on Janusry 10, 2000, in the absence of Brown,
Clapsaddle, Muetler and Glister. He stated he is honored and privileged to be voted
again as Chair of the Planning Commission, but if the Commission would like to revote
tonight, he would welcome those wishes. Mueller stated he also appreciates the
opportunity to serve as Co-Chair of the Planning Commission. The consensus was to
keep the voted Chair and Co-Chair of the Planning Commission for the year 2000.
MINUTES . APPROVAL OF THE JANUARY 10.2000. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING.
Weiland stated he would appreciate having the minutes organized in the packet so
each new case would begin on its own front page, rather than continuing the next case
on the back side of the previous case. Staff took note of this request.
Weiland stated it was not noted in the minutes that the election held on January 10,
2000, did include voting Mueller as Co-Chair of the Planning Commission.
MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Hasse, to elect Michael Mueller as Co.
Chair of the Planning Commission for the year 2000. MOTION CARRIED. 9-
0.
MOTION by Voss, seconded by Weiland, to accept the January ~10, 2000,
Planning Commission meeting minutes as amended above. MOTION
CARRIED: 9-0.
612-3386838 HOI$INGTON KOE6LER ?20 P03 FEB 02 '00 13:16
Mound P[anninq Commission Minutes. January 24.2000
DISCUSSION:
SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION.
Gordon stated the City Council has requested the Planning Commission provide
comments on revisions the Commission believes are necessary to the SWMP. He
stated the City Council is going to take up continued discussion of the Comprehensive
Plan in February and would like the Commission's input by the end of January. Gordon
stated to help proceed, he would suggest to the Commission to make
recommendations on specific language modifications based on the SWMP Plan Draft
#2. He stated these recommendations should be made in the form of a motion for the
City Council to consider in February. He stated once adopted these modifications
would be incorporated into the Final SWMP report. He stated it would then go on to the
MCWD for review and approval.
Gordon stated Dan Parks is present tonight to answer questions the Commissioners
may have and to atso assist in getting some type of motion passed approving the
SWMP and forwarding it on to City Council.
Gordon
the first
SWMP.
stated the City Council would like comments from the Planning Commission by
part of February, which at that time the City Council will begin review of the
Gordon stated the two issues that have been noted by the Planning Commission are
buffers from lakes and wetlands and provisions for phosphorus-free fertilizers.
Mueller asked if we need more time with Mr. Parks to complete the Plan, would this be
possible. Mueller asked if the February deadline given by the City Council was a "drop
dead deadline."
Brown stated even though only two other cities have submitted their Plan, the City
Council was certain the February deadline was a 'drop dead date."
Mueller stated even if the Planning Commission does pass the Plan, the MCWD will
spend at least two months reviewing the Plan themselves. He stated he does not want
to rush through this Plan. She stated the Shoreline Plan for the City of Mound was, in
his opinion, a much less important document which appears to be taking longer to
review that the Comprehensive Plan.
Glister stated, and Mueller agreed, she would like to review the SWMP Plan on a page-
by-page basis tonight.
Brown stated the unmaintained buffer could be up to as much as 35 feet at stated in the
SWMP Plan to date. He does not approve of using the words a "required" buffer.
2
612-5~868~8 HOISINGTON KOEGLER 728 P04 FEB 02 '00
Mound Plannina Commission Minu~es. J=numry 24,
Mueller stated the buffer is something he would not recommend as well. He sated
even though Mr. Casey's article about buffers was very informative and made a lot of
sense because a buffer would create more birds, more frogs, and less area to mow; he
stated the City of Mound is not developing new homes, so a requirement of buffers
sbouid.~!ot be in~luded.in_t_he SWMP as it is worded to date. .
Mueller further stated if the new downtown development of the City of Mound is not
complying with the buffer zoning regulations, than why create an ordinance for the
residents of the City of Mound.
Brown stated he would recommend using the words *recommends" or "encourages" a
natural buffer'zone instead of the words currently in the SWMP whir.,h state "will
require."
Voss suggested the City of Mound could start complying with this proposed ordinance
by not cutting down the commons which is City owned property.
Brcwn disagreed with Vcss and stated he has been informed commons lakeshore and
private lakeshore owners are paying the same taxes because the taxes are figured by
the view the individual has of the lake. Brown stated if the pdvate property owners can
cut the grass down than the commons individuals should be able to do the same
because of their tax situation.
Mueller disagreed with Brown and stated the commons is City owned property and if
individuals start cutting down the buffer which is City owned, these individuals should
be fined.
Brown stated if the property value of an individual on the commons decreases, would
they then have a right to sue the City because of this decrease in property vatue.
Mueller stated he does not believe this would be possible because the commons is City
owned property, and you have to follow City codes for City owned property.
