2000-04-11OFF ~ Cl~J. PHOAr~ ~ PAGt~ IN CO0't~'~ ~
AGENDA
MOUND CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, APRIL 11, 2000 - ?'.~0 PM
MOUND CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
*Consent Agenda: Ail 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. APPROVE MINUTES OF MARCH 28, 2000 ............. 1238-1243
*B.
APPROVE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC GATHERING PERMITS
FOR BASS TOURNAMENT WEIGH-IN'S ONLY AT
MOUND BAY PARK BOAT ACCESS.
1. JUNE 2, 2000 - DENNY'S SUPER 30
2. JUNE 3, 2000 - MTKA BASS CLASSIC
3. JULY 7 & 8, 2000 - MN PRO-AM BASS TOURNAMENT
*C.
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT TO
ALLOW TRIMMING, BRUSH & SUMAC REMOVAL ON
DEVON COMMONS ADJACENT TO 4625 ISLAND VIEW
DRIVE, LOT 10, BLOCK 1, DEVON - DOCK SITE #41319. . .
1244-1256
*D.
APPROVAL OF REQUEST FOR STREET LIGHT ON LYNWOOD BLVD.
Crhis request from Metro Transit has ben reviewed by the Police Dept.
and they have recommended approval. There are no residences in the
area that will be effected.) ........................ 1257-1259
*E.
SET BID OPENING DATE FOR 2000 SEAL COAIT PROJECT
(SUGGESTED DATE: MAY 3, 2000 .....................r 1260
*F. PAYMENT OF BILLS ........................... 1261-1279
COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT ABOUT ITEMS NOT ON
THE AGENDA. PLEASE LIMIT TO 3 MINUTES PER SUBJECT.)
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING ON COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
(PLEASE BRING YOUR COMP PLAN.) .................. 1280-1331
1236
PLE. AS~ TIIR31 OFF ALL C'FJ.L PHONF~ ~ PAGE. R,~ 17q COII3IC1L CHAMBF..~.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING ON STORM WATER
MANAGEMENT PLAN. (ENCLOSED) .................... 1332-1342
REQUEST FROM NANCY AND CONRAD STARR TO RECONSIDER
THE TEMPORARY VARIANCE APPROVED FOR THEIR DETACHED
GARAGE TO ALLOW IT TO REMAIN .................... 1343-1376
PEMBROKE PARK MULITPLE DOCK NEIGI-IBORI-IOOD MEETING &
RECO~ATION ............................... 1377-1428
EXECUTIVE SESSION - WOODLAND POINT LITIGATION.
INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS
A. EDC Minutes of March 16, 2000/ ........................ 1429-1432
Information from the League of Minnesota Cities about the Annual
Conference in St. Cloud, June 13-16,2000. Please let me know if you are
planning to attend .................................. 1433-1440
Cw
Letter from Kevin England, Hasbro Corporation, regarding the wetlands
remediation steps that they are planning for the unimproved Morton Lane (channel)
off of Lynwood Blvd. They will be doing a presentation for the Planning
Commissionon this:
Monday, April 24, 2000, in the Mound city Council Chambers at
7:30 P.M.
I have also had this information given to POSC and DCAC so that they can also
attend. I think it will be worthwhile for the all Commisssions and the
City Council to see the innovative plan for this channel ........... 1441-1458
D. Letter from Planning Commission Chair regarding P & Z Case//99-77.. 1459-1460
E. Monthly Report from Police Chief, Len Harrell ................ 1461-1462
F. L.M.C.D. mailing ...................................... 1463
G. SRA (Suburban Rate Authority) information .................. 1464-1477
1237
MINUTES - CITY COUNCIL -MARCH 28, 2000
The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session
on Tuesday, March 28, 2000, at 7:30 P.M., in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood
Road, in said City.
Those present were: Mayor Pat Meisel; Councilmembers: Bob Brown and Leah Weycker.
Absent and excused: Councilmembers Andrea Ahrens and Mark Hanus. Also in attendance
were City Attorney John Dean, Acting City Manager Fran Clark, City Planner Loren
Gordon, and Secretary Sue McCulloch. The following interested citizens were also present:
Randy Beyreis, Jane Carlsen, Walter Couden, Blair Lindemyer, Peter Meyer, Mike Pfeiler,
Frank Wetland, Ann I-Iiltsley.
*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 evem the item will be
removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence.
OPEN MEETING - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Meisel opened the meeting at 7:33 P.M. and welcomed the people in attendance.
The pledge of allegiance was recited.
APPROVE AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA
Councilmember Brown pulled Item D and Mayor Meisel pulled Item E.
MOTION by Weycker, seconded by Brown, to approve the agenda and consent
agenda with the removal of Item~ D and E. The roll call vote was unanimously
in favor. Motion carried. 3 -0.
CONSENT AGENDA
*1.0 APPROVE MINUTES OF MARCH 9. 2000. SPECIAL MEETING.
MOTION.
Weycker, Brown, unanimously.
*1.1 APPROVE MINUTES OF MARCH 14. 2000. REGULAR MEETING.
MOTION.
Weycker, Brown, unanimously.
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 28, 2000
'1.2
CASE # 00-08: VARIANCE; TO INSTALL TWO ADDITIONAL RECEIVE
DISHES AT 2381 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, BLOCK 3, LOTS 24-27,
SHIRLEY HILLS, UNIT F; PID #13-117-24 34 0071.
RESOLUTION//00-36:
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE
RECOGNIZING FOUR EXISTING
NONCONFORMING RECEIVING DISH
ANTENNAS, ONE 40 FEET TOWER TO
ALLOW THE INSTALLATION OF TWO
ADDITIONAL CONFORMING DISH
ANTENNAS AT 2381 WHILSHIRE
BOULEVARD, LOTS 24-27, BLOCK 3,
SHIRLEY HILLS, UNIT F, PID #13-117-24 34
0071, P&Z CASE//00-08.
Weycker, Brown, unanimously.
'1.3
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND ACTING CITY
MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A LEASE AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN
COUNTY FOR THE NEW VOTING EQUIPMENT.
RESOLUTION//00-37:
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR
AND ACTING CITY MANAGER TO ENTER
INTO A LEASE AGREEMENT WITH
HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR THE NEW
VOTING EQUIPMENT.
Weycker, Brown, unanimously.
'1.4 PAYMENT OF BILLS.
MOTION.
Weycker, Brown, unanimously.
1.5
CASE//00-09: MINOR SUBDIVISION; TO CREATE TWO PARCELS FROM
ONE EXISTING PARCEL; 5200 WATERBURY ROAD, BLOCK 18, LOTS 13-
16, WHIPPLE; PID# 25-117-24 21 0149.
Councilmember Brown wanted it clarified by staff and the applicant that items listed on page
1074, specifically e. and f., would be agreeable to both staff and the applicant and would
make the lots conforming. The City Planner agreed with Councilmember Brown, as well as
the applicant who was present tonight.
2
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 28. 2000
MOTION by Brown, seconded by Weycker, to approve the resolution for the minor
subdivision as discussed above.
RESOLUTION//00-38:
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A MINOR
SUBDIVISION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED
AT 5200 WATERBURY ROAD, LOTS 13, 14,
15, AND 16, BLOCK 18, WHIPPLE, PID# 25-
117-24 21 0149, P&Z CASE//00-09.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carded. 3-0.
0.6
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT TO ALLOW
TRIMMING, BRUSH & SUMAC REMOVAL ON DEVON COMMONS
ADJACENT TO 4625 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, LOT 10, BLOCK 1, DEVON -
DOCK SITE #41319.
Mayor Meisel informed the public and the Councilmembers that the above resolution would
need a four-member vote. Mayor Meisel stated this resolution would need to be tabled until
April 11, 2000, at which time all Councilmembers would be present.
COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT ABOUT SUBJECTS
NOT ON THE AGENDA. (PLEASE LIMIT TO 3 MINUTES PER SUBJECT.)
Ann Hiltsley, Pembroke Park Neighborhood Group. Ms. Hiltsley stated her neighborhood
group has met regarding the docks that are currently being proposed to go in at Pembroke
Park. (Ms. Hiltsley presented a letter dated January 6, 2000, into the minutes for
recording.) She stated the neighborhood is opposed to having the docks at their Park and in
her letter dated January 6, 2000, she recommended five suggestions for the Dock and
Common Commission in lieu of having the docks at the beach. Ms. Hiltsley was not aware
of the March 31, 2000, deadline the City was imposing on the neighborhood. She stated she
did not get an original letter even though she has been listed on the committee concerning
these docks for quite some time.
The Acting City Manager stated the letter was sent to all members listed on the volunteer list
from the May 11, 1999, City Council Meeting. She was not aware Ms. Hiltsley's name
should have been included.
Councilmember Brown stated he was not notified by any of the members of the
neighborhood to meet and discuss this issue. He further stated Mr. Burma and Mr. Meyer
have not ever been notified as well with regard to meeting with the neighborhood.
Councilmember Brown stated he is frustrated because he had not been contacted for any
meeting this fall or all winter about this topic. Councilmember Brown is willing to meet
whenever the neighborhood representatives can.
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 28, 2000
Ms. Hiltsley stated she has been meeting with the appropriate individuals and commissioners
about this matter, but when it was time to present the ideas to the DCAC, she was taken off
of the agenda. She further stated Mr. and Mrs. Straley were not notified that the multiple
docks were going to be put by their house and there was no public hearing regarding this as
well.
Mayor Meisel stated at the May, 1999, meeting there were conclusions that both parties
wanted to come to some workable agreement but nothing was ever achieved. She stated the
commissioners have attempted in good faith to meet with the neighborhood last May, but it
appeared the neighborhood was not willing to negotiate then. Evidently, the neighborhood
would like to negotiate now, which Mayor Meisel appreciates being brought to her attention.
Councilmember Weycker stated she would like to see what plan was talked about in May,
1999, and what had been actually prepared. Furthermore, she would appreciate reviewing
the May 11, 1999, minutes to get some facts that appear to be missing.
There were discussion attempts by Councilmember Brown and Ms. Hiltsley about why the
meetings that were suppose to happen never occurred. It was agreed by Councilmember
Brown, Commissioner Peter Meyer, and Ms. Hiltsley that a meeting of Thursday, March 30,
2000, at 7:30 p.m. would be a time to get together and discuss this issue. Councilmember
Brown suggested the meeting be held at City Hall. Ms. Hiltsley will contact Mr. Burma to
see if he could be in attendance as well.
Mayor Meisel suggested having the items listed 1-5 on the January 6, 2000, letter from Ms.
Hiltsley addressed by Jim Fackler before they meet on March 30, 2000. Councilmember
Brown will be contacting Mr. Fackler about these items before the scheduled meeting.
Peter Meyer, 5748 Sunset Road. Mr. Meyer stated he attended the Planning Commission on
March 27, 2000, and heard the sites being proposed for the post office. He would suggest
Site A be removed as a possible site with the referendum in process regarding the green
space. Mr. Meyer agreed with the sites the Planning Commission favored which were
Willette, Balboa and GTE.
The City Attorney wanted it clarified that no matter which commission favored which site,
ultimately it would be the post office's decision where they would like to be located.
Mayor Meisel agreed with the City Attorney, although each commission can certainly make
recommendations.
Peter Meyer stated he was going to discuss 'the Pembroke dock site, but it had been clearly
done previously by Ms. Hiltsley. He stated it would appear the neighborhood does not want
the multiple docks at their beach. Mr. Meyer agreed with the neighborhood.
Mayor Meisel is hopeful this matter will be concluded on Thursday, March 30, 2000.
4
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 28, 2000
LN1ORMA TION/MISCELLANEOUS.
1. January/February financial report, prepared by Gino Businaro, Finance Director.
2. February monthly report from Police Department.
3. Letter to Water Patrol regarding markers at the Lost Lake Channel.
4. Letter to the Pembroke Park subcommittee regarding the multiple slip dock.
5. LMCD mailings.
6. Minutes of the Annual Suburban Rate Authority (SRA) Meeting.
7. POSC Meeting Minutes of March 9, 2000.
8. DCAC Meeting Minutes of March 16, 2000.
Information from Councilmember Weycker regarding the Westonka Healthy
Community Collaborative.
Councilmember Weycker elaborated on number 9 and stated this is a good resource
document full of good information. Councilmember Weycker did clarify that since the City
of Mound is smaller than some other cities listed, the numbers at times seem inflated.
Mayor Meisel stated the Councilmembers would be hearing from Jill Schultz with regard to
the redevelopment of downtown Mound. Councilmember Weycker and Councilmember
Brown stated they have already spoke to her. Mayor Meisel wanted input for her so it could
be distributed in the upcoming newsletter.
Councilmember Brown stated concerns the Planning Commission had at their meeting on
March 27, 2000. He stated the Planning Commission would appreciate more input from the
City Council regarding the downtown redevelopment. They are being approached by the
public, and they have no answers for the public because they have not been informed
themselves. Furthermore, the Planning Commission would like to know if a purchase
agreement has been signed with Beard.
The City Attorney stated a preliminary purchase agreement has been signed with Beard and
there will be a final purchase agreement coming up at the I-IRA meeting on April 11, 2000.
The City Attorney further stated there would be a report of an agreement coming up
regarding Coast to Coast on April 11, 2000, as well.
Councilmember Brown restated on behalf of the Planning Commission that they would
appreciate not being "missed" when the review process of the plans is presented. Mayor
Meisel completely agreed with Councilmember Brown.
5
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 28. 2000
The City Attorney further stated Mr. Prosser's updates regarding redevelopment should be
passed on to the Planning Commission, the Acting City Manager, and other commissions as
well. When the Acting City Manager receives this document she will forward it on to all of
the commissions.
Mayor Meisel stated the Planning Commission has stated twice that they are not receiving the
City Council meeting minutes in their packets. The Acting City Manager stated the Building
Official should be getting this information into the packets in a timely manner. The Acting
City Manager will discuss this matter with the Building Official.
MOTION by Brown, seconded by Weycker, to adjourn the meeting at 8:10 p.m.
The vote was ,,nanimously in favor. Motion carried. 3-0.
Fran Clark, Acting City Manager
Attest: Mayor Meisel
6
M~rch 22, ?000
RESOLUTION #00-
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR
TRIMMING AND BRUSH AND SUMAC REMOVAL ON DEVON COMMONS
ADJACENT TO 4625 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE
LOT 10, BLOCK 1,DEVON
DOCK SITE # 41319
WHEREAS, the applicant, Mason C. Powers, is seeking approval to
remove small brush and sumac (approximately eight feet wide), in order to allow for
storage of a dock lift; and,
WHEREAS, the subject property is on Devon Commons and abuts the
above address; and,
WHEREAS, City Code Section 320, requires City Council approval by a
four-fifths vote for construction of any kind on any public way, park or commons, or
the alteration of the natural contour of any public way, park, or commons; and,
WHEREAS, staff has reviewed the request and finds it to be consistent
with all applicable sections of the city ordinances; and,
WHEREAS, the Dock and Commons Commission reviewed this request
and unanimously recommend approval of the request with conditions; and,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Mound, Minnesota, as follows:
To approve the application for a Construction on Public Lands Permit as
submitted to remove brush and sumac and allow an electrical outlet with the
following conditions:
The applicant shall coordinate the brush and sumac removal with the
Parks Director and notify the Parks Director when the work is
completed.
The applicant shall remove the remaining stub from the old flag pole and
restore the area as required by the Parks Director (grass seed and mulch
would be acceptable).
March 22, 2000
Dock site 41319 - Po wers
P. 2
Co
The applicant shall work with the Building Official to verify the electrical
outlet is installed to the satisfaction of the State Electrical Inspector.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember
Councilmember
and
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
Mayor
Attest: City Clerk
CITY OF MOUND
DOCK AND COMMONS ADVISORY COMMISSION
MINUTES
MARCH 16, 2000
Present were: Chair Jim Funk, Commissioners Mark Goldberg, Greg Eurich, Gerald Jones,
and Frank Ahrens, and Council Representative Mark Hanus. Also present were Park
Director Jim Fackler, Dock Inspector Tom McCaffrey, and Secretary Kristine Kitzman.
Chair Funk called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
4. PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT
a. Mason C. Powers, 4625 Island View Drive
Park Director Fackler summarized the request for sumac/brush removal that is adjacent
to this stairway, as described in the Staff Report dated March 8, 2000. Staff recommends
approval of the request to remove brush and also the additional items listed in the Staff
Report.
Chair Funk questioned the origin of the additional items.
Fackler stated that the Building Official, Jon Sutherland, added the issues of the electrical
outlet, the remaining pole stub, and the water irrigation pipe.
Motion made by Ahrens, seconded by Goldberg, to approve the request for
public lands permit, and to direct staff to check records to see if the added
items were discussed in the past. Motion carried unanimously.
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
DATE:
MEETING
DATES:
TO:
FROM:
STAFF REPORT
March 8, 2000
March 16. 2000 Dock and Commons Commission (D&C)
April 11, 2000 City Council
Dock and Commons Commission. City Council, and Applicant
Jon Sutherland, Building Official ~~
SUBJECT:
SUMAC/BRUSH REMOVAL APPLICATION
Mason C Powers Current Address: 2230 South Plymouth Road
4625 Island View Drive Apartment #203
Devon Commons Minnetonka Mn 55305
Background/Comments. The applicant is seeking a permit as described in the attached application
and survey in order to remove a swath of sumac and brush that is adjacent to his stairway on the
commons. The request is a result of the need to install and provide for a place for winter storage
for a boat lift. The Parks Direc:or has advised that it is permissible to store the lift on the
commons during the winter as this is classified as non traversable. The trimming would be limited
to an area approximately eight feet wide to the south side of the stair. There have been similar
requests to trim sumac that have been approved on this site in the past.
This request requires us to look at the Shoreland Management Ordinance (SMO), Section
350:1225 Subd. 4. Which states in pan "limited clearing to provide a view is permitted provided
that screening of structures is not substantially reduced" In this case, there are trees on both sides
that provide screening and theretbre the request is not inconsistent with the SMO.
In addition to the request there are the following issues to address:
1) Electrical outlet; staff recommends approval subject to verification of inspection by the
State Electrical Inspector. If the outlet meets the electrical code there is no cost to the applicant.
If corrections are required the applicant could remove the outlet or have it updated by a licensed
electrical contractor. This issue may have been resolved however I have not found the
documentation in the file.
2) Staff recommends the remaining sml~, possibly from an old flag pole, t>e removed by the
applicant.
3) Water Irrigation Pipe; staff recommends approval, a plumber is not required since the
water is for irrigation only.
Recommendation. Staff recommends the D&C recommend approval of the request to remove the
sumac and brush as identified in the application and also the additional items as noted above. The
work shall be coordinated by the Parks Director. The owner shall give the Parks Director 24
hours notice prior to starting the work and provide for erosion control as needed.
The abutting property owners have been notified of this request.
03/02/00 14:42
Rev. 4/97
FAX CITY OF MOUND._
PUBLIC LAND PERMIT .M:'PLICATION
CITY OF MOUND, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN
Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620
DISTRIBUTION:
- 56,-3 BUILDING OFFICIAL
%' '7 PARKS DIRECTOR
DNR
MCWD
· O.,v ] .,PUBLIC WORKS
[~003
55364
DAV CErVED
DOCK MEETING DAVE *
CI~ COUNCIL DATE x,
(check one):
CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LAND PERMIT - new construction. NOTE: NO PERMIT SHALL
BE ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF BOAT HOUSES OR OTHER BUILDINGS ON PUBLIC LAND (City Code
Section 320, Subd. 1).
PUBLIC LAND MA.ENTF~NANCE PERMIT - to allow repairs to an ex~rmg structure (City Code Sec:ion
320, Subd. 3).
CONTINUATION OF STRUCTURE - to ano,~ ~ existing encroachment to remain in an "as is" condition
(Cky Code Section 320, Subd, 3).
- ch:rage ha shoreline, ~ainage, slope, trees, vegeudon,
L.~ND
ALTE1La, TION
fill,
~tC.
(City
Code
Section
320,
Subd. 4).
The structure or work you are requesting is an activity on publicly owned lands. Structures like boat houses, patios, sheds, etc.
are all NONCON'FOR:MING USES. It is the intent of the City. to bring ail these uses into ¢onfomance which means that those
structures will at some time in the future have to be removed from the public lands. All permits are ~ranted for a limited time and
are non-transferable. Stairway con.~-uction must meet the State Building Code when the permit is for new construction, or a new
permit is applied for due to change in dock site holder.
Appl icanU Name f~ A~ o I,,,l
Address ~ [~ Z ~'--
Phone
AbutUin9 Address ~~-
Property Owner
Le~a! Lot
Description Subd.
Public Name
Property Dock Site
Contractor Name
Address
Phone
Block
Shoreline Type
VALUATION/PROPOSED COST OF PROJECT (rNCLUDING LABOR & MATERIALS):
DESCRIBE REQUEST & PLrRPOSE:
Sign~nt
~ [D~°
Date
135
May 25, 1993
RESOLUTION %93-64
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A
LA/TD ALTERATIONS PERMIT ~ A CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LANDS PEP. MIT
TO ALLOW THE TRIMMIN~ OF SUMAC AND REPLACEMENT OF A STAIRWAY
ON DEVON COMMONS, ABUTTING
4625 ISLAA'D VIEW DRIVE, LOT 10, BLOCK 1, DEVON
ABUTTING DEVON COMMONS, DOCK SITE %41319
WHEREAS, Charles and Mary Faith have applied for a Land
Alteration Permit to allow trimming of Sumac on Devon Commons
abutting their property, and;
WHEREAS, staff discussed with the applicant, after the
initial application was received, that the stairway needed to be
repaired and/or replaced and must meet Building Code requirements,
and;
WHEREAS, City Code Section 320, requires City Council
approval by a four-fifths vote for construction of any kind on any
public way, park or commons, or the alteration of the natural
contour of any public way, park, or commons, and;
WHEREAS, the applicant's reason for trimming the sumac
is to enhance the view of the lake, and;
WHEREAS, the City's Shoreland Management Ordinance
allows limited clearing and trimming of vegetation on steep slopes
to provide a view to the water from the principal dwelling site
provided that screening of structures is not substantially reduced.
WHEREAS, trees can be trimmed in a manner appropriate
for removal of branches to benefit the trees. Healthy trees and
plants with healthy root systems must remain intact to prevent
erosion of the steep slope, and;
WHEREAS, staff must conduct an on-site evaluation with
the applicant or a licensed tree trimmer hired by the applicant.
All trimming must be removed from the site and cost of removal and
trimming is the applicant's responsibility, and;
WHEREAS, the existing stairway is in poor condition and
the permit is expired. Miscellaneous electrical work and water
supply piping from the house is evident on Devon Commons and no
permit is on record for this work. A portion of a fence is on
Devon Commons, shared with 4617 Island View Drive, and there is no
permit. The owner states the fence belongs to the neighbor.
WHEREAS, the Park and Open Space Commission reviewed this
request and unanimously recommended approval, with conditions.
135
136
May 25, 1993
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of
the city of Mound, Minnesota, as follows:
To approve a Land Alteration Permit to allow the trimming of
Sumac and a Construction on Public Lands Permit to replace the
existing stairway, on Devon Common abutting 4625 Island View
Drive, upon the following conditions:
ae
Only one occasion permitted for trimming and minor
clearing of trees and sumac, as directed by staff. Staff
must conduct an on-site evaluation with the applicant or
a licensed tree trimmer hired by the applicant. All
trimming must be removed from the site and cost of
removal and trimming is the applicant's responsibility.
Be
The existing stairway must be replaced to code in the
same location. A plan must be submitted and approved by
staff prior to any construction.
Ce
Ail electrical work on public property is required by
State law to be installed by a qualified licensed
electrical contractor and inspected and approved by the
State Electrical Inspector. The city Council must first
approve of the proposed installation. A scaled site plan
must be submitted showing in detail the location of all
electrical services on Devon Commons. All power supply
to the commons from 4625 Island View Drive must be
disconnected by a qualified electrical contractor until
such work is approved by the city Council. The applicant
must verify disconnection with City staff.
D. The fence must be removed.
The water supply piping may remain upon the condition
that the installation be approved by the City Plumbing
Inspector. The applicant must verify with City staff.
The applicant shall be responsible for the plumbing
permit and any inspection fees that result.
If compliance to these conditions has not been achieved
within one (1) year of date of approval of the permit,
the applicant's dock license 'will not be issued until
compliance has been achieved.
Ge
The Permit must be renewed with change in ownership of
the residence at 4625 Island View Drive, or with change
in dock license holder.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Smith
and seconded by Councilmember Ahrens.
136
] 37
May 25, 1993
The following voted in the affirmative:
Ahrens, Jensen, Jessen, Johnson and Smith.
The following voted in the negative:
none. ~/ ~~~
Attest: City Clerk
137
03/02/00 13:47 FAX CITY OF )IOL~D ~002
CASE
Plat of' Surve7
:"£or Lew ~..
[,ct 10, l~l~ck ].,. Devon .' .
He~epin County, ~,otA ..
8~-232
Scale: ~," = 30'
'o - -m Iron 'marker '
Gordon R. CoFfin Reg.
zl(,;z5
Z
TUXEDO BLVD. . --
HANOVER ROAD
7/ /~ N .5 '--
6 -. o
PUTMAN ROAD /4. "-
~,¢"" %/,~...~ --7 /" '-. IO'''''//..~" ,. ~.%oo
Officer Ewald received a letter from Sgt. McKinley which came from Metro Transit
located at 560 6th Ave. N., Minneapolis. The letter requested a street light to be
installed at the bus stop layover located at 5500 Lynwood Blvd. Metro Transit has
requested a 250 watt street light on a short arm to be installed on the power pole
located in that area. Metro Transit also stated that they would accept a security light
that was preferred by the City of Mound. The reason for the street light was because
drivers were concerned for their safety while holding over and also for the passengers
who change buses at that location.
Officer Ewald checked the area and believed a light is needed as there are two existing
street lights in the area but do not benefit the buses. The existing street lights are
located at the southeast corner of Commerce Blvd. at Lynwood Blvd. and the second
located on the northwest corner of Lynwood Blvd. at Belmont Lane. There are twa
existing power poles within 100 feet of each other that a light could be mounted on. I
would recommend that a street light on a short arm be installed on the existing power
pole located on the northeast corner of Lynwood Blvd. at the alley entrance to the rear
of Thrifty White Drug which is located on the east side of the building.
, /
MetroTransit
March 27, 2000
City of Mound
Greg Skinner
5341 Maywood Rd.
Mound, MN 55364
Dear Mr. Skinner:
Metro Transit is requesting a light be installed at the bus stop/layover on Lynwood Blvd.
between Belmont Lane and Commerce Blvd. It should be mounted on the same wooden pole as
the bus stop sign. Metro Transit commonly requests a 250W Night Watch on a short arm but if
the City of Mound has a certain type of security light they would prefer to use, that would be
acceptable also.
I received this request for additional lighting from Ed Smith, District Supervisor. He said a
number of bus drivers have voiced concern for their safety when they layover at this location.
Safety is Metro Transit's number one concern for our passengers and drivers. I look forward to
working with you to install a security light at this location,
If you have any questions, please give me a call at 612-349-7696 or email me at
evan.steiner(~ metc.state.mn.us.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Evan Steiner,
Project Manager, Public Facilities
Cc:
Ed Smith, District Supervisor
Dick Loeffler, Manager of Street Operations
Arlene McCarthy, Manager Engineering Unit
560 Sixth Avenue North
http://www, metrotransit.orcj
A service of the Metropolitan Council
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55411~4398 (612) 34%7400
Transit Info 373-3333 TTY 341-0140
An Equal Opportunity Employer
ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS
CITY OF MOUND
2000 SEAL COAT PROGRAM
Sealed proposals will be received by the City Clerk until 11:00 A.M. Wednesday, May 3, 2000 at
the City Offices, at which time they will be publicly opened and read aloud, for the furnishing of all labor,
equipment and materials for the application of approximately 20,000 gallons of bituminous material (CRS-
2) and 1,000 tons of seal coat aggregate (FA2 o Class C).
The bids will be considered by the City Council at their meeting on Tuesday, May 9, 2000.
All proposals shall be addressed to:
City Clerk
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, Minnesota 55364
and shall be securely sealed and shall be endorsed on the outside with the statement "PROPOSAL FOR
2000 SEAL COAT PROGRAM" and shall be on the Bid Form included in the specifications for the
project.
Copies of the plans and specifications and other proposed contract documents are on file with the
City Clerk and at the office of McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc., 15050 23rd Avenue North,
Plymouth, Minnesota 55447. Plans and specifications for use in preparing bids may be obtained at the
offices of the Engineer upon payment of $20.00 per set (includes MN sales tax), which is NON-
REFUNDABLE.
Each bidder shall file with his bid a cashier's check, certified check, or bid bond in an amount of not
less than five (5) percent of the total amount of the bid. No bid may be withdrawn within sixty (60) days
after the bids are opened.
The City reserves the right to reject any and all bids and .waive any informalities or irregularities
therein.
City of mOUND, Minnesota
Pat Meisel, Ma)kor
ATTEST: Fran Clark, City Clerk
PAYMENT BILLS
DATE: APRIL 11, 2OOO
BILLS ACCOUNTS PAYABLE
BATCH #
#oo32
#0033
AMOUNT
$112,268.16
$111,736.00
TOTAL BILLS $224,004.16
PAGE 1
AP-C02-O1
~_ENDOR
NO. INVOICE NH~R DATE
A0 201_ 2Q262
AL'S MAC, IFR RLUM~iNG__ VFNDQP,___T,]ZLIAL
A0300 2001749-IN
..... A/J_l/Off 4Zll/O~
AMENICAN TEST CENTER VENDOR TOTAL
A0363 096462
!~__A_P_F EMERGENCY_~EB~&iR VFNDOR TOTAl
A0432 000318
AT & T VENDOR TOTAL
PURCHASE JOURNAL
CITY OF MOUND
__ D UE_J:LO/D
DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
245 . O0___._.EMPLOYF_E.. LOUNGE- SLNK
245.00 JRNL-CD
...... 245.00~
400.00 BUCKET TRUCK TEST/INSPECTION
400.00
78.00
78.00
345.00
VEHICLE INSPECTIONS
VEHICLE INSPECTIONS
VFHICLE INSPEC?IONS
JRNL-CD
6.90
__ 6 ,~0__ JRNL-C D__
6.90
THRU 03-18-00 PHONE SERVICE
B0549 18575300 719.95 LI@UOR
4/i1/00 4/ii/O0 719.95 JRNL-CD
_ i$614900 964.94 LIQUOR
4/ll/O0 4/I1/00 964.94 JRNL-CD
6ELLDOY CORPORATION VENDOR TOTAL 1684.89
C09~ ~i~21.~ ...................... 203.~8_.MI~ .....
4/i1/00 4/II/O0 203.48 JRNL-CO
COCA COLA bOTTLj~__G-MI~_WEST VF_J~LD~R TOTAL
Cl106 129454
4/11/00 ~/11/00
CORPORATE EXPRESS DELIVERY VENDOR TOTAL
Dl154 63739
4/11/00 4/11/00
64133
4/ll/O0 4/I1/O0
DAHLHEIMER DISTRIBUTING CO VENDOR TOTAL
~i_~D_i__19~O 300 7240--
4/11/00 4/11/00
DAVIES WATER EQUIPMENT VENDOR TOTAL
D1200 90706
4/11/00 4/11/00
16.12 03-03-00 DELIVERY CHARGE
___16~12
i6.12
240.00 BEER
240.00 JRNL-CD
i08.00 BEER
iO~.O0 JRNL-CD
348.00
lzQ62~ METERS AND COUPLINGS
1,062.44 JRNL-CD
i062.44
1,224.I5 BEER
1,224.15 .IRN[-CO
ACCOUNT NUMdF
01-4280-4200
10~
01-4280-4200
73-7300-4200
78-7800-42O0
01-4140-3220
10]
71-7100-9~10
10~
71-7100-951o
71-Z].00~_~540
01-4110-3100
10]
71-7100-95~0
103
71-7100-9530
103
7~-7~00-?~00
lOl
71-7100-9530
301
PAGE 2
AP-CO2-OZ
2~ ENDIJR .............. lJ~LV._0i £ F
NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE
91~6z~ .........
}_DAY DISTR I~LUT ING
L D1300 032503
'- DIXCO ENGRAVING
" E1420 605086
606671
=
606670
P U R C H A SE
CITY OF MOUND
DUE__ _HDLD ........................
DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
90 Z~Q 7_ 69Z. 20__ .BEER
4/11/00 4/11/00 691.20 JRNL-CD
9J. 365 ............................... 52.55__ ~ I.SCEL LANExDu5
4/11/00 4/11/00 52.55 JRNL-CD
....... Z,_377..i0 .... BEER
4/11/00 4/11/00 1,377.10 JRNL-CD
COMPANY ___VJS, NDOR TOTAL ..... ~3~_5_.gL ......
5.81
4/11/0_0 4/11/00 .........
COUNCIL MEETING
JRNL<D
VENDOR TOTAL 5.81
66.00 BEER
4/11/00 4/ll/O0 6~.00 JRNL-CO
45.25 MISCELLANEOUS
4/i1/00 4/i1/00 45.25 JRNL-CD
2,981.65 BEER
4/i1/O0 4/i1/O0 2,981.65 JRNL-CD
4/ii/00 A/ii/00 75.20 JRNL-CD
60~ .... 46.00 BEER KEGS
4/11/00 4/ll/O0 46.00 JRNL-CD
4/11/00 4/11/00 497.50 JRNL-CD
4/i1/00 4/i1/O0 1,189.20 JRNL-CD
6092-~3 24.30 MISCELLANEOUS
4/11/00 4/11/00 24.30 JRNL-CD
EAST SIDE ~EVERAGE VENDOR TOTAL -'4925.i0--
E1450 000322 _ ~,~_5_O_._O_O S~M SFWFR
.., 4/11/00 4/li/O0 3,?50.00 JRNL-CD
EHLERS & ASSOCIATES INC VENDOR TOTAL _~750.00
E1485 5344/32300 9'9.63 BELTS AND
4/11/00 4 / ~.~LLO_O ..........
J ' E~UIPMENT SUPPLY INC VENDOR TOTAL 99.63
/~-~1502 00-267 169.10
4/11/00 4/11/00 i69.10
EVERGREEN LAND SERVICES CO VENDOR TOTAL 169.10
JOURNAL
RATF STUDY
NAME PLATE
FILTERS FOR STOCK
CONSULTING SERVICES
JRNL-CD
ACCOUNT NUMBE:
7~-7~00-9530
101
7-1~-Z~LOO-Q.530
101
?1-7100-g530
101
01-4020-2200
101
71-7100-9530
i0!
71-7100-9550
101
71-7100-9530
101
71-7100-
71-7100-9530
10~
71-7100-9530
10~
7i-?100-9530
71-7100-9550
101
01-4280-~;~ O0
01-4320-3830
55-5880-31~0
10]
PAGE 3
AP-CO~-01
PURCHASE JOURNAL
CITY OF MOUND
¥£ ND_OR_ I NVO I CE
NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE
DUE __~tgk[l ..........