Hasse stated the scenario of an individual living next to a park and if the owner next the
park does not like a tree or the height of the grass which is on the City owned park, and
he just decides to cut it down himself--is that right. He stated, of course not, because it
is City owned property and the property owner next to the park has to comply with City
codes regarding parks.
Gordon stated recent developments such at ~Teal Point" and "Pelican Point" have a 40-
foot buffer which is consistent with the SWMP. He stated it appears there is already
compliance without the plan in place. Mueller stated if this was the case, then why do
we have to say the buffer is "required."
Mr. Parks stated the Watershed District would require the buffer. He stated if the City
of Mound does not include a buffer zone in their Plan, the Watershed District will step in
and require it. He stated this would be an option, although the Watershed it looking for
HOISINGTON KOEGLER ?28 P05 FEB 02 '00 1~:17
Mound Plannincj Commission Minutes. January 24. 2000 -~* ~4tI~1~ _~'
help from the cities to implement a buffer zone and take some of the responsibility off
the Watershed.
Mr. Parks stated the buffer will benefit reduced erosion, wave action, runoff of bad
minerals in the water and geese coming up on the shore. He stated the buffers need to
be addressed to some extent. To use the words 'encourage" or "recommend" a natural
buffer will not be appropriate for the Watershed District. He stated the City of Mound
needs to instill some numbers and not leave it open-ended.
Gordon stated to solve this issue might be to exclude the first sentence of the
paragraph on page 48 referring to the buffers. Muller stated to go further and write in a
statement which states to *encourage the commons area as buffers that are currently
existing."
Mr. Parks stated if the City of Mound deletes the first sentence regarding buffers, the
Watershed District will not approve the Plan. He stated with regarcting to "encouraging"
buffers on the commons, the words, again, need to be more precise.
Voss asked Mr. Parks why the Watershed Distdct cannot see the potential for suing if
the language in the Plan regarding buffers is so stdct.
Ciapsaddle stated the City of Mound is developed to its fullest on Lake Minnetonka, and
will not support a program of setting up buffers on developed pdvate property. He
stated this would be extremely hard to enforce in a city such as Mound.
Brown stated he would not approve the buffer as it is written to date in the SWMP.
Brown suggested having it read that the City of Mound will encourage future residents
to abide by the buffer zones stated in the ordinance. Mr. Parks again stated the
Watershed District will not permit a vague statement as stated above.
Mr. Parks suggested to have the ordinance state a minimal threshold the homeowners
would be required to comply by.
Muetler suggested the words to state if a homeowner owns 1 I/2 acres of property, to
have 75 percent minimum of the property meet the buffer requirements. Mr. Parks
stated this would be workable.
Clapsaddle would like some words that would protect the individual single family site.
He stated anything over the single family home would be over the 75 percent.
Gordon suggested having the plan state a buffer is required on any development that
are larger than a [/2 acre and requires a major subdivision. He stated minor
subdivisions would be exempted. Mueller appreciated Gordon's statement.
Glister stated she would appreciate to know the words used by other cities in their
SWMP with regard to the buffer zones. Mr. Parks will research this request.
612-3386838 HOISINGTON KOEGLER 720 ~m~ F~8 ~Z '~0 i~:i~
Mound Planning Commission Minutes, Januar~ 24, 20(~ V~.~,.
Voss restated he is concerned about the potential for civil litigation by enforcing such a
buffer zone requirement.
MOTION by Mueller, second by Brown, to state in the SWMP a buffer will be
required on any major subdivision requiring public improvements and a
minimum of 75 percent of the frontage lot to have a minimum of a 20 foot
buffer. Furthermore, the City of Mound will start enforcing the buffer
program on the commons where deemed appropriate.
Discussion.
Weiland was concerned about the minor subdivisions that may result from a major
subdivision and how the ordinance for buffers woulc[ then apply.
Mueller would like to make sure Mr. Casey's letter is included to the City Council when
the packet has been distributed to the members.
Voss was concerned city managers and city attorneys should make sure they have
reviewed the completed Comprehensive Plan to ensure there will not t3e any hardship
put on cities concerning civil litigation. Gordon stated that as long as the intent of the
buffer zone was for the protection of health, safety, and welfare issues, it would have
standing in the courts. Shoreland Management Ordinance buffers and industrial use
buffers from residential areas were cited as similar buffer provisions that are in the
current code.
Mueller wanted to confirm Table 48 would be removed concerning buffers and the
wording would replace the table information.
Brown called the question.
MOTION CARRIED. 9-0.
Mueller stated he would like to continue working on the SWMP Plan with a line-by-line
review of the document.
Mueller's line-by-line changes are as follows:
Page 2, Item D:
Mueller is questioning St. John's ponding and if this would apply to
that incident. Sutherland stated we have an agreement with the
school and the church, but this is not a joint powers agreement.
Sutherland stated we have a maintenance agreement at Norwest
and Teal Point. Mueller stated we need to have some sort of
information in the Plan regarding storm ponding. Mr. Parks stated
the last page of the book does identify all of the facilities showing
the responsible party regarding ponding, although, Mr. Parks stated
Page 5, Item F,
Item 5
Page 5, Item No. 7:
Page 5,
Item No. 10
Figure No. 7:
Figure No. 7:
Page 12:
HOISINGTON KOEGLEE 719 P06 FEB 02 '00
Mound Plennlng Commission Minutes, January 24, 2000
he would include a paragraph at this point with regard to Mueller's
concern of ponding.
Mueller wanted clarification regarding increase in staff notation.
Sutherland stated he left this in the SWMP Plan because of the
additional workload with the ordinances, even thoL~gh streamlining
does decrease the workload to a certain degree. Sutherland stated
when we get the regulations work, this will either have to be
consulted out or City Hall will have to be staffed better. He stated
this charge would be covered in the fee section. Mr. Parks stated
he would recommend keeping this section in the Plan because with
the more responsibility from the Watershed District the City needs
to take on because of the Plan, there will be additional staffing that
will be needed.
Mueller stated should the City of Mound consider a phosphorus-
free fertilizer. Brown stated as soon as this is implemented, the
Planning Commission would then develop an ordinance where all
land care services coming into the City have to be phosphorus-free
fertilizers as well as private homeowners applications. Mr. Parks
stated this is further addressed on Page 49, Item 4. Mr. Parks
stated the Watershed does not require a "no phosphorus-free
fertilizer," so he is not recommending at this time that requirement
either, Mr. Parks stated also it was noted the City of Mound will
address this issue in the years to come.
Mr. Parks stated he does not have finished data regarding
Saunders Lake. Mueller restated the table noted is not complete at
this time. Mr. Parks stated the information may not change much,
although.
Mr. Parks agreed this is labeled incorrectly.
Mueller expressed a concern about no mention of a 10 inch range.
Mueller stated there is an incorrect labeling of West Arm Bay. This
should be labeled West Jennings Bay.
Mueller stated a typographical error where "MNDNIR" should be
rather "MDNR".
Page 13.
Mueller wanted to have it clarified there will be a more current Land
Use Map. Mr. Parks stated this was true.
Mueiler stated he would like it stated to have 12 more winter
access points. Mr. Parks agreed.
Figure 9.
~ound Plannino Commission Minutes, January 24. 2000.
Mueller stated this appendix needs to be reviewed in color form
before he will approve this diagram. He stated he would like color
appendixes for the Commissioners to review. Mr. Parks stated
there have been colored copies sent to the Acting City Manager
which should be accessible by all members, it was agreed at the
next meeting all colored maps wil] be laid out fcr review.
Brown interrupted and suggested he appreciates Mueller's comments, but would it be
possible to have him submit written requests for Mr. Parks to review and implement into
the Plan. Mueller stated he does not have the time to do that and he also would like to
review the Plan with his comments with all of the Planning Commissioners present.
Chair Michael agreed tonight's process may be tiresome, but he stated this line-by-tine
process is a good idea and needs to be done at some point, so he recommended
continuation of this review.
Figure 11:
Mueller asked about the map watershed boundaries. Mr. Parks
stated this figure needs to be updated.
Page 17:
Mr. Parks needs to review Langdon Lake information before
suggesting a change. There was some discussion of the deviation.
Mueller stated Mr. Parks is suggesting to have it note 933.5 on
Lake Minnetonka and Lost Lake. Mr. Parks stated Dutch Lake may
need to be reviewed again. Mr. Parks stated if the level changes
there has to be a joint level of discussions if this occurs.
Mueller would like the City put on notice to have Minnetdsta call
Mound if changes occur regarding water levels that may affect
Dutch Lake.
Page 18:
Suthedand stated Page 17 the RFPE is not consistent with some
other communities on Lake Minnetonka. The other areas are
933.5 recommendations for RFPE. Suthertand asked if we should
bump up the City of Mound to the figure as well, and this may be a
concern because of the Watershed District.
Suthedand stated his concern with the 933.5 level is existing
homes that currently meet the flood plain, but with rising the flood
plain, they will no longer meet the plain. Sutherland also stated this
will cost the taxpayer more money with the additional surveys
required. Mueller stated these homes would be grandfathered in.
Lake Langdon information cannot be updated at this point.
HOISINGTDN KCEGLER
719 P08 FEB 02 '00 13:01
Page 18i
Hound PI~nnir~q Commission Minutes. J.nuarv 24, :2000 ~=~¢'.4~ ~,.