DATE STATUS AHOUNT- ~IPT ION
ACCOUNT NUMS[
4111/00 4/11/00
VENDOR TOTAL
E1515 523
E-Z RECYCLING INC
[Z725__5__~2106 .......
4/11/00 4/11/00
:iF~EDRI.CNSON AND BYRON, P.A VFNDO_LIOTL~L
6,679.35 03-00 CURBSIDE RECYLING
6,679.$5 JRNL-CD
6679.35
...... 244.00_. 02~O.O_RROFE$~[ONAL--SERV!CES
G1750 307949
307950
317248
3i~59i
4/11/00
4111/00
4/11/00
4/11/00
244.00 JRNL-CD
18.93 MATS
____lB.93__HATS
18.92 MATS
24.58 UNIFORMS
......... 24.58 URIEORMq
24.59 UNIFORMS
4/Ii/O0 i30.53 JRNL-CD
35.09 MATS
4/11/00 35.09 JRNL-CD
4/11/00 22.68 JRNL-CD
10.16 HATS
i0.16 MATS
25.70 UNIFORMS
23.70 UNIFORMS
............. 23.69_ _UNLEORMS
4/11/00 101.5~ JRNL-CD
70-4270-4200
lO]
55-5880-~3100
01-4280-2250
7~-7301~2250
78-7800-2250
01-4280-2240
73-73~0~-2240
78-7800-2240
01-4340-2330
71-7100-4210
10~
01-4280-225~
73-7300-2250
78-780~-_2250
01-4280-2240
73-7300-2240
7g-7~Q0-2240
G & K SERVICES
v E N_D.p~. _'LO_T A_L ...... Z 89. ag
G1770 639691
!__ 4/11/00 4/11/~
639692
4/11/00 4/~1/00
= 6AME TIME VENDOR TOIAL
2~-G180O 47416
4/11/00 4/11/00
· GARY'S DIESEL SERVICE VENDOR TOTAL
=' GI890 330088150
:~ GLENWO00 INGLEWO00 VEND_OR TOTAL
)~ 61972 192987
577.14 BENCHES (2) 01-2300-0000
646.45 BASKETBALL GOAL AND BACKBOARD 01-4340-5000
~.~ JRNL-CD IO]
i223.59
1,124.64 #27 REPLACE COIL SPRINGS ETC 01-4280-38f0
1,124.64 JRNL-CD iO]
1124.64
44.90 03-00 WATER COOLER 01-4320-2200
44.90 JRNL-CD 10]
4~.90
958.50 LIQUOR 71-7100-9510
9~J~L._50 JRNL-CD 10]
HAbL 4
AP-¢02-OI
NO. INVOICE NMBR
__ 195917._
INVOIC~ ..... DUE__ ~OLD
DATE DATE STATUS
4/11/00 4/11/00
4/11/00 4/11/00
PURCHASE JOURNAL
CITY OF MOUND
AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
1,382.1~ LI@UOR
1,387.18 JRNL-CD
Z86.TA ._',,LINE .....
286.74 JRNL-CD
.... 195913
_.G_RIGGS COOPER & COMPANY
G1978 000 319-A
000 319-B
OOO 319-C
4/il/00 4/11/00 1,438.82
VENDOR TOT_AL__ _ .407i.2A_
H2140 000313
H215i 991022
...... 1.,43S.82--_LLQUOR-
738.07
.65
I .i6
....... 2.29
i6.82
.42
JRNL-CD
THRU 03-19-00 TELEPHONE SERVIC
THRII ~-lq-QN LJlNR DIC`TANCE
THRU 03-19-00 LONG DISTANCE
THRU 03-19-00 LONG DISTANCE
THRU 03-19-00 lONG DIqTANCE
THRU 03-19-00 LONG DISTANCE
THRU 03-19-00 LONG D1STANCE
4/11/~0 4~11/00 .......... 7~..87 _JRNL-CD
303.96
....... 5Aa._51
413.95
4/11/00 4/11/00 1,084.42
674.44
21.30
THRU 03-19-00 TELEPHONE SERVIC
THRU ~3-19-00 TFLFPHQNE_.$FRVIC
THRU 03-19-00 TELEPHONE SERVIC
JRNL-CD
THRU 03-I9-00 REGULATED SERVIC
THRU 03-I9-00 NON-REGULATED SE
.................... 6~28 _T~:[~U~03-19-O0 LONG__DLST~NCE
4/11/00 4/11/00 764.02 JRNL-CD
_ __ V_E hJ D_OJ]_ .T_O I.A L _
260.8.3~ .......
4/1LLOg__fi/~i/QO ......
HENN CO SHERIFFS DEPT VENDOR TOTAL
4/11/00
HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER
H2160 002641
HENN CO TREASURER
H2283 6020231
2130606
HOME DEPOT/GECF
441.54 01-00 SERVICE
~_41.5_4___J~ N L - C D
441.54
97.14
27.61
4/11/00 .... 12~.75
VENDOR TOTAL 124.75
352.25
4/11/00 4/i1/00 352.25
VENDOR TOTAL 352.25
.... 216.43
4/11/00 4/11/00 216.43
222.59
4/11/00 4/11/00 222.59
2000 PROPERTY TAX BOOKS
2000 MICROFISHE
JRNL-ED
02-00 ROOM AND BOARD
JRNL-CD
MISCFLI ANFOUS RFPAIR SUPPl IFc,
JRNL-CD
14.4 DRILL
JRNL-CD
VENDOR TOTAL 439.02
ACCOUNT NUMBF
101
-- - - ZI --7.100~-95 20
10]
7J.--7100-q510
lOl
01-4320-3200
01-4~90-3~20
01-4095-3220
01-4040-3220
~1-&19~-~220
01-4340-3220
73-7300-3220
101
01-4280-3220
7~-7:00-~220
78-7800-3220
101
01-4140- ';
01-4140- J
~1-4140-327U
101
01-4110-4250
01-4070-3500
01-4070-3500
101
01-4110-4250
Ol-4~40-2~0
10~
7~-7~00-2~00
101
PAGE 5
AP-C02-O1
v END u
NO. IHVOICE N~,5R
i 230~36.D79S 2
PURCHASE JOURNAL
CITY OF MOUND
]]>I~OZC.E___~UF_ _ idOLD ..................
DATE DATE STATUS AKOUNT DESCRIPTION
4111/00 4111/00
97.67 POLICE COPIER
101.57 JRNL-CD
IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS VENDOR TOTAL 101.57
_L~l~ 0031~17 .................
000325
INFRATECH
~ I2400 4757
"_ 4884
4914
4928
4929
4798
4902
ISLAND PARK SKELLY
J2425 95~447
J.P. COOKE COMPANY
J2579 1084774
i094622
4/11/00 4/i1/00
- BLUF~-MARKING~INT--ONF_~-CASE
34.~0 GREEN MARKING PAINT ONE CASE
69.20 JRNL-CD
58.84 BLUE/~HITE MARKING FLAGS
29.42 GREEN MARKING FLAGS
BATTERY (2)
JRNL-CD
REPAIR VID LEFT FRONT
JRNL-CD
1094621
1097115
4/11/~0 4/11/00-- .......... 88.26---JRNL-CD
VENDOR TOTAL 157.46
I51.02
4/11/00 4/ll/O0 i51.02
48.00
4/11/00 4/11/00 48.00
62.30
4/I1/00 4/i1/00 62.30
4/11/00 4/11/00
.... YJF.,~DOR ]OTAL
4/11/00 4/11/00
118.93
4/11/00 4/11/00 118.93
120.77
4/ii/O0 4/ii/O0 120.77
27.00
4/ii/O0 4/II/UO 2~.00
i24.02
4/ii/00 4/Ii/O0 i24.02
VENDOR TOTAL 652.04
62.07
62.07
62.07
2,480.00
2,480.00
1,377.75
4/~_!/00 4/11/00 ....
R&R FRONT LEFT BRAKE LINE
JRNL-CD
R&R PAN GASKET &/OR
JRNL-CD
R&R FILTER, OIL
JRNL-CD
REFINISH ROTORS
JRNL-CO
REPAIR CHARGING SYSTEM
JRNL-CD
2000-2flfl2
JRNL-CD
WINE
JRNL-CD
WINE
4/11/00 4/11/00
1~,_ 3Y_7_.ZS_ _ JRNL~CD
912.66 LI@UOR
91Z~66 JRNL-CD
344.65 WINE
344.65 JRNL-ED
FILTER
DQG_L!CFN~E TAGS
ACCOUNT NUMBER
.... OJ,----/~3 ? 0 -~0
01-4140-2140
1010
~-7-.500-2200
78-7800-2200
1010
?3-7300-2200
78-7800-2200
I01{~
01-4280-2310
lOlO
01-4340-3810
lO1c
01-4340-3810
101~
01-4340-3810
lol,
01-4340-3810
101~
01-4280-2310
101,
01-4280-2310
101.
0~-4090-2~20
101
71-7100-9520
101
71-7100-9520
101
71-7100-9510
101
71-7100-9520
10]
JUBILEE FOODS
J6579 000321
PAGE 6 P U N C H A S E J U U R N A L
AP-C02-01 CITY OF HOUND
__VENDOR I N_Vgi]~E ..... D U E___HDLD_
NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
_ J 0 bL~LS~O~IHERS_ Li~U Ok .... V E N D O R _ _T_O I A L ....... 511-5 ..0.6- ...............
J2610 000320 53.23 COUNCIL MEETING SUPPLIES
........ 4.1_kl_Z D 0_. 4/11/00 .......... 53.23 JRNL- CD .........
VENDOR TOTAL 53.23
32.50 MILEAGE/EXPENSE EMT TRAINING
4/ii/O0 4/I1/O0 32.50 JRNL-CD
000406 38.06
__ 4/11/00 4/11/00 38.06
!' JAMI BURKE VENDOR TOTAL 70.56
· 4/11/00 4/11/00 264.27
: 107 05
:- LARSON PR INTI N__(~_& GRAP~CS V~EJ~LD_OJ~_~OTAL 430.19
~ L2840 000322 20.00
000330
MILEAGE/EXPENSE EMT TRAINING
JRNL-CD
GF~L- RE~I I T FORMS
JRNL-CD
INSPECI_IDN NOTICES
JRNL-CD
05-02-00 WORKSHOP
LEAGUE OF MN CITIES
L2850 110294§4
LEAGUE OF MN CITIES
M3016 7285
107-158
7329
7351
20.0~_ JRNL~CQ ..............
32.15 2000 DIRECTORY CITY OFFICIALS
C_LI~_OE~_iC_LALS
ACCOUNT
NUMBE
01-4020-4120
101
01-4140-4110
101
01-4140-4110
101
01-4190-2120
101
VENDOR TOTAL
4111/00 4111/00
INS T* VENDO~ TOTAL
4/11/00 4/11/00
4/11/00 4/11/00
4/11/00 4/11/00
4/11/00 4/11/00
4/11/00 4/11/00
32.I5 2000 DIRECTORY CITY OFFICIALS
64.30 2000 DIRECTORY CITY OFFICIALS
~2.~__20~0 ~IRECJT_D~Y__CJ-TL~_~E£1CIAIS
32.15 2000 DIRECTORY CITY OFFICIALS
32.i4 2000 DIRECTORY CITY OFFICIALS
25Z_.lg_~P~NL-CD
277.19
1,000.00 OLSON,CURTIS SEWER CLAIM
1,000.00 JRNL-CD
1000.00
88.20 03-16-__([0 DELIVERY CHARGE
88.20 JRNL-CD
110.60 03-20-00 DFLIVFRY CHARGF
110.60 JRNL-CD
84.70 03-23-00_DEI iVERY CHARGE
84.70 JRNL-CD
6.30 03-27-00 DELIVFRY CHARGF
6.30 JRNL-CD
R9.60 0~-30-00 DFI IVFRY CHARGF
89.60 JRNL-CD
01-4090-4110
101
01-4190- J
01-4340-2200
01-4040-2200
01-42~0-22D_0
22-4170-2200
71-7100-2200
~01
78-7800-3610
101
71-7100-9600
10]
71-7100-9600
101
71-7100-9600
101
71-7100-9A00
101
71 -7100-9600
101'
,~AGE ?
AP-C02-OI
PURCHASE JOURNAL
CITY OF MOUND
'¢ [ND OR 1 I~.V.O iCE__ _DUF __HOLD_
NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS
AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
MARLIN'S TRUCKING
M~030 127185
VENDOR TOTAL
4/11/00 4/11/00
379.40
?__,_Zb_O~a BEER .....
2,760.40 JRNL-CD
123_688
4/11/00 4/11/00
2 , 9_I_~OA__B E ER__
2,914.00 JRNL-CD
MARK VlI DISTRIBUTOR ]ZE~IDOR TOTAl
M3040 8754
4/13.LO0 4/11/00
5674.4])_ .......
5,112.00 APRIL-DEC 2000 MAINTENANCE
5,112.00 JRNI -CO
MASYS £ORPORATION VENDOR TOTAL
M3170 000229
4/11/00 4/11/00
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ENVI* VENDOR TOTAL
M3173 000328
4/li/O0 4/i1/O0
5112.00
3,267.00 02-00 SAC CHARGES
3,267.00 JRNL-CD
3267.00
95.97 MIJ_EAGF/FXPENSE FMT CLASS
95.93 JRNL-CD
,EL_dRUCENER
H3249 000329
........... VENDDR T (II_AL
41Lil O_L_~_Zll lO0
95..93____
450.00
450.00
ISLANDVIEW DRIVE REMOVE TREE
JRNL-CD
MINNETON~A PORTABLE DREDGI VENDOR TOTAL
M3500 000430
4/ll/O0 4/11/00
MOUND FIRE RELIEF ASSN VENDOR TOTAL
H3541 2000326
4/ii/O0 4/i1/O0
MPLS DEPT OF HEALTH & SUP* VENDOR TOTAL
450.00
8,484.17
8,484.I7
8484.17
6A.AO
68.80
68.80
; N3737 000318
70.00
70.00
23.66
23.66
23.65
46.I6
46.16
46.16
46.16
46.16
46.16
46.16
46.16
15.38
i5.38
FIRE RELIEF APRIL 2000
JRNL-CD
03-00 I AB ANAl Ye, it, C, URSTAN('FC,
JRNL-CD
THRU 03-18-00 6812 FACKLER
THRU O~-IR-OO 6Rl~ MCCAFFFRTY
THRU 03-18-00 6811 SKINNER
THRU 03-18-00 6811 SKINNER
THRU 0~-1~-00 6811 ~KTNNFR
THRU 03-18-00 6814 HEITZ, D
THRU 03-18-00 6815 JOHNSON
THRU 03-18-00 6816 HFNKF
THRU 03-18-00 6817 SHANLEY
THRU 03-18-00 6818 HARDINA D
THRU 03-18-00 6819 KIVISTO S
THRU 03-18-00 6820 GRADY D.
THRU 03-18-00 6821 HEITZ F.
THRU 03-18-00 6822 NFL5ON, J.
THRU 03-i8-00 6822 NELSON, J.
ACCOUNT NUMBER
101o
7[-7100-9530
lOlb
01-4140-3800
101~
78-2304-0000
101~
01-4140-4110
101~
81-4350-5110
101
95-9500-1400
101=
01-~14Q-~1~0
lOlb
01-4340-3220
01-4280-3950
73-7300-3950
7R-7RO~-%Q~O
01-4280-3950
01-4280-3950
73-7300-3950
78-7800-3950
79-7R00-~950
01-4280-3950
01-4280-3950
01-42~0-~950
73-7300-3950
PAbE 8
AP-C02-01
PURCHASE JOURNAL
CITY OF MOUND
END_OR 1 N~LO I C F
NO. INVOICE NM6R DATE
.D Uf__]OLD .................
DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
4111/00 4111/00
15.-3L-IMRJJ--O-3--15~'-OD--6/122- NELS~ON, J.
626.39 JRNL-CD
_NEXIEH__C0~MMUMiCAI.1ONS._.ZN£ VENDDR__IOJ~L
P3956 000314
~/11L0_0 4Z.11/00
626.39
179.92 03-14-00
IZ~.92--JRNL=£D
THRU 06-13-00 PAGERS
PAGENET OF MINNESOTA VENDOR TOTAL
P4000 43119565
4/11/00 4/11/00
179.92
126.24 MIX
126.24 JRNL-CD
PEPSI-COLA COMPANY
VENDOR TOTAL
126.24
_ P4071 591 ]4A
4/11/00 4/11/00
73.50 MIX -
73.50 JRNL-CD
59~171
__PHILLIPS WINF ~_3[RITS, * VFNDDR TOTAL
P4038 28785
.......... ~/11/00
29033
PINNACLE DISTRIBUTING
Q4171 81f246-00
1,_5A~.15 WINE --
1,543.i5 JRNL-CD
--~-616.65
579.99 CIGARETTES
4./1 ~k/~l O 5 Z9 . 9_9___~RN ~C D ........
471 1 LO_Q___
691.47 CIGARETTE5
691.41___ J~L_r_CD ....
VENDOR TOTAL 1271.46
614.98
WINE
817447-00
817446-00
819889-00
819891-00
819893-00
: WUALITY WINE &
= R4199 000323
~_R.C. ELECTRIC,
4/11/00 4/11/00 614.98 JRNL-CD
2,9S2.18 LIQUOR
4/11/00 4/11/00 2,952.18 JRNL-CD
103.33 MIX
4/iI/O0 4/i1/O0 i03.33 JRNL-CD
360.36 WINE
4/11/00 4/11/00 360.36 JRNL-CD
432.i4 WINE
4/i1/00 4/ii/O0 432.i4 JRNL-CD
2,853.28 LIQUOR
4/11/00 4/i1/00 2,853.28 JRNL-CD
SPIRITS VENDOR TOTAL 7316.27
10~.85 F/I BALLAST
4/11/00 4/11/00 106.85 JRNL-CD
INC. VENDOR TOTAL 106.85
ACCOUNT NUMBEh
101o
01-4140-3220
__$010
71-7100-9540
1016
7~-7100-9540
1010
71-7100-9520
10]~
71-7100-9550
101~
71-7100- 3
--i015
71-7100-9520
iOi~
71-7100-9510
lOlu
71-7100-9540
1010
71-7100-9520
iOiC
71-7100-9520
10],~
71-7100-9510
lOlc
0~--4~20--3~L0
101~
PAGE 9
AP-C0~-01
PURCHASE JOURNAL
CITY OF HOUND
~ END_O~ ......... i_N_VOiCE .... D U£___i'LO L D
NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
R42~J_9__ 1403 ............................ 106.52- 03 - 00~_ TRASH_~% E R-V-I C E
4/ii/00 4/il/00 106.52 JRNL-C0
~AN~__' S SABLLIAT 1 ON
V F NDOR_TD_I AL ........ 1~6.5Z ..........
ACCOUNT NUMBEt~
O~-4J2mO~-~50
101o
R4290 58010 119.61 ICE 71-7100-9550
4/11/00 4/11/_~ ........ 1%9.61- JRNL-CD --~010
VENDOR TOTAL Ii9.GI
543.44
4/11/00 4/11/00 343.44
VENDOR TOTAL 343.44
OIL FILTERS, BLADES, ETC
JRNL-CD
RON'S ICE COMPA~!Y
S4349 2013858
SCHARBER & SONS
4/11/00 4/11/00
81_.D]I__ 03_-~16_-~D~DC MTG SECRETARIAL
81.00 JRNL-CD
~S_4 ]81 000316
VENDOR TOTM.~ .... ~1~0_0_ ........
SHIRLEY HAWKS
4/11/00 4111/00
2,576.64 04-00 LIGUOR RENTAL SPACE
2,576.64 _J~NL-CD
54390 000430
VENDOR TOTAL 2576.64
678.94
4/i1/00 4/Ii/O0 678.94
DEVON COMMONS REMOVE TREE
JRNL-CD
~ELINE PLAZA
2652
2687 532.50 RIDGEWOOD PARK REMOVE TREE
4/i1/O0 4/i1/O0 532.50 JRNL-CD
SHOREWOOD TREE SERVICE VENDOR TOTAL 1211.44
4/11/00 4/11/00
146.0_l__DQG__LICENSE RFCFIPT%
146.01 JRNL-CD
S4430 61693
VENDOR TOTAL___ 146.01
___SOS PRINTING
325.00 04-00 DOG KENNEL FEE
~75.00 JRNI-CD
325.00
82.76 LAMP 24V
82.76 JRNL-CD
S4446 000430
4/i1/O0 4/11/00
5PORTING BREED KENNELS VENDOR TOTAL
54461 5186967
4/11/00 4/11/00
82.76
249.~3 Al UMINI]M PI ATF~
249.83 JRNL-CD
249.83
I49.05 TIMER 120¥
149.05 JENI -CD
ST. JOSEPH E~UIPMENT INC. VENDOR TOTAL
~._$4475__59827
4/11/00 4/11/00
ST. PAUL 5TAMP WORKS, INC. VENDOR TOTAL
54580 5881
4/i1/00 4/11/00
01-4340-3820
1010
01-4020-3100
lO1C
71-7100-3920
81-4350-5110
lO1c
81-4350-5110
101~
01-4090-7170
1010
01-4140-4270
lOlb
01-4280-2310
lOlu
81-~sn-2700
lO1G
01-4280-3710
lOlO
/ 70
10
AP-C02-O1
V E ND~OR___
NO. INVOICE NMBR
5 T ER~E.__EL~C_IJilC_C O_
~4600 140620.1
51REICHER'S
34630 000321
__ ___],_N3LCZLCE__ D UF~ _H OLD ....
DATE DATE STATUS
_V£NDDR _30l AL_ .....
C!TY OF MOUND
AHOUNT DESCRIPTION
149.05_ _
26.57 FLEX MOUNT
4Ill/OD .... ~Zll/O~ ..... 26.57 JRN~CD .......
VENDOR TOTAL 26.57
4/11/00 4/11/00
_33)_EEDWAY SUPERAMERICA LIC VENDOR TQIAI
54631 000322
4/11/00 4lll/O0
SPEEDWAY 5UPERAMERICA EEC VENDOR TOTAL
191.35 THRU 03-21-00
809.16 THRU 03-21-00
159.00 THRU 03-21-00
15.50 THRU 03-21-00
?O..03.__THRIJ 0~-21-00
1,392.04 JRNL-CD
T4703 000328
T-CH£K SYSTEMS LLC
!4Z~ 79496
617
..... 7980_8
LAKER
T4770 188321
188320
186622-8
188879
188880
189140
GASOLINE CHARGES
GASOLINE CHARGES
GASOLINE CHARGES
GASOLINE CHARGES
GAS~LINE CHARGES
1,540.88 THRU 03-22-00 GASOLINE CHARGES
I~5AO..~8_._JRNI-CD
1540.88
.................. ~--04-00 TRANWEB ~EBSITE PUBLICAT
4/11/00 4/11/00 25.00 JRNL-CD
VENDOR TOTAL 25.00
........................ 53.&~__P~RT-T~E_~ELP ~ANTED A[~---
4/11/00 4111/00 53.80 JRNL-CD
................ 34.16__ VACATI~N_.OE__W~c~REORD~D
4/11/00 4/li/O0 34.16 JRNL-CD
.................. ~L4.ffQ_~l ASSIFIED_HFID ~ANTED AD
4/11/00 4/11/00 414.00 JRNL-CD
VENDO~_LOIAL 501.96
3,008.95 BEER
4/11/00 4/ii/O0 3,Q02~_._95 JRNI-CD
183.30 MIX TAXABLE
4/11/00 4/11/00 1~.30 JRNL-CD
3.20 BEER
4/11/00 4/11/00 3.20 JRNL-CD
48.40 MISCELLANEOUS
4/1~/00 4/~00 _4~.40 JRNL-CD
8,443.25 BEER
4/11/00 4/11/00 8,443.25 JRNL-CD
437.50 BEER
4/11/00 4/11/00 437.50 JRNL-CD
ACCOUNT NUMBE~
78-7800-2310
---1010
01-4340-2210
01-4280-2210
78-780~-2210
73-7300-2210
01-4320-2210
01-4190-22~0
iOlb
01-4140-2210
lO1S
01-4320-3100
1010
7!- 7 !~lO---3~.
101~
Ol~Z3 O_O---LO3 6
101',
22_~_/~17_ -(~I.D 0
101[
71-7100-9530
lOlL
71-7100-9540
101[
71-7100-9530
101~
71-7100-9550
101£
71-7100-9530
101
71-7100-9530
101
J- 71
PAGE 11
AP-C02-01
PURCHASE JOURNAL
CITY OF MOUND
v END/iF~ p i NVOi£E DUi HOLD .......
NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS AHOUNT DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT NUMBF
l&9 262 ................................ Z02 . 10 BEER
4/11/00 4/11/00 702.10 JRNL-CD
7-I--- Z-i~00--~30
101
__161RgP ........................ 315.0LSE EFL~F.:G$
4/11/00 4/11/00 313.00 JRNL-CD
' ._THORPF _Qi~TRIRUTING CF}MPA-N-_V.F. NDQR__I-OIAL_ _ 133.39-.Z0-
..... ~1-7100-95~0
10]
· 1480~5 12491
12521
..~IME S&VFR OFF
c 14831 309778
112.00 03-16-00 DCAC MEETING
4/11/~ 4/-llXX~_L ....... 13.2../)_0 JRNL-¢D
81-4350-4200
101
4/11/00 4/11/00
148.75 03-~7-00
.......... 1~2~.13 03-28-00
290.88 JRNL-CD
PLANNING MEETING
COUNCIL-MEETING
01-4190-4200
01-4020-4200
101
%! TF SFCRF_~__VFNDJ~R__IJ~IAL ...... 4~t2-.88
4/ii/O0 4/11/00
65.85 WELDING MACHINE REPAIR
........ 65-.8-4--_WEL.D!.NG M&CELLNF_~EP~i R
i3i .69 JRNL-CD
73-7300-2250
78-7800-2250
lO1
; _~LL GAS
' 14940 18569
STATE PUMP &
-14951 057083
057476
TRUE VALUE
T4965 242 697
THYSSEN LAGERQUIST
14985 2492520
& WELDING SUPPLY_~ENDDR_TJ:]IAL .......... 1~;1.6q __
509.90 CHECK VALVE
A/ll/00___~Ill/_0_O 509.RL JRNL=CD
CONTROL I VENDOR TOTAL 509.90
i6.48 PRIMER AND
4/Ii/O0 4/Ii/O0 i6.48 JRNL-CD
9.04 CLOTHSLINE
4/i1/00 4/ii/O0 9.04 JRNL-CD
057309 2.75 RISE COVER
4/iI/O0 4/i1/00 2.75 JRNL-CD
VENDOR TOTAL 28.27
248941-0
4/11/00 4/11/00
ELEVATO V~DOR TOTA].~
4111/00 4111/00
78-7800-2300
10]
COMPOUND
73-7300-2200
101
01-4340-2200
10]
01-4340-2200
101~
147.92 04-00 EtEVATOR SFRVICE 01-4~70-4200
147.92 JRNL-CD 101~
147.92
3.i4 INDEX BINDERS 01-4140-2200
3.14 JRNL-CD 101~
20.52 OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4040-2200
~.23 OFFICE SUPPLIFS __ 01-4090-27~0
7.23 OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4140-7200
7.23 OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4196-i200
55172 OEJE_ICF SUPPLIFS 01-4~40-7200
2.4I OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4280-2200
2.41 OFFICE SUPPLIES 71-7100-2200
3.62 OFFICE SIIPPIIF~ 7~-7~-?~d.
3.62 OFFICE SUPPLIES 78-7800-2200
PAGE 12 P U R C H A S E J 0 U R N A L
AP-C02-O1 CITY OF MOUND
YEN~OR
NO. INVOICE
249139-0
250326-0
TWIN CITY
_~N~Oi£E-____DUE .~OLD
NMBR DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
__] LtlZ])Q .... 4Z11/00 ......... 109.91 JR NL--CD
39.i4 OFFICE SUPPLIES
............. 39 .~E~CF~-SU~LIES
39.14 OFFICE SUPPLIES
39.i4 OFFICE SUPPLIES
............
3.26 OFFICE SUPPLIES
3.26 OFFICE SUPPLIES
_._29~36 OFFICE SLI~!~LIES
29.35 OFFICE SUPPLIES
4/11/00 4/11/00 260.93 JRNL-CD
....................... 2.2.5
29.86
40.74
4_ZlJ, LO 0 __ .4/11/.00 ....... ~0 O . 6~5
4.51 OFFICE SUPPLIES
4.51 OFFICE SUPPLIES
~-51 DFFICE qlIP~LIJ~S
4.51 OFFICE SUPPLIES
4.51 OFFICE SUPPLIES
1.50 OFFICE SUPPLIES
2.25 OFFICE SUPPLIES
OE~E~LU~L/ES
OFFICE SUPPLIES
OFFICE SUPPLIES
OFFICE SUPPLY CO VENDOR TOTAL 474.71
ACCOUNT NUMBER
1~)1o
0i-4040-2200
......... ~!-4~2~0
01-4i40-2200
01-4190-2200
~%-4340-2200
01-4280-2200
71-7100-2200
7~0~0
78-7800-2200
~01~
J~? NL-C D
01-4040-2200
01-4090-22~,0
0L-4140-2290
01-4190-2200
01-4340-2200
~-4280-2200
71-7100-2200
73-7300-2200
78-780n-~7~D
01-4140-2200
01-4340-2-~0
U5102 000430 30.00 04-00 BALBOA PARKING
30.00 04-00 BALBOA PARKING
4/11/00 4/11/00 90.00 JRNL-CD
UNITED PROPERTI.F_S~__ VENDQB__T~O~TAL_
V5242 8161 65.92 CELL PHONE BATTERY WITH CASE
8206 37.22 CELL PHONE ACCESSORY
4/11/00 4/11/00 37.22 JRNL-CD
VIRTUALPHONE INC VENDOR TOTAL 103.14
01-4280-4200
73-7300-4200
78-7800-~Z00
01-4340-2300
81-4350-2200
'~ W5492
WEST
0004-0
4/11/00 4/11/00
METRO BUILDING MAINT. VENDOR TOTAL
W5630 3216
4/11/00 4/11/00
3225
4/11/00 4/ll/O0
1,126.00 04-00 CLEANING SERVICE
91.33 04-00 CLEANING SERVICE
91.~3 04-00 Ct FAN)NG ~ERVICF
91.34 04-00 CLEANING SERVICE
1,400.00 JRNL-CD
1400.00
S6O.O0 03-13-00
560.00 JRNL-CD
420.00 0~-15-00
420.00 JRNL-CD
RFPIACFD
RFPAIRFD
STAND PIPF
CURR ~TOP
01-4320-4210
01-4280-4200
73-7300-&200
78-7800-4200
101
71-7t00-t800.
101
73-7~00-~8n0.
101
PAGE 13
AP-{02-O1
;~ENDUR
NO. INVOICE NMBR
PURCHASE JOURNAL
CITY OF MOUND
INVOICE _.DUE HOLD__
DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT NUMBEI.
WIDMER INC VENDOR TOTAL 980.00
16590 000403
__DOMINIC BUSLNAI~J2
16617 000403
EVENSON, GORDON
16618 000403
JENNINGS, KEITH
16619 000403
............. 101.25
4/11/00 4111/00 102.25
LOPERGALD, RONALD
_Z6622 00040~
~ENDOR]~IAI
41~llflQ___41~Ll~_O
VENDOR TOTAL
4/ii/O0 4/ii/O0
VENDOR TOTAL
4/11/00 4/11/00
~END~R TOTAL
THOMPSON. MATTHFW
~o 000403
.... 4/11L00 4Il_iLO0
HERZENACH, DAVID VENDOR TOTAL
16621 00O4O3
4/11/00 4/11/00
VENDOR TOTAL
4/11/00 4111100
BEISE, JOHN VENDOR TOTAt
16623 000403
4/11/00 4/11/00
RATZ, ROBERT VENDOR TOTAL
16624 000403
4/11/00 4/11/00
WAGNER, RICHARD VENDOR TOTAL
16625 000403
4/11/00 4/11/00
O'HERON, SEAN VENDOR TOIAL
16626 000403
4/11/00 4/11/00
lOZ. 2~
i50.00
15~l. nn
150.00
i50.00
i50.00
i50.00
1SO.00
i50.00
15~..00
150.00
..... J.5~L~OO
150.00
150.00
I50.00
150.00
150.00
150.00
150.00
i50.00
7.50
157.50
i57.50
i50.00
150.00
150.00
i50.00
150.00
150.00
150.00
150.00
0"~-14_-~Q_0JJ1_3-28-~)0 v !DEO~[G
JRNL-CD
01-4020-4030
101~
2000 DOCK REFUND 81-3260-0000
J~L-CD £01c
2000 DOCK REFUND 81-3260-0000
JRNL-CD
20on D.QCS(. REFUND 81-S250-0000
JRNL-CD 10i
2000 DOCK REFUND 81-3260-0000
JRNL-¢D 101.-
2000 DOCK REFUND 81-3260-0000
JRNL-CD 101
2000 DOC. J( RFFUND 81-3260-0000
JRNL-CD lOlc
2000 DOCK REFUND
2000 I MCD BOAT FFF RFFLIND
JRNL-CD
81-3260-0000
gl-~nn-OOnO
2000 DOCK REFUND 81-3260-0000
JRNL-CD lOlc
2000 DOCK REFUND 81-3260-0000
JRNL-CD 101[
2000 DOCK REFUND 81-32~0-0000
JRNL-CD 101[
!
PAGE 14
AP-C02-01
PURCHASE
CITY OF MOUND
VENDJIR i NVJ] I.£E- .... DUE- itOLD.
NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
JOURNAL
PFEFFER, DANIEL
_ 7_a62Y~O 40 ~
McMASTERS, NICOLE
. Z662K
_ CATNFRS, SU.~A N
Z6629 000403
GAUDREAU, ANNETTE
/6630 000403
BRADY, WENDE
SKOR, DAVID
Z 6_ 63_2 000403
F A Lbf.~S S, RUSS
Z6633 000403
] CABA, THOMAS
-_" Z6634 000403
~ MORT, ALLAN
Z6635 000403
· BLUME, BILL
~ Z6636 000403
BAUER, MELISSA
VENDOR TOTAL 150.00
.............................. 150.OO---20~_D~C~-REF~ND
11.25 2000 LMCD FEE REFUND
4/11/00 4/11/00 161.25 JRNL-CD
VENDOR TOTAL
4/i1/00 4/11/00
_ VENDOR TgT~L
VENDOR TOTAL
4/11/00 4/11/00
VENDOR TOTAL
VENDOR TOTAL
VENDOR TOTAL
VENDOR TOTAL
4/11/00 4/tt/O0
VENDOR TOTAL
4/ll/00 4/t~_~O
VENDOR TOTAL
4/11/00 4/11/00
VENDOR TOTAL
161.25
15-O._O~--2~Q~ DOCK_R£EJ. JND
150.00 JRNL-CD
150.00 2000 DOCK REFUND
150.00 2RNL-CD
150.00
i50.00 2000 DOCK REFUND
I50.00 JRNL-CD
I50.00
15~.O.~__200~_DOCK_~EEUND_____
15.00 2000 LMCD FEE REFUND
165.00 JRNL-CD
165.00
.... 15Q.OO___2~O_~_DQC~ REEUND-
150.00 JRNL-CD
~50.00
150.00 2000 DOCK REFUND
150.00
150.00 2000 DOCK REFUND
15.00 2000 LMCD FEE REFUND
165.0.~J{NL-CD
165.00
150.00 2000 DOCK REFUND
7.50 2000 LMCD FEE REFUND
15Z.5O___JR~CD
i57.50
i50.00 2000 DOCK REFUND
150.00 JRNL-CD
i50.00
ACCOUNT NUMBER
8-1~7~60-Ct000
81-3200-0000
1010
81-3260-0~0
1010
81-3260-0000
lOlu
81-3260-0000
10I~
81-3260-0no~
81-3200-
81- 3260~-.RQO 0
10](,
81-3260-0000
101~
81-3260-0000
81-3200-0000
~Oi<
81-3260-0000
8~-3200-0000
101~
~1-~260-0000
101~
PAGF 1 5
^P-£02-01
P U F~ C H A S E J 0 U R N A k
CITY OF HOUND
~FNDU~L .......... iNVQi.CE DUE ttOLD
NO. INVOICE NHBR DATE DATE STATUS AHOUNT DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT NUM~E~
~6637 000403
LEMIRE. ANDRE
_ Z 663_~_ _0~A03
150.00 2000 DOCK REFUND
4/11/00 4/11/00 150.00 JRNL-CD
............ 150.00 2000 DOCIC-REJ:-UND
4/11/00 4/11/00 150.00 JRNL-CD
81-3260-000U
81-326~-~000
101,~
_ j"J~T_~C..j'~JEK, S],J. ZANNE
V F N DIII~_]'_ 0 T~L ....... 150.00
Z6639 000403
_ ~H~ET, BARRY
Z6640 000403
C~L_SON, P~ILIP
Z664i 000403
MICHAEL
Z6642 000403
KESHAVARZ, MANIYEH
Z6643 000403
TOFTFY, 5RIAN
~ 6644 000403
MARTIN, PAUL
Z6645 000403
BURKE, SHAWN
Z6646 000403
SHEELEY, KEVIN
4/11/00 4/11/00
VENDOR ZOIAL ......
150.00 2000 DOCK REFUND 81-3260-0000
Z..50 _2000 LMCD FF~ RFFtlND 81-3200-~000
157.50 JRNL-CD 1Olt
15Z.50
150.00 2000 DOCK
15~00.__2000 I MCD
165.00 JRNL-CD
4/11/00 4/11/00
VENDJ2~_TQTAL ....... ~65.0D_
150.00 2000 DOCK
00~ 4/11/00 ...... 150.00 JRNL~CD
VENDOR TOTAL 150.00
~6.o0 2000 DOCK
15.00 2000 LHCD
___~LU,.LQ_L4/ll/00 . _ 165.00 JI~',ILtCD
VENDOR TOTAL 165.00
REFUND 81-3260-0000
FFF RFFLIND 81-3200-00~0
10~,
REFUND 81-3260-0000
10!,
'~EFUND 81-3260-0000
EE REFUND 81-3200-0000
J ......
...... ~0~00 -~000 DOCK REFUND
4/11/00 4/11/00 150.00 JRNL-CD
VENDOR TOTAL 150.00
__ 150_..00 2000 D{')/K RF~IIND
11.25 2000 LMCD FEE REFUND
4/11/00 4/11/00 161.25 JRNL-CD
VENDOR TOTAL 161.25
4/11/00 4/11/00
VENDOR TOTAL
4/11/00 4/I1/00
VENDOR TOTAL
81-3260-0000
101.
81-3260-0000
81-3200-0000
101~
I50~QD 2000 DOCK RFFIIND 81-3260-00(L0
7.50 2000 LNCD FEE REFUND 81-3200-0000
157.50 JRNL-CD
157.50
~(~09__2000 DDCK RFFUND
7.50 2000 LHCD FEE REFUND
157.50 JRNL-CD
157.50
~1-~760-0~0.0
81-3200-0000
101~
PAGE 16
AP-C02-01
JENEO~___ INVOICE
NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE
PURCHASE
£ITY OF MOUND
_DUE_ H_O LiI
DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
JOURNAL
i Z6647 000403
~. JANISCH, PAMELA
~66_4-8__0_00 40 ~
i~KALSCHWFR- DARt A
:~ Z6649 000403
~_~10 RGA~, PAT
~ Z6650 000403
EDINGTOH, PATRICIA
Z6651 000403
ZI~Mt-RM^N~ NICK
t -Z665~ 000403
?
KIRMEIER, ALAN
~ Z6653 000403
~=' BEAUCHAMP, MIKE
"' Z6654 000403
~ KANE, THOMAS
~_ Z6655 000403
4/11100 4/11/00 150.00 JRNL-CD
VENDOR TOTAL 150.00
~5Q. QQ_ 2QO0 DOCK REFUND
4/11/00 4/I1/O0 150.00 JRNL-CD
VEND~R Ti/IA I__ _.J~5J1 o QO .....
150.00 2000 DOCK REFUND
11.25 -2.000 LMCD FEE REFUND
4/11/00 4/I1/00 i61.25 JRNL-CD
VFND~lR TO/AL 1A!.25___
150.00 2000 DOCK REFUND
4/11/00 4/11/00 I S O~O.O J~NI -CD
VENDOR TOTAL 150.00
150.00 2000 DOCK REFUND
20.00 2000 LMCD FEE REFUND
ZL/ll_L0_0__~Z 11 / O. 0. ......... 1ZO .00 JRNL-CD
VENDOR TOTAL 170.00
150.00 2000 DOCK REFUND
4/11/00 4/11/00 150.00 JRNL-CD
V E N D ~-'-T-o-~ C - -- ~-~ ~ 0-0- ......
4/11/00 4/11/00
VENDOR TOJJ~L
4/11/00 4/i1/O0
VENDOR TOTAL
4/11/00 4/11/00
KETTLEWELL, JENNIFER VENDOR TOTAL
Z6656 000403
ADAMS, JENNIFER VENDOR TOTAL
Z6657 000403
4/11/00 4/11/00
150.00 JRNL-CD
150.~0
120.00 2000 DOCK REFUND
]20.00 JRNL-CD
120.00
i50.00 2000 DOCK REFUND
I50.00 JRNL-CD
I50.00
150.00 2000 DOCK REFUND
i50.00 JRNL-CD
150.00
150.00 2000 DOCK REFUND
150.00 JRNL-CD
ACCOUNT NUMSF,
81-3260-0000
81-3260-0000
10]
81-3260-0000
8L-3200-0000
81-3260-0000
10]
81-3260-00Q0
81-3200-00C0
'1
81-3260-0000
10]
~l-3PAO-O000
81-3260-0000
lO1,
81-3260-0000
101~
81-~6o'~ooo
101
81-3260-0000
101
PAGE 17
AP-C02-01
VENDOR
NO. INVOICE NHBR
_ P_~LiS~ _M! £~HAEI
Z6650 000403
GORDON, BRIAN
Z6659 000403
PURCHASE
C,'TY OF MOUND
i_NV_O LCF___ DUE__HOLD
DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
....... V£NDQR_ ~OT AL ......... 150.00
150.00 2000 DOCK REFUND
/~L1,.%.~O.O---4/~L1/O0 .............. 1SO . 00--- JRNL-CO
VENDOR TOTAL
4/11/00 4Ai. iL~
VENDOR TOTAL
GILLEN, KRISTAL
Z6660 000403
STORLEIN, MARY ELLEN VENDOR TOTAL
4/11/00
JOURNAL
150.00
150.00 2000 DOCK REFUND
?.50 2000 LMCD FEE REFUND
~-5~5~--JRNL~-CO
157.50
I50.00 2000 DOCK REFUND
150.00 JRNL-CD
150.00
%5Jl.~Q_.20g.O_DOCK REFUND
4/11/00 150.00 JRNL-CD
VFNDIIR T~IAL ......... 15Q.QO .......
120.00 2000 DOCK REFUND
_. ~_fl~J~O ~L%I/O0 ...... 120.00 JRNL~CD
VENDOR TOTAL 120.00
i50.00' 2000 DOCK REFUND
4/11/00 4/11/00 I50.00 JRNL-CD
SCHWALBE, VERNON AND DELOR VENDOR TOTAL
000403
DIXON, IRENE
Z6665 000403
~-]_~Y NE S, TODD
~ Z6666 000403
~i~_UCHNOUR, FRED
[ Z6667 000403
~! BEDELL, BRENDA
VENDOR TOTAL
4/11/00
............... iSg.Og_ _.20_CLO_DOCK RFFIIND
20.00 2000 LMCD FEE REFUND
4/11/00 170.00 JRNL-CD
170.00
4/11/00 4/11/00
~o_oo__2ooo DnCK REFUND
60.00 JRNL-CD
V E N DOJ~_~QT_AL __ 60.00
4/11/00 4/11/00
150.00 2000 DOCK REFUND
~o.00 7000 INCD FFE RFFHND
180.00 JRNL-CD
VE ND~R__TLO [^ L .... ~Q
4/11/00 4/11/00
150.00 2000 DOCK REFUND
Z(L.QQ._2OOO LMCD FEE REFUND
170.00 JRNL-CD
VENDOR TOTAl
ACCOUNT NUMBER
81-3260-0000
lO1u
81-3260-0000
81-3200-0000
lO1O
81-3260-0000
101C
81-3260-000-0
lOlu
81-3260-0000
101
81-3260-0000
101
g]-3260-oOOu
81-3200-0000
101[
81-3260-0000
101 '.
81-3260-0000
81-3200-0000
101~
81-3260-0000
~1-3200-0000
101
PAGE
AP-C02-01
VEND/JP,__ INVOICE
NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE
Z 6_6_68_ 0 0 0_4~0~
b ~Y EB L J~ I_M B E R LY_A N N
Z6669 000403
_EMPTING, MICHAEL
4111/00
4111/00 4/11/00
VENDOR TOIAL ....
Z6670 000403
S~ENSON,_L)O_NAI D
Z6671 000403
GOODFELLOW, kOBERT
Z6672 00O403
PURCHASE JOURNAL
CITY OF MOUND
DUE-__NOLD
DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
............... 150.00- 2000. DOCK-_REF-UND
4/11/00 150.00 JRNL-CD
V F NQQR_IQI AL .......... 150..00 ......
150.00 2000 DOCK REFUND
7..5~)__20OQ_La~LCD FFE REFIIND
157.50 JRNL-CD
15 Z.. SD_
100.00 2000 DOCK REFUND
__ 7_.5D__2000 LMCD FEE REFUND
107.50 JRNL-CD
VF ND~IR TOTAL
3.75 2000 LMCD FEE REFUND
1 o_7_5__ JR.N L- C D
3.75
150.00 2000 DOCK REFUND
7.50 2000 LMCD FEE REFUND
__ ~ 157.50 JRNL--£Q
157.50
50.00 2000 DOCK REFUND
4/li/O0 50.00 JRNL-CD
VENDOR TOTAL 50.00
4/11/00 4/11/00
4/11/00 4/llLOO
VENDOR TOTAL
................. AZllZEL_~/ll/O0 . _
KEINTZ, PHILLIP
Z6673 000403
CRAIG, ROBERT
~7~ .~00403
VENDOR TOTAL
4/11/00
i~FURNS_I~HL, MICHAEL
4/11/00 4/11/00
VFNDOR ~ETAL
TOTAL ALL VENDORS
__50_.0J%__.20OO DOCK REFUND
50.00 JRNL-CD
5_0_ ._O J1
111,736.00
ACCOUNT NUMBER
&1-3260- 0000
101(:
81-3260-0000
81-3200-0000
81-3260-0000
81-3200-0000
1019
81-3200-0000
&OlO
81-3260-0000
81-3200-0000
81-3260-0000
101;
81-3260-0.000
1010
/ST7
MEMORANDUM
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
To: Mound Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Loren Gordon, AICP
Bate: April 6, 2000
Subject: Comprehensive Plan Public Hearing continuation
The revised April 11, 2000 Comprehensive Plan Draft and accompanying Resolution are ready for
your consideration. You will notice two plans, a revised "clean copy" and a comparison copy
noting the areas which were revised from the October 25, 1999 draft to the current. The current
draft includes the Planning Commission recommendations on the October plan, the Commisson's
strawpole vote on the ballfield future land use, Council comments from previous hearings, and
comments from Councilmember Hanus in his memo to Jim Prosser and myself.
In terms of major issues in the plan, the two pervasive are the guided land use for the old high
school ballfields and future park lands. The Planning Commission's recommendation on the
guided land use of the ballfields has changed over the past 9 months or so from an original
medium density residential (MDR) to Public and back to medium density residential (MDR). The
new draft reflects the most previous recommendation from the Planning Commission showing the
site as MDR. There is another contingent of the community that would like to see the ballfields
remain and guided as public in the plan. Although there is little control the City has over the sale
of the property, the City does have the ability to guide its land use if the transaction takes place.
This is the first issue in the plan.
The potential sale of the old school site could also have an impact on the park and recreation
system with the potential loss of 15 acres of community playfields. If the ballfields were removed
from the system, the current overage of community playfields would be more in line with the
national acreage norm. The existing system would however, be above the national standard when
all City parks, commons, and school playfields are included. The new draft presents a more well
rounded view of these acreages with the commons areas. Although the numbers, show the park
system acreage to be on par with national standards, the issue becomes how the available acreage
meets user needs. A number of policies and supporting recommendations are found in the plan to
begin to address this issue.
The Park and Recreation section still reflects the inclusion of the ballfields throughout the text.
My recommendation is to keep this text, as it still remains part of the system. If some event
changes the use of the fields, a land use change for example, then it would be appropriate to make
appropriate revisions to this section of the plan.
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax(612) 338-6838
p. 2
Memo to Council - Comprehensive Plan Public Hearing continuation
April 5, 2000
This has been a lengthy process with a number of difficult issues that a lot of time and discussion
to work through. It is staff's intent to provide the Council with enough information to help in
making a decision. If there are any questions about content, past meetings, etc, please give me a
call. As a final comment, there are some minor mapping revisions and text formatting items that
will be addressed before the final plan is printed in addition to any additional Council
recommendations. The Metropolitan Council will also need to review and approve the plan before
it is a "final" final plan.
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MEETING- FEBRUARY 22, 2000
1.14 CONTINUATION OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
The City Planner presented the case. He stated the previous handouts are still applicable.
The City Planner stated there is an additional letter from Bruce Chamberlain and him that
discuss the community center and ballfield property.
The City Planner stated there are two items that need to be finalized by the City Council
which include the Comprehensive Plan and the Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP).
He stated the Comprehensive Plan is ready for the City Council's review, although the
SWMP is being reviewed by the Planning Commission.
The City Planner stated some issues regarding the school property have been investigated by
Metro Plains after soil testing had been conducted. He further stated Metro Plains would
like some direction from the City Council that would be given to them once the
Comprehensive Plan has been approved.
It was suggested by communication from Metro Plains to recommend the ballfield property
to be considered medium density land use classification. He further stated the rest of the
property would remain commercial. He stated a meeting with the Commissions is suggested
to get some direction regarding the development of this property.
The City Planner presented to the public the different definitions of low, medium, and high
density properties, the locations where residential and commercial property are revealed, and
the park locations proposed on the map presented.
The City Planner stated the Planning Commission proposed two recommendations for
changes to the Comprehensive Plan concerning land use. He stated they would like the Lost
Lake area to be designated as a conversation area with a linear park around this area and,
secondly, the ballfield site to be changed from medium density residential to public
institution density. There were also some "word smithing" changes in land use, as well as
comments in the transportation section concerning the transit service and appropriate changes
made to the buffer zone section. He stated the Parks Commission suggested changes in their
November 17, 1999, letter. He stated some citizens of Mound at previous meetings were
concerned about the width of County Road 15 with the new redevelopment proposal and also
the Haddolf site.
Councilmember Hanus stated this Comprehensive Plan indicates a vision for the City of
Mound and the City Planner agreed. He asked the City Planner if the City Council is
suppose to identify properties for the use we would like, or for what we think is inevitable,
or a happy medium between the two thoughts. The City Planner stated the Comprehensive
Plan should state what is the future for the use of the land and what the City would like to
see happen to this land in the future. He stated it should consider your look into the future
concerning parks, redevelopment, and transportation, but the changes being considered may
cause friction and they need to be resolved in a way that it best for the community.
162
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MEETING - FEBRUARY 22, 2000
Mayor Meisel stated she deals with reality and if someone presents a proposal along a
checkbook, she is certainly willing to give it consideration.
Councilmember Brown stated there is concern from the Planning Commission and him about
the density being proposed for the City of Mound.
Mayor Meisel stated we need to keep in mind any redevelopment proposal presented to the
City Council is only preliminary, but she appreciates the need to question what is being
proposed.
Councilmember Brown asked if the ballfield location was zoned as R-l, would any developer
that would like to develop this area need to come before the Planning Commission regarding
zoning issues. The City Planner stated this would be the case.
Councilmember Weycker asked what public institution zoning being proposed for the
ballfield location represents. The City Planner stated this is a more guiding issue for owner
and considered a "catch all" for parks.
The City Attorney stated with the City Council approving the Comprehensive Plan it does
not directly affect the zoning issues.
The City Attorney asked about the public/institutional designation and asked if this is a
defined term. The definition is considered for property owned by city/school or public
institute and designates those land areas as they exist today or in the future. Attorney stated
this could not be defined as a holding pattern. The City Planner agreed.
Mayor Meisel opened the public hearing open at 8:45 p.m.
Michael Mueller, 5910 Ridgewood Road, Mound. He stated he is a member of the
Planning Commission and has been for many years. He is concerned about the school
district site. He stated at the Planning Commission meetings citizens wanted it to be
designated public or institutional property which would then deny a developer the opportunity
to change it in the future if requested. He stated they wanted to keep it the way it was
zoned because no body knows what that piece of property will be designated for in the
future. He stated now there is a timeframe crunch being suggested by Mr. Chamberlain and
Mr. Gordon concerning the post office location which states if the post office is not
designated soon, the City of Mound could lose its grant. He is very concerned about this
and was not aware of this situation. He stated the Planning Commission is not sure if the
post office should go where it is being proposed. He stated if it is at the corner of County
15 and 110, this would probably be a much too busy corner to have the post office, although
he would appreciate having the Planning Commission review where the best spot would be
for the post office. He stated he is aware the developer may back out if the City leaves this
location designated as public or institutional. He stated the City Council is not responsible to
make the school district's purchase agreement valid by changing a Comprehensive Plan to
meet a developer's plan. Mr. Mueller stated this property is currently zoned as R-1. He
163
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MEETING- FEBRUARY 22, 2000
would appreciate being allowed to arrange Planning Commission meetings to efficiently and
timely discuss where the post office should be located, but to not harm the grant being
considered for this redevelopment of Mound. He would like, at this point, to see the
property noted in the Comprehensive Plan as it currently is zoned to date.
Peter Meyer, 5748 Sunset Road, Mound. He stated he supports the Planning Commissions'
recommendations to keep the Haddolf location considered as institutional. He stated this
location has been at part of Mound's parkland inventory for many years. He restated the
City of Mound has a shortage of parks. Mr. Meyer mentioned there have been enough
names to support a referendum regarding this property.
Kim Anderson, 5736 Lynwood Bouelvard, Mound. Ms. Anderson stated she would like to
have the City Council respect what the Planning Commission presented tonight and leave the
property in question zoned as it currently exists. She stated she would like to see the second
set of signatures for the Petition verified regarding the referendum.
Mayor Meisel stated the City Attorney was just faxed today a summary of the signatures on
the petition concerning the referendum. She stated there were 1,010 signatures. Out of the
1,010, 70 people were not from Mound, 36 signatures were not readable, 15 signatures had
no addresses, 16 people had signed for two, 19 people signed twice. She stated this leaves
111 signatures short for a completed petition to have the City start a referendum.
Councilmember Brown stated eminent domain would be considered a last resort and has
never been discussed concerning the school district property.
Councilmember Hanus stated he would like point of order and stated there is a public hearing
for consideration of the Comprehensive Plan.
Paul Meisel, 5501 Bartlett Boulevard, Mound. He stated he is the Chair of the Economic
Development Committee. He stated they have been working on getting this project going.
He stated it has been a real struggle. He stated a big struggle was getting a developer come
to the City of Mound and now we finally have some interest. He appreciates the Planning
Commission's interest in trying to work through the post office issue. He stated he does not
foresee the City losing the grant. He stated the EDC unanimously agrees with a change in
the Comprehensive Plan, particularly the Haddolf field. He stated he does not want to see
this project lost and all the work put into it at this point.
Mr. Michael Mueller stated he would like to clarify that he, on behalf of the Planning
Commission, does not want to see the grant lost; but, he also wants it known that the
Planning Commission is not favoring any specific direction of the Haddolf fields and that is
why they left it as public institutional.
Mayor Meisel closed the public hearing at 9:10 p.m.
164
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MEETING- FEBRU/~Y 22, 2000
Councilmember Brown stated he and the Planning Commission are supportive in what is best
for the majority of people in the City of Mound.
Councilmember Hanus stated he agreed with almost everything Mr. Mueller said. He said
because the City of Mound does not know what the land in question is going to be in the
future, it should be designated as public institutional in the Comprehensive Plan.
Mayor Meisel stated she wanted it made dear that what it remains and what it becomes are
two different things. She restated the fact what is here and what truly happens could be
different things.
Councilmember Hanus stated the post office location not only needs to be approved by the
Commissions of the City of Mound, but more importantly, it has to be approved by them and
there are many item to be discussed to allow this to happen.
Mr. James Prosser, Ehlers and Associates. He stated the agreement with the post office is
they would attempt to provide an alternative location. He stated the post office could wait up
to three more years, and may look at other sites that may be possible. He stated the post
office does not have to be located downtown. Mr. Prosser stated on the broader issue that is
before the City Council, is the appropriate land use in the Comprehensive Plan. He stated
the City needs to look at the Plan in a pragmatic vision, both realty and vision. He stated
this is an appropriate time for the City to make this choice, even though it is a tough
decision. He stated tonight's decision will provide staff and the community with what the
City would feel would be best for the land use in Mound for now and in the long run. He
stated the City Council does need to step forward and help shape the City of Mound.
Councilmember Hanus stated his first choice at this point is not to have this land developed.
He further stated if the City Council is at the point of adopting the Comprehensive Plan, he
has a number of changes that he would like to have considered in the Plan.
Councilmember Brown asked the City Planner if the Comprehensive Plan should be passed
tonight. The City Planner stated the Plan could be passed tonight if there are no additional
changes, it could be completely reviewed and then passed tonight, or it could also be
continued to a later date.
Councilmember Weycker stated she is very frustrated with the whole process and would like
to see the Planning Commission complete their side of the Comprehensive Plan and the
Surface Water Management Plan in its entirety.
Councilmember Brown stated the Planning Commission has completed the Comprehensive
Plan and the SWMP could have been completed if staff, specifically Mr. Parks, was made
available at the last meeting. He stated the Planning Commission has spent a lot of hours on
both of these Plans and knows they are coming to the City Council is the best way they can
be presented.
165
MOUND CITY COUNCIl. MEETING- FEBRUARY 22, 2000
Councilmember Weycker appreciated knowing staff has not been made available so the
Planning Commission can be allowed to complete beth Plans.
Mayor Meisel asked what the general consensus is whether the City Council should continue
this meeting concerning the Comprehensive Plan and get through it tonight or should this be
tabled.
Councilmember Hanus stated he would like to leave the Comprehensive Plan as the Planning
Commission recommended, but he does have about 15 items he would like to add for
discussion.
Councilmember Brown stated he would like to see the Comprehensive Plan passed tonight by
the City Council.
Councilmember Weycker stated she has already recommended her changes to the
Comprehensive Plan at previous meetings and would like to see the City Council finish the
review process tonight.
Councilmember Ahrens stated she is equally frustrated with a continuous review of the
Comprehensive Plan and the SWMP by various staff and Commissioners and would like to
get this topic off of the agenda. She agreed to continue the meeting and pass the Plan in
some fashion if possible.
Mayor Meisel stated the consensus was to continue the review process of the Comprehensive
Plan in hopes of passing it tonight. She stated they would continue after a ten-minute break.
The City Council recessed at 9:45 p.m.
Mayor Meisel stated on break a suggestion was presented to her regarding the page-by-page
review process of the Comprehensive Plan. She stated rather than having a page-by-page
review, all Councilmembers were handed a card by Mr. Prosser of Ehlers & Associates.
She suggested having each Councilmember submit his/her changes to Mr. Prosser by e-mail
or mailing by March 1, 2000, who will in turn integrate them and the Planning
Commission's changes into a final draft form that will be presented to the City Council with
the changes indicated. She stated she would continue the public hearing at that time which
would probably be the first meeting in April.
Councilmember Hanus asked how the public would be given this information in a timely
manner. Mayor Meisel stated Mr. Prosser would be able to have a draft done within two
weeks which would be submitted to the Commissions at that point in the same format as
presented in the past.
Councilmember Brown asked by waiting until the April meeting, would we jeopardize the
grant money at this time for the post office. The City Planner stated he does not see the true
relation between the two, but passing the Comprehensive Plan would certainly help with this
issue.
166
MOUND CIT~ COUNCIL MEETING- FEBRUARY 22, 2000
Mayor Meisel stated the Planning Commission would be reviewing the preliminary concept
plans on March 13, 2000. Mr. Prosser agreed.
Mr. Prosser further stated he would like to make sure each Councilmember submits their
comments on the relocation of the post office and he will, in mm, develop a contingency
plan for the post office to be presented at the time the Comprehensive Plan is presented.
Councilmember Hanus stated he would like to continue discussions concerning the relocation
of the post office at the end of the meeting. The Councilmembers agreed with this
suggestion.
Mayor Meisel reopened the public hearing at 9:50 p.m. for a continuation of the
Comprehensive Plan.
MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Brown, to continue the public hearing on the
Comprehensive Plan until the f'wst week in April. The vote was unanimously in
favor. Motion carried. 5-0.
Councilmember Hanus stated he wanted it clarified the recommendations to staff would
include visions for the community center site as well. Mayor Meisel agreed.
167
MOUND C1TY COUNCIL MINUTF_~ -FEBRUARY 8, 2000
1.10 PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUATION: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The City Planner noted that as requested by the Council at the November 23, 1999 meeting,
this is a continuance of the Comprehensive Plan public hearing. He stated the Council is to
consider the Comprehensive Plan and SWMP but that is still in committee before the
Planning Commission. He stated the Council can consider approval of the Comprehensive
Plan absent the SWMP. The Comprehensive Plan would then be sent to the Metropolitan
Council which would take no formal review action until the SWMP is received. This
approach would suggest to the Metropolitan Council the City is making a gesture of good
faith in submitting the Plan which was due on December 31, 1999. After City approval of
the SWMP, it would then be sent to the Metropolitan Council to complete the required
submittal information. Only after a complete submittal is received, will the Metropolitan
Council start the time clock on the 60-day window for formal review. He advised that a
second approach would be to postpone action on the Comprehensive Plan until the SWMP is
completed. In that case, a further continuance of the scheduled Public Hearing would be
needed. The City Planner stated that 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. With this option, resolutions would be prepared for the
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -FEBRUARY 8, 2000
February 22, 2000, meeting stating the City has approved the Plans and submitted them
consistent with provisions provided in Minnesota State Statutes.
Councilmember Brown reviewed the Planning Commission discussion and their concern with
regard to the buffer zones and storm water management issues. He advised they have been
reviewing it page by page. Councilmember Brown stated there has been serious discussion
and estimated their recommendation will come before the Council on February 22, 2000.
The Assistant City Planner agreed that the tough issues considered by the Planning
Commission have been resolved.
Councilmember Weycker suggested acting on the Comprehensive Plan at this time. She
noted the Planning Commission was given a deadline and could have scheduled additional
meetings. Councilmember Weycker stated that because of this, she would not object to
passing both Plans.
Councilmember Brown stated the Planning Commission knew about the deadline and could
have pushed it through without a thorough review but he believed the SWMP should not be
taken lightly. He stated all Commissioners have worked hard to assure this SWMP is a good
one for the City and he supports action to table consideration.
Mayor Meisel asked if the public hearing should be opened if the matter is tabled.
City Attorney suggested the audience be asked if they would like to speak. He explained the
public hearing would also be continued on the tabled item until that date since the SWMP is
a component of the Comprehensive Plan.
Councilmember Hanus stated that the draft ordinances reviewed by the Council usually
contain underlines and redlines so it is easy to review. He stated he is not prepared to vote
on this portion tonight so he would have to vote against it.
Councilmember Brown agreed.
The City Planner distributed an inventory list of changes being recommended.
Councilmember Weycker asked if the Metropolitan Council has contacted him.
The City Planner stated that he has talked to the Metropolitan Council representative and
learned that about one-half of the cities are in the same situation. He explained that at first
the Metropolitan Council indicated they would issue no extensions but now they have
indicated they would issue extensions.
Councilmember Brown advised of his interest in drafting a recommendation on companies
that spray yards to possibly require use of phosphorous-free chemicals which would help the
quality of the lake.
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -FEBRUARY 8, 2000
The City Planner noted the Planning Commission's recommendations have been presented to
the Council. He stated the Parks Commission approved the Parks and Recreation component
early last summer and then followed up with their comments in letter form last November.
He stated the comments received at the Planning Commission and Council heatings are also
included in the handout.
The City Planner advised of the language that will be drafted for Council's consideration at
the formal adoption. He stated he will prepare a similar handout for the comments on the
SWMP.
Councilmember Hanus asked for that information to be provided to the Council well before
the meeting so it can be reviewed. The City Planner noted the closely scheduled meetings
and stated staff will attempt to do so.
Mayor Meisel opened the public hearing at 9:04 p.m.
MOTION by Brown, seconded by Ahrens, to table the Comprehensive Plan and
the Storm Water Management Plan to February 22, 2000, Council meeting and
continue the public hearing on both to the same date. The vote was unanimously
in favor. Motion carried. 5-0.
MINUTES?:
SPECIAL MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, DECEMB E . . . .6, 1999
Those present: Chair Geoff Micgael~.Cqm~s~i0ners: Om Burma, Jer~
ClaFsaddle, Bgcky Glister, Ckla~r~Nasse; M~chael Muellgr, 9ill Voss (arrived 7:31
p.m.), [rank Weiland. Absen~an~ ~hexcused: Council Uaison Bob Brown. Staff
present: City ~lanner Loren Go[don, Building Official Jon Sutherland, and
Secrgta~ Sue McOulloch.
The following public were present: Marshall ,Anderson, Tom Casey, Wayne E.
Ehlebracht, Peter C. Meyer, James D. Prosser, Bruce Chamberlain.
Chair,v,,~.,~*;~"-"~,.,~, vceicomed the oublic, and ~:,~.." 'the me~...=-;"",e to order at 6:40 p. m.
DISCUSSION:
CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION FINDING THAT THE MODIFICATION
TO THE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 1
AND THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT
FINANCING D'.STRICT NO. 1-2 CONFORM TO THE GENERAL PLANS FOR
THE DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY. REPORT
PRESENTED BY JAMES PROSSER OF EHLERS AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Jlrn 2..-,~-,r sta;ec ,qe is the =; -"": ' '
· , ...... ' ' ' ' , ,n..,,..,a, .Acv~sor retained by the City of Mound to
· ' vo~.,..h,.~,,~,, o; the reseveiopment of Mound. Mr. Prosser
assist with the pro,est ~ '-'"~'~' .... ' '
.,..ky !.~,~.,,~...er. at ~.,,.,,,~e~,~ woutc assist him
...... =.,.,.s experience as the ""*
..... ,.r,~j_..t..'~ ..... s=., statec the City Council and the Housing
. .~u~,,.., ~t~..".ave prooosed :'~'" "^
ar',c, .~-~._.., ........... . , .,.,.puun of a plan for the
redeveiopmem of downtown Mound H=
.... =,=,~,. in order to finance a portion of
the "" *
,.,.s, to redevelop, the City would benefit by using tax increment financing.
He stated the use of tax increment would require the adoption of a development
program and a tax increment financing plan. Mr. Prosser informed those present
the program describes what is going to be redeveloped and the plan describes
how the redevelopment will occur. He stated the Planning Commission is
responsible to review the program and plan to determine it conforms to the
current City of Mound's Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
Mr. Prosser stated this is just one of several actions that will be presented to the
Planning Commission. He stated a major responsibility by the Planning
Commission would include making decisions regarding the request of
development within each area of the redevelopment, i.e., condition use permits.
MINUTES
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2000
Those p.~asent: Chair Geoff Michael; Commissioners: Jerry Clapsaddle, Becky
Glister, Cklair Hasse, Michael Mueller, Bill Voss, Frank Weiland; Council Liaison
Bob Brown (dismissed at 9:05 p.m). Absent and excused: Commissioner Orvin
Burma. Staff present: City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon
Sutherland, and Secretary Sue McCulloch.
The following public were present: Klm Anderson, Marshall Anderson, Jane and
Marty Carlsen, Wayne E. Ehlebracht, Lisa Holter, Steve Howard, Tim Loberg,
Peter C. Meyer, John Parker, Bart Roeglin, Sandy Roeglin, Linda Skorseth.
DOWNTOWN ZONING.
Chair Michael wanted to be assured that a one-half hour would be sufficient time
to discuss this topic. Gordon stated he would have about 15 minutes of
summary, and then he would like input from the Planning Commission.
Gordon presented the downtown zoning issues. He stated the City Council at
this point has not passed the Comprehensive Plan because of the ballfield
property. He stated there was an informal poll that went around and there were
discussions of changing this property to medium density. Gordon stated this is
the location of where the post office is being considered. He further stated if the
post office does not get built on the proposed location, then what is going to
happen to the ballfield property. The City Counci~ asked for a contingency plan if
this does fall through. He further stated if the post office does not get relocated
by fall, the grant money could possibly be lost which no one wants to have
happen. Gordon also stated the City could at some point inform the post office
they are on their own in finding a location, or the City could continue to help try
and relocate them. He stated the developer at this time would like to move
forward but he is put on a hold until the post office location has been worked out.
Gordon stated the purpose of this discussion is to get some feedback from the
Planning Commission regarding the possibilities of what they would like to have
built in the balffield location.
Chair Michael would like a workshop meeting planned at the next scheduled
Planning Commission meeting with all Commissions involved to discuss further
options with the ballfield property.
Voss asked if the developer has put a timeframe on this project. Gordon stated
there is no specific timeframe, but it is minimal because of the post office
scenario.
Glister asked if the post office had put a deadline for the City on relocation of it.
Gordon stated there is no exact deadline, but to assist them in the best way
possible, the City has to figure things out soon.
Clapsaddle asked if there are more alternatives for the post office. Gordon
stated there are other options and that is part of the contingency plan asked to be
developed by staff.
Weiland questioned where the post office had been suggested. He was under
the impression is would be relocated where the old house was sitting. He was
concerned when this was changed.
Chair Michael strongly stated the individuals with authority need to decide and
make the decision where the post office should be located and what would be
best for the City of Mound.