Mueller mentioned Saunders Lake area. Mr. Parks stated Langdon
has been calculated and finished. Mr. Parks stated the 948 should
be the RFP and currently the City of Mound has nothing to date. If
this does get established, there may be homeowners that will be
required to have flood insurance.
Page 20:
Mueller stated this should be noted as Table 4.
Page 21:
Mueller stated this should be noted as Table 4 as well.
Page 24, Item No. 7:Mueiler questioned the water level and if it was correctly written at
this point. Mr. Parks stated he wanted to make it an adequate high
level water to prevent basements from flooding. He stated the
developer would be required to use the two feet above ordinary
high water level.
Mueller stated he completed his page-by-page review of the SWMP Plan through page
26. Mueller did not have time to review the Plan any further.
Mr. Parks will be attending another Planning Commission meeting within one month to
continue the page-by-page review of the Plan.
Gordon stated the Commission should give the City Council an indication of where the
SWMP review stands. It was suggested the Planning Commission would appreciate the
Council granting 30 more days to complete the review process of the SWMP Plan.
Mr. Parks summarized he will put together the proper language concerning buffers that
was discussed, he will make sure all color appendixes are available, and he will get the
figures for the RFPE on Lake Langdon at the next meeting.
Mr. Parks was excused and was thanked for his attendance at tonight's meeting.
8
612-~868~8 HOISINGTON KOE~LER '/i5 ~ ~ ~ '~ i~;~
Mound Planninq Commission Minutes, January 24, 2900
STEVE CODDON VARIANCE DENIAL ON JANUARY 10, 2000,
Brown questioned the minutes in the Coddon matter regarding his verbatim testimony
and that of the Planning Commissions. Brown stated Mr. Coddon had an article printed
in the Laker about the variance denial. The article was not in friendly terms towards the
Planning Commission and the City of Mound. Brown wanted it clarified there has never
been a variance given on this small size of property.
Mueller stated the City of Mound has given a variance on this small of piece of property
in the past, but only to the original owner and not someone who bought the property.
It was discussed the minutes stated that Mr. Coddon knew the prcperty was undersized
when he purchased it, but whether it was stated if Mr. Coddon knew the property was
"unbuildable."
Sutherland stated there are similar cases including Glen Alien and Bob Steele, but Mr.
Coddon's case does not have the fac~,s exactly the same as those cases. Sutherland
stated staff did not recommend this variance and if the City Council wculd see the case
differently it would be due to the legal counsel's recommendations.
Mueller stated Mr. Coddon had his boat house case rejected by the city in the past, so
Mr. Coddon is well aware of codes that do exist by the City that must be complied by
the citizens of Mound so he is not ignorant when it comes to this type of information.
Sutherland reminded those present when issues do come up this type, it reminds him of
the scatter site acquisition program for the City.
Brown stated he does not understand why the City did not buy this property for $1,00
when they had the chance, either to subdivide it or use it for park space. Suthertand
stated them was improper followup by previous staff whic~ resulted in this problem.
Chair Michael stated he recalls asking Mr. Coddon if he knew the property was not
buildable before purchasing it. Chair Michael stated, and Voss agreed, to have the
tape reviewed concerning Mr. Coddon's case and typed up verbatim if the need arises.
Brown stated the City Attorney is aware of this case and is confident he is reviewing this
case with other possible precedent cases,
Chair Michael recessed at 9:47 p.m. Chair Michael reconvened at 9:55 p.m,
G12-~868~8 I-IOISINGTI~I~I KOEGL.ER '719 PlO Fl~l~ 02 '00 13:02
Mound Plannina Commission Minutes, January 24, 2000
DOWNTOWN ZONING.
Gordon presented this item. He stated as a follow up to the Comprehensive Plan and
downtown redevelopment, revisions to the zoning code are in order to ready the stage.
He stated in terms of looking at what should be rezoned, we should-use the
Comprehensive Plan as the guide to establish the physical boundaries and framework
for the new districts. The Plan adopts three districts for the downtown, the Pedestrian
District, the Destination District, and the Linear District. Each district has a different
character that will be conveyed through the new regulations, He stated he has
prepared some draft language for review.
Gordon stated in addition to these districts, other code changes will be added such as
site plan review. He stated he would like to incorporate a site plan review process into
the development review for each of the downtown districts. The assumption with this
process is the City is comfortable with the specified uses for each district but because
of the high leveJ of design, needs an additional review process for approval that would
focus on those details. Gordon stated below are draft details for each zoning district.
He stated following ~he districts are site plan review items that we will get into mere
detail next meeting.