Gordon restated again he would appreciate from the Planning Commission
suggestions for the contingency plan of what should be developed on the ballfield
property.
Gordon stated there are problems with the property that have been discovered
which include bad soils. He stated this could be corrected, although, the reality is
the builder will now want to make up the difference by being more dense at the
ballfield property.
A poll of the Planning Commission was conducted and the following information
from each Commissioner was reported regarding their personal thoughts about
what should be built on the ballfield property.
Mueller stated he would agree to twinhomes or townhomes. He stated he would
agree to having it as dense as possible in the downtown area, as long as it is not
adjacent to a single family home.
Glister stated she would like to see twinhomes but not apartments. She stated
she would like to see owned property rather than rental.
Weiland stated he agreed with Mueller's statement.
Hasse stated he would like to keep the ballfields a park location which is what it
currently is.
Voss stated he would appreciate having pdvate ownership, multi-level,
condominiums or townhomes. He does not want to have rentals. He likes the
look of downtown Wayzata as an example. He stated having higher density
closer to the business would be doable. He would appreciate a graduated
density of residential, townhomes and then commercial.
Clapsaddle stated he would like Iow density towards the corner, with the property
including 25 percent rental and 75 percent pdvate ownership. He stated the City
of Mound has too many rental units to date, and they City would benefit greatly
by having residents that are tax-paying citizens.
Chair Michael stated he agreed.with medium density as a starting point and a
high density up to the edge of the street. He would prefer having a nice park in
the ballfield location with a gazebo with a town Christmas tree right there.
Gordon stated the hardcover is 30 percent and this would need to be adjusted for
the downtown districts.
Gordon appreciated the input received from the Planning Commission tonight.
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 and the City Planner confirmed it is a
component of the Comprehensive Plan.
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 does have the ability to approve it
without further review by the Planning Commission.
MOUND crrY 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 the 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 mixes.
The City Planner explained there were nc,t changes in the Transportation section of the Plan,
except the realignment 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 greens. He stated there are bikeways and' trails planned, including the Dakota railway
with having some sort of regional connection. The City Planner mentioned the loop trail
around Lost Lake and noted the existing parks are staying. He stated there is controversy
about the community center site and building. 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 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
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - NOVEMBER 23, 1999
City Council could revise sections over time. He stated it should be kept updated regularly,
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
CARRIEI~. 6-1, Voss voting nay.
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - NOVEMBER 23, 1999
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
how this Plan will effect property rights, and does not demonstrate the impact to local
government.
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Clapsaddle, to move for approval or
disapproval by the City Council the Natural and Cultural Resources
section of the Comprehensive Plan. MOTION CARRIED. 7-0.
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Clapsaddle to move for approval or
disapproval by the City Council the Socio-Economic Section of the
Comprehensive Plan. MOTION CARRIED. 7-0.
Mueller stated the Land Use section be changed to read: "Land by deed restrictions
or plat dedications is identified for use principally by owners of specific
subdivisions."
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Hasse, to approve the amendment to
the Land Use section as amended above. MOTION CARRIED. 7-0.
Mueller stated the Land use section under pedestrian district should read as follows:
"It is an intense downtown area with a mix of retail office and attached residential
housing. ~
Clapsaddle is concerned the whole downtown area will become totally multi-family
residential construction because of the financial gain with the above noted change in
the Land Use section. Gordon stated this may be a valid concern.
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Chair Michael, to approve the
amendment to the Pedestrian District of the Land Use section as amended
above. MOTION CARRIED. 5-2, Hasse and Clapsaddle voting nay.
Mueller stated changing the Land Use Map coloration on page 37. Mueller stated the
green area regarding the Lost Lake area should be recolored and the south 90 percent
of it be white and the top portion be green.
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Chair Michael, to approve the
amendment to the Land Use Map at amended above.
Gordon suggested stating the Lost Lake area be noted as a conservation area on the
Land Use Map. Mueller suggested to have the map show green and white checkered
for the Lost Lake area, except the area above the ordinary high water mark which
should be green.
AMENDED MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Clapsaddle, to approve the
amendment to the Land Use Map stated above. MOTION CARRIEI). 7-
0.
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTF~ = NOVEMBER 23, 1999
Mueller suggested on the Land Use Map for the property located on the corner of
Lynwood and Commerce which is a public institution to have the comer two pieces
remain red and the remainder change to blue.
MOTION by MueHer, 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 CARRIED. 6-1, Clapsaddle voting nay.
Clapsaddle voted nay because of the change noted to the pedestrian district section of
Land Use.
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Voss, to move for approval or
disapproval by the City Council the Housing Section of the Comprehensive
Plan. MOTION CARRIED. 7-0.
Mueller stated to make no changeS to the Park and Recreation Section, but allow the
park and open space commission to make recommended changes to the Park and
Recreation Section at the City Council meeting on November 23, 1999.
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Hasse, to move for approval or
disapproval by the City Council the Park and Recreation Section with
additions noted above on the Comprehensive Plan. MOTION CARRIED.
7-0.
MOTION by Clapsaddle, seconded by Mueller, to change Contents of the
Park and Recreation Section of the Comprehensive Plan as noted above.
MOTION CARRIED. 7-0.
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Voss, to move for approval or
disapproval by the City Council the Public Facilities and Services Section
of the Comprehensive Plan. MOTION CARRIEI). 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 CARRIE1). 6-1, MueHer voting nay.
Voss made the motion to pass the Transportation Section because he was not
concerned about the impact 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 on 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 a daily basis as
mentioned.
Councilmember Weycker stated 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 from its November 22, 1999, meeting.
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTF3 - NOVEMBER 23, 1999
Mayor Meisel opened the public heating at 9:05 p.m.
Tom Stokes, 4636 Wilshire Boulevard. He is a part of the Branch 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 put specific property in
the Comprehensive Plan, but 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 architectural part of the property reflects property previously owned by
"Sticldy."
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 in the Surface Water Management Plan there should be some mention of a
well head plan. This is a protection plan if a city does, at some point, need to drill a new
well.
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 approve the two resolutions and the memorandum he submitted was his
thoughts only. Mr. Casey stated the big woods is a "echo system" and Mr. Alwin's
property is one of those remnant parcels.
Councilmember Hanus asked what would be the benefit of including a statement of well head
protection plan. Mr. Casey stated the benefit is an informational item and a form of
education for the public.
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
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - NOVEMBER 23, 1999
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
it does get developed by such a developer as Mr. Stokes, he would need to get 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.
City Attorney stated there might be an advantage for the City to include Mr. Alwin's
property in its Comprehensive Plan as Mr. Casey is proposing. This issue will require more
legal research.
Peter Meyer, 5848 Sunset Road. Mr. Meyer is the Chairman of the Park 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 Bonnie. Mr. Meyer stressed the City of Mound visions project should include
appropriate amount of ballfields.
Councilmember Brown stated the five cities Mr. Meyer mentioned are all cities that are
growing and have a large amount of land 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 was 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 specific and mention an exact name,
such as Rex Alwin, would be inappropriate.
Councilmember Brown mentioned another correction in the Comprehensive Plan. He stated
in the Goals and Polices section under Recreation the first sentence should read as follows:
"Promote recreational opportunities to meet the needs of the Mound residents."
Councilmember Weycker stated it would be inappropriate to be specific in any area of the
Comprehensive Plan, with the exception to the parks and the school district property.
Mr. Stokes questioned what will prevent the school district from selling off more of its
property, or ballfields, to other developers as the years go by. Mr. Stokes stated the City
may need to put some kind of stop in preventing this from happening again.
Councilmember Weycker agreed and would like to see the City purchase more fields in the
10
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - NOVEMBER 23, 1999
Mr. Meyer stated the Park Commission would also like to see a new classification of park
owned space by the City and have it considered a part of a governmental entity.
Councilmember Hanus stated Mr. Meyer is referring to a permitted use permit and he would
not recommend this type of planning because in essence every time the City would acquire
property, it would have to be rezoned.
Mr. Meyer rather 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.
Marshall Anderson, 5736 Lynwood. Mr. Anderson requested to have included in the
Comprehensive Plan designated city parkland that the City of Mound maintains. The
Swenson Park and the little league parks are not maintained by the City.
Kim Anderson, 5736 Lynwood. Ms. Anderson supported Mr. Meyer's calculations of other
cities regarding percentages of green space for ballfields that surrounding cities provide for
the citizens. She would like the City of Mound to be more aggressive about this matter.
Mr. Casey suggested a possible better to accomplish completing a project like the
Comprehensive Plan and the Surface Water Management Plan would include having all
interested citizens, all committee members and all consultants have 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
absorption and discussion and forward it back to the City 'Council at the end of January,
2000. He stated he would encourage special 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 tax increment funding which will consume most of the evening.
There was discussion to have a special meeting, along with the Housing and Redevelopment
Authority, for the end of November which has already been scheduled.
Councilmember Weycker strongly stated there was poor time management in allowing for the
completion of the Comprehensive Plan.
11
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTF3 - NOVEMBER 23, 1999
Councilmember Weycker stated a discussion of the Rex Alwin property was never discussed
with councilmembers and she requested again to have that opportunity.
There was discussion amongst councilmembers the 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 could
create a correspondence notifying the Metropolitan Council the City of Mound is actively
working on its Comprehensive Plan and Surface Water Management Plan and they are
making heaps of progress, but it will not be turned in at the suggested date but a forthcoming
time when the Plans have been properly and professional reviewed by the City of Mound.
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 the Planning Commission will immediately 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 commends the City for having a Committee of the Whole meeting to include
discussions of the Comprehensive Plan in an informal environment.
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 staff to invite the Park Commission
to attend the Committee of the whole meeting on January 18, 2000.
MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Weycker to continue discussions of the
Comprehensive Plan and to allow the Planning Comml.qsion 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
12
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - NOVEMBER 23, 1999
of the hearing until February 8, 2000.
13
MINUTES
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 1999
Those present: Chair Geoff Michael; Commissioners: Jerry Clapsaddle, Becky Glister,
Cklair Hasse, Michael Mueller, Bill Voss, Orr Burma; Absent and unexcused: Council
Liaison Bob Brown and Commissioner Frank Weiland. Staff present: City Planner
Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, and Secretary Sue McCulloch.
The following public were present: Klm Anderson, Marshall Anderson, Lora
BIoomquist, Tom Casey, Wayne E. Ehlebracht, Kim Gabby, Peter C. Meyer, Linda
Skorseth.
Mound Planninq Commission Minutes - November 22, 1999
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
Chair Michael welcomed the public to the hearing.
Mueller stated it is on record from the November 8, 1999, meeting the Planning
Commission has agreed to some concerns the citizens of Mound presented. He stated
the Comprehensive Plan should add wording approved by staff stating the possibility of
a loss asset with respect to the community center school district property and have it
noted to encourage purchase of parkland which could specify the Alwin property.
Mueller stated Mr. Casey brought up the following impodant facts that should be added
to the Comprehensive Plan: (1) Having the Comprehensive Plan state the deed
restrictions and plat dedications appropriately and (2) having the Plan state the green
area and the Lost Lake as different categories and not park acreage.
Clapsadcie stated, and Mueller agreed, he strongly ackncwledges the potential loss of
the park and recreation land and he strongly encourages the City of Mound to make
every effort possible to replace what has been potentially lost.
Gordon stated he has reviewed Mr. Casey's recommendations to the Comprehensive
Plan and is comfortable deciding what shows merit and how to reword the
Comprehensive Plan to include the appropriate suggestions.
Gordon presented his written suggested changes to Mr. Casey's letter to the Planning
Commission.
Mueller suggested Mr. Casey's concern regarding the resolution to purchase particular
property to be included in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Muetler understands the
importance of this loss asset to the City of Mound, but he strongly stated the City of
Mound should not adopt a resolution this specific in its Comprehensive Plan.
Clapsaddle stated the resolution at hand should be presented to the City Council and
not the Planning Commission, and he does not disagree with the intent Mr. Casey has
presented.
Gordon stated the Planning Commission does recognize the school district's ownership
of the parcel in question. Gordon stated the parcel of property is shown as medium
density residential.
Chair Michael opened the public hearing at 8:01 p.m.
2
· /
Mound Planninq Commission Minutes- November 22, lggg
Linda Skorseth, 5648 Alder Road. She stated She appreciated the Planning
Commission being receptive of the citizens of Mound's concerns. She stated she
would appreciate having the Lost Lake green area on the map to have it reflect a blue
or rust color.
Lora BIoomquist, 5748 Lynwood Boulevard. She stated she appreciates the city
planner putting the parcel in question as medium density with residential. She was
concerned, although, where the access road would be.
Gordon stated the purpose of this plan is to show land use and at this point the plan
does not show access. This is a more detailed observation to address in the future.
Ms. BIoomquist stated a buffer is encouraged between the red retail space and the
surrounding neighborhood at the time of development. Mueller stated the city codes
exist stating a 50-foot buffer must exist in this type of scenario and the City of Mound
will adhere to the codes.
Ms. Bloomquist also questioned the house located on the community center site and
whether this area would be sold off as residential or commercial property. Gordon
stated this issue will be addressed in the future, although, currently the property is
zoned as commercial. Mueller stated this is an issue for the developer to address also.
Ms. Bloomquist questioned the tower location for the lights and whether US West
would deem the location appropriate.
Gary Pettus, works for a competitor of US West. He stated he has dealt with this
situation before and stated this is a school board issue, not a city issue. Evidently, the
developer agreed to the lights and this will remain because of the revenues that are
being generated from the tower and also the restrictions that exist of how many
wireless companies can be on the tower.
Ms. Bloomquist addressed the ownership of the ice arena and it was mentioned the
Pond Association has ownership. She was concerned because her church uses the
parking lot right next to the arena.
Ms. Bloomquist would also recommend keeping the new development area a two-way
street to avoid high traffic speeds.
Ms. BIoomquist asked what the new development is proposed to look like and which
organizations have a say in how it is developed. Councilmember Hanus stated this will
be discussed at the November 23, 1999, meeting from 6:30 p.m. until 7:00 p.m. and the
Economic Commission and the Planning Commission will express their thoughts in how
development will take place, but a final decision will come from the City Council.
Mound Plannina Commission Minutes - November 22, 1999
Mueller stated the proposed rezoning of the downtown visions project will have a
minimum of two stories, but nothing has been approved at this point.
Gary Pettus, 6200, Minnetrista. Mr. Pettus stated he has attended one park
commission meeting, one city council meeting and now one planning commission
meeting and, as an outsider, believes the property that was sold by the school district
to a developer, was inappropriate by a majority of citizens and committee members and
stated the City of Mound should try and regain its ownership in this property. He
thanked the Planning Commission for its time.
Klm Anderson, 5736 Lynwood Boulevard. Ms. Anderson stated the green space in
question is a much-needed asset for the City of Mound and should be acquired in some
fashion if at all possible.
Chair Michael redirected the public to stay focused on the Comprehensive Plan and
make their recommendations as they seem appropriate.
Ms. Anderson stated she would like to see the Rex Alwin property listed in the
Comprehensive Plan as stated in the noted resolution.
Ms. Anderson also is concerned if residential property is required to be a certain
distance from the tower. Councilmember Hanus stated there is City ordinance
indicates a drop zone and also this is an area of discussion that is regulated mostly by
the Federal government.
Ms. Anderson stated she was concerned the vision project was a minimum of a two-
story development. Gordon stated there would be a range of two and three-stow
buildings.
Ms. Anderson would also like the park property on the map to be presented in a blue
color.
Peter Meyer, 5748 Sunset Road. Mr. Meyer strongly supports Mr. Casey's comments
in his letter presented to the Planning Commission and stated there is statute that
supports listing specific land in a Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Meyer thanked the
commissioners for their support with the ideas presented by Mr. Casey in the Surface
Water Management Plan.
Tom Casey, 2854 Cambridge. Mr. Casey asked if the Planning Commission had
adequate time to read what he presented in the agenda packet tonight. This would
include pages 31, 32, 33, 34 and 35, along with the attachments dealing with statutes
and buffer zones. It was agreed most commissioners had read the mentioned pages.
Mr. Casey stated it is proper to have specific properties mentioned in a land use
section of the Comprehensive Plan according to statutes.
Mound Ptanninq Commission Minutes- November 22, 1999
Chair Michael stated he would like to have the resolution go directly to the City Council
and have it reviewed there and then directed back to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Casey stated the language was given to the City of Mound and Gordon directed it
to the Planning Commission for review. Gordon stated he forwarded it on to the
Planning Commission first because the Planning Commission is the body that makes
the Comprehensive Plan recommendations to the Council.
Chair Michael questioned the 15-acre site directed as the park site on page 32,
paragraph 8 of the agenda packet. Mr. Casey stated the 15-acre site includes the
entire site.
Mueller disapproved of this section also and stated the words "if necessary" should be
reworded to refer to a statement which does not present a negative attitude in having
the 15-acre property developed.
Mueller stated the corner house near the 15-acre property should be stated as
commercial and should be changed on the map from orange to blue.
Chair Michael suggested Mr. Casey attend the City Council meeting scheduled for
November 23, 1999, to discuss his recommendations of the park space to the
counciimembers at that time. There will also be counsel present which Mr. Casey
should appreciate when asking questions of this nature.
Clapsaddle stated it is not the position of the Planning Commission to have the exact
wording in the Comprehensive Plan. There should be an intent noted and then the
language will be put together by the appropriate staff members.
Mr. Casey continued on to the Surface Water Management Plan. He agreed to have
stricter water restrictions than what the DNR is imposing on the City of Mound.
Mueller stated he will oppose approval of the Surface Water Management Plan at the
meeting tonight because of the lack of information concerning buffers. He stated the
document that currently exists does not read appropriately for the City of Mound and
would appreciate more time to review it before approving the document. Mueller stated
he would consider Mr. Casey's recommendations when the time was appropriate.
Chair Michael asked Gordon if he was comfortable having the Planning Commission
approve some recommendations in Mr. Casey's letter without a document drafted up
tonight for the Planning Commission to approve. Gordon stated Mr. Casey's letter has
some real issues that need to be addressed by the Planning Commission before he
could draft revisions. These issues include: addressing the Rex Alwin property, the
school district property and the Lost Lake area as submitted by the Park and Open
Space Commission. Gordon is comfortable writing up a document knowing the intent is
Mound Plannina Commission Minutes - November 22, 1999
to take the document to the City Council for possible adoption but the exact wording
would have to follow later. He restated this is a policy document.
There was discussion amongst commissioners to go through the Comprehensive Plan
page by page tonight and to review Mr. Casey's letter point by point.
Chair Michael stated there is a comfort zone with staff and members to have an intent
to have some notations of future parkland being suggested from the Rex Alwin
property, to put some language to balance the community center to show commercial
up front and the rest as public, and to have notations showing the Lost Lake area
something other than park property.
Marshall Anderson, 5736 Lynwood Boulevard. Mr. Anderson stated the City should
have planned for parks and green space in the City of Mound these past 10 years. He
also stated more time to review the Comprehensive Plan by all citizens and appropriate
committees would have been appreciated by all.
Chair Michael closed the public hearing at 9:15 p.m.
Mueller recommended the Comprehensive Plan state the City recognizes the park and
open space commission's recommendations and would strongly encourage the City to
use its power to acquire the 15-acre community site owned by the school district but
that it deem not be "necessary" the full 15-acre be included in this request.
Voss disagreed with Mueller. Voss stated specific property should not be included in
the Comprehensive Plan and what is stated currently in the Comprehensive Plan about
obtaining parks is suitable. He stated the public should approach the school board
about the property they sold to the developer and see if the school board can get it
back.
Mueller stated the Comprehensive Plan does not address acquire park space
appropriately. He stated there should be a section that states if park space is lost than
how will it be obtained back.
Voss stated he does not support the Comprehensive Plan as a whole. He stated with
his experience in this area this document gives too much control to a larger
governmental body and takes away from the City its rights. Voss is concerned the City
of Mound cannot support this Plan financially or economically. He stated he will vote
against the approval of the Comprehensive Plan tonight.
Chair Michael dismissed Mr. Parks and stated the Surface Water Management Plan will
be addressed in the future.
Gordon stated the Metropolitan Council probably may not hold anything against the
City of Mound if the Surface Water Management Plan is not presented with the
Mound Plannina Commission Minutes - November 22, 1999
Comprehensive Plan. He is not aware of any monies by the Metropolitan Council that
will assist in following through with this Plan when completed.
Gordon stated at a previous Committee of the Whole meeting a capital improvements
plan is being discussed which will assist in determining what the needs are and their
priorities.
Clapsaddle agreed mostly with Mueller's statement. He would like it stated in the
Comprehensive Plan the potential the school board has of losing the parkland, the
potential problem and serious loss of losing this parkland, and a serious thought of how
the City of Mound can replace this potential loss.
Voss stated the goal section of the Comprehensive Plan already addresses
Clapsaddle's concerns. Voss also stated there were a lot of specifics listed that should
be mentioned in other areas as well besides the parks. Voss is concerned again about
the economic effects of this Plan for the City of Mound.
Chair Michael and Glister are in agreement to not include specifics in the
Comprehensive Plan.
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Clapsaddle, to not include the Surface
Water Management Plan as part of the recommendation for the
Comprehensive Plan.
Discussion,
Gordon stated he anticipated this motion by the Planning Commission. He stated the
Metropolitan Council could hold off approving the City of Mound's Comprehensive Plan
until the Surface Water Management Plan is approved and presented, but doesn't
know what the penalties are for the lack of a SWMP.
Mueller stated the Surface Water Management Plan is a document which affects
everybody individually and the Comprehensive Plan is a more policy-based Plan.
Mueller stated there has not been enough time to review the Surface Water
Management Plan in detail. Mueller does commend the Planning Commission for a job
well done to date.
Gordon recommended if the Planning Commission does not approve the Surface Water
Management Plan solely because of the buffer, then he recommended taking that
section of the Plan out for now and amend it later it the need arises.
Mueller stated besides the buffers there is the phosphorus-free information that needs
to be reviewed and presented more thoroughly to the commissioners. He stated two
months is not enough time to put together an appropriate Surface Water Management
Plan. Mueller will not recommend approval of this Plan tonight.
Mound Ptannina Commission Minutes - November 22. 1999
MOTION CARRIED. 7-0.
There was agreement that further discussions will include only information referred to
in the Comprehensive Plan.
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 approve the Goals and
Policies Section of the Comprehensive Plan with the amended changes
above. MOTION CARRIED. 6-1, Voss voting nay.
Mound Planninq Commission Minutes - November 2'2, 1999
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 how
this Plan will effect property rights, and does not demonstrate the impact to local
government.
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Clapsaddle, to approve the Natural and
Cultural Resources section of the Comprehensive Plan. MOTION
CARRIED. 7-0.
MOTION bY Mueller; seconded by Clapsaddle to approve the Socio-
Economic Section of the Comprehensive Plan. MOTION CARRIED. 7-0.
Mueller stated the Land Use section be changed to read: "Land by deed restrictions or
plat dedications is identified for use principally by owners of specific subdivisions."
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Hasse, to approve the amendment to the
Land Use section as amended above. MOTION CARRIED. 7-0.
Mueller stated the Land use section under pedestrian district should read as follows: "It
is an intense downtown area with a mix of retail, office and attached residential
housing."
Clapsaddle is concerned the whole downtown area will become totally multi-family
residential construction because of the financial gain with the above noted change in
the Land Use section.
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Chair Michael, to approve the
amendment to the Pedestrian District of the Land Use section as amended
above. MOTION CARRIED. 5-2, Hasse and Clapsaddle voting nay.
Mueller stated changing the Land Use Map coloration on page 37. Mueller stated the
green area regarding the Lost Lake area should be recolored and the south 90 percent
of it be white and the top portion be green.
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Chair Michael, to approve the
amendment to the Land Use Map at amended above.
Gordon suggested stating the Lost Lake area be noted as a conservation area on the
Land Use Map. Mueller suggested to have the map show green and white checkered
for the Lost Lake area, except the area above the ordinary high water mark which
should be green.
AMENDED MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Clapsaddle, to approve the
amendment to the Land Use Map stated above. MOTION CARRIED. 7-0.
Mound Plannin(~ Commission Minutes - November 22, 1999
Mueller suggested on the Land Use Map for the property located on the corner 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 approve the Land Use
Section of the Comprehensive Plan as amended. MOTION CARRIED. 6-1,
Clapsaddle voting nay.
Clapsaddle voted nay because of the change noted to the pedestrian district section of
Land Use.
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Voss, to approve 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 approve the Park and
Recreation Section with comments as noted above. MOTION CARRIED. 7-
0.
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by ross, to approve the Public Facilities and
Services Section of the Comprehensive Plan. MOTION CARRIED. 7-0.
MOTION by Voss, seconded by Hasse, to approve 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 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.
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Voss, to approve the Implementation
Section of the Comprehensive Plan. MOTION CARRIED. 7-0.
10
Mound Plannin~l Commission Minutes - November 22, 1999
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.
Discussion.
Voss asked to elaborate how each Commissioner portrays the Comprehensive Plan.
Voss has already stated his position.
Mueller stated does not appreciate the jurisdiction the Metropolitan Council has over
the City of Mound. Mueller stated the Planning Commission has done an adequate job
at reviewing the Plan and commends the Planning Commission for all of their hard
work.
Burma stated the Comprehensive Plan is a Plan the City now has with the potential of
amending or possibly making exceptions to the Plan as the future may permit it.
Glister stated the Comprehensive Plan is now an itinerary and the City will now move
forward.
Hasse passed on stating any thoughts regarding the Comprehensive Plan.
Voss stated in favor of having a Comprehensive Plan for the City. He understands the
need for it, but also understands the danger that takes away local government and their
rights. Voss stated he voted against the goals and policies because he did not have
enough information to understand the financial impact to the Cit:,' of Mound and the
rights of property regarding taxes.
Clapsaddle passed on stating any thoughts regarding the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Casey thanked the Planning Commission for listening to public needs. Mr. Casey
stated the public may not have had adequate review and information regarding the
Comprehensive Plan.
Chair Michael is discouraged to realize the reason the people are here tonight
discussing the Comprehensive Plan is because of the school board problem. He
recommends the people attend all meetings and it is upsetting when the public does
not follow the meetings. He stated he would like a solution on how to get the public to
attend the meetings.
11
Mound Planninq Commission Minutes - November 22, 1999
Mueller stated the review of the Surface Water Management Plan will still happen and
would like input from Mr. Casey and others. Gordon stated the Surface Water
Management Plan may not move forward until after the new year because there is only
one meeting in December.
INFORMATION:
1. City Council Minutes dated October 26, 1999.
2. Park and Open Space Advisory Minutes dated November 10, 1999.
3. Information received from Tom Casey regarding Comprehensive Plan.
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION by Voss, seconded by Ciapsaddle, to adjourn the meeting.
MOTION CARRIED: 7-0.
Chair Michael adjourned the meeting at 10:43 p.m.
12
MINUTES
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 1999
Those present: Chair Geoff Michael; Commissioners: Jerry Clapsaddle, Becky Glister,
Cklair Hasse, Michael Mueller, Bill Voss; Council Liaison Bob Brown. Absent and
excused: Commissioners Orv Burma and Frank Weiland. Staff present: City Planner
Loren Gordon, City Engineer John Cameron, and Secretary Sue McCulloch.
The following public were present: Kim Anderson, Marshall Anderson, Lora
Bloomquist, Steve Behnke, Tom Casey, Christina Cooper, Wayne E. Ehlebracht, Bill
Gabby, Klm Gabby, Laurel Gabby, Jane Heins, Paul Heins Construction, Robert Lien,
Peter C. Mey~er, Sheila Murphy, Carmen Wood, Rick Wood.
PUBLIC HEARING: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
Gordon stated the purpose of the public hearing is to present the Comprehensive Plan
to public, receive input, have Commission discussion, and ultimately forward a
recommendation to the City Council. Gordon pointed out the Surface Water
Management Plan is part of the Comprehensive Plan but that will be discussed at a
later point in time tonight. Gordon stated the Metropolitan Council is requiring all
jurisdictions to update their plans every 10 years. The City of Mound's Comprehensive
Plan is due December 31, 1999.
Gordon presented key elements of the Comprehensive Plan including Goals and
Policies, Demographic trends, Land Use Housing, Redevelopment, Transportation,
Parks and Recreation, and Public Facilities.
Gordon stated the purpose of the Comprehensive Plan is to provide a framework for all
the staff, Commissions, Boards, and Council to use when carrying out short-term
decisions.
Mueller asked Gordon and Gordon clarified the Surface Water Management Plan would
be handled later in the evening. The Comprehensive Plan is what the public should
address now.
6
Mound Planning Commission Minutes - November 8. 1999
Brown asked about the pedestrian district in the Land Use section. He stated this
section is too specific and it should be stated more general. Gordon suggested the
notation regarding a three-story building could read "with intense downtown area with a
mix of uses-that would include retail, office and attached residential."
There was discussion amongst the commissioners regarding the direction of the public
hearing.
Chair Michael restated .the direction of the public hearing was to discuss the
Comprehensive Plan in its entirety so that would include discussing the Surface Water
Management Plan. With that thought in mind, Chair Michael stated Mr. Dan Parks
should present the Surface Water Management Plan.
Mr. Casey requested a copy of the Surface Water Management Plan as Mr. Parks
discussed it with the commissioners and he was accommodated with a copy for his
review.
Mr. Dan Parks asked the commissioners if there were any questions or concerns they
had regarding the Surface Water Management Plan as presented to them tonight. Mr.
Parks stated the final Plan would have colored maps. Mr. Parks stated the Plan is
about 97 percent complete.
Mueller asked if changes need to be made to the Surface Water Management Plan on
a case-by-case basis, is this possible with the Plan presented tonight and how would
the City of Mound go about making such changes to the Plan.
Mr. Parks stated there currently exists an amendment section in the Surface Water
Management Plan. He stated if the changes are minor, then this would be an easy task
to accomplish, although, he stated if the change was major this would require a policy
change and it would have to be reviewed again by the Watershed District. He stated
buffers would be considered a major change.
Mueller wanted a clarification in the Surface Water Management Plan regarding buffers.
He stated he understood the Plan to state if a new development was brought on to
Lake Minnetonka, there shall be uncut native grasses 20 feet adjacent to the body of
water according to what the Watershed District requires. Mr. Parks stated this is a true
statement.
Mueller asked if the Watershed District had jurisdiction over the City of Mound
regarding the buffers and Mr. Parks stated it does.
Mr. Parks stated having this buffering section in the Surface Water Management Plan
would help eliminate geese walking up on owner's property and reduce bad water
entering Lake Minnetonka.
Mound Planning Commission Minutes - November 8, 1999
Brown is concerned about taking 20 foot of prime lakeshore property away from
taxpayers who are paying major taxes and will not be able to use as their lakeshore.
Mr. Parks stated aquacultural landscaping to the lake would benefit a owner of
lakeshore property if there is a buffer concern.
Brown stated having a 20-foot buffer would also increase mosquitoes.
Mueller stated on page 48 of the Plan there is discussion regarding the buffer
requirements. It states in the Plan that anyone coming in a lakeshore lot, the city will
require natural and unmaintained buffers around the iakeshore. Mueller stated this is
unacceptable to have this grass that is unmaintained.
Mueller stated he would like more information regarding aquacultural.
Mr. Parks stated the intent is to not take the people's property away from them; the
intent it to preserve the property by having a buffer zone.
Mueller stated he would not recommend approval of the Surface Water Management
Plan tonight without further information.
Glister stated the buffers only affect new development. She stated she does not see
this to be very effective because Mound is not expanding with much new development.
Glister is concerned about the benefit of buffering.
Mr. Parks agreed with Glister, but the benefit would be starting a possible "new trend"
for lakeshore property owners.
Brown stated having a prosperous-free fertilizer would be a greater contributor in
keeping the lake more clear than setting up any type of buffer zone.
Mr. Parks agreed that a prosperous-free fertilizer plan for the City of Mound would be
beneficial if it is done properly and at a proper rate. A problem may come in when the
public is putting their own fertilizer down on their lawns.
Brown stated if the people are educated they will then understand the importance of
prosperous-free fertilizer and will abide by the policy.
Gordon stated having a buffer plan in the Surface Water Management Plan does not
impose a problem in his eyes.
Mueller suggested having a buffer zone would cause less parks to be maintained along
the lakeshore. He also stated having a buffer zone near the downtown area where the
Mound vision project has been proposed would not be beneficial to the City of Mound.
8
Mound Planning Commission Minutes - November 8. 1999
Finally, Mueller stated when a minor subdivision occurs, there would have to be
included a buffer on the properties in question.
Chair Michael suggested using the word "encourage" instead of "require" in the wording
of the Surface Water Management Plan when discussing buffers and the prosperous-
free fertilizer plans.
Mueller stated the Surface Water Management Plan does not include all of the
appendixes and the appropriate wetland maps and he cannot recommend approval
without the Plan being complete.
Cameron stated the maps that are missing in the Plan are located at City Hall and they
need to be inputted.
Mueller is concerned about the fairly large and old sewer pipes that drain into Lake
Minnetonka. He stated these pipes lack baffles that prevent sanitation. Mr. Parks
stated these pipes could be repaired and have baffles on them, but the most effective
way to prevent bad sanitation going into Lake Minnetonka is by ponding.
Chair Michael opened the public hearing at 9:45 p.m.
Peter Meyer, 5748 Sunset Road. Mr. Meyer is the Chairman of the Park and Open
Space. Mr. Meyer questioned why the resolution involving the ball fields in town was
denied by the Planning Commission at the October 25, 1999 meeting. He would like a
clarification of what false information was presented in the resolution and the Planning
Commission was going to meet with Mr. Meyer at a different time to discuss this issue.
Mueller stated that a Comprehensive Plan does not list specific property that the City
would like to keep in its town. It may list a plan of how to keep park property in town,
but it should not list specific property.
Brown stated the ballfields referred to by Mr. Meyer have been sold to the school district
and this does not involve the park at this time.
Tom Casey, 2854 Cambridge. Mr. Casey stated the 1990 Comprehensive Plan listed
the ballfields or the school district property as parts of its inventory and its needs. Mr.
Casey stated he would like the Comprehensive Plan to have a vision if they lose public
park to have it replaced.
Mr. Casey recommended the following changes to the 1990 Comprehensive Plan that
he had brought with him tonight:
Page 2, the City Attorney should review the statute.
Page 8, the top paragraph should include "shall also review and acquire privately
owned land and acquire when necessary for public purposes."
9
Mound Planning Commission Minutes - November 8, 1999
Page 38, having the Land Use Maps amended back to showing school district
property as a public institution.
Page 35, there should be a notation stating "deed restrictions or plat
dedications."
Page 36, compliments the pedestrian district to have mixed uses.
Page 71, there is discussion regarding right-of-way widths for streets. Could the
downtown vision streets be more pedestrian friendly by getting variances.
Brown stated with the downtown vision, the movement of Highway 15 over should
cause less dodging of cars. There will also be on-street parking and a single lane
street for downtown. These solutions will make the downtown more pedestrian friendly.
o
Page 73 and 74 which refers to parks should remain as the existing 1990
Comprehensive Plan.
Include the Rex Alwin property in the Comprehensive Plan in a form of a
resolution and have this property for park space.
Mueller stated the resolution just says that the City of Mound should buy the Rex Alwin
property no matter what the price of the property it. Mueller stated that taxpayers will
have to buy this property.
Clapsaddle recommended having the resolution worded in such a way that would state
the City of Mound may dedicate effort to obtain the property. Clapsaddle strongly
recommends that the Planning Commission and the public not dwell on this topic the
whole evening.
Mueller strongly stated did not appreciate the park commission approaching Mr. Alwin
about his land without approval from the ,:'~ity of Mound. Mr. Casey stated this was
accomplished to keep Mr. Alwin interest in selling to the City. Mr. Casey also stated Mr.
Alwin may be interested in having a double sale on the property.
Chair Michael stated to the public the Planning Commission does not meet after the
hours of 11:00 p.m. without a motion.
Brown stated the City Council would like the Planning Commission's recommendations
of the Comprehensive Plan tonight.
Mueller stated he will not recommend approval of the Surface Water Management Plan
tonight for lack of information that is not included to make it complete.
Mr. Casey was given a copy of the current Comprehensive Plan for his review.
Bill Gabby, 5764 Lynwood Boulevard. Mr. Gabby stated he is a landowner next to the
ballfield in question. Mr. Gabby would like to have the park space developed into
commercial and park space if possible.
10
Mound Plannin(~ Commission Minutes - November 8. 1999
Brown stated any time something new is developed there has to be a portion of park
dedication. This portion is normally about 10 percent. Gordon stated this is a city
ordinance and does not need to be put into the Comprehensive Plan.
Laurel Gabby, 5764 Lynwood Boulevard. Ms. Gabby drew two pictures of the ballfields
and presented the pictures to the Planning Commission. Mueller stated that Ms. Gabby
should present these pictures to the City Council tomorrow night.
There was discussions of whether the public hearing would be continued because of
the late hour approaching. Gordon stated the public hearing could be continued until
November 22"d.
Brown stated he recommends a special meeting by the Planning Commission to review
the Comprehensive Plan in its entirety so there would be ample time for the City
Council to see the Planning Commission's recommendations before the public hearing
with the City Council on November 23'd.
Christina Cooper, 4731 Manchester Road. Ms. Cooper asked if the park commission is
an advisory committee to the Planning Commission or the City Council and Brown
stated they are an advisory committee to the City Council. Ms. Cooper is now
concerned why the Planning Commission took out the resolution in the Comprehensive
Plan.
To clarify the situation, Brown stated the Planning Commission recommended the
resolution be denied.
Brown stated, and Mueller agreed, if the people want to have an election regarding the
park space then they should keep focused on this and accomplish this goal. Right now
the property is sold. Mueller also stated it is very appropriate for the City Council to be
concerned about the cost of the park space because taxpayers will pay for the park
space.
Clapsaddle strongly stated the public is asking the City to put inappropriate statements
into the City's Comprehensive Plan. He stated the City does realize the loss of the park
space and there maybe should be a replacement of it. Clapsaddle expressed that the
Comprehensive Plan can not have specific information in it and the public needs to
remember this is a Plan for 10 years and it is a more general plan. He stated the public
needs to understand the purpose of the Comprehensive Plan.
MOTION by Brown, seconded by Mueller, to extend the Planning
Commission meeting until 11:10 p.m. MOTION CARRIED. 6-1, Hasse
voting nay.
11
Mound Planning Commission Minutes - November 8. 1999
Klm Anderson, 5737 Lynwood Boulevard. Ms. Anderson stated she would like the
Comprehensive Plan to include an allowance for the park space. Ms. Anderson would
also like the Land Use map to have a different color than green used to demonstrate
the Lost Lake area.
Gordon stated the Lost Lake area was considered park area because in the future there
is reason to believe there will be a trail system put in around the lake causing it to be
more of a park than just a wetland area. Gordon also stated a different color could be
used to demonstrate the Lost Lake area, rather than the green which was chosen.
Clapsaddle stated the City of Mound could have a program in the Comprehensive Plan
to replace lost park space, but you cannot specifically put the exact area for purchase in
a Comprehensive Plan.
MOTION by Clapsaddle, seconded by Hasse, to adjourn the meeting.
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Brown, to extend the meeting until 11:20
p.m. to close the public hearing and move on the Comprehensive Plan.
MOTION CARRIED. 7-0.
Wayne E. Echlebracht, 4873 Shoreline Drive. Mr. Echlebracht stated the
Comprehensive Plan currently states the City of Mound needs to service park space
within one mile with a football field and a baseball field. Mueller stated, and Brown
agreed, the Comprehensive Plan does currently offer this service and will in the future
as well according to what the code is requiring.
Clapsaddle stated the trail system should be restated in the Comprehensive Plan.
Geoff Michael stated when the public return at the continuation of tonight's public
hearing regarding the Comprehensive Plan, he would like to hear new information and
ideas.
Chair Michael closed the public hearing at 11:20 p.m.
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Hasse, to extend the public hearing
regarding the Comprehensive Plan to November 22, 1999, at 7:30 p.m.
Discussion:
Gordon stated the Planning Commission could legally ex[end the public hearing to a
special meeting or to the 22n~ of November.
Mueller expressed his concern again regarding buffering and would like the City Council
to review this issue with caution.
12
Mound Planninq Commission Minutes - November 8. 1999
Clapsaddle recommended the Planning Commission's meeting of November 22, 1999,
include on the agenda only the Comprehensive Plan.
MOTION CARRIED. 6-1, Brown voting nay.
Brown stated he opposed this motion because the City Council deserves more time to
review the Planning Commission's recommendations to the Comprehensive Plan
before November 23, 1999. He further stated there should be a special meeting. He
stated there will not be sufficient time to get the input from the citizens to City Council in
a timely manner.
Mueller stated there was not adequate time for the Planning Commission and the City
Council to review the Comprehensive Plan.
Chair Michael stated the public hearing will be open from 7:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. on
November 22, 1999, so the Planning Commission will have appropriate time to review
the Comprehensive Plan in its entirety after that time.
Voss stated there are real issues that need addressing in the Comprehensive Plan. In
addition, he wondered why the public did not approach the school board regarding the
park space. He further stated why did the school board not accept the City of Mound's
bid which was a fair offer for the property. He stated if the City of Mound can break a
contract, the school board could break it also.
INFORMATION:
1. Monthly report from October.
2. City Council minutes from October 11, 1999.
3. Dock and Commons minutes from October 21, 1999.
4. Park and Open Space minutes from October 14, 1999.
5. Park and Open Space minutes from October 28, 1999.
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION by Clapsaddle, seconded by Voss, to adjourn the meeting.
MOTION CARRIED: 7-0.
Chair Michael adjourned the meeting at 11:25 p.m.
13
MINUTES
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, OCTOBER 25, 1999
Those present: Chair Geoff Michael; Commissioners: Becky Glister, Cklair Hasse,
Michael Mueller, Bill Voss, Frank Weiland; Council Liaison Bob Brown. Absent and
excused: Commissioners Orv Burma and Jerry Clapsaddle. Staff present: City Planner
Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Suthedand, and Secretary Sue McCulloch.
Chair Michael called the meeting to order at 7:36 p.m.
2. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
Gordon started his presentation on the Comprehensive Plan. He stated the Culture
Resource Section now includes the burial sites in Mound. The Social Economics
Section's projections by Metropolitan Council were off so Gordon created a comparison
chart that showed what projections he felt would be more realistic. Gordon stated the
goals and policies within each section still need to be implemented.
Brown stated he had been informed there are more parks per capita in the City of
Mound than any other city in the seven county metro area.
Chair Michael strongly suggested improvements in the Housing Section. He
questioned the wording of having the City of Mound "encourage maintenance."
Sutherland stated currently maintenance is encouraged if another citizen has made a
complaint.
Mueller questioned the deadline of this project and stated strongly the Comprehensive
Plan currently does not suit the City of Mound. Mueller stated the Planning
Commission does not want to put this Plan into effect with the language it currently has
in the Plan so he is encouraging a page-by-page review of the Comprehensive Plan
tonight.
Mound PlanninQ Commission Minutes - October 25. 1999
Brown stated there is information about the community center that is stated incorrectly
and out of context in the Comprehensive Plan. Brown also strongly stated the
Comprehensive Plan will not be passed on November 8, 1999, as it reads to date. He
is aware, although, of the end-of-the-year deadline for the Plan.
Sutherland agreed with Mueller that the Comprehensive Plan should be reviewed page-
by-page.
Weiland strongly stated there is information in the Comprehensive Plan that should be
deleted and reinserted when the need arises.
Gordon reiterated that this Draft contains all sections that have been reviewed by the
Planning Commission over the last 9 months with some sections two and three times.
Based on those review sessions, this draft represents the direction of the Planning
Commission. Gordon asked who had read the Draft and what specific concerns exist as
the draft reads. He stated the public hearing is scheduled for November 8, 1999 and
those issues remaining need to be identified and addressed by the Commission so a
recommendation can be forwarded to Council.
Chair Michael agreed to a page-by-page review tonight of the Goals and Policies on
pages 6-11. Mueller agreed with Chair Michael.
Community Development
The word "Goal" should be deleted following the subtitle.
Natural Resources
There was some disagreement regarding number 2, although, Gordon and Sutherland
agree this item needs to be included in the Plan for situations that are forthcoming.
Mueller stated some disagreement regarding number 4 because it is more extensive
than what the City of Mound currently does. Gordon stated, and Sutherland agreed,
this number needs to stay in the Plan to have something to fall back on when there is
an incident of discussion by a citizen which could occur.
The Planning Commission and staff agreed to restate number 6. They would like it to
read as follows: Promote shoreland management practices consistent with the Mound
Comprehensive Plan, providing they recognize LMCD and the DNR development
guidelines and Mound's existing land use pattern.
Mound Planning Commission Minutes - October 25. 1999
Land Use
Mueller and Voss suggested number 2 to read as follows: Create suitable dwelling
densities to accommodate changing development patterns, housing types and aesthetic
values.
Mueller suggested number 7 should eliminate the word "maintain" and insert the word
"encourage." Sutherland stated we can maintain a mix Of downtown by using SAC
credits.
Mueller suggested number 9 should eliminate the word "should" and replace it with the
word "shall."
Housing
There was lengthy discussions of numbers 4 and 5. Staff stated an example of Maple
Manor in support of number 4. Number 5 relates to truth and housing and the
Commissioners, as well as staff, would like to see this enforced where applicable.
The Commissioners, and staff agreed, to restate number 7 in the goal area of this
section.
Transportation
It was agreed by the Commissioners and staff to restate number 5 to read as follows:
Encourage the upgrading of all municipal, county and state roadways, full urban
sections, i.e., curb gutter blacktop streets, with controlled driveways cuts, curbing,
sidewalks, etc.
Sutherland stated, and Gordon agreed, number 7 should be restated with the goal area
of this section to read as follows: Promote increased development and interconnection
with adjacent communities of the bikeways.
Recreation
In the goal section, the word "the" mentioned before "all Mound residents" should be
deleted.
There was agreement by those present to change number 6 to read as follows:
Promote a balanced park system which includes neighborhood parks, community
parks, nature conservation areas, special use facilities, schools and private
developments.
Gordon stated he will add a number 10 that will include appropriate language regarding
a trail system for the City of Mound to be included in the Comprehensive Plan.
5
Mound Planning Commission Minutes - October 25. 1999
Public Communication/Information Access
The Commissioners and staff agreed to remove the word "continue" at the beginning of
the sentence in number 1.
It was agreed that number 2 should be restated to read as follows: Continue to
encourage and provide public participation at Council and Commission meetings.
Number 3 should be restated to read: Ensure that elected and appointed officials are
provided timely and accurate information to assist with decision making by having
adequate staff.
3. RESOLUTION TO AMEND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
This resolution will be on the Agenda for the Park and Open Space Advisory
Commission Special Meeting on October 28, 1999. There was discussion by the
Commissioners regarding the resolution that indicated the resolution contained false
information.
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Brown,-to deny the Resolution as
provided. MOTION CARRIED by a resounding aye. 7-0.
INFORMATION
1. City Council Minutes from October 12, 1999.
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION by Voss, seconded by Weiland, to adjourn the meeting. MOTION
CARRIED: 9-0.
Chair Michael adjourned the meeting at 10:15 p.m.
6
CITY OF MOUND
Comparison of October 25, 1999
and April 11, 2000
Comprehensive Plan Drafts
I~-]ll Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
GOALS AND POLICIES
MISSION STATEMENT
Mound is a high amenity community consisting of residential, commercial,
industrial and recreational land uses. It contains diverse topography, mature tree
cover and frequent vistas of Lake Minnetonka. It is the city's overall goal to
preserve and protect existing natural resources and to preserve and enhance the
residential, commercial, industrial and recreational components of the community.
NATURAL RESOURCES
Goal:
Protect and enhance the natural environmental quality and beauty of Mound from
pollution and the degradation of valuable natural resources. Promote rational
planning, development and redevelopment efforts that preserve and/or enhance a
high quality environment.
Policies:
All site plans and other development proposals will be reviewed by city staff
to analyze natural resources impacts and aesthetic impacts. Where
appropriate, staffwill offer measures to mitigate negative impacts.
Future developments and redevelopments should be designed so that they
are sensitive to natural features. Features that are determined to have
significant cultural, historical and/or archaeological value should be
preserved.
o
Support state and federal programs for the reduction of pollutants and
upgrading of the natural environment.
o
Development should be properly managed in areas where the conditions of
the soil, ground water, drainage, rock formations or topography are such that
they do not create hazards to the property or adjacent properties.
o
Encourage recycling programs which conserve resources and reduce the
quantity of solid waste.
Promote shoreland management practices consistent withthe Comprehensive
Plan, providing they recognize LMCD and DNR development guidelines
and Mound's existing land use pattem.
City of Mound
Comprehensive Plan - October 25, 1999April 11, 2000 Draft
Goals and Policies
p. 6
7.Acquirc, through public means, wetland areas when opportunities arise.
Preserve, through public, private, and/or partnerships with the State
Historic Preservation Office and Westonka Historical Society, buildings
that are deemed to be historically significant.
LAND USE
Goal:
Create a land development pattern which fulfills social and economic needs while
enhancing and preserving natural resources.
Policies:
1. Enforce adopted land use standards and ordinances.
Create suitable dwelling densities to accommodate changing development
patterns, housing types and aesthetic values.
o
Establish a land use pattem which is compatible and transitional with
existing developments.
Encourage development of existing commercial areas to enhance available
services, provide employment opportunities and to expand the tax base.
Encourage expansion and redevelopment of business oppommities
consistent with the comprehensive plan.
Encourage the redevelopment of older business areas especially in the
downtown area through close coordination with the business community and
by undertaking public action when feasible including but not limited to HRA
activities, tax increment financing and the provision of public improvements.
o
Encourage a mix of downtown businesses including retail, offices,
entertainment and service businesses. Maintain the downtown and it's
periphery as the focus of Mound's commercial activity.
Support the continUed operation and enhancement of existing industrial areas
but discourage the expansion of industrial uses outside of their present
locations.
city of Mound
Comprehensive Plan -Octobcr 25, 1999April l I. 2000 Draft
Goals and Policies
19.7
10.
The 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. Parcels that are deemed to serve no current or
future public purpose should be sol~considered for removal from the City
inventory and returned to the tax roles.
Continually monitor ordinances and policies that affect land use to ensure
that they are reflective of community policy.
HOUSING
Goal:
Provide housing opportunities for all residents, supporting creative multi-family
housing while emphasizing the construction and maintenance of high quality, single
family dwelling units.
Policies:
Encourage development and redevelopment of quality, high amenity housing
units.
2. Discourage new residential development from encroaching upon vital
natural resources.
3. Maintain the predominately single family housing base throughout the city.
Recognize unique historical platting practices in certain areas by allowing
some flexibility in the application of current bulk/area regulations. In ~uch
instances, flexibility will only be grantedFlexibility will be considered when
it can be demonstrated that the integrity and intent of the comprehensive plan
is not compromised.
Encourage ongoing maintenance of residential structures and surrounding
yard areas.
Continually monitor ordinances and policies that affect housing to ensure
that they are reflective of community policy.
City of Mound
Comprehensive Plan - October 25, 1999April 1 I, 2000 Draft
Goals and Policies
p. 8
Policies:
Provide a service oriented City Hall that is responsive to community
needs.
2. Encourage public participation at Council and Commission meetings.
&Staff will provide timely and accurate information toEnsure that elected and
appointed officials are providedtimely and accurate information to assist
with decision making through adequate staffing resources.
Provide the public with City information through newsletters, local newspapers,
the internet, informational brochures, television, radio, and other media
formats.
3. for assistance in decision making.
prOvide the public with City infom~ation through newsletters, local
newspapers, the internet, infom~ational brochures, television, radio, and
other media formats.
City of Mound
Comprehensive Plan -Octobcr 25, 1999April 11, 2000 Draft
Goals and Policies
p. 11
NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
Natural Resources
Mound is a high amenity community as represented by large an~ount and variety of
natural features in the numerous lakes, wetlands, and natural areas that lend
character to the community. Although the historical development of much of the
community is typical of urban single family densities, the many natural features
provide a sense of openness that provides relief from this form.
The Mound planning program emphasizes an analysis of natural resources. A
number of problems can be encountered when developing in environmentally
sensitive areas. Poor soils cause foundation problems as well as the inconvenience
of wet basements. Retaining walls often malfunction in steeply sloped areas. Filled
wetlands are incapable of cleansing runoff, consequently, lakes are polluted.
Clearing tree cover and other vegetation affects surface drainage, erosion, wildlife
habitats and aesthetic appeal.
The planning program examines natural features as an aid in guiding future
development and redevelopment efforts. Poorly managed development frequently
results in the depletion of irreplaceable resources. Many communities now
recognize the value of the topography and vegetation of their cities. Marshy
wetlands and wooded knolls are less frequently filled and leveled for development
of grid pattem residential streets. All new subdivisions should harmonize with the
environmental features which results in the accentuation of the land's natural beauty.
usgs of Mound and the Lake Minnetonka area
City of Mound
Comprehensive Plan - October 25, 1999April 1 I, 2000 Draft
Natural and Cultural Resources
p. 13
commons. The commons properties currently serve a number of purposes but are
primarily used to gain access to docks.
The commons land falls into one of three categories:
1. Land that is available to the general public that is readily accessible by land
from some sort of public way.
2. Land that by deed restrictiondedication is identified for use principally by
owners of specific subdivisions and is conveniently accessible by land from a
public way.
3. Land which abuts private property and is not conveniently accessible from a
public way.
Land Use Plan
The land use plan for Mound looks out 10 to 20 years to provide a general
concept for use types, intensities, and locations. As land use decisions of property
owners can be ever changing, the plan should be dynamic to respond to the needs
of the community. This is not to say that the plan should accommodate every
request. The concepts of the plan should be used to ensure that as requests are
considered, the goals are not compromised. The land use plan endorses the
following concepts:
Maintain the single-family character of the community
· Encourage a higher percentage of multiple family arrangements. Locate these
uses along major roadways and close to shopping and community services.
· Focus commercial retail and office in the downtown. Limit commercial
outside of the downtown to neighborhood scale uses.
. Limit industry to existing areas.
Protect natural resources including wetlands, marsh, steep slopes, significant
tree stands, and water resources.
Land Use Plan Categories:
Low Density Residential - The low density residential category has a density
range from 1 to 6 units per acres. This category accounts for a larger percentage
of the housing in Mound and most of the land use. Typical housing types include
single family attached and detached when within the density range.
Medium Density Residential - The medium density residential category has a
density range from 7 to 12 units per acre. Typical housing stock includes multi-
unit townhomes, four-plexes, and smaller scale apartment and assisted living
facilities. Because of potential impacts to single family neighborhoods, these uses
City of Mound
Comprehensive Plan - October 25, 1999April I l, 2000 Draft
Land Use
p. 35
are generally located along arterials and collector streets.
High Density Residential - The high density residential category has a density
range in excess of 12 units per acre and accommodates multi-building apartment
and assisted living facilities. These are intensive residential uses that are
appropriate along arterials and collector streets.
General Commercial - The general commercial category provides a variety of
retail commercial and office uses that have a neighborhood scale. Although they
are generally auto-oriented uses that are located along, collector and arterial
streets, their proximity to adjacent residential neighborhoods encourages
compatibility.
Pedestrian District - The pedestrian district is a mixed use area at the core of
downtown. It is an intense downtown area with building that accommodate first
story retail, second story office, and third story residential.a mix of retail, office,
and attached residential housing uses. Other buildings with a pedestrian
orientation include public, multi-unit residential, entertainment, retail commercial
and office. The pedestrian district incorporates traditional downtown planning
techniques to encourage a higher standard for development.
Destination District - The destination district is primarily auto-oriented
commercial areas which are connected to the pedestrian district but are difficult or
impossible to make part of the pedestrian loop. These districts gain their strength
from convenient auto access off of county roads 15 and 110. The types of uses in
the destination district is diverse but would include groceries, fast food, and gas
stations as well as a farmers market and hotel.
Linear District - This district stretches along Commerce Blvd. from the south
side of the pedestrian district to Mound Bay Park. This district provides for a mix
of medium and high density residential, institutional, and office uses.
Industrial - The industrial category is limited to the Balboa Business Center and
adjacent lands for business, assembly, manufacturing, wholesale, and storage
uses.
Public/Institutional - The public/institutional category identifies all city, school,
church, and other public and quasi-public facilities and land.
Park - The park category identifies all park and open space areas but not
including commons areas.areas. Commons lands are also a component of the
City's park and recreation system as noted in Figure 30 Docks and Commons
Location Map.
City of Mound
Comprehensive Plan - October 25, 1999April 11, 2000 Draft
Land Use
p. 36
SOLAR ACCESS
State legislation enacted in 1978 requires local comprehensive plans to address
solar access protection. The law requires that communities make efforts to ensure
that direct sunlight access to solar panels is not subjected to shading from nearby
trees, buildings or other structures. In the 1980's, energy prices and potential fuel
shortages focused attention on both passive an active solar collection systems.
Since that time, however, lower energy prices have diminished interest in active
solar energy collection systems. While solar energy issues are seldom discussed
during building permit or subdivision reviews today, it is possible that conditions
will change in the future. The fact that Mound is nearly a fully developed
community suggests that consideration of solar access will occur during
redevelopment efforts and on an individual basis. Accordingly, the City will take
the following measures to ensure protection of solar access where appropriate:
1. Encourage access to direct sunlight for areas that will undergo
redevelopment.
2. The City should consider making available, information pertaining to
design criteria for solar access.
o
Encourage the design of new subdivisions in a manner that allows the
maximum number of new buildings to receive sunlight sufficient for solar
energy systems. The City will encourage the silliagplacement of buildings
and vegetation in a manner that allows unobstructed sunlight to reach the
south sides of structures between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m.
4. Examine the existing Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances to ensure that
they adequately include solar energy protection measures.
5.Consistent with State Statutes, the City will consider variances in
circumstances where hardships are imposed because of the inability of
structures to obtain dircct sunlight for solar energy systems because of
existing zoning and subdivision ordinance provisions.
City of Mound
Comprehensive Plan -Octobcr 25, 1999,~pril l 1, 2000 Draft
Land Use
p. 39
4. Concentrate retail and high traffic uses in the first floor. Utilize second plus
story space for office and residential uses.
5. Locate higher density residential in the Linear District and Pedestrian District.
Housing
Downtown residential housing is important for its success and vitality. A
residential population creates a continued cycle of activity and a ready market for
retail uses. Downtown must offer a unique lifestyle otherwise unavailable in the
community and surrounding area. Downtown must provide residents with
opportunities and services that reach further than a 9 to 5 day. Improving the
vitality and attractiveness of downtown will create momentum for developing and
marketing activities which will position downtown as a desirable place to live.
The Mound Visions plan calls for a mix of housing within the pedestrian district
and at the edges of the downtown. It encourages a mix of housing types to cater to
various lifestyles and ages from townhomes and apartments to multi-unit assisted
living arrangements. Downtown housing will typically have higher densities than
are found throughout the balance of Mound.
Housing Goal
Provide a mix of housing types for ail income levels, family types and age
groups, with a variety of prices and rent levels.
Housing Policies
1. Encourage a variety of housing types to allow a wide range of living
opportunities.
2. Encourage upper story residential units over retail and office uses in the
pedestrian district.
3. Locate high density multi-family residences along Commerce overlooking
Lost Lake and Lake Langdon.
4. Plan for and provide adequate convenience retail, cultural, recreation, and
services necessary to support this residential base.
Culture, Recreation and Entertainment
Downtown Mound will need expendedexpanded cultural, recreational and
entertainment opportunities to make it a destination attraction. The Lost Lake
canal and greenway are important elements to this attractiveness. A farmer's
City of Mound
Comprehensive Plan - October 25, 1999April I I. 2000 Draft
Land Use
p. 42
TRANSIT SERVICE
The Metropolitan Transit Commission (MTC) provides the City of Mound with
regular bus service to Ridgedale and downtown Minneapolis. Mound's transit
service is primarily commuter traffic connecting with other western metropolitan
suburbs or downtown Minneapolis. The bus route follows Mound's major roadway
system including County Roads 110, 15 and 125. Park and ride facilities are
provided in a municipal lot next to the Mound Post Office on Shoreline Boulevard.
At the present time, Mound is served by MTC routes 75 and 78. The path of these
routes is shown on Figure 26. Route 75 includes express service to downtown
Minneapolis. The scheduled travel time from the Mound depot to downtown
Minneapolis is approximately 40 minutes via express service.
In addition to bus service, Mound has para transit service available to residents.
Commercial taxi service is available as well as a dial-a-ride program operated for
use by s¢iik, rall citizens. Thesenior dial-a-ride service is operated on a donation fee
basis.with a rider fee.
Bus transit and para transit services will continue to provide Mound with transit
altematives. Light rail transit (LRT) which is currently being planned by Hennepin
County will not directly impact the City. According to current plans, the planned
LRT corridor closest to Mound lies along either TH 55 in Plymouth or 1-394 in
Minnetonka. LRT has the potential for providing indirect benefit through potential
connections at either park and ride sites or bus/LRT connection points. The City of
Mound supports LRT as a transit alternative for the Metropolitan Area particularly
since it may provide indirect benefits to Mound residents.
City of Mound
Comprehensive Plan - Ociobet 25, 1999A?ril 1 I. 2000 Draft
Transportation
p. 65
Specialized Areas
In addition to neighborhood and community park facilities, Mound has a number of
specialized areas that provide unique recreational opportunities. The specialized
areas exist in three primary forms, commons property, permanent preserve lands
(wetlands and nature conservation areas) and special use areas.
According to the 1990 Comprehensive Plan, permanent preserve land accounts for
a total of approximately 68 acres. The Lost Lake area comprises a substantial
portion of this total. Other parcels scattered throughout the community account for
the remainder of the acreage.
Approximately 26 acres of property classified as commons exists in Mound. These
parcels comprise nearly 10 percent of the total Lake Minnetonka shoreline in the
community. Substantial diversity characterizes the commons areas. Some areas are
relatively flat and are easily accessible to the general public while some parcels
consist of steep slopes that are virtually unaccessible, even to abutting property
owners.
owners. Some commons properties are deep and provide ample space for numerous
public uses. Some are narrow and offer little more than a walkway or access to
dockage. Other areas are so narrow that even access becomes difficult and can
narrow to nothing at all.
Commons areas provide a valuable recreational resource to both residents of
Mound and to the general public. In many cases, the sites function as neighborhood
access points to Lake Minnetonka. Aside from the Mound Bay Park area,
commonsCommons properties are generally not capable of providing community-
wide boat launching or parking facilities. However, depending on the specific site
or commons area, boat launching facilities, limited parking, swimming and fishing
are accommodated. A further discussion of commons appears later in this plan.
There are a number of year round and seasonal lake access points that provide
public access to Lake Minnetonka and Dutch Lake. These access points are located
throughout the community affording residents without lakefront property or
commons use convenient lake access. Year round access points are located on
Dutch Lake, West Arm, Harrisons Bay, and Cooks Bay in Mound Bay Park. They
accommodate winter snowmobiling and ice fishing access as well as seasonal boat
access. Seasonal lake access areas are located at Canary Beach on the West Arm,
Centerview Beach on Harrisons Bay, Wychwood Beach on Cooks Bay, and
Pembrook Park on Phelps Bay.
City of Mound
Comprehensive Plan - October 25, 1999April 11, 2000 Draft
Park and Recreation
p. 77
Recreation Need
Parks have become increasingly important to Mound residents. Demand for park
facilities has increased due to a number of factors including increased population
and a greater public awareness of the importance of fitness. Additionally, Mound is
becoming fully developed which means that less vacant land exists as open space.
The density of development in Mound also contributes to the need for recreational
facilities. The combination of small lot sizes and varying topography limits the use
of private property in many areas emphasizing the importance of accessible public
park lands.
The application of population ratio standards is a common method of analyzing
recreation need. Population ratio standards are simply figures expressed in terms of
a number of acres of park land per one thousand residents. These standards are
used as a general guide in assessing the adequacy of the supply of existing and
furore park and recreation areas.
The minimum standards used in this plan are in conformance with those used in the
1990 Mound Comprehensive Plan and the National Recreation and Park
Association (NRPA) Standards used at that time. They include the following:
PARK TYPE
Neighborhood Park/Playground
Community Playfield
Community Park
Total Park System
MINIMUM STANDARD 2.0 Acres/1000
1.5 Acres/1000
3.5 Acres/1000
7.0 Acres/1000
Note: The NRPA suggests that a park system, at a minimum, be comprised of a "core" system of parldands,
with a total of 6.25 to 10.5 acres of developed o pen space per 1,000 population. The NRPA acknowledges the
size and amount of parkland will vary from community to community but must be taken in to account when
considering a total, well-rounded system of parks and recreation areas.
The Socio-Economic chapter of this plan presented information on existing and
projected population information for Mound. The preceding information presents
park acreages required in the years 1990 and 2000 in accordance with the applied
population ratio standards. In order to assess the impact of these projections on the
City of Mound, it is necessary to compare the projected park requirements to the
existing park supply. The following table provides this comparison.
PARK TYPE
SURPLUS/DEFICIENCY
PARK TYPE
Neighborhood Park/Playground
Community Playfield
EXISTING ACRES STANDARD
EXISTING ACREAGE SURPLUS/
ACREAGE STANDARD DEFICIENCY
22.6 Ac 19.4 Ac +3.2ac
35.5 Ac 14.6 Ac +20.9 Ac
City of Mound
Comprehensive Plan - October 25. ]999April 11, 2000 Draft
Park and Recreation
p. 78
Community Park
Total Park System
4.8 Ac 34.0 Ac -29.2 Ac
62.9 Ac 67.9 Ac -5.0 Ac
The Commons areas in Mound do not fit well within the structure of National
Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) Standards for park classifications as a
whole. Because of the specific uses of each commons area and the underlying
dedication, each has specifics for the residents served. This is why they are
identified as Specialized Areas in this plan. If however, the commons were to_ be
grouped into park types, they would fit in either a neighborhood or community
park category. Nonetheless, they are a component of the system as they provide
benefit to the City's residents in many ways. The following table compares the
existing park and commons acreages to the NRPA standards. It should be noted
that the commons acreage is an estimate for these purposes.
PARK TYPE
Neighborhood Park/Playground
Community Playfield
Community Park
Commons Areas
Total Park System
EXISTING ACREAGE SURPLUS/
ACREAGE STANDARD DEFICIENCY
22.6 Ac 19.4 Ac +3.2ac
35.5 Ac 14.6 Ac +20.9 Ac
4.8 Ac 34.0 Ac -29.2 Ac
26 Ac NA NA
88.9 Ac 67.9 Ac +21 Ac
Strict application of the minimum standards indicates that Mound meets minimum
acreages for neighborhood park/playground facilities for its population. Areas
classified as community playfields are also more than adequate to cover anticipated
demand. Most of the community playfields are part of the Westonka School
District. On the whole, the figures indicate a shortage of community parks with a
deficiency of approximately 29 acres. The total park system is also deficient by a
minimum of 5 acres. With the inclusion of commons areas, the total park system has
a 21 acre surplus.
The total park system acreage appears to be short by at least 5 acres when based on
population numbers. During the development of the community, parkland was
secured based on community standards at that time. If the standards used to guide
parkland in the past are used for future planning, additional parkland will be needed
to keep pace a slight increase in population. Any gains in parkland will certainly
increase residents enjoyment, although the plan recognizes this will not be an easy
task. Thc reality could bc that there is a slight increase in the acreage deficiency as
the population edges up. The conclusion can be drawn that the population/acreage
method forcalculating park acreage should be used as a general guideline for
assessing park needs.
While the park land inventory is likely to remain static over time, the user needs
will be ever changing. During the period when the community was developing, the
City of Mound
Comprehensive Plan - October 25, 1999April 1 I, 2000 Draft
Park and Recreation
p. 79
challenge was to secure park land for the future. Now the challenge appears to have
shifted to meeting the needs of the users. However, additional park land will be
needed, users.
and extra effort is necessary to identify and acquire available parcels.
Recreation Need - Other Influences
The total acreage in a city's park system is only one measure used in analyzing the
adequacy of existing and future park and recreation areas. In order to accurately
represent existing conditions, the inventory of park facilities can not stop at
municipal boundaries.
Users of park and recreation facilities disregard political boundaries. If Mound
does not offer the types of activities desired by users, they will attempt to seek the
desired facilities in other locations. Therefore, recreation opportunities within the
vicinity of Mound have an effect upon the type and number of recreational facilities
necessary to adequately serve the recreation needs of the Mound population. The
reverse of this relationship is also true. Various components of the Mound park
system are attractive to both residents and nonresidents alike. Mound Bay Park, for
example, appeals to substantial numbers of users who actually live outside of
Mound's city limits.
Every community a surrounding Mound maintains a municipal park system.
Additionally, community service groups provide facilities. An example is
Westonka Recreation Association complex located west on County Road 110 in
Minnetdsta. The complex has softball diamonds, pedestrian and bicycle trails, and a
concession area. Planned improvements include a community meeting room, a play
area and a swimming pool. This facility provides recreational opportunities for
Mound residents.
In addition to municipal facilities, the regional park system operated by Hennepin
Parks provides recreational opportunities to Mound residents. Carver Park Reserve
is located approximately 3.5 miles southwest of Mound. It provides extensive trails
and natural wildlife habitat areas. Other facilities located within a 20 minute drive
for Mound residents include Baker Park Reserve, Lake Rebecca Park Preserve, and
Lake Minnetonka Regional Park.
Recreation Need - Summary
The previously described NRPA standards show that Mound satisfies the minimum
targeted acreage standard for neighborhood park facilities to serve its population.
Neighborhood parks are provided generally within one half mile of all residences
within the city. One area of concern exists, however. In the western section of the
community, a large area of undeveloped land exists. If this area develops in the
furore, a new neighborhood park facility may be needed depending on the type of
City of Mound
Comprehensive Plan - October 25. 1999April 1 I, 2000 Draft
Park and Recreation
p. 80
· Offensive Behavior
· In-house training for defense tactics to officers
The Department is also part of the Southwest Drag Task Force, which is a joint
effort of 10 communities and Hennepin County.