"PED" Pedestrian District
Subd. 1 Purpose
The Pedestrian Zoning District is intended to provide a range of retail and
service commercial, office, institutional, public, open space, and aBached
high density residential uses that are organized and planned in a manner
that is pedestrian friendly. The mixed use concept embodies traditional
town planning concepts to create an urban environment allowing
arrangements of mixed residential and commercial uses. A high degree of
aesthetic detail is to be provided in building and site design to promote a
village community atmosphere.
Subd. 2
Permitted Uses
Professional offices
Retail sales and services
Restaurants (Class I and Ill)
Mueller stated he would like 3. to read as follows: "3. Restaurants (not
drive thru uses)" instead (Class I and III).
5.
6.
7.
Delicatessen
Drug Store
Public and Institutional uses
Public and private parks
10
Subd. 3
Subd, 4
[Vlound Planning Commission Minutes. January 24, 2000
8. Multi-family dwelling units
Conditional Uses
(what shou/d be prescribed in any)
Accessory Uses
ao
Pavilions and shelter houses
Automatic teller machines
Bus shelters
Signs
Public telephone booths
Antennas
MueIler questioned the Antennas section lis;ed above. Gordon stated the
antennas refers to those that have to be attached ;o ;he building and not
those that are towers.
Gordon stated the issue with satellite TV will be resolved with the
developer's covenants on the exterior of the buildings. Gordon stated the
developer's site plan would be reviewed before permits are issued.
Gordon stated the review of the covenants is part of the site plan review.
Sutherland stated he is concerned about leaving the antenna situation up
to the covenants of the developers. He stated he would like to have this
regulated through the ordinance and not the covenants because the
covenants could change because they expire; whereas, the ordinance will
always be in place unless it is changed by the City.
Sutherland state, d another option would be to have them screened rather
than having an ordinance put into effect. Mueller directed staff to look at
the performance ordinances regarding antennas.
9. Private garages, off-street parking and loading spaces
Subd. 5
Bulk Standards
(To be added)
"DEST" Destination District
Subd. I Purpose
The Destination District is intended to allow for retail sales and services
intended to serve the needs of the local population. This Distdct is
11
61~-3'J8683'8 HOISINGTON KDEGLER 719 P12 FEB 0~ '00 13:83
Subd. 2
Subd. 3
Subd. 4
Subd. 5
Mound Planning Commission Minutes. January Z4, 2000
primarily oriented at the motoring because of its location along minor
arterial roadways and good visibility.
Permitted Uses
a. Banks
b. Barber and Beauty Shops
c, Business or Trade Schools
d. Churches
e. Consignment Shops
f. Delicatessen
g. Drug Store
h. Grocery Store
i. Health Clubs, Fitness Centers, and Dance Studios
j. Institutions and Charitable organizations
k. Liquor Stores
I. Medical and Dental Clinics
m. Offices
n. Private Lodges and Clubs.
o. Public Buildings
p. Public Park and Recreation
q. Restaurants (Class i)
r, Retail Business
s. Service Shops
t. Theatres
Conditional Uses
(what should be prescribed in any)
Accessory Uses
a. Parking Lots
b. Automatic teller machines (A.TM)
c. Bus shelters
d. Signs
e. Public telephone booths
f. Antennas
Bulk Standards
(7'0 be added)
Gordon asked if daycare centers should be allowed. The Commissioners
noted this might be possible in the downtown location,
bSo
12
612-~868~8 HOISINGTON KOEGLER ?lS PI~ FEB 82 '00 15:04
"L" Linear District
Subd. I Purpose
Mound Planninq Commission Minutes. January 24, 2000
The purpose of the Linear District is to provide a mix of medium and high
density'residential, institutional, and office uses. The Linear District
provides a key entry point to the downtown core and will provide a higher
degree of aesthetic treatment to complement the downtown.
Mueller questioned the purpose of the Linear District with the words of
"higher degree." Gordon stated this can be reworded to say "better than it
is today."
Subd. 2 Permitted Uses
Subd. 3
Subd. 4
Subd. 5
a. Townhouses
b. Multiple Family dwellings (6 + units)
c. Officss
d. Public and private schools
e. Public park and recreation
f. Public and Institutional Buildings
g. Private Lodges and Clubs
Conditional Uses
a. Gas Stations
b. Convenience Stores
c. Boat and Madne Sales
Accessory Uses
a. Parking Lots
b. Garages
c. Bus shelters
d. Signs
e. Public telephone booths
f. Antennas
Bulk Standards
(To be added)
"CON" Conservation District
Subd. 1 Purpose
13
HOISINGTON KOEGLER
?19 P14
Mound Plannin= Commission Minutes. January 24, 2000
The purpose of the Conservation District is to discourage the infringement
of the manmade environment on the community's natural resources. The
· Conservation District includes those areas such as wetlands, marshes,
steep slopes, interpretive areas, undeveloped islands, wildlife areas, and
other areas that due to environmental conditions, are not generally
appropriate for development.