Fire Department
The Mound Fire Department is a 37 member volunteer staff. The Fire Station is
located adjacent to City Hall on the comer of Wilshire Blvd. and Maywood Road.
Fire and rescue services are provided to Mound and surrounding communities.
Public Services
The Depam~ent structure of the City of Mound is oriented to providing residents
with services that contribute to the quality of life. These services include:
· Water service
· Sewer service
· Snowplowing
· Street maintenance
· Park programming
· Park maintenance
· Building review and inspections
Two public works facilities house equipment needed to carry out public services.
In addition to public services, other private sector services are provided within the
City.
· Electric Service is provided by Minnegasco
· Natural Gas is provided by Reliant Energy Northem States Power
· Cable TV is provided by TP~AXMediacom
· Garbage service is provided by a number of contract companies
Schools
Mound is part of the Westonka Public School District #277 which was consolidated
in 1917. It serves the cities of Mound, Minnetrista, Orono, Spring Park, Navarre,
Shorewood, Lyndale and Independence. The District offers a number of community
education and services programs including:
· Early Childhood Family Education (ECFE)
· Westonka Adventure Club
· Youth development programs
· Recreation and enrichment classes
· Adult Basic Education GED
City of Mound
Comprehensive Plan - October 25, 1999April 11, 2000 Draft
Public Facilities
p. 91
CITY OF MOUND
Draft- Comprehensive Plan
April 11, 2000
1~1~ Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
What is a Comprehensive Plan?
Why do a Comprehensive Plan?
REGIONAL SETTING
GOALS AND POLICIES
Community Development
Natural Resources
Land Use
Housing
Transportation
Recreation
Public Communication/Information Access
NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
Floodplain
Wetlands
Slopes
High Water Table
Cultural Resources
SOCIO-ECONOMIC
Population
Age Distribution
Households
Comparison of Data
Employment
Employment Distribution
Income
LAND
USE
Existing Land Use
Land Use Issues
Land Use Plan
Solar Access
Redevelopment
HOUSING
Introduction
Existing Housing Stock
Housing Occupancy
Housing Values
Building Permit Activity
25
47
13
31
I-Iousing Analysis
The Life Cycle Evolution
The Baby Boom Generation and its Impacts
The Rental Community
Assisted Housing
Metropolitan Livable Communities Act
Conclusions and Recommendations
Housing Quality
Housing Availability
TRANSPORTATION
Introduction
Existing System
Jurisdictional Classification
Traffic Assignment Zones
Transit Service
Future Service Needs
Deficiencies and Issues
Summary
RECREATION
Introduction
Recreation Supply
Specialized Areas
Recreation Need
Recreation Need - Other Influences
Facility Needs
Recreation Need - Summary
Recreation Plan
General Comments and Recommendations
Specialized Areas - Recommendations
Commons Areas
Nature Conservancy Areas
Bikeways
PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
Administration
Police Department
Fire Department
Public Services
Schools
Libraries
Water System
Sanitary Sewer System
73
58
90
IMPLEMENTATION Introduction
Roles and Responsibilities
city Council
Planning Commission
Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Economic Development Commission
Parks and Open Space Commission
Housing
Land Use
Transportation
Recreation
Citizen Participation
Capital Improvement Program
Administrative Procedures
96
FIGURES
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
Regional Setting
Population (Mound)
Population (Metro and Hennepin County)
Age Distribution
Households
Households (Metro and Hennepin County)
USGS of Mound Area
Wetlands
Steep Slopes
Cultural Resources
MalmsterffKoehler Mounds
Malmsten/Koehler Mounds USGS
Malmsten/Koehler Mounds USGS
First Bartlett Group
Second Bartlett Group
Cook's Group
Phelps Island Mounds
Phelps Island Mounds
Existing Land use
Future Land Use
Mound Visions Plan
Life Cycle Housing Chain
Functional Classification
1997 M.S.A.S. Traffic Volumes and Jurisdictional Classification
iv
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
Transportation Assignment Zones
Transit Service
2010/2020 Average Daily Traffic Forecast
Roadway and Transportation Improvements
Existing Park and Recreation Facilities
Commons Map
Bikeways and Trails Plan
CITY OF MOUND
Comprehensive Plan
INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION
The City of Mound is required to complete and keep updated a Comprehensive
Plan under the Metropolitan Land Planning Act of 1976 and all subsequent
amendments to that act. The Metropolitan Land Planning Act (MLPA) addresses
the interdependence of local units of government within the Twin Cities
Metropolitan Area and requires the adoption of coordinated plans and programs
in order to "...protect the health, safety and welfare of the general public...and to
ensure coordinated, orderly and economic development.''~ State statutes give the
local .planning body the authority to prepare the plan and submit it to the
governing body for approval and adoption. In preparing the plan, the planning
body is required to work with other City agencies, adjacent communities, school
districts and counties in order to ensure coordinated regional planning. A 1995
amendment to the MLPA required the Metropolitan Council to prepare a
comprehensive development guide for the metropolitan area. The Metropolitan
Council drafted the "Regional Blueprint" in December of 1996 to fulfill this
requirement and to provide local units of government with direction on how to
plan for growth, transportation, aviation and water resource management. The
amendment also required local governments within the seven county
metropolitan area to amend local comprehensive plans so that they are consistent
with the goals and policies established for the region.
What is a Comprehensive Plan?
A comprehensive plan is a tool used to guide the physical and socio-economic
growth of a community. It is intended to be broad in scope while establishing
general goals and policies for such elements as land use, surface water
management, public infrastructure (sewer and water supply systems),
transportation, housing, economic development and redevelopment, park and
open space public facilities and environmental protection. The plan is different
from the commonly know zoning ordinance in that the plan is visionary and
general whereas the zoning ordinance is exact and detailed. The zoning
ordinance is a tool to implement the comprehensive plan and is amended to
reflect the vision set out by the plan after the planning process has been
completed. The primary users of the comprehensive plan are the City Council,
Planning Commission and City Staff who must use the plan to guide the day to
day decisions of local government.
~ Minnesota Statutes 473,851, Copyright 1996 by the Office of Revisor of Statutes, State of
Minnesota
City of Mound
Comprehensive Plan - April 11, 2000 Draft
Introduction
p.l
Why do a Comprehensive Plan?
The Metropolitan Land Planning Act made comprehensive planning mandatory
for local communities in the Metropolitan Area in 1976. A 1995 amendment to
the act required plans tO be brought up to date and in to compliance with regional
growth Policy by December 30, 1998 or June of 1999 if granted an extension by
the Metropolitan Council. Since that time however, the deadline for local plan
submittal has been extended to December 31, 1999. This Comprehensive Plan is
intended to comply with the 1995 amendment to the Land Planning Act.
Comprehensive Planning is not only done because of legislative mandates. It is
important to have a plan which will help guide not only physical growth of the
community but also its social growth.
In general the Comprehensive Plan will:
· Guide development and redevelopment efforts.
· Preserve desired qualities and resources
· Enhance efficiency of public expenditures
· Spark interest in new investment and reinvestment
· Coordinate development and growth with other governments
Previous Planning Efforts
This updated Comprehensive Plan represents the fourth major planning effort for
the City of Mound. This plan represents an update to the 1990 Comprehensive
Plan to comply with the Regional Blueprint and new community issues. The
original City Comprehensive Plan was prepared in 1961 and was updated with
the 1979 plan.
City of Mound
Comprehensive Plan - April 11, 2000 Draft
Introduction
p. 2
CITY OF MOUND
Comprehensive Plan
REGIONAL SETTING
REGIONAL SETTING
The City of Mound is located on the western shores of the many bays of Lake
Minnetonka. It is approximately 25 miles west of downtown Minneapolis.
Highway access into Mound is provided by County Roads 15 from the east and
west, 110 from the north and west, and 44 from the south. Located in Hennepin
County, Mound is on the western edge of the Metropolitan Urban Service Area.
Lands north and west of the community in Minnetrista are largely undeveloped
with the exception of residential areas around Jennings and Halsted Bay.
Additional urban growth is anticipated in these undeveloped lands during the next
20 years. Neighboring lake communities include Minnetrista, Shorewood, Spring
Park, and Orono. Mound is physically separated by water from every community
except Minnetrista, who also shares the largest border.
The City of Mound is the result of the consolidation of what was the Village of
Mound and Island Park in 1955. Original incorporation of the Village was in
1912. Mound is part of a rich history of early Lake Minnetonka settlement.
Located on the western shores of Lake Minnetonka, the City's name originated
from the existence of Indian burial mounds located within the community. The
current land use pattern resulted from summer lakeshore cabin developments
platted on small lots, many with park commons along the lakeshore. In
comparison to its sister lake communities, Mound has a relatively dense
development pattern.
CITY OI
Co~pre~sive Plan
t
City of Mound
Comprehensive Plan - April 11, 2000 Draft
Regional Setting
p. 4
CITY OF MOUND
Comprehensive Plan
GOALS AND POLICIES
GOALS AND POLICIES
MISSION STATEMENT
Mound is a high amenity community consisting of residential commercial
industrial and recreational land uses. It contains diverse topography, mature tree
cover and frequent vistas of Lake Minnetonka. It is the city's overall goal to
preserve and protect existing natural resources and to preserve and enhance the
residential commercial, industrial and recreational components of the community.
NATURAL RESOURCES
Goal:
Protect and enhance the natural environmental quality and beauty of Mound from
pollution and the degradation of valuable natural resources. Promote rational
planning, development and redevelopment efforts that preserve and/or enhance a
high quality environment.
Policies:
All site plans and other development proposals will be reviewed by city staff
to analyze natural resources impacts and aesthetic impacts. Where
appropriate, staff will offer measures to mitigate negative impacts.
Furore developments and redevelopments should be designed so that they
are sensitive to natural features. Features that are determined to have
significant cultural, historical and/or archaeological value should be
preserved.
o
Support state and federal programs for the reduction of pollutants and
upgrading of the natural environment.
Development should be properly managed in areas where the conditions of
the soil, ground water, drainage, rock formations or topography are such that
they do not create hazards to the property or adjacent properties.
o
Encourage recycling programs which conserve resources and reduce the
quantity of solid waste.
°
Promote shoreland management practices consistent with DNR development
guidelines and Mound's existing land use pattem.
City of Mound
Comprehensive Plan - April 11, 2000 Draft
Goals and Policies
p. 6
Preserve, through public, private, and/or partnerships with the State
Historic Preservation Office and Westonka Historical Society, buildings
that are deemed to be historically significant.
LAND USE
Goal:
Creme a land development pattem which fulfills social and economic needs while
enhancing and preserving natural resources.
Policies:
1. Enforce adopted land use standards and ordinances.
Creme suitable dwelling densities to accommodate changing development
patterns, housing types and aesthetic values.
3. Establish a land use pattem which is compatible and transitional with
existing developments.
Encourage development of existing commercial areas to enhance available
services, provide employment opportunities and to expand the tax base.
5. Encourage expansion and redevelopment of business oppommities
consistent with the comprehensive plan.
o
Encourage the redevelopment of older business areas especially in the
downtown area through close coordination with the business community and
by undertaking public action when feasible including but not limited to HRA
activities, tax increment financing and the provision of public improvements.
Encourage a mix of downtown businesses including retail, offices,
entertainment and service businesses. Maintain the downtown and it's
periphery as the focus of Mound's commercial activity.
o
Support the continued operation and enhancement of existing industrial areas
but discourage the expansion of industrial uses outside of their present
locations.
The 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. Parcels that are deemed to serve no current or
City of Mound
Comprehensive Plan - April 11, 2000 Draft
Goals and Policies
p. 7
future public purpose should be considered for removal from the City
inventory and returned to the tax roles.
10.
Continually monitor ordinances and policies that affect land use to ensure
that they are reflective of community policy.
HOUSING
Goal:
Provide housing opportunities for all residents, supporting creative multi-family
housing while emphasizing the construction and maintenance of high quality, single
family dwelling units.
Policies:
Encourage development and redevelopment of quality, high amenity housing
2. Discourage new residential development from encroaching upon vital
natural resources.
3. Maintain the predominately single family housing base throughout the city.
Recognize unique historical platting practices in certain areas by allowing
some flexibility in the application of current bulk/area regulations. Flexibility
will be considered when it can be demonstrated that the integrity and intent
of the comprehensive plan is not compromised.
Encourage ongoing maintenance of residential structures and surrounding
yard areas.
Continually monitor ordinances and policies that affect housing to ensure
that they are reflective of community policy.
TRANSPORTATION
Goal:
Ensure the development of a total transportation system that conveniemly and
effectively connects Mound to adjacent municipalities, the remainder of the Twin
City Metropolitan Area and greater Minnesota.
City of Mound
Comprehensive Plan - April 11, 2000 Draft
Goals and Policies
p. 8
Policies:
Encourage a local transportation system that is consistent with the plans and
programs of the County, Metropolitan and State systems as well as with the
overall development and redevelopment policies of the City of Mound.
Provide convenient access to the downtown area including transit facilities
and emphasize pedestrian movement in and around the central business
district.
o
Promote safe and convenient access connections between the highway
system and major commercial areas, industrial areas and residential
neighborhoods.
Establish a sidewalk system to provide safe movement for pedestrians along
collector and arterial streets and in other potentially hazardous areas.
o
Encourage the upgrading of all municipal, county and state roadways full
urban sections (curb, gutter and storm water drains) with controlled
driveway cuts, curbing, sidewalks, etc.
°
Continually monitor ordinances and policies that affect transportation to
ensure that they are reflective of community policy.
Promote increased development of bikeways and trail facilities to
accommodate non-motorized forms of transportation which conserve energy
resources and reduce vehicular congestion. Promote the interconnection of
these systems with adjacent communities.
RECREATION
Goal:
Promote recreational oppommities to meet the needs of all Mound residents.
Policies:
Provide park and open space facilities that emphasize accessibility and use
by Mound residents.
Coordinate the expenditure of local funds for recreational areas with the
provision and development of other municipal services.
City of Mound
Comprehensive Plan - April 11, 2000 Draft
Goals and Policies
p. 9
Encourage a cooperative effort between the school system and the city in the
development and usage of recreational lands and facilities.
Develop a park and open space plan which is consistent with the overall land
use plan for Mound.
o
Continue to seek assistance from community groups in the planning and
development of recreation areas.
Promote a balanced park system which includes neighborhood parks,
community parks, nature conservation areas, special use facilities, schools
and private developments.
Support the continuation of the commons dock program to provide lake
access to Mound residents.
o
Support public access to Lake Minnetonka providing access locations which
are consistent with the Mound land use plan and do not diminish the function
of local park facilities.
Continually monitor ordinances and policies that affect recreation and open
space to ensure that they are reflective of community policy.
9. Promote the development of City-wide trail systems where feasible.
PUBLIC COMMUNICATION/INFORMATION ACCESS
Goal:
Create an atmosphere that allows open communication and information exchange
between Council, Staff, Commissions, and the public.
Policies:
1. Provide a service oriented City Hall that is responsive to community
needs.
2. Encourage public participation at Council and Commission meetings.
3. Staff will provide timely and accurate information to elected and
appointed officials for assistance in decision making.
City of Mound
Comprehensive Plan - April 11, 2000 Draft
Goals and Policies
p. 10
o
Provide the public with City information through newsletters, local
newspapers, the intemet, informational brochures, television, radio, and
other media formats.
City of Mound
Comprehensive Plan - April 11, 2000 Draft
Goals and Policies
p. ll
CITY OF MOUND
Comprehensive Plan
NATURAL AND CULTURAL
RESOURCES
NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
Natural Resources
Mound is a high amenity community as represented by large amount and variety of
natural features in the numerous lakes, wetlands, and natural areas that lend
character to the community. Although the historical development of much of the
community is typical of urban single family densities, the many natural features
provide a sense of openness that provides relief from this form.
The Mound planning program emphasizes an analysis of natural resources. A
number of problems can be encountered when developing in environmentally
sensitive areas. Poor soils cause foundation problems as well as the inconvenience
of wet basements. Retaining walls often malfunction in steeply sloped areas. Filled
wetlands are incapable of cleansing runoff, consequently, lakes are polluted.
Clearing tree cover and other vegetation affects surface drainage, erosion, wildlife
habitats and aesthetic appeal.
The planning program examines natural features as an aid in guiding future
development and redevelopment efforts. Poorly managed development frequently
results in the depletion of irreplaceable resources. Many communities now
recognize the value of the topography and vegetation of their cities. Marshy
wetlands and wooded knolls are less frequently filled and leveled for development
of grid pattern residential streets. All new subdivisions should harmonize with the
environmental features which results in the accentuation of the land's natural beauty.
US6S of Mound and the Lake Minnetonka area
City of Mound
Comprehensive Plan - April 11, 2000 Draft
Natural and Cultural Resources'
p. 13
Base data and field surveys for this section were provided by the Hennepin County
Soil and Water Conservation Service and the National Wetlands Inventory. Test
borings, aerial photo analysis, foot surveys and other techniques were used to
analyze soil characteristics and limitations. Interpretation of the natural resource
information was accomplished as part of the planning program.
Floodplain - A floodplain is defined as an area where surface flooding has the
statistical likelihood of occurring once every 100 years. The floodplain can be
divided into two areas: the floodway and flood fringe. The floodway is the area
where absolutely no development should take place. The flood fringe is suitable for
development if proper filling and flood proofing is conducted as part of
construction. Most of the floodplain areas border the lakes and are directly linked to
fluctuating lake levels. Major undeveloped floodplain areas lie west of Lake
Langdon and north of Bartlett Boulevard along the channel north of Cooks Bay. The
Federal Regional Elevation establishes floodplain elevations for the three major lake
systems in the community. The 100 year lake elevations are as follows: Lake
Minnetonka = 931.0; Dutch Lake = 940.0; Langdon Lake = 935.0. Structures are
required to be elevated above these 100 year flood elevations to protect their
integrity and occupants in a flood event. The Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation
for each lake is as follows: Lake Minnetonka = 933.0; Dutch Lake = 942.0;
Langdon Lake = 937.0.
Wetlands - Wetlands usually consist of peat and mucky soils covered with marshy
vegetation. These areas experience a seasonal to permanent wetness with the water
table lying within two feet of the surface. Wetlands serve as natural components of
the overall storm water management system by holding water during heavy rains
until evaporation or percolation occurs. Wetlands also serve as natural filters by
removing impurities as the water passes through them prior to entering the
underground water table. Wetlands also serve a valuable habitat for wildlife
providing food and cover.
Many of these areas are presently used as public open space. The most intensive
wetland networks lie in the Lake Langdon and Emerald Lake vicinities. The city
has established a set of wetland management requirements to ensure the continued
functional and aesthetic preservation of these areas.
Slopes - Slopes can pose limitations on development. Severely sloped land more
easily erodes, creating potential foundation problems. The steep slope map
designates areas where slopes pose moderate to severe limitations on development.
Land with slopes of up to 18% pose moderate limitations, however, they can be
developed utilizing proper construction techniques. Land with slopes greater than
18% pose more severe development limitations and require proper management
techniques. Additional slope protection is provided for in the Shoreland
Management regulations for areas within 1000 feet of lake structures. The
regulations prohibit structures on the most severe slopes in the City also requiring
proper management of vegetation to reduce the potential for erosion.
City of Mound
Comprehensive Plan - April 11, 2000 Draft
Natural and Cultural Resources
p. 14
C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
High Water Table - The elevation of the water table also poses developmental
limitations. A water table that lies within two feet of the surface can cause structural
damage. The areas where the water table lies within 1 to 2 feet of the surface
coincides with wetland areas. Moderate development limitations result from water
lying 3 to 4 feet below the surface. Generally when the water table exceeds 5 feet in
depth, slight to moderate limitations are encountered. Most of Mound has a water
table that exceeds five feet in depth.
Cultural Resources
Lake Minnetonka has many cultural and historical resources that play an important
role in'the areas rich heritage. Prior to modem settlement, the Lake Minnetonka
area was inhabited by Dakota and Ojibwa Indians. Evidence of cultural practices are
shown in earthwork mounds and "burial mounds" that existed through the late
1800's and early 1900's. Although most have been heavily disturbed by
presettlement and modem construction activity, a few are still in tact. The Historical
Society of Minnesota, now called the Minnesota Historical Society, recognized in
the late 1800's, the importance of documenting the mounds believed to have been
created by early aboriginal peoples. A study of the state was commissioned and
preformed by Alfred J. Hill and later by Theodore H. Lewis with assistance from
Jacob V. Brower. The findings of this survey is published in the book, "The
Aborigines of Minnesota" by N. H. Winchell, 1911. Excerpts from this book on
documented sites in Mound follow.
In total, there are 103 burial mounds surveyed that are within the City limits of
Mound. Not all of the "burial mounds" contained human remains so it is not wholly
accurate to describe them as such. The State Archaeologist Office officially terms
them as "earthwork" for this reason. Pre-1900 when there was little development in
the area, most of the sites were untouched. As Minneapolis and St. Paul grew, Lake
Minnetonka became a popular place for recreation and excursions. Intrigued by this
lore, people sought out artifacts from these Indian cultures. As settlement from
Minneapolis pushed further west, development overran most of the shoreline areas
where mounds were surveyed. Most of these mounds have been severely impacted
by development activity over the years.
The mounds do however, receive protection by the State of Minnesota. The
Minnesota Private Cemeteries Act, State Statute 307.08 affords all human remains
and burials older than 50 years, and located outside of platted, recorded or identified
cemeteries, protection from unauthorized disturbance. Any party that knowingly
disturbs a site where artifacts are present is subject to felony charges by the State.
Public education is then an important role in protecting and preserving any
remaining sites.
City of Mound
Comprehensive Plan - April 11, 2000 Draft
Natural and Cultural Resources
p. 17
The following diagrams are the surveys of burial site in the City of Mound taken by
Hill and Lewis during their survey of the state.
"Malmsten/Koehler Mounds" - Site # 21-HE-0064
Winchell's map of 21HE0064.
City of Mound
Comprehensive Plan - April 11, 2000 Draft
Natural and Cultural Resources
p. 19
A portion of the Mound '/.5' quadrangle (1958/1993)
showing the approximate location of site 21HE0064.
Suggested location of site 21HE0064, relative to the historic cemetery, Malmsten cabin and landforms.
City of Mound
Comprehensive Plan - April 11, 2000 Draft
Natural and Cultural Resources
p. 20
"First Bartlett Group" - Site # 21-HE-0065
Site #: 21HE0065, First Bartlett Group
· o
..
~,,, ~ .,,% ~.~',,~X~.~ "~ ~,,,~, .....
~ "%~ ~ ~ ..~.,,,,,,,,~,~¥ .
~ · ~,~ ~ ~ ~ 3~,,~q~'
"Second Bartlett Group" - 21-HE-0063
Site #: 21HE0063, Second Bartlett Group
City of Mound
.Comprehensive Plan - April 11, 2000 Draft
Natural and Cultural Resources
p. 21
"Cook's Group" - 21-HE-0062
Site #: 21HE0062, Cook's Group
"Phelps Island Mounds" - 21-HE-0036
City of Mound
Comprehensive Plan - April 11, 2000 Draft
Natural and Cultural Resources
p. 22
"Phelps Island Mounds" - 21-HE-0055
City of Mound
Comprehensive Plan - April 11, 2000 Draft
Natural and Cultural Resources
p. 23
CITY OF MOUND
Comprehensive Plan
SOCIO-ECONOMIC
SOCIO-ECONOMIC
Socio-economic data provides baseline information about
the community's population. This information is useful in
planning for city services, anticipating changing population
needs, and as an economic indicator among other things.
Socio-economic data was gathered from a number of
sources including the U.S. Census, Metropolitan Council,
and the Land Minnetonka Area Cooperating Communities
(LMACC) Sub-Ama Housing Study.
Population
The population of Mound is expected to remain relatively
stable through the year 2020 according to Metropolitan
Council projections. The City's 1996 population estimate is
9695 persons, up 0.6 percent from the 1990 census figure of
9634. Historical population figures show large population
increases during the community's growth years from 1930
to 1980. After the early 1980's, the population has leveled
off with only slight increases each decade. Between 1980
and 1990, the population increased 4.7 percent and from
1990 to 1996 an estimated 0.7 percent. A limited supply of
available raw land and land for redevelopment will help
maintain a relatively steady population through 2020 with
only a slight increase from current estimates. The population
is expected to peak at 9900 by 2010 and then decline
slightly to 9800 by 2020.
On a regional level, both Hennepin County and the
Metropolitan Area are expected to see population increases.
The Metropolitan Area has a 1996 estimated population
2,482,858 persons, is expected to increase 20 percent to over
3 million. With the largest population in the state at just over
1 million persons, Hennepin County is anticipating a 13
percent population increase to 1.225 million by 2020.
City of Mound Population
Persone
10000-': .....................
8000 l~
6000
4000~~ffi1-1-
2000~,
0
Year
Me~opoll~n Area and Hennepln Coun~
Popula8on
il Metrop~itan Area
Persons2,000,0002'500'000 [~Hennepi~County
1,500,000
1,000,000
0
Year
City of Mound
Comprehensive Plan - April 11, 2000 Draft
Socio-Economic
p. 25
Age Distribution
The aging population of the community is evidenced
in the trends in age distribution from 1970 - 1990. The
accompanying chart shows five age groups
representing children (0-4 years), school age kids (5-
19), new households and first time homebuyers (20-
39), move-up home buyers and empty nesters (40-64),
and retired persons (65+). In each of the elder three
groups, an increase in persons was experienced from
1980 to 1990. The largest increase in numbers was the
40-64 year group which is currently over 50 in age.
There has not been a decade with a high number of
births in the study period. In fact, the number of births
per person has decrease since 1970 which is reflected
in the declining size of the 5-19 age group.
The LMACC Sub-Area Housing Study also indicated that in
1996, approximately 17 percent of the population is age 54
and over. This demographic group has distinct housing
needs as opposed to younger persons. As the life-cycle
progresses, housing elements such as single floor living, low
or maintenance free housing becomes important. Also,
household sizes for empty nesters and retired age persons
are smaller, thus less living space may be necessary.
1970 1980 1990
Year
l1 5-19
t10-4
Households
As the population age increases and the number of persons
living in each home decrease, the number of households are
expected to increase. This is a trend that is anticipated across
the region. The accompanying chart shows that the number
of households in Mound are projected to almost double from
1970 to 2020. The 1996 Metropolitan household estimate
was 3814. The number of households are projected increase
14% to 4400 by 2020. By comparison Hennepin County
overall expects to see a 16% increase in households and the
Metropolitan Area projects a 24% overall increase.
The average household size is anticipated to decrease
through the year 2020. In 1970 there were an average of 3.2
persons per household. The 1996 estimate is 2.5 and is
projected to drop to 2.2 persons per household in 2020. This
decrease is attributable to the following factors:
City of Mound Houlehold,,
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
1970 1980 199019962000 2010 2020
Year
Hennepln County and Metropolitan Aria
Households
1.000,O00.
800,000.
600,000
400,000
200,000
0
1970 1980 199019962000 2010 2020
Year
City of Mound
Comprehensive Plan - April 11, 2000 Draft
Socio-Economic
p. 26
· The aging of the baby boom generation is resulting in
more empty-nester households, where the children of
families have grown and left the parents alone.
· Young adults and married couples are waiting longer to
have children than previous generations.
· Families are having fewer children.
Comparison of Data
The Metropolitan Council is tasked with collecting data for
all jurisdictions in the 7 County area. The following table
represents population, household, and employment
projections for Mound through the year 2020.
Metropolitan Council Projections
1970 1980 1990 1996 2000 2010 2020
EST.
Population 7572 9280 9634 9695 9900 9900 9800
Households 2355 3384 3710 3814 3950 4200 4400
Employment NA NA 1849 1909 2250 2600 2830
Source: Metropolitan Council
As is stated before, the population will increase slightly
through 2010 and then will drop off by 2020. This
projection reflects the anticipated decrease in household size
as a result of the "post boom." The housing unit increase
assumes that many areas anticipated for redevelopment will
include provisions for multiple unit buildings to achieve
almost a 600 unit increase by 2020. This projection may be
inflated when compared to the actual land available for infill
housing and redevelopment areas for multi-family housing.
The following table represents a low and high population
and household projection based on the land use plan. The
projections take into account the same future land use
pattern but suggest the timing of development will vary. The
high projection assumes that by 2020 the following will
have occurred:
All vacant land in the City will be developed
Existing Low Density Residential areas that are
proposed for High and Medium Density Residential
will have been converted
City of Mound
Comprehensive Plan - April 11, 2000 Draft
Socio-Economic
p. 27
The low projections assume that there will be little
conversion of single family areas to multi-family and large
tracts of vacant land remain mostly intact.
High and Low Projections
1996 2000 2010 2020
EST.
High Projection
Population 9695 9875 9800 '9955
Households 3814 3950 4170 4525
Low Projection
Population 9695 9750 9282 8932
Households 3814 3900 3950 4060
A constant in each projection is the average household size.
The estimated household size in 1996 is 2.54 persons per
household. This is expected to decline to 2.2 persons per
household by 2020. This local phenomenon is consistent
with regional and national trends of smaller household sizes.
Employment
A stable base of employment is important to the continued
economic vitality of Mound. Metropolitan Council projections
estimate 1996 employment at 1909 and 2020 employment at
2830. Since the closure of the Tonka Toys plant in 1984
which resulted in the loss of 814 jobs, the City has found it
difficult to get back those employment numbers. The Balboa
Business Center been fairly successful in locating business
tenants to occupy the space. Businesses include a variety of
manufacturing, warehousing and service businesses restoring
a portion of the previous employment total. A number of
factors including increases in automation and mechanization
make it difficult to attain the large employment levels
experienced in the 1980's at Balboa Center.
The Metropolitan Council estimates that additional
employment growth will occur in Mound. The growth rate is
estimated to be moderate, however, due to modest business
expansion in the service and retail sectors and labor saving
practices which have reduced industrial sector jobs.
City of Mound
Comprehensive Plan - April 11, 2000 Draft
Socio-Economic
p. 28
Employmem growth will also continue in the communities
surrounding Mound which will contribute positively to the
overall economy.
Employment Distribution
According to 1990 data, Mound had a total workforce
population, 16 years and over, of 5564. Employment is spread
among a variety of types of positions. "White collar" which
includes managerial, professional and technical occupations
accounted for 4136 positions or 74%. "Blue collar" which
includes service occupations, operators and laborers totaled
1537 positions accounting for 26% of the employed work
force. The percentage of white collar employment is up from
1980 data where 58% were considered in these positions.
Income
The median household income in Mound in 1989 was $41,084
according to U.S. Census information. The Sub-Area Regional
Housing Study indicates that 50% of the households within
LMACC had an income of over $50,000 dollars. For
comparison, 30% of the households within the Twin Cities
Metropolitan Area had an income greater than $50,000 in
1990.
City of Mound
Comprehensive Plan - April 1!, 2000 Draft
Socio-Economic
p. 29
CITY OF MOUND
Comprehensive Plan
LAND USE
LAND USE
Land use patterns in a community are probably the largest defining physical
element in its landscape. Their mix, location, and relationship to adjacent uses
greatly affect physical appearance and social interaction. As a Minnetonka lake
community, Mound's land uses are primarily residential. The current pattern is
the result of its historical development as a lakeshore cabin community with small
platted lots and substantial areas of park commons. The established pattern of
small lots and narrow street right-of-ways results in issues that are unique to
Mound and are generally not found in other suburban communities.
Existing Land Use
A survey of existing land use was obtained from field surveys and recent aerial
photography. A number of categories were then established to aggregate similar
land use types. General land use groups include residential, commercial,
industrial, and public lands and facilities. Each of these groups were then further
defined as follows:
Residential o R10 - This category includes single family detached residential land
uses having a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. This equates to a gross
density of approximately 3.5 units per acre.
Residential - R6 - Residential - R6 corresponds to single family detached uses with a
minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet or an approximate equivalency of 5.5 units
per acre (gross density).
Medium Density Residential - Medium density residential allows two types of land
uses, single-family detached structures and two family dwellings. Both have a
minimum requirement of 6,000 square feet of lot area per dwelling unit.
High Densi _ty Residential - High density residential allows single family uses and
two family uses but is intended to promote higher density forms of housing.
Specifically, it allows townhouses and multi-family structures such as apartment
buildings. Maximum gross density of high density residential uses is approximately
14.5 units per acre.
Commercial - Commercial development includes all categories of retail, office and
service businesses.
Industrial - Industrial land uses include manufacturing and warehousing operations.
City of Mound
Comprehensive Plan - April 11, 2000 Draft
Land Use
p. 31
Park/Open Space - This category generally includes all public park and open space
land whether owned or administered by the City, County or State.
Public/Semi-public - The public semi-public category includes services and special
use operations available to the general public or large segments of the general
public. Examples are churches, clubs, fraternal organizations and similar uses.
Undeveloped - Undeveloped land includes all tracts of vacant land. This category
includes land that is currently lying idle and land that is used for agricultural
operations.
The existing land use map depicts the current land use patterns in Mound. The
table below is a breakdown of acreage for each category as they relate to the
existing land use map.
Existing Land Use (1998)
CATEGORY ACREAGE PERCENTAGE
Residential (RI 0) 731 36
Residential (R6) 298 15
Medium Density Residential 6 < 1
High Density Residential 32 2
Commercial 65 3
Industrial 18 1
Park/Open Space 44 8
Public/Institutional 97 5
Nature Conservation Areas 10 2
Lake/Marsh 169 8
Island 1 < 1
Vacant 70 4
ROW/RR 497 25
TOTALS 2038 100
Source: Hoisington Koegler Group
City of Mound
Comprehensive Plan - April 11, 2000 Draft
Land Use
p. 32
Land Use Issues
There are four primary land use issues that affect the city. They are
nonconforming uses, vacant land, commons, and downtown redevelopment. The
communities land use patterns are the result of past platting practices in most
cases. There are areas of the community that have been replatted to accommodate
more current development techniques but these are less common.
Nonconforming Uses
Nonconforming uses can result from a variety of factors including structural type,
setbacks, and lot size. Lot size is the most common type of nonconforming
situation and frequently result in variance requests. An inventory of
nonconforming parcels was taken in 1990. The results found that 19% of all
residential lots or 1 of every 5 were nonconforming. With this knowledge city-
wide review of zoning for residential areas was performed to evaluate how zoning
districts matched up with parcel size. This effort was undertaken primarily, to
reduce the number of variance requests. The recommendations of this study were
to keep zoning standards that would bring up the lots below standards into
conformance over time. In some instances, lots as small as 3000 square feet exist
primarily on Island Park and Arbor Point areas.
Vacant Land
Mound is considered virtually fully developed and the vacant developable land
that remains is located in the northwestern portion of the city. The largest tract is
located between Lake Langdon and Lynwood Blvd., extending to Westedge Blvd.
This parcel has a variety of features including a rolling landscape, wooded areas,
wetlands, and prairie. A portion is also crop land during growing seasons. The
owners of these parcels have preserved their rights to maintain the land as open
space for many decades as adjacent lands developed. The City has respected the
right of these owners to maintain the properties as open space. Although they
have been designated as residential in previous comprehensive plans and zoned
accordingly, there has not been a serious proposal for development of any type.