Subd. 2
Permitted Uses
a. Parks
b. Nature Conservation Areas
c. Trails
d. Overlooks and landings
e. Docks
Subd. 3
Bulk Standards
None
Site Plan Review
Site Plan review is a process established by the zoning code whereby design elements
of a development project are reviewed and approved as a part of the development
process. This process is similar in ways to a PUD review although in this case the City
is telling a developer there are more specific design guidelines that must be achieved
prior to any approval. In addition to bulk standards provided for each district, specific set
of building and site design guidelines will need to be satisfied. It is up to the Planning
Commission and Council to determine if a proposal is acceptable based on these
guidelines. He stated the guidelines would be received at the next meeting.
There was discussion amongst the commissioners concerning the downtown proposal
and if the rezoning the Planning Commission did would honestly have any effect on the
redevelopment being proposed by the developer. Brown stated there are preliminary
deadlines being considered regarding the redevelopment, but what the Planning
Commission decides about rezoning is important in all aspects. There was also
discussions regarding the Coast to Coast property.
Sutherland stated the construction activity is starting to come in privately and with Coast
to Coast. There have been inquiries about the Netka property. Suthedand stated there
needs to be regulations put in place before these developers are allowed their permits.
MOTION by Brown, seconded by Clapsaddle, to move the downtown
zoning proposal up to the bulk standards on page 27 to the City Council for
approval.
14
~12-~868S8 HOISINGTON KOE~LER 719 P!5 FEB 02 '00 1~:05
Discussion:
Mound Ptannlna Commission Minutes. January 24, 2000
Mueller stated on page 4, under boat and marine sales, he would like an automobile
service center place if there is a boat sales place. Brown stated the boat and marine
sales area was being directed towards antique boat shows.
Mueller stated we need to increase the destination district. Mueller is referring to the
industrial park area according to the Land Use. He stated this would be a good place
for the automobile service place.
Mueller stated the comer of school district should not be destination but rather a
pedestrian district. Gordon stated this would be destination with a pedestrian flavor.
Mueiler stated he would like two story height and up to the street level. Gordon stated
the post office might be at a different location if possible. Gordon stated this might be a
good location for a grocery store site. Voss thought this might be a plaza corner.
Brown stated people may come forward and see what they may want.
Clapsaddle stated we should zone the property the way it should be dcne and then get
the use section looked at later. He stated we should not zone it so specifically so when
a developer does come in there is some workable ground for the developer.
Mueller stated he would like to revise Brown's motion and add the change of the corner
school district property to be pedestrian instead of destination. Brown stated he did not
want to amend his motion.
Mueller called the question.
Clapsaddle wanted it noted that he seconded the motion because the subject
discussion at hand with Brown and Mueller is not necessarily with regard to the subject
matter.
MOTION CARRIED, 8-1, Mueiler voting nay.
Brown and Mueller had strong discussions regarding the motion passing the zoning
section up to the bulk standards.
MOTION by Clapsaddle to adjourn the meeting.
There was some discussion, although, Chair Michael noted Clapsaddle's motion died
for lack of a second.
After completion of the noted items on the agenda, Mueller apologized for his outburst
previously when discussing the downtown zoning. Mueller would appreciate having the
Planning Commission bring the motion related to the downtown zoning back to the table
for a friendly motion.
15
1~12-3.~B6838 HDISINGTDN KOEG'LER 719 P1G FE~ 02 '00 13:05
:. Nound Planninq Commission Minutes. January 24, 2009 ' ~4 ~,~ ~'J~:~ ~v~,~l~
MOTION by Brown, seconded by Burma, to reconsider the vote on the
downtown zoning section. Motion carried. 9-0.
Mueller stated he would like to add as a friendly motion the conservation area near
Lake Langdon that has similar circumstances as the Lost Lake area. Secondly, Mueller
stated he would like the above-discussed destination district to include the Belmont
area adjacent to County Road 15.
Brown stated he would accept Mueller's friendly motion to include the noted Lake
Langdon area and to add to the destination district the north of the Belmont area in
front of the south of the city garage adjacent to County Road 15.
Discussion.
Mueller asked the other Commissioners Jf they also would consider this friendly motion
a positive change.
MOTION by Voss, seconded by Ciapsaddle, to highly recommend the
northwest corner by Belmont to be considered as pedestrian district.
MOTION CARRIED. 9-0.
16
G12-3386838 HOISINGTON KOEGLER 7i9 Pi'/ Pm~ wz '~w lJ:wm
PLANNING COMMISSION START TIME.
MOTION by Voss, seconded by Mueller, to change the start time of the
Planning Commission meetings from 7:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.
Discussion.
Clapsaddle stated 7:00 p.m. will be too early because of his drive from St. Paul.