Commons
The substantial amount of commons lands in Mound is somewhat unique and a
resource for residents. When the community was originally platted, a number of
developments incorporated commons property, most of which is lakefront. This
afforded those residents without lakefront property the opportunity to enjoy lake
access. Approximately 10 percent of Mound's shoreline is designated as
City of Mound
Comprehensive Plan - April 11, 2000 Draft
Land Use
p. 34
commons. The commons properties currently serve a number of purposes but are
primarily used to gain access to docks.
The commons land falls into one of three categories:
1. Land that is available to the general public that is readily accessible by land
from some sort of public way.
2. Land that by dedication is identified for use principally by owners of specific
subdivisions and is conveniently accessible by land from a public way.
3. Land which abuts private property and is not conveniently accessible from a
public way.
Land Use Plan
The land use plan for Mound looks out 10 to 20 years to provide a general
concept for use types, intensities, and locations. As land use decisions of property
owners can be ever changing, the plan should be dynamic to respond to the needs
of the community. This is not to say that the plan should accommodate every
request. The concepts of the plan should be used to ensure that as requests are
considered, the goals are not compromised. The land use plan endorses the
following concepts:
Maintain the single-family character of the community
· Encourage a higher percentage of multiple family arrangements. Locate these
uses along major roadways and close to shopping and community services.
· Focus commercial retail and office in the downtown. Limit commercial
outside of the downtown to neighborhood scale uses.
· Limit industry to existing areas.
· Protect natural resources including wetlands, marsh, steep slopes, significant
tree stands, and water resources.
Land Use Plan Categories:
Low Density Residential - The low density residential category has a density
range from 1 to 6 units per acres. This category accounts for a larger percentage
of the housing in Mound and most of the land use. Typical housing types include
single family attached and detached when within the density range.
Medium Density Residential - The medium density residential category has a
density range from 7 to 12 units per acre. Typical housing stock includes multi-
unit townhomes, four-plexes, and smaller scale apartment and assisted living
facilities. Because of potential impacts to single family neighborhoods, these uses
are generally located along arterials and collector streets.
City of Mound
Comprehensive Plan - April 11, 2000 Draft
Land Use
p. 35
High Density Residential - The high density residential category has a density
range in excess of 12 units per acre and accommodates multi-building apartment
and assisted living facilities. These are intensive residential uses that are
appropriate along arterials and collector streets.
General Commercial - The general commercial category provides a variety of
retail commercial and office uses that have a neighborhood scale. Although they
are generally auto-oriented uses that are located along collector and arterial
streets, their proximity to adjacent residential neighborhoods encourages
compatibility.
Pedestrian District - The pedestrian district is a mixed use area at the core of
downtown. It is an intense downtown area with a mix of retail, office, and
attached residential housing uses. Other buildings with a pedestrian orientation
include public, multi-unit residential, entertainment, retail commercial and office.
The pedestrian district incorporates traditional downtown planning techniques to
encourage a higher standard for development.
Destination District - The destination district is primarily auto-oriented
commercial areas which are connected to the pedestrian district but are difficult or
impossible to make part of the pedestrian loop. These districts gain their strength
from convenient auto access off of county roads 15 and 110. The types of uses in
the destination district is diverse but would include groceries, fast food, and gas
stations as well as a farmers market and hotel.
Linear District - This district stretches along Commerce Blvd. from the south
side of the pedestrian district to Mound Bay Park. This district provides for a mix
of medium and high density residential, institutional, and office uses.
Industrial - The industrial category is limited to the Balboa Business Center and
adjacent lands for business, assembly, manufacturing, wholesale, and storage
uses.
Public/Institutional - The public/institutional category identifies all city, school,
church, and other public and quasi-public facilities and land.
Park - The park category identifies all park and open space areas. Commons
lands are also a component of the City's park and recreation system as noted in
Figure 30 Docks and Commons Location Map.
Conservation - This is a broad category that seeks to protect the natural
resources of the area. Included are wetland/marsh areas, publicly owned lands,
City of Mound
Comprehensive Plan - April 11, 2000 Draft
Land Use
p. 36
steep slopes, wildlife areas, and islands.
Land Use Plan Acrea~,e Computations (1998)
CATEGORY ACREAGE PERCENTAGE
Low Density Residential 1053 54
Medium Density Residential 42 2
High Density Residential 30 2
Commercial 65 3
Pedestrian 14 < 1
Linear 30 2
Destination 31 2
Industrial 15 < 1
Public/Institutional 80 4
Park/Open Space 76 4
Conservation 10 < 1
ROW/RR 497 26
TOTALS 1934 100
Source: Hoisington Koegler Group
City of Mound
Comprehensive Plan - April 11, 2000 Draft
Land Use
p. 37
SOLAR ACCESS
State legislation enacted in 1978 requires local comprehensive plans to address
solar access protection. The law requires that communities make efforts to ensure
that direct sunlight access to solar panels is not subjected to shading from nearby
trees, buildings or other structures. In the 1980's, energy prices and potential fuel
shortages focused attention on both passive an active solar collection systems.
Since that time, however, lower energy prices have diminished interest in active
solar energy collection systems. While solar energy issues are seldom discussed
during building permit or subdivision reviews today, it is possible that conditions
will change in the future. The fact that Mound is nearly a fully developed
community suggests that consideration of solar access will occur during
redevelopment efforts and on an individual basis. Accordingly, the City will take
the following measures to ensure protection of solar access where appropriate:
1. Encourage access to direct sunlight for areas that will undergo
redevelopment.
2. The City should consider making available, information pertaining to
design criteria for solar access.
Encourage the design of new subdivisions in a manner that allows the
maximum number of new buildings to receive sunlight sufficient for solar
energy systems. The City will encourage the placement of buildings and
vegetation in a manner that allows unobstructed sunlight to reach the south
sides of structures between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m.
4. Examine the existing Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances to ensure that
they adequately include solar energy protection measures.
City of Mound
Comprehensive Plan - April 11, 2000 Draft
Land Use
p. 39
REDEVELOPMENT
The City has committed itself to revitalizing its downtown area through an effort
called "Mound Visions." Mound Visions began in 1991 when the City began to
explore ways to strengthen its downtown business community. For some time, the
downtown has struggled to realize its full potential, not because of the efforts of
private businesses, but largely due to the lack of image, connectivity, and
pedestrian appeal. Many of the elements so important to the area, such as natural
amenities and pedestrian comfort have been forgotten. Early efforts focused on
general beautification, fagade improvements, and limited streetscape
improvements. Through this exercise, the community learned it needed much
more than aesthetics for a successful downtown. Mound Visions incorporates a
comprehensive approach of planning, design and implementation projects that
will involve both public and private entities.
Up front public investment plays a key role to stimulate the private redevelopment
efforts within each of the downtown districts. Four major public projects have
been included on the revitalization plan to spur development. They include the
dredging of the Lost Lake Canal, relocation of Auditors Road and County Road
15, and creating the Lost Lake Greenway. At present, the Lost Lake Canal
dredging and Auditors Road relocation are complete. The Lost Lake Greenway
which will include a Central Green and the County Road 15 relocation will occur
over the upcoming few years. The Greenway project is anticipated to begin early
in 2000. Subsequent phases are planned to follow in the coming years. County
Road 15 is planned for construction in 2002 at this time.
The Mound Visions plan ascribes 5 basic themes for redevelopment to ensure a
connected fabric.
Urban Form
Downtown will have an urban environment that celebrates the pedestrian
and accommodates the automobile. Human-scale street, sidewalk, and
parking spaces will be created to be functional, interesting, dynamic and
lasting.
Concentrated Development
Downtown development will grow-up not out. Multi-level buildings with
structured parking will house uninterrupted retail on the ground level with
office and living above, creating an environment that is walkable, lively
and dynamic.
Multi-f aceted
City of Mound
Comprehensive Plan - April 11, 2000 Draft
Land Use
p. 40
Downtown will be a multi-faceted destination including retail, office,
housing and civic uses woven into the context of transit, recreation and
environmental integrity.
Linkages
Pedestrian, bike, boat and bus linkages will be created or strengthened
within downtown and between downtown and surrounding neighborhoods
and the broader region.
Place Appropriate
Downtown is situated in a rich and beautiful natural environment. Future
development will be creatively integrated with it to give people a holistic
appreciation of the downtown and improve the integrity of ecological
systems.
This redevelopment section of the Comprehensive Plan intends to pull elements
of the Mound Visions plan for downtown and formalizing them into goals and
policies. Although other chapters of the Comprehensive Plan address downtown
related issues, this section offers a more detailed look at downtown.
Land Use
The essence of downtown is diversity with a range of choices in things to do and
see, throughout the day and evening. This means there are more than one or two
primary uses within the downtown. To be economically healthy and vibrant
market, downtown must include office, retail, residential, entertainment, dining,
and lodging. The downtown area is broken into districts of compatible uses to
create a compact critical mass of businesses. A compact and walkable physical
structure is key to promoting pedestrian activity and vitality.
Land Use Goal
Cluster a compatible mix of land uses in distinct and compact districts at the
downtown core to promote the movement of pedestrians between areas.
Land Use Policies
1. Encourage redevelopment plans that provide unique character consistent with
the overall downtown theme.
2. Locate auto oriented uses on the periphery of downtown.
3. Focus uses with greater intensity in the pedestrian district by building upwards
and with greater building coverage.
City of Mound
Comprehensive Plan - April I 1, 2000 Draft
Land Use
p. 41
4. Concentrate retail and high traffic uses in the first floor. Utilize second plus
story space for office and residential uses.
5. Locate higher density residential in the Linear District and Pedestrian District.
Housing
Downtown residential housing is important for its success and vitality. A
residential population creates a continued cycle of activity and a ready market for
retail uses. Downtown must offer a unique lifestyle otherwise unavailable in the
community and surrounding area. Downtown must provide residents with
opportunities and services that reach further than a 9 to 5 day. Improving the
vitality and attractiveness of downtown will create momentum for developing and
marketing activities which will position downtown as a desirable place to live.
The Mound Visions plan calls for a mix of housing within the pedestrian district
and at the edges of the downtown. It encourages a mix of housing types to cater to
various lifestyles and ages from townhomes and apartments to multi-unit assisted
living arrangements. Downtown housing will typically have higher densities than
are found throughout the balance of Mound.
Housing Goal
Provide a mix of housing types for all income levels, family types and age
groups, with a variety of prices and rent levels.
Housing Policies
1. Encourage a variety of housing types to allow a wide range of living
opportunities.
2. Encourage upper story residential units over retail and office uses in the
pedestrian district.
3. Locate high density multi-family residences along Commerce overlooking
Lost Lake and Lake Langdon.
4. Plan for and provide adequate convenience retail, cultural, recreation, and
services necessary to support this residential base.
Culture, Recreation and Entertainment
Downtown Mound will need expanded cultural, recreational and entertainment
opportunities to make it a destination attraction. The Lost Lake canal and
greenway are important elements to this attractiveness. A farmer's market and
City of Mound
Comprehensive Plan - April 11, 2000 Draft
Land Use
p. 42
other events have the potential to draw a broad base of consumers to downtown to
shop or dine. These events at the same time will enhance downtown as a place to
live.
Culture, Recreation, and Entertainment Goal
Promote and expand facilities, programs and events that make the downtown
the center for culture, recreation and entertainment in the area.
Culture, Recreation, and Entertainment Policies
1. Develop the Lost Lake Canal to accommodate a wide range of boating,
and passive recreation activities.
2. Develop a Lost Lake Greenway trail system to expand recreation
opportunities in and around the downtown.
3. Plan for and promote programmed events and attractions such as a farmers
market, festivals, and events.
4. Encourage partnerships between businesses to provide cultural, recreation
and entertainment opportunities.
Image, Identity and Urban Form
Creating an urban form will establish a stage for the interaction of natural,
physical and social elements of downtown. To accomplish this it is important to
encourage proper design in developments and public improvements. This will be
formed through an articulated arrangement of building height, texture and color;
use of public space and focal points used for gathering. The identity created must
be uniquely that of Mound and not some other familiar place.
Image, Identity and Urban Form Goal
Provide a strong and appropriate character, unique identity and pleasing urban
form for downtown.
Image, Identity and Urban Form Policies
1. Create an identity for the downtown that respects a variety of development
arrangements.
2. Enhance the Lost Lake Canal as an important feature of the downtown.
3. Require high quality design of new buildings and public places.
4. Provide areas for pedestrian activity and gathering throughout downtown.
5. Allow auto traffic but create a human scale for buildings, streets,
pedestrian walkways and open spaces.
City of Mound
Comprehensive Plan - April 11, 2000 Draft
Land Use
p. 43
6. Focus a higher level of pedestrian scale design and improvements in the
pedestrian district.
7. Create well landscaped parking lots and public spaces.
8. Avoid large expanses of parking by creating smaller, scattered and
structured parking.
9. Protect public views of significant features.
Natural Environment
The proximity of Lost Lake, Lake Langdon, and other natural features will require
special attention to prevent degradation to the quality of these resources. The new
downtown will be reoriented to capture these amenities rather than "turn its back
on them" like the current arrangement. A basic philosophy of the plan is the
protection, maintenance and enhancement of these features.
Natural Environment Goal
Improve the environment by reducing pollution, greening the downtown, and
providing opportunities to enjoy natural resources.
Natural Environment Policies
1. Reduce air pollution through alternative transportation opportunities.
2. Develop storm water ponding facilities that control and treat hardsurface
run-off.
3. Encourage site development and building design to utilize solar access and
the efficient use of energy.
4. Support a transit station in the downtown.
5. Encourage developers to provide protection and maintenance of open
space and natural areas.
6. Protect shoreline and wetland areas.
City of Mound
Comprehensive Plan - April 11, 2000 Draft
Land Use
p. 44
l;tthli
J~
o no n~
11
City of Mound p. 45
Comprehensive Plan - April 11, 2000 Draft
Land Use
CITY OF MOUND
Comprehensive Plan
HOUSING
HOUSING
Introduction
Housing has played the key role in Mound's land use since the turn of the century.
In the 1920's and 1930's, Mound was primarily a lake cabin community with a
seasonal population. Platted lots were small reflecting land use patterns of the day.
Over the years, the community became a location for primary residences and today,
very few seasonal homes remain. The legacy of seasonal cottages, however, has left
an imprint which still heavily impacts the city's land use pattern and housing stock.
In most communities, the primary role of the municipality is to serve as a place of
residence. In Mound, 80% of the developed land is currently used for housing.
Housing is a dominant component of the community and, therefore, a significant
element of this comprehenSive plan. The housing section of the comprehensive plan
will present and analyze existing housing characteristics, discuss obstacles to the
provision of various types of housing, address future needs and suggest
implementation techniques.
Existing Housing Stock
There are approximately 4196 housing units in Mound according'to the City of
Mound. Approximately 80 percent of these units are single-family residential. The
LMACC Sub Area Regional Housing Study indicates that approximately 75 percent
of the housing units within the LMACC were single family units. In terms of land
area dedicated to housing, the following table gives the breakdown of land area
dedicated to each housing type based on July 1997 data.
Land Acreage for Housing Unit Type, July 1997
UNIT BY TYPE NUMBER OF ACRES PERCENT
Single Family 2298 80
Duplex/Triplex 46 2
Townhouse/Condo/Coop 473 17
Apartment (Rental) 39 1
Totals 2856 100
Source: Hennepin County Office of Planning and Development
Twinhomes, townhomes, apartments, and other multiple family dwelling units
comprise 20 percent of Mound's housing inventory. Because of the development
pattern of the community, the locations where multi-unit housing will occur are
City of Mound
Comprehensive Plan - April 11, 2000 Draft
Housing
p. 47
limited to arterial roadways.
Housing Occupancy
In 1990, approximately 77% of all residential units were owner reflecting the largely
single-family residential housing stock. Rental units totaled 23% of the housing
stock. The rate of home ownership in Mound is very similar to the rate found in
1980 in Suburban Hennepin County (72.5%) and somewhat higher than the rate for
the Metropolitan Area as a whole (66.4%).
Housing Occupancy
HOUSING OCCUPANCY NUMBER OF UNITS PERCENT
Owner Occupied 2854 77%
Renter Occupied 856 23
Total 3710 100%
Housing Values
Housing values have risen quickly over the last decade, more than doubling from
1990 to 1996 according the Sub Area Regional Housing Study. In 1980 the median
housing unit value was just over $100,000. A drop occurred in the 1980's as the
1990 median value was about $80,000. A strong economy and housing market,
particularly in lake communities helped the median housing value to reach almost
$200,000 by 1996. Lakefront properties have seen enormous increases in value
regardless of the condition of existing homes. It is difficult to find a lakefront for
less than $200,000.
Assessed value information based on homesteaded property is shown below. This
information is tied directly to the amount of property tax paid on residential land.
Just over one half of residential property declaring a homestead status was valued
below $95,000.
Homestead Properties Classified by Assessed Value, 1996 data
<$95,000 $95,000 - $115,000- $150,000- $250,000+
114,999 149,999 $249,999
Number of 1,787 491 429 476 126
Properties
Source: Hennepin County Office of Planning and Development
In recent years, the value of new residential property has increased
significantly. Since 1990, 142 new residential properties have been build
claming a homestead status. Over 1/3ra those properties were valued at over
City of Mound
Comprehensive Plan - April I 1, 2000 Draft
Housing
p. 48
$150,000 in 1997. This is evidenced in assessed value information from 1990
- 1996 as shown below.
Homestead Properties Classified by Assessed Value Built Since 1990
<$95,000 $95,000- $115,000- $150,000- $250,000+
114,999 149,999 $249,999
Number of 23 25 41 30 23
Propeaies
Source: Hennepin County Office of Planning and Development
Building Permit Activity
The demand for new housing in Mound is controlled by three primary factors:
market conditions, zoning and land availability. Limited land availability and
existing zoning have resulted in most of the new construction occurring as single-
family detached units. Since 1990, the City has averaged approximately 26 units of
new construction per year. A detailed breakdown occurs as follows:
New Residential Construction Activity
YEAR # OF PERMITS VALUE
1990 21 $1,909,095
1991 28 1,551,792
1992 27 2,740,381
1993 19 1,986,680
1994 22 2,858,949
1995 34 5,593,402
1996 41 6,554,625
1997 25 4,185,466
1998 14 2,619,437
Totals 231 $29,999,827
Source: City ~fMound
HOUSING ANALYSIS
The information presented in the previous introduction and existing housing
narrative section provides an overview of the type, cost and availability of
Mound's housing stock. This plan adopts a goal calling for the provision of
"housing opportunities for all residents." It must be realized that the attainment of
this goal is controlled by an existing framework of limited land availability for the
construction of new housing units.
City of Mound
Comprehensive Plan - April 11, 2000 Draft
Housing
p. 49
The Metropolitan Council's Housing Development Guide identified the term "life-
cycle housing" which relates to Mound's housing goal. Life-cycle housing is
based on the premise that as people mature, their housing needs change. The
progression typically involves movement from rental housing to home ownership
to "empty nester" situations. For many people, the final phase is a smaller
housing unit with little or no maintenance or a health care facility.
It is difficult to predict what the economy will do in the future and what impact it
will have on housing needs and in general the peoples demand for housing. In the
metro area, the big housing push (demand or want) has recently been for townhomes
and condominiums, or larger single family homes on large lots. This is driven
largely by the population cohort evolution and the growing age of the baby boom
generation.
The life-cycle evolution
As people move through the different stages of life they develop different housing
needs. A young person getting out of school, just starting out usually can't afford a
home and begins their housing trek by renting. As they grow older, they establish a
family and buy their first home either a townhome or a small starter home. Then the
family's household income grows and children enter the picture and they move up
to the biggest home. Once the children leave the house and the typical family
downsizes and moves back to the smaller home with less maintenance needs. And
finally they reach retirement and possibly desire or need an assisted living housing
type. This represents the life-cycle housing chain as illustrated in the following
figure. The following stages are involved in life-cycle housing:
Age Stage
18-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
65+
Household formation, generally renters
First time home buyers
Second time home buyers
Completing raising children
Empty nesters, children independent
Elderly, often single
City of Mound
Comprehensive Plan - April 11, 2000 Draft
Housing
p. 50
Figure 22. Life-Cycle Housing Chain
Apartments
Sr. Housing
One Level
Townhomes
The Life Cycle
Housing Chain
Dowr~s'izing
Apartments
The Starter Home
The Big Single
Family Home
Mound accommodates most housing styles in the life-cycle chain. The balance
however is somewhat lopsided, as the majority of the housing supply is the smaller
more affordable owner occupied single family home or starter home.
The baby boom generation and its impacts
The baby boom generation occurred basically in three cycles or three waves between
1940 and 1960. This large population cohort will be driving the economy for at least
the next ten years when they will reach the peak of their spending years. Their
housing needs are changing as well. Those who are in the 40's age group are living
in the largest home of the life cycle chain and will be seeking to downsize in the
next 10 to 20 years. Those who are in the 50's are looking to down size in the next
10 or so years while those in the 60's are driving the demand for one level
townhome and senior housing today. As this generation moves into the next cycle
of housing, they leave behind the larger single-family homes. The population cohort
that followed the baby boom era is much smaller and when the baby boomers all
City of Mound
Comprehensive Plan - April 11, 2000 Draft
Housing
p. 51
begin to downsize at once in the next 10 or 20 years, there will be an excess supply
of larger single family homes.
The City of Mound is lacking in a supply of townhome and condominium type
housing to fulfill the needs of the community looking for maintenance free living.
Provisions for this type of housing however will be difficult given the limited land
availability in Mound and competition from rapidly growing communities where
land is readily available to fulfill this need.
The rental community
Since 1990, the rental community has seen very little new development in the entire
metro area, other than upper scale apartment complexes built in outer ring suburbs
away from established single family neighborhoods and as of recently rental
townhome developments. New multi-family housing is extremely difficult to build
anymore largely because of public opposition. However, rental housing is a critical
component of the life-cycle housing chain. Rental housing shows up at the
beginning of the life-cycle chain and at the end filling the needs of several segments
of the population including:
·
·
·
·
·
Commercial and retail service employees
Single income families and individuals
Senior citizens living on fixed incomes
Young people moving out of homes and into the workforce
Economically disadvantaged households
The rental housing stock in the City of Mound, as well as throughout much of the
metro area, is an aging housing stock and is need of continual maintenance. The
City of Mound needs to ensure that the existing rental housing supply is maintained
in good condition.
Assisted Housing
A portion of Mound's residents, like those in all communities, will have a continued
need for assisted low and moderate income housing. At the present time, the City
participates in public housing programs administered by both Hennepin County and
the Metropolitan HRA. Due to local fiscal constraints, the use of these programs
and similar approaches are the only realistic method that the City can employ in
providing housing for low and moderate income individuals.
City of Mound
Comprehensive Plan - April 11, 2000 Draft
Housing
p. 52
Metropolitan Livable Communities Act
The City of Mound is a participant in the Metropolitan Livable Communities
Program. As a participant, the City of Mound supports the following principles for
providing housing within the community.
1. A balanced housing supply, with housing available for people at all
income levels.
2. The accommodation of all racial and ethnic groups in the purchase, sale,
rental, and location of housing within the community.
3. A variety of housing types for people in all stages of the life-cycle.
4. A community of well-maintained housing and neighborhoods, including
ownership and rental housing.
5. Housing development that respects the natural environment of the
community while striving to accommodate the need for a variety of
housing types and costs.
6. The availability of a full range of services and facilities for its residents,
and the improvement of access to and linkage between housing and
employment.
To carry out these housing principles, Mound will use the following benchmark
indicators and make its best effort satisfy these benchmarks, given market
conditions exist and resources are available.
Livable Community Benchmark Indicators
AFFORDABILITY City Index Benchmark Goal
Ownership 76% 60-69% 60%
Rental 47% 35-37% 35%
Life-cycle
Type (Non-single family detached) 22% 35-37% 25%
Owner/renter mix 75/25% (67-75)/(25-33)% 75/25%
Density
Single-family detached 2.5/acre 1.8-1.9/acre 2.5/acre
Multifamily 22/acre 10-14/acre 14/acre
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The housing section of the comprehensive plan has presented general information
on housing conditions in Mound and information on Mound's relationship to the
Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. Based upon this information, future planning for
housing in Mound needs to focus on two central issues: housing quality and
housing availability. Specific conclusions and recommendations related to each
City of Mound
Comprehensive Plan - April 11, 2000 Draft
Housing
p. 53
of these topic areas are presented as follows:
HOUSING QUALITY
Vacant land in Mound is adequate to eventually add another 400 to 500 housing
units. Redevelopment efforts in the future may either result in a net addition of
new housing units or the replacement of existing housing units in a state of
disrepair. Because of limited growth potential, maintenance of the existing
housing stock will be an important future planning and policy issue. If the
community is going to continue to be an attractive place to live, existing housing
must be maintained.
Maintenance of housing usually takes one of two forms, either voluntary or
regulatory. Most municipalities rely on both approaches. Ideally, Mound
residents will continue to maintain their property in a safe, sound and attractive
condition. Realistically, a certain percentage of the homes will not be adequately
maintained because of economic hardship or owner preferences. In these cases,
governmental agencies and regulatory tools need to be employed.
The City of Mound is currently working on the preparation and adoption of a
housing maintenance code which ensures adequate maintenance to preserve public
health, safety and welfare. Additionally, the ordinance should indirectly help
maintain property values in the community. Completion, adoption and
enforcement of such an ordinance is supported by this comprehensive plan.
The City of Mound does recognize that economic conditions frequently result in
poorly maintained housing. In these circumstances, programs offered by local,
county, state and federal agencies should be employed. Due to changes in federal
policy, grant and loan programs to accomplish housing maintenance are much
more limited than they were in the late 1970's and early 1980's. Despite this fact,
local, state and federal programs do exist which may provide assistance to
residents of the City of Mound.
CDBG: Mound presently receives an entitlement allocation of Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds on an annual basis. A portion of these
funds are allocated to a home rehabilitation program. The program operates as a
deferred loan program with the loan secured by a 10 year lien on the property. If
the property is not sold within the 10 year period, the loan is waived. If the
property is sold within the 10 year time frame, the owner is required to repay only
the principal sum of the loan amount.
At the present time, the City of Mound does not actively promote the use of this
program due to limited funding. A waiting list of potential clients exists. Despite
its limitations, the program is an excellent tool for accomplishing maintenance
City of Mound
Comprehensive Plan - April 11, 2000 Draft
Housing
p. 54
and structural repairs for individuals in need of financial assistance. Funding for
the program is not likely to increase in the near future.
MHFA: The Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA) is currently operating
a home improvement loan program. The program may be used to increase the
livability or energy efficiency of a home. Examples of eligible improvements
include plumbing, electrical wiring, roofing, heating, remodeling, room additions,
window replacement, insulation or improving accessibility for a disabled person.
Financed through the sale of tax-exempt bonds, the program is supplemented by
state appropriations which are used to reduce the borrower's interest rate on a
loan. The program offers home improvement loans at rates which are based on a
borrower's income.
HUD: The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) operates a
rental rehabilitation program. This program provides funds by formula to state
and local governments for rehabilitating primarily residential rental properties. It
also provides an allocation of Section 8 Existing Certificates and/or vouchers for
eligible low-income tenants who occupy or move into rehabilitated units.
Rehabilitation subsidies are generally provided through a one time, front end
mechanism such as a grant, deferred payment loan or a below market interest rate
loan which is sufficient to induce owners to upgrade their properties and obtain a
reasonable rate of return on their investment. Properties are rented at market rate
rents.
Since Mound's local resources are limited, the City will continue to monitor state
and federal funding of housing maintenance programs. Applicable programs will
be used and promoted to assist in attaining housing maintenance goals.
HOUSING AVAILABILITY
The housing analysis identified the need for housing serving second time buyers,
empty nesters and elderly, particularly those in need of health care services. The
primary local tool for increasing the supply of empty nester housing and housing
for the elderly is tax increment financing. Utilizing tax increment financing, the
City has the option of providing a variety of financial incentives such as land
write-downs to promote desired housing. Tax increment financing has been the
subject of increasing criticism in recent years and at some point in time, may
cease to exist as a tool to promote housing. As long as it is available, the City will
continue to consider tax increment housing proposals providing they are
conforming with the goals identified in the comprehensive plan.
Mound is presently offering an adequate supply of modest cost housing units and
City of Mound
Comprehensive Plan - April 11, 2000 Draft
Housing
p. 55
in order to enhance the availability of a variety of housing types, seeks to promote
additional high quality housing that appeals to the second time buyer or move-up
segment of the market. Realistically, the only way to promote such housing is to
enforce existing zoning and land use regulations and be willing to work with
developers as part of a planned residential approach.
Some of Mound's vacant areas may be suitable for a variety of housing types. The
city recognizes the need for various forms of housing to respond to the needs of
Mound residents. Where feasible, the city encourages innovative approaches to
provide a mix of housing types for single households, families, empty nesters and
elderly.
City of Mound
Comprehensive Plan - April 11, 2000 Draft
Housing
p. 56
CITY OF MOUND
Comprehensive Plan
TRANSPORTATION
TRANSPORTATION
Introduction
Since the City of Mound is nearly fully developed, the transportation network is
established and not likely to see major changes in the next 10 to 20 years. The fact
that the network is established, however, does not diminish the importance of
continually monitoring the system to ensure that it performs adequately.
The transportation system in Mound includes the roadway system which
accommodates a variety of vehicles including cars, tracks and public transit.
Transportation also includes pedestrian movement and bicycles, neither of which is
discussed in detail in this chapter. These modes are discussed in the Park and
Recreation section of this plan.
Existing System
A comprehensive review of transportation in Mound must include a review of the
components of the transportation system provided and maintained by state, regional
and county agencies as well as by other municipalities. The Metropolitan Council
and the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) utilize a classification
system for roadways that is applicable to the City of Mound. The system is known
as functional classification. Functional classification involves the definition of
roadways by function, prior to identifying design characteristics such as pavement
widths, speed limits and access controls. It is a valuable tool in comprehensive
planning because it ensures that land use decisions are considered in the
transportation planning process.
The Metropolitan Council uses functional classification to define those routes that
are part of the metropolitan roadway system. They also use it to relate transit
service to roadways. Functional classification is important to Mound for planning
purposes. Additionally, it relates to jurisdictional classification which is
subsequently discussed in this plan.
The functional classification system breaks down into a hierarchy of five categories.
As the least intensive classification, local streets provide access to property and as
such, are intended to serve limited geographic areas. Collector streets connect
neighborhoods within and between subregions and provide mobility between
residential neighborhoods and other land uses. Minor arterials are designed for
short trips at moderate to low speeds and local transit trips. Local streets, collectors
and minor arterials comprise the non-metropolitan segments of the transportation
system.
City of Mound
Comprehensive Plan - April 11, 2000 Draft
Transportation
p. 58
Ha/stead Bay
Dutch Lake
#
!
I
!
%
Spring Park
Bay
CITY OF MOUND
Comprehensive Plan
Roadway Functional
Classification System
Minor Arterial
Collector
-' '. -' Minor Collector
N
500 0 500
0 0.25
1000 1500 Feet
0.5 Miles
Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc.
123 North Third Street, Suite 100
Minneapolis, MN 55401
The Metropolitan Council has designated major arterials and interstate freeways as
components of the metropolitan highway network. The corporate limits of Mound
do not include any designated metropolitan highway routes. Routes in the
metropolitan highway system close to Mound include TH 7 and TH 12 (I-394).
County Road 15 (Shoreline Drive) - Minor Arterial
County Road 15 provides the principal east-west access through the center of
Mound. Shoreline Drive has two primary traffic lanes and channelized mm lanes in
many locations. It has a short four lane section at the intersection of County Roads
110 and 15. County Road 15 links Mound with Minnetrista on the west and
Wayzata and Interstate 394 on the east.
In 1988, Hennepin County completed a substantial reconstruction project on County
Road 15 including roadway and lighting improvements. In 2002, County Road 15
will be rerouted in conjunction with the Mound Visions Program Downtown
Revitalization Project. This rerouting will ultimately align the leg east of Commerce
with the leg to the west (Lynwood Blvd.).
County Road 110 (Commerce Boulevard) - Minor Arterial
The location of County Road 110 was determined by the location of several bodies
of water including Lake Minnetonka and Lake Langdon. County Road 110 is an
undivided roadway which begins as two lanes at the north end of Mound and widens
to four lanes south of Three Points Boulevard. At the intersection of CR 15, 110
tapers to two lanes and continues south and west into the City of Minnetrista.
County Road 110 was improved in the late 1970's and no further improvements are
planned at this time.
County Road 125 (Bartlett Boulevard)- Collector
County Road 125 is a two lane undivided roadway which serves as a collector of
residential traffic in the southeastern third of Mound. Traffic utilizing 125 is routed
to County Road 110 on the west and County Road 15 in Spring Park on the east.
Coun _ty Road 44 (Westedge Boulevard) - Collector
A short section of County Road 44 runs north-south in the southwestem comer of
Mound beginning at County Road 110. South of 110, the road is a two lane,
undivided route which directs traffic to CR 110 for additional movement in either an
east or west direction. North of 110, Westedge Boulevard currently functions as a
collector despite the fact that a section of the roadway is presently not paved with a
permanent hard surfacing.
City of Mound
Comprehensive Plan - April 11, 2000 Draft
Transportation
p. 60
Three Points Boulevard - Collector
Three Points Boulevard is a collector roadway serving the northeast areas of Mound.
It is a wide, two lane undivided street which feeds traffic to CR 110 on the west.
In addition to the collector streets identified above, the City of Mound contains a
number of routes which perform collector functions but due to development pattems
will never be able to be fully upgraded to full collector status. In the context of this
comprehensive plan, these routes are being classified as minor collectors to
recognize that they function at a level exceeding local streets.
Tuxedo Boulevard and Brighton Boulevard - Minor Collector
These streets collect residential traffic from the southeast comer of Mound and
direct it to County Road 125. These routes traverse through the Island
neighborhood which has the highest density of any of Mound's neighborhood areas.
Because of narrow right-of-way's and tight setbacks, these routes are not likely to be
improved in the future outside ofrepaving on normal maintenance items.
Grand View Boulevard - Minor Collector
This street provides access between northwest Mound, County Road 15 and County
Road 110.
JURISDICTIONAL CLASSIFICATION
Jurisdictional classification involves categorizing the transportation routes by the
agency responsible for their improvement and continual maintenance. Functional
classification plays a significant role in jurisdictional classification. In general,
major arterials are under the jurisdiction of the State; minor arterials are either State
or County roadways; collectors are either County or municipal routes and local
roadways are under the jurisdiction of the applicable municipality. Other criteria
which affect jurisdiction include historical jurisdiction, provisions for local access,
continuity and funding for capital and operating expenses.
In the City of Mound, only two jurisdictions have responsibility for the overall road
network. Hennepin County is responsible for routes 110, 15, 44 and 125. The City
of Mound is responsible for all remaining roadways.