Sutherland stated the intention was not to push for a 7:00 p.m. start time, but rather an
idea and if it worked for all Commissioners, than it would be a good change.
Voss stated there have been many times the Planning Commission meetings go late
and he thought to change the starting time would alleviate having tc~ extend the meeting
into the late hours.
Burma stated he would not be able to attend at 7:00 p.m. either because of his
commute from St. Paul as well. Chair Michael stated it wculd be harder for him also
because he comes from the downtown location.
Voss stated he would not have made the motion having known so many
Commissioners would have a problem with the time change.
Voss resolved the motion.
17
612-~J868~8 HOISINGTON KOEGLER 719 P18 FEB 82 '00 1~:06
~ound Planning Commission Minutes, January 24, 2000
MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION:
WEXFORD LANE VACATION,
Suthedand presented this case. In November, 1999, the Planning Commission
approved the Wexford Lane vacation. Sutherland stated the Planning Commission may
have a different view of the vacation after having reviewed Mr. Fackler's letter, Martha
Reger's letter of the DNR and Ceil Strauss' letter, a hydrologist. The Park Commission
does not favor the vacation, neither does the DNR, but the hydrologist is in favor
because of having no access made possible. Sutherland stated with the two
recommendations to keep the property and one recommendation to not keep the
property, does the Planning Commission want to restate its original recommendation.
Muelter stated he would like to have the property vacated as previously decided by the
Planning Commission. He stated the property was going to be used initially as a
roadway, and this not going to happen now.
Brown stated this prope,"'[7 is not included in the Mr. Fackler's lineal footage for the lake.
Burma stated the lineal footage involved appeared to come as a total loss of land. He
stated the dock commission voted not to keep this land and it will not provide an access
the City would want.
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Burma, to vacate the Wexford Lane
property.
Discussion.
Weiland stated he will not agree to this vacation because of the notation made by a
letter dated January 5, 2000, from Martha Roger of the DNR stating:
"The citizens of Minnesota have a right to use all of the public waters in our state.
Any attempt to preclude access should be carefully considered. The Minnesota
Depar~a'nent of Natural Resources devotes considerable effort to providing the
public with free and adequate access to our lakes 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 limited to, shore fishing, canoe/carry in
access, winter access (by car, snowmobile or foot), swimming, picnic area and
observation/natural area. 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 throuqh a vacation.
Brown stated he strongly disagrees with Weiland because this property is not even
counted in our dock program so we are not losing any lineal footage. Mueller agreed
and further stated no access is lost also.
18
612-~868~8 HOISINGTON KOEF-~R 719 P19 FEB 02
Mound Planning Commission Minutes, January 24, 2000
Brown ~allecl the question.
MOTION CARRIED. Michael, Burma, Clapsaddle, Mueller, Voss and Brown
voting aye; Glister, Hasse and Weiland voting nay. 6-3.
19
~1~-~8~8~8 HOISINGTOH KOEF~ ?2? P02 FEB 0~ '00 14:55
Mound Planninq Commission Minutes. January 24. 2000
1999 CONSTRUCTION AND ZONING ACTIVITY.
Sutherland presented this information. He stated there been more permits this past
year than the last 10 years of his career at the City of Mound. He stated this year has
been the highest valuation in the past 10 years as well.
Voss asked if the staff has increased since the workload has increased by almost 40
percent.
With the meeting having already proceeded late into the evening, the consensus of the
Planning Commission would like to have this topic put on the agenda for the next
Planning Commission meeting for further discussion.
ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Clapsaddle, to adjourn the meeting.
MOTION CARRIED: 9-0.
Chair Michael adjourned the meeting at 11:00 p.m.
2O
BOARD MEMBERS
Douglas E. Babcock
Chair, Tonka Bay
Bert Foster
Vice Chair, Deephaven
Eugene Partyka
Secretary, Minnetrista
Craig Nelson
Treasurer, Spring Park
Andrea Ahrens
Mound
Bob Ambrose
Wayzata
Kent Dahlen
Minnetonka Beach
Craig Eggers
Victoria
Tom Gilman
Excelsior
Greg Kitchak
Minnetonka
Lili McMillan
Orono
Robert Rascop
Shorewood
Herb J. Suerth
Woodland
Sheldon Wed
GreenwooO
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
18336 MINNETONKA BLVD. ' DEEPHAVEN, MINNESOTA 55391 o TELEPHONE 612/745-0789 ' FAX 612/745-9085
Gregory S. Nybeck, EXECU'I IVE DIRECTOR
February 1, 2000
TO: EWM/Exolics Task Force Members
FROM: Greg Nybeck, Executive Director
SUBJECT: Notice of Cancelled Meeting
Chair Suerth has cancelled the EWM/Exo§cs Task Force meeting scheduled for
Fdday, 2/11/00. The next meeting is scheduled for Fdday, 3/10/00.
Feel free to call me if you have any questions or concerns regarding this matter.
50% Recycled Content
20% Posl Consumer Waste
Web Page Address: http://www.winternet.com/~lmcd/
E-mail Address: Imcd@winternet.com
THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY
Eennevin CounW
.......... -,--- Att ]~iu~ Opporl~mil7 ~.ploy~
February 2, 2000
Ms. LuAnne M. Geib
7011 Halstead Drive
Minnetrista, MN 55364-1015
Re: Intersection of County 44 and County 110
Dear Ms. Geib:
We have received your letter about the intersection of county road 44 and county road 110. We want to
let you know we are beginning to investigate whether the intersection meets certain criteria for the
installation of the all-way stop that you have requested. We can certainly appreciate that traffic may be
increasing with development in the area.
Traffic volumes and the accident experience are the principal determinants in our review. As soon as we
get somewhat warmer weather we will place traffic counting hoses at the intersection in order to update
our traffic count and to determine if the traffic volume warrant is met. The timing of when we are able to
place hoses across the road is affected by snowplowing operations and by having the pavement warm up
a little bit so that we can fasten the hoses in place. Meanwhile, we will be reviewing our records of the
accidents that have occurred.
Simultaneously, we are requesting that our Operations Division, which is in charge of road and bridge
maintenance, review the site visibility considerations described in your letter.
Depending on the weather, I hope that we can further respond to you in about 3-4 weeks. Meanwhile, we
want to acknowledge your letter and let you know of our plans to investigate your request.
Sincerely,
Thomas D~ohnson, P.E.
Transportation Planning Engineer
TDJ:WKP:jrh
cc: Wayne Matsumoto, Hennepin County
Fran Clark, City of Mound
Transportation Deparlment
1600 Prairie Drive
Medina, MN 55340-5421
(612) 745-7500 FAX: (612) 478-4000 TDD: (612) 852-6760
Recycled Pc~ver
Febmaty 7, 2000
Dear Sir or Madam:
You are invited to attend a neighborhood meeting for the proposed single family development in your
WHEN: February. 16t~, 2000 at 7:00 PM
Westonka Ll~orary 2079 Commerce Blvc[ Mound,, ,MN
:: We wouldlike to take this opportumty to discuss our mtentions for the 1000 Robin Lane property, as
:~ i ~tt ~sten to any comments you should have.
Sincerely,
R. H. Development, Inc.
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
AGENDA
7:00 PM, Wednesday, February 9, 2000
Tonka Bay City Hall
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Chair Babcock
· Save the Lake Recognition Banquet, 2/10/00, Lord Fletchers of the Lake
READING OF MINUTES - 1/26/00 LMCD Regular Board Meeting
PUBLIC COMMENTS - Persons in attendance, subjects not on agenda (5 min.)
CONSENT AGENDA- Consent agenda items identified with a (*) will be approved in one motion
unless a Board member requests discussion of any item, in which case the item will be removed
from the consent agenda.
· City of Wayzata, Consideration of new multiple dock and special density license applications
to increase two BSU's at the Broadway location of the conforming multiple dock facility.
Additionally, the applicant has requested a variance from LMCD Code for dock width.
1. Public Hearing.
2. Discussion and/or Consideration.
1. WATER STRUCTURES
A) (*) 2000 Multiple Dock/District Mooring Area (DMA) Licenses, staff recommends
approval of 2000 multiple dock/DMA license applications as outlined in 2/2/00 staff memo;
B) Ordinance Amendment, First reading of an ordinance relating to density of watercraft
storage on Lake Minnetonka; amending LMCD Code Section 2.02, subds. 1 and 4;
C) Additional Business;
2. FINANCIAL
A) Audit of vouchers (2/1/00 - 2/15/00);
B) Staff update on LMCD Investments;
C) Additional Business;
3. SAVE THE LAKE
A} (*) Minutes from the 1/18/00 "STL" Advisory Committee meeting:
B) Review of draft 2000 "STL" Budget (handout);
C) Additional Business;
4. ADMINISTRATION
A)
S)
C)
D) Additional Business;
5. EWM/EXOTICS TASK FORCE
6. LAKE USE & RECREATION
7. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT
8. OLD BUSINESS
9. NEW BUSINESS
Staff update on appointment of Board representatives whose terms expire in 1999;
Report from nominating committee with recommendations for Board Officers for 2000;
Staff update of the issuance of on-sale, intoxicating liquor licenses for 2000;
10. EXECUTIVE SESSION- Update from Steve Tallen on LMCD v. Lynn Homer litigation
(Board may decide to conduct discussion in executive session)
11. ADJOURNMENT