City of Mound
Comprehensive Plan - ,4pril 11, 2000 Draft
Transportation
p. 61
TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT ZONES
The analysis and projection of regional traffic is conducted utilizing a technique
known as traffic assignment zones (TAZ). Traffic assignment zones are defined
geographical areas within which data such as population, employment and
household information is collected. This data is analyzed through computer
modeling techniques which results in forecasts of traffic between zones. Utilizing
this technique, is possible to project travel demand such as person-trip productions,
person-trip attractions, intrazonal person trips and motor vehicle data such as
average daily trips and peak hour trips. This data is particularly valuable to regional
transportation planning.
Mound contains three different traffic assigmnent zones. The Metropolitan
Council's projections are generally consistent with local estimates.
City of Mound
Comprehensive Plan - April 11, 2000 Draft
Transportation
p. 63
FUTURE SERVICE NEEDS
Transportation in the City of Mound is influenced by a variety of factors. The City
is predominately developed with an estimated 1996 population of 9,695. According
to City estimates, the population is expected to peak and stabilize at 9,800 by 2020.
Due to stabilized growth, transportation needs do not arise from anticipated new
development. Future transportation needs more directly arise from accommodating
existing local traffic, accommodating increased traffic traveling through Mound and
possible increases resulting from future redevelopment efforts. With few exceptions,
the local street network has been upgraded in the past 15 to 20 years and is not
expected to significantly change prior to 2010.
ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS
Hennepin County will begin the realignment of County Road 15 in 2002. The
project is part of an improvement project that has been planned for a number of
years to correct the offset alignment with the segment west of Commerce Blvd. The
proposed alignment is indicated on the Roadway Improvements map. This roadway
project will be done in conjunction with downtown redevelopment efforts to provide
adequate right-of-way, adjacent street connections, and private property access
points. The existing right-of-way will then be converted to private property as part
of the redevelopment project.
TRANSIT CENTER
The County Road 15 project will also require the relocation of the Mound Transit
Center. The proposed location will be just east of the realigned Auditor's Road on
County Road 15. Downtown redevelopment plans accommodate the center on a site
that could be shared with a hotel and farmers market. Buses could be accommodated
either on site or with bus stop on street. Additional design is needed to make this
facility functional.
City of Mound
Comprehensive Plan - April 11, 2000 Draft
Transportation
p. 67
Figures 26 Transit Service
~ MetroTransit
Minneapolis Express route 75
Sawing thasa
Downtown Minneapolis, Louisiana Ava.
Transit Center, 1-394 & Co. Rd. 73 Park &
Rids, RIdgadala, Long Lake, Mound
Source: Metropolitan Council
~ ~Transit
Minneapolis Route 78
Serving these Mound, Spring Park
areas:
City of Mound
Comprehensive Plan - April l 1, 2000 Draft
Transportation
p. 66
TRANSIT SERVICE
The Metropolitan Transit Commission (MTC) provides the City of Mound with
regular bus service to Ridgedale and downtown Minneapolis. Mound's transit
service is primarily commuter traffic connecting with other western metropolitan
suburbs or downtown Minneapolis. The bus route follows Mound's major roadway
system including County Roads 110, 15 and 125. Park and ride facilities are
provided in a municipal lot next to the Mound Post Office on' Shoreline Boulevard.
At the present time, Mound is served by MTC routes 75 and 78. The path of these
routes is shown on Figure 26. Route 75 includes express service to downtown
Minneapolis. The scheduled travel time from the Mound depot to downtown
Minneapolis is approximately 40 minutes via express service.
In addition to bus service, Mound has para transit service available to residents.
Commercial taxi service is available as well as a dial-a-ride program operated for
use by all citizens. The dial-a-ride service is operated with a rider fee.
Bus transit and para transit services will continue to provide Mound with transit
alternatives. Light rail transit (LRT) which is currently being planned by Hennepin
County will not directly impact the City. According to current plans, the planned
LRT corridor closest to Mound lies along either TH 55 in Plymouth or 1-394 in
Minnetonka. LRT has the potential for providing indirect benefit through potential
connections at either park and ride sites or bus/LRT connection points. The City of
Mound supports LRT as a transit alternative for the Metropolitan Area particularly
since it may provide indirect benefits to Mound residents.
City of Mound
Comprehensive Plan - April 11, 2000 Draft
Transportation
p. 65
~¢
· 1~0 ~ t~-~
O0
O0
O0
O0
O0
0
O0
O0
O0
0 '~
00.
m
DEFICIENCIES AND ISSUES
A consistent theme of this comprehensive plan is the fact that Mound is approaching
full development. Accordingly, the local transportation system is in place and will
remain largely "as is". Recent municipal street surfacing and curb/gutter
improvements have established a sound local street network. Concurrently, the
bridge and roadway improvements completed by Hennepin County in recent years
has established an adequate system of minor arterial and collector routes.
Despite the fact that local and County improvements have greatly enhanced
Mound's road network, existing problems and deficiencies still exist. Many of the
transportation system's problems are the result of land use patterns and the
constraints posed by the numerous bays of Lake Minnetonka. In many cases, these
constraints preclude certain types of transportation improvements. Regardless of
this fact, the City of Mound has a history during the past 25 years of providing
needed local improvements and working cooperatively with other jurisdictions to
solve larger scale problems. This same spirit of cooperation is expected to be
evident between now and the year 2010.
The following are the major existing deficiencies identified in the existing
transportation system:
Westedge Boulevard Westedge Boulevard currently contains an
unimproved section consisting of gravel surfacing. This route presently
serves as a collector street in the Mound street system. As development
continues to occur in the western section of Mound and in adjacent
Minnetrista, it will become necessary to provide street improvements. Such
a project will require the participation of both Mound and Minnetrista since
the right-of-way passes through both communities.
Local Street Network - The only substantial remaining vacant land in the
City of Mound is in the western portion of the community immediately
northwest of Lake Langdon. This area contains a variety of parcels owned
by private individuals. Development in this area is contingent on the
development interests of the individual property owners.
Access to this area will require the installation of additional local streets.
The City of Mound may need to take a coordinating role regarding
transportation improvements in this area to ensure that the street network
serves the interests of the individual property owners and the community at
large.
°
Street and Right-of-Way Widths - Mound's local street network is developed
within right-of-ways ranging from less than 20 feet wide to more than 60
City of Mound
Comprehensive Plan - April 11, 2000 Draft
Transportation
p. 70
o
feet wide. In many areas, right-of-way widths and street widths fall short of
normal engineering standards. In these areas, however, furore street
improvements are not expected to occur due to existing development
patterns.
In areas of restricted right-of-ways and street widths, the City will need to
continually monitor public safety issues. Parking restrictions and attention
to snow plowing efforts will be required to ensure minimum street
capacities.
Collector Streets - Virtually all of Mound's collector streets and the routes
designated in this plan as minor collectors do not meet one important design
standard. Collector streets by definition discourage direct land access. In
Mound, all of the streets that function as collectors contain numerous
driveway accesses, all of which are likely to remain in the future. In order to
keep collector streets functioning while protecting public safety, the City
will have to monitor and enforce traffic regulations along collector routes.
Sidewalks - Mound's street network is accommodated in a system of narrow
right-of-ways. Because of limited land availability, street widths are reduced
in some areas creating congested conditions for parking and driving. These
conditions make pedestrian movement difficult. This issue tends to be less
of a problem in residential areas due to low traffic volumes. Major streets,
however, do not accommodate a mix of pedestrian and vehicular traffic.
In order to accommodate both pedestrians and vehicles within right-of-way
corridors, Mound should continue to construct sidewalks along minor
collector, collector and arterial streets. As roadway sections are
reconstructed, sidewalk areas for use by pedestrians and in some cases, also
by bicycles should be included in improvement plans.
SUMMARY
The Mound transportation plan is not advocating the establishment of new routes or
the major reconstruction of existing roadways. Improvements in recent years have
created a sound system of local, collector and minor arterial streets to serve the
needs of the community and the surrounding area. Between now and 2010, it will
be important that the City continually strive to maintain the existing system and
provide enhancements in response to infill development and redevelopment efforts.
City of Mound
Comprehensive Plan - April 11, 2000 Draft
Transportation
p. 71
CITY OF MOUND
Comprehensive Plan
PARK AND RECREATION
PARKS AND RECREATION
Introduction
Parks and open space play a critical role in the physical and social structure of a
community. They also serve a critical role in the protection of natural resources.
Historically, residents of the City of Mound have placed a high priority on the
provision of adequate park and recreation facilities. That priority can be seen today
in the diverse park sites that are scattered throughout the community.
Due to its location on the western shores of Lake Minnetonka, Mound possesses a
variety of natural resources ideal for parks and public open space. Rolling
topography, mature tree cover and Lake Minnetonka are key features that enhance
the recreational setting in Mound.
The land use section of this plan indicates that Mound is almost fully developed.
The largest vacant parcel is a 21 acre site along Westedge Road. Because the City
is almost fully developed, the emphasis in park and recreation planning has shifted
from acquiring new sites to developing and redeveloping property presently owned
by the City. This shift does not preclude the acquisition of additional land in the
future. As continued development and future redevelopment occurs, the City may
acquire additional park land if it is needed to satisfy identified deficiencies or if
unique parcels are identified that should be included in the public park system.
In the past few years, there has been a national and regional philosophical shift in
park and recreation planning. This shift gets away from a standards based approach
by placing more emphasis on delivering the wants and needs of a community. As is
in Mound, where new parks are less frequent, meeting the needs of residents will be
the challenge.
The goal of this plan is to provide recreational opportunities to meet the needs of all
Mound residents and to conserve and protect the natural and historic resources of
the community by such means to leave them unimpaired for future generations. The
community contains a population that is diverse in age structure, interests and
activities. Meeting the needs of all age groups and providing year-round
recreational opportunities is the central objective of this plan.
Recreation Supply
In general, parks and recreation areas in Mound can be grouped into two
classifications: active areas and passive areas. Active recreational facilities
accommodate physical activities such as football fields, playground equipment, etc.
City of Mound
Comprehensive Plan - April 11, 2000 Draft
Park and Recreation
p. 73
Passive recreation is oriented to more leisurely pursuits such as picnicking, wildlife
observation, visitation of cultural and historical sites, etc. In order to fully meet
community needs, a park system needs to contain both active and passive
components.
In order to. assess the supply of recreational facilities in Mound, a set of standards
will be utilized. The standards establish categories for various park types. For
purposes of analysis, this plan recognizes three major types: 1) neighborhood
park/playfield, 2) community playfield and 3) community park. These categories
are generally consistent with both the 1990 Mound 'Comprehensive Plan and the
National Recreation and Park Association Standards. Each of these categories is
defined as follows:
Neighborhood Park/Playground - Areas typically accommodating unsupervised
sports, play equipment, paved areas, turf areas and minimal auto parking. Users are
predominately from surrounding residential areas. Service area - 1/2 mile.
Communi _ty Playfield - Areas accommodating football, softball, tennis and other
active athletic events. Some facilities may be lighted for night use and substantial
auto parking is typically required. Service area - 1 mile.
Community Park - Active athletic areas similar to community playfields with more
emphasis on picnicking, hiking, water sports etc. Community parks typically
require substantial off-street parking and contain internal road systems. Service
area- 1 mile.
At the present time, Mound has a total of 62.8 acres of park land in the three
categories reviewed above. The following is an overview of the existing park
facilities.
City of Mound
Comprehensive Plan - April 11, 2000 Draft
Park and Recreation
p. 74
II~H ~mP~IS ~ ~ ~
mob ~uos~oS ~ ~ ~ ~}
s~oo~so~ ~ ~
(olqmuoa) uo~l~Aed ~
~u~a~d
o~ed~ u~0
lleq~°°~ ~
a*~d ~u[qs~d ~
ss*a>V leo~ ~
(s)pla~fl lleg ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
z zzzzzzz zzzzz zzz zzzzgzzz z
z
zz~Jz
Insert Park Map
City of Mound
Comprehensive Plan - April 11, 2000 Draft
Park and Recreation
p. 76
Specialized Areas
In addition to neighborhood and community park facilities, Mound has a number of
specialized areas that provide unique recreational oppommities. The specialized
areas exist in three primary forms, commons property, permanent preserve lands
(wetlands and nature conservation areas) and special use areas.
According to the 1990 Comprehensive Plan, permanent preserve land accounts for
a total of approximately 68 acres. The Lost Lake area comprises a substantial
portion of this total. Other parcels scattered throughout the community account for
the remainder of the acreage.
Approximately 26 acres of property classified as commons exists in Mound. These
parcels comprise nearly 10 percent of the total Lake Minnetonka shoreline in the
community. Substantial diversity characterizes the commons areas. Some areas are
relatively flat and are easily accessible to the general public while some parcels
consist of steep slopes that are virtually unaccessible, even to abutting property
owners. Some commons properties are deep and provide ample space for numerous
public uses. Some are narrow and offer little more than a walkway or access to
dockage. Other areas are so narrow that even access becomes difficult and can
narrow to nothing at all.
Commons areas provide a valuable recreational resource to both residents of
Mound and to the general public. In many cases, the sites function as neighborhood
access points to Lake Minnetonka. Commons properties are generally not capable
of providing community-wide boat launching or parking facilities. However,
depending on the specific site or commons area, boat launching facilities, limited
parking, swimming and fishing are accommodated. A further discussion of
commons appears later in this plan.
There are a number of year round and seasonal lake access points that provide
public access to Lake Minnetonka and Dutch Lake. These access points are located
throughout the community affording residents without lakefront property or
commons use convenient lake access. Year round access points are located on
Dutch Lake, West Ann, Harrisons Bay, and Cooks Bay in Mound Bay Park. They
accommodate winter snowmobiling and ice fishing access as well as seasonal boat
access. Seasonal lake access areas are located at Canary Beach on the West Arm,
Centerview Beach on Harrisons Bay, Wychwood Beach on Cooks Bay, and
Pembrook Park on Phelps Bay.
City of Mound
Comprehensive Plan - April 11, 2000 Draft
Park and Recreation
p. 77
Recreation Need
Parks have become increasingly important to Mound residents. Demand for park
facilities has increased due to a number of factors including increased population
and a greater public awareness of the importance of fitness. Additionally, Mound is
becoming fully developed which means that less vacant land exists as open space.
The density of development in Mound also contributes to the need for recreational
facilities. The combination of small lot sizes and varying topography limits the use
of private property in many areas emphasizing the importance of accessible public
park lands.
The application of population ratio standards is a common method of analyzing
recreation need. Population ratio standards are simply figures expressed in terms of
a number of acres of park land per one thousand residents. These standards are
used as a general guide in assessing the adequacy of the supply of existing and
future park and recreation areas.
The minimum standards used in this plan are in conformance with those used in the
1990 Mound Comprehensive Plan and the National Recreation and Park
Association (NRPA) Standards used at that time. They include the following:
PARK TYPE
MINIMUM STANDARD
Neighborhood Park/Playground
Community Playfield
2.0 Acres/1000
1.5 Acres/1000
Community Park 3.5 Acres/1000
Total Park System 7.0 Acres/1000
Note: The NRPA suggests that a park system, at a minimum, be comprised of a "core" system of parklands,
with a total of 6.25 to 10.5 acres of developed o pen space per 1,000 population. The NRPA acknowledges the
size and amount of parldand will vary from community to community but must be taken in to account when
considering a total, well-rounded system of parks and recreation areas.
The Socio-Economic chapter of this plan presented information on existing and
projected population information for Mound. The preceding information presents
park acreages required in the years 1990 and 2000 in accordance with the applied
population ratio standards. In order to assess the impact of these projections on the
City of Mound, it is necessary to compare the projected park requirements to the
existing park supply. The following table provides this comparison.
PARK TYPE
EXISTING ACREAGE SURPLUS/
ACREAGE STANDARD DEFICIENCY
Neighborhood Park/Playground
Community Hayfield
22.6 Ac 19.4 Ac +3.2ac
35.5 Ac 14.6 Ac +20.9 Ac
Community Park
4.8 Ac 34.0 Ac -29.2 Ac
Total Park System
62.9 Ac 67.9 Ac -5.0 Ac
City of Mound
Comprehensive Plan - April 11, 2000 Draft
Park and Recreation
The Commons areas in Mound do not fit well within the structure of National
Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) Standards for park classifications as a
whole. Because of the specific uses of each commons area and the underlying
dedication, each has .specifics for the residents served. This is why they are
identified as Specialized Areas in this plan. If however, the commons were to be
grouped into park types, they would fit in either a neighborhood or community
park category. Nonetheless, they are a component of the system as they provide
benefit to the City's residents in many ways. The following table compares the
existing park and commons acreages to the NRPA standards. It should be noted
that the commons acreage is an estimate for these purposes.
PARK TYPE
EXISTING ACREAGE SURPLUS/
ACREAGE STANDARD DEFICIENCY
Neighborhood Park/Playground
Community Playfield
22.6 Ac 19.4 Ac +3.2ac
35.5 Ac 14.6 Ac +20.9 Ac
Community Park 4.8 Ac 34.0 Ac -29.2 Ac
Commons Areas 26 Ac NA NA
Total Park System 88.9 Ac 67.9 Ac +21 Ac
Strict application of the minimum standards indicates that Mound meets minimum
acreages for neighborhood park/playground facilities for its population. Areas
classified as community playfields are also more than adequate to cover anticipated
demand. Most of the community playfields are part of the Westonka School
District. On the whole, the figures indicate a shortage of community parks with a
deficiency of approximately 29 acres. With the inclusion of commons areas, the
total park system has a 21 acre surplus.
During the development of the community, parkland was secured based on
community standards at that time. If the standards used to guide parkland in the past
are used for future planning, additional parkland will be needed to keep pace a
slight increase in population. Any gains in parkland will certainly increase residents
enjoyment, although the plan recognizes this will not be an easy task.
While the park land inventory is likely to remain static over time, the user needs
will be ever changing. During the period when the community was developing, the
challenge was to secure park land for the future. Now the challenge appears to have
shifted to meeting the needs of the users.
Recreation Need - Other Influences
The total acreage in a city's park system is only one measure used in analyzing the
adequacy of existing and future park and recreation areas. In order to accurately
City of Mound
Comprehensive Plan - April 11, 2000 Draft
Park and Recreation
p. 79
represent existing conditions, the inventory of park facilities can not stop at
municipal boundaries.
Users of park and recreation facilities disregard political boundaries. If Mound
does not offer the types of activities desired by users, they will attempt to seek the
desired facilities in other locations. Therefore, recreation opportunities within the
vicinity of Mound have an effect upon the type and number of recreational facilities
necessary to adequately serve the recreation needs of the Mound population. The
reverse of this relationship is also true. Various components of the Mound park
system are attractive to both residents and nonresidents alike. Mound Bay Park, for
example, appeals to substantial numbers of users who actually live outside of
Mound's city limits.
Every community a surrounding Mound maintains a municipal park system.
Additionally, community-service groups provide facilities. An example is
Westonka Recreation Association complex located west on County Road 110 in
Minnetrista. The complex has softball diamonds, pedestrian and bicycle trails, and a
concession area. Planned improvements include a community meeting room, a play
area and a swimming pool. This facility provides recreational opportunities for
Mound residents.
In addition to municipal facilities, the regional park system operated by Hennepin
Parks provides recreational opportunities to Mound residents. Carver Park Reserve
is located approximately 3.5 miles southwest of Mound. It provides extensive trails
and natural wildlife habitat areas. Other facilities located within a 20 minute drive
for Mound residents include Baker Park Reserve, Lake Rebecca Park Preserve, and
Lake Minnetonka Regional Park.
Recreation Need - Summary
The previously described NRPA standards show that Mound satisfies the minimum
targeted acreage standard for neighborhood park facilities to serve its population.
Neighborhood parks are provided generally within one half mile of all residences
within the city. One area of concern exists, however. In the western section of the
community, a large area of undeveloped land exists. If this area develops in the
future, a new neighborhood park facility may be needed depending on the type of
development that occurs and the supporting street system layout. Consideration
could be given to purchase the site for park and open space purposes.
A surplus of community playfield areas exists. Parks classified as community
playfields are exclusively on property owned by the school district. Since these
sites contain active facilities such as basketball courts, ball fields, tennis courts, etc.,
they also serve as community park areas.
The community park classification is deficient. This statistic is misleading,
however, because it does not include any of the excess community playfield areas,
City of Mound
Comprehensive Plan - April 11, 2000 Draft
Park and Recreation
p. 80
it does not include commons property and specialized areas, and it does not include
the Lost Lake area. As discussed in the Land Use section, the downtown
redevelopment project could make Lost Lake a greater park system amenity.
This plan recognizes that further facility development and redevelopment will be
needed to meet the changing needs of residents. Additionally, more natural open
space areas are needed. These areas could include trail systems to satisfy both
current and future local needs.
RECREATION PLAN
Material presented earlier in this plan identified existing park facilities and analyzed
both existing and future park needs. This material, coupled with the identified goals
and objectives forms the basis for the recreation plan.
The City of Mound has established a diverse park system that provides a variety of
recreational oppommities to various users. The recommendations in this plan are
intended to build upon the existing system so that the community is in a position to
meet the needs of residents in the year 2010. Since this plan builds upon the
facilities that are in place at this time, it is important to highlight the strengths of the
existing system.
Five major characteristics summarize the existing Mound park system. They
include:
1. The three major active, non-water oriented recreation facilities are located on the
three school sites. These sites are centrally located and afford convenient access to
users. Although not under the ownership of the City of Mound, these sites provide
an essential contribution to Mound's park system. Future recreation efforts need to
continue to recognize the role played by the school district's facilities. The City of
Mound should work closely with the Westonka School District to ensure that these
facilities are available for use by Mound residents.
2. The City of Mound owns a variety of park properties uniquely suited to a variety
of purposes. The larger sites are used for active recreation while a numerous
smaller parcels function either as permanent open space or neighborhood lake
access points. Supplementing the designated park areas is a system of publicly
owned wetlands and open space.
3. The existing park system contains diverse facilities that serve both active and
passive needs.
4. Mound's park system places a major emphasis on neighborhood park facilities.
Because of the development pattern of the community, the city has historically
relied on numerous smaller neighborhood parks and playgrounds rather than
City of Mound
Comprehensive Plan - ~4pril 11, 2000 Draft
Park and Recreation
p. 81
stressing the development of more community wide park facilities. This has
resulted in a system that provides parks that are convenient to all residents,
however, numerous, smaller sites require higher expenditures for maintenance.
5. Mound has a historical commitment of making Lake Minnetonka accessible to
all residents. The city has acquired an extensive system of shoreland properties
which provide docks, fishing access and vehicular access to Lake Minnetonka.
GENERAL COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Neighborhood parks will be the major component of the Mound park system.
Based on the concept of positioning park facilities within easy access of a one-half
mile service radius, adequate park acreage is available. Neighborhood parks
provide play opportunities for small children. They should expand youth oriented
activities such as playgrounds, basketball courts and ball fields available for casual
games. Selective development of other active facilities such as tennis courts is
appropriate in neighborhood parks.
2. The Community Center site, Grandview Middle School and Shirley Hills
Elementary School will continue to be key components of the Mound park system.
Major emphasis will need to be placed on maintenance of the existing facilities.
Any expansions that may occur will need to be addressed for recreation needs.
3. Lake accesses, commons property and permanent wetlands/open space will
continue to be major elements of Mound's park system and needs to be protected..
Since Mound is almost fully developed, major expansion of these sites is not
envisioned, although parcels should be added when opportunities arise.
4. Establish and implement a system of uniform signs designating the locations and
features of parks and recreation areas. Information such as the facility name, date
of establishment and any other pertinent historical data may be included. Signage
should be used to identify all lake access points. A system of unified signs will aid
users in identifying various areas.
5. The city should develop an overall master plan and planting program for all park
facilities. Native plants should be used to provide environmental and aesthetic
benefits. Plans for parks should integrate recreational facilities into the natural
environment of the site.
6. The city should continue to maintain a balanced recreational system which
appeals to a broad base of the population and provides recreational oppommities for
both active and passive users.
7. Business and industrial areas should be integrated into the recreation system
through sidewalk, trail systems, and other open space features.
City of Mound
Comprehensive Plan - April 11, 2000 Draft
Park and Recreation
8. Mound should expand its existing ownership of nature areas and open space.
Retaining tax forfeited land is one source of such property. Frequently land
becomes tax forfeit because it is unbuildable due to topography, soil conditions or
the presence of wetland areas. These development constraints are qualities desired
in open space or nature area parka. Other methods of protecting open space and
natural areas include acquisition of fee title, acquisition of conservation easements,
park land dedication, a registry program, and other tools.
9. The City should explore seasonal use of wetland areas. During the winter
months, wetlands offer interesting opportunities for hiking and cross country skiing
activities.
10. Maintain the existing on-street trails and explore ways to improve links between
park facilities.
11. Place a priority on maintenance and upkeep of park facilities to improve their
image and safety in neighborhoods.
12. Complete a community recreation and open space survey to understand
residents changing recreation needs and desire to acquire open space.
13. Create a program to better link neighborhood parks with the neighborhood
residents. The number of neighborhood parks in the community makes them the
cornerstone of the park system and a good avenue to communicate neighborhood
pride.
14. Inventory the existing parcels to designate and schedule proposed parks and
open spaces.
City of Mound
Comprehensive Plan - April 11, 2000 Draft
Park and Recreation
p. 83
Specialized Areas - Recommendations
The inventory section of this plan identified several specialized areas within the
Mound park system. Two of the areas cited were the Lost Lake site and the
commons system. As. Mound continues to grow and the remaining vacant land
develops, these two areas will become even more important to the local community.
Commons Areas
Recommendations found within this plan call for the continuation of the commons
program which provides resident access to Lake Minnet0nka. At the present time,
nearly 4.5 miles or roughly ten percent of Mound's shoreline is under public
ownership or private dedication. This system which consists of a variety of land
parcels is neither suited nor capable of providing community-wide boat launching
or fishing access capabilities.
Commons properties are categorized as one of five general types. They consist off
Type
A
B
C
D
E
Description
Traversable on top only with no docks
Traversable only along shoreline areas, regular guidelines apply
Not traversable, abutting property owners only
Traversable top and bottom, regular guidelines apply
Wetland/wildlife area, no docks
In some cases, commons properties may have potential for expanded public use.
Type A, B, D, and E facilities may be able to support trail systems depending on
existing development configurations. Expanded use of commons property needs to
consider the potential disruption to residential areas and increased exposure of
privately owned boats. Despite these concerns, commons properties should be
reviewed to determine if expanded public usage is warranted. Separate and detailed
documentation on commons properties is available from the Mound Parks
Department.
City of Mound
Comprehensive Plan - April 11, 2000 Draft
Park and Recreation
p. 84
Figure 30. Dock and Commons Location Map
CITY OF
HOUND -
MINNESOTA
~ I I I I I ~ I I I -I I~-[ I I I .~ ~! I I i I , I I
- ~ i DOCK LOCATION MAP~
I "...-,-.
m
0 I --
Iit1111
City of Mound
Comprehensive Plan - April 11, 2000 Draft
Park and Recreation
p. 85
Nature Conservation Areas
There are four identified Nature Conservation Areas (NCA) in Mound established
to protect the natural resources of each site. The qualities of each site vary from
wooded wetland swamps to heavily timbered higher ground ranging in size from
· 15 to 4.6 acres. A total of 10 acres of land is designated as NCAs in Mound. Two
of the NCAs in particular, Indian Mound, and Rustic Place, represent the native
landscape that existed prior to the physical development of the area.
Opportunities exist to secure other natural areas as NCAs. Future lands could be
secured through a number of mechanisms including outright purchase,
conservation easement, land registry programs or other means.
Bikeways
The recreation section of the Mound Comprehensive Plan places an emphasis on
the provision of convenient neighborhood parks. Neighborhood parks are the key
to providing accessible park and recreation oppommities to Mound residents. In
order to enhance accessibility, bikeways are used as a method of improving access
to components of Mound's park system.
In addition to improving accessibility, bikeways also serve two additional
functions. First, bikeways can be used as a pure recreational experience; a means of
obtaining exercise· Secondly, they provide an increasingly important transportation
alternative. The increased use of bicycles can help reduce automobile congestion
and thereby helping to alleviate air quality problems.
Because of the extent of existing residential, commercial and industrial
development, most bikeways in Mound are in the form of on-street, designated
routes rather than detached trails. At the present time Commerce Boulevard (110),
Shoreline Boulevard (15) and Bartlett Boulevard (125) are striped for bike lanes.
Additional designation of these lanes through signage would make them more
identifiable to motorists. When Commerce Boulevard was reconstructed in 1989,
sidewalks were installed to enhance pedestrian safety. Wide shoulders along this
route help reduce the potential for conflict between automobiles and bicycles. The
following table outlines general design guidelines for bikeways and trail systems.
City of Mound
Comprehensive Plan - April 11, 2000 Draft
Park and Recreation
p. 86
Table Trail/Bikeway Design Guidelines
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS ONE-WAY TWO-WAY/MULTI-
USE
Width Off-Street 3.5' minimum 10+' recommended
5-6' recommended
Width On-Street (no car parking) 3.5' minimum Not recommended
4-6' recommended
Maximum Vertical Gradient
Short Runs (less than 100') 15% 15%
Short Runs 10% 10%
Desirable 5% 5%
Curve Radius 15' minimum 15' minimum
20' recommended 20' recommended
Source: Handbook of Landscape Architecture Construction - 1976
Time-Saver Standards for Landscape Architecture - 1998
It is important that trails be properly signed and marked, especially on-street trails.
This is accomplished through the use of signage and pavement markings. Signage
is a good information communicator to both bicyclists and motorists. Signage can
be used as a regulatory means, as a waming to call to attention, and as a guide for
orientation. Signs should be placed at intersections, crossings, where there are
changes in direction, and other points where attention is needed. Pavement
markings supplement signage and define space on a roadway. Solid white lines
delineate bicycle lanes and motorist roadway. Other diamond markings at the
beginning, midpoint, and ends of a bike lane provide further communication and
information.
In the future, Mound has the potential to expand the existing bikeway system with
off-street trails. The rail line bisects the community is owned and operated by
Dakota Rail. There has been discussion regarding abandonment in recent years as it
provides short line service for a few large industries. If the line is ever abandoned, it
would make an excellent trail connecting to communities both east and west of
Mound. The development of such a trail would likely involve the efforts and
resources of Mound, other communities along the corridor, Hennepin County and
possibly the State of Minnesota. The potential does exist for shared use of the rail
corridor and discussions regarding a trail should consider this as an option.
The second opportunity for an off-street trail exists around the Lost Lake site. The
Mound Visions program calls for the integration of trail and open systems in the
downtown. A loop trail system around Lost Lake may be able to accommodate
multi-use trail depending on soil conditions, the amount of available land, and
environmental impacts. Securing property through acquisition or easements through
developed areas will be needed to complete a loop trail system.
City of Mound
Comprehensive Plan - April 11, 2000 Draft
Park and Recreation
p. 87
-I
-i
CITY OF MOUND
Comprehensive Plan
PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
PUBLIC FACILITIES
This chapter describes the existing public facilities and services used by the
residents of Mound. These encompass both City owned and operated facilities and
those operated by the Westonka School District. As a resident of Mound, these
publicly owned lands are often viewed as one in the same. Taxpayer dollars support
the operation of each and voters elect the Council and Board in charge of the
direction each body. There is also overlap of services each entity provides to the
community. A good example of this is open space for recreation.
Administration
The City of Mound operates under a council/manager form of government. In this
form of government, the Council is responsible for providing the manager with
the policy directives for how the City should operate. It is then the responsibility
of the manager to carry out these directives through the operating departments of
Finance, Building and Inspections, Public Works, Park and Recreation, Police and
Fire. Appointed citizen boards and commissions also give the Council assistance
with decision making. Mound has a number of bodies that serve various
functions:
· Planning Commission
· Park and Open Space Commission
· Dock and Commons Commission
· Economic Development Commission
City Hall is centrally located in Mound at 5341 Maywood Road. Also housed in
the building is the police department. An addition to the building was completed
in 1990 to meet operational needs. There are no plans for expansion of City Hall
at this time.
Police Department
The Mound Police Department operates with a staff of 13 full-time persons.
Services are provided within the City limits 24 hours per day. Approximately
20,000 calls are handled each year. The Department offers a number of community
services, programs, and in-house training. Programs include:
· D.A.R.E.
· Citizens Academy
· Summer Safety
· Bicycle Patrol
· Juvenile Citizens Academy
· Crime Free Multi-housing
· Crime Prevention
· Juvenile Conferencing
City of Mound
Comprehensive Plan - April 11, 2000 Draft
Public Facilities
p. 9o
· Offensive Behavior
· In-house training for defense tactics to officers
The Department is also part of the Southwest Drag Task Force, which is a joint
effort of 10 communities and Hennepin County.
Fire Department
The Mound Fire Departmem is a 37 member volunteer staff. The Fire Station is
located adjacent to City Hall on the comer of Wilshire Blvd. and Maywood Road.
Fire and rescue services are provided to Mound and surrounding communities.
Public Services
The Department structure of the City of Mound is oriented to providing residents
with services that contribute to the quality of life. These services include:
· Water service
· Sewer service
Snowplowing
· Street maintenance
· Park programming
· Park maintenance
· Building review and inspections
Two public works facilities house equipment needed to carry out public services.
In addition to public services, other private sector services are provided within the
City.
· Electric Service is provided by Minnegasco
· Natural Gas is provided by Reliant Energy Northem States Power
· Cable TV is provided by Mediacom
· Garbage service is provided by a number of contract companies
Schools
Mound is part of the Westonka Public School District #277 which was consolidated
in 1917. It serves the cities of Mound, Minnetrista, Orono, Spring Park, Navarre,
Shorewood, Lyndale and Independence. The District offers a number of community
education and services programs including:
· Early Childhood Family Education (ECFE)
· Westonka Adventure Club
· Youth development programs
· Recreation and enrichment classes
· Adult Basic Education GED
City of Mound
Comprehensive Plan - April 11, 2000 Draft
Public Facilities
p. 91
· Programs for disabled adults
· Senior Citizen Programs
The Westonka School system has two school sites in Mound. The Grandview
Middle School for 5th, 6th, and 7th grades is located at 1881 Commerce Blvd. Shirley
I-Iills Elementary School is located at 2450 Wilshire Blvd. Administrative functions
also operate from the Shirley Hills location.
In addition to public schools, Our Lady of the Lake School offers private schooling.
It is located at 2411 Commerce Blvd.
Libraries
The Hennepin County Library System's Westonka Branch is located at 2079
Commerce Blvd. The branch is one of the County's 23 community libraries.
City of Mound
Comprehensive Plan - ,~pril 11, 2000 Draft
Public Facilities
p. 92
Water System
The City of Mound owns and operates its own municipal water system. The system
provides water to serve residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional
customers within the City and a few residential customers outside the City. The
City's Water Supply Plan, prepared by McCombs Frank Roos and Associates, was
adopted in December of 1995. The Comprehensive plan adopts by reference the
Water Supply Plan Plan to comply with Metropolitan Council requirements.
The Water Supply Plan describes these components of Mound's water supply
system:
4 groundwater wells -
Well No. 1 - located at Marion Lane and Auditor's Road. The
well has a depth of 285 feet. It provides about 5% of the City's
annual water supply.
Well No. 3 - located on Chateau Lane by the elevated storage
tank. The well has a depth of 317 feet and provides about 14%
of the City's annual water supply.
· Well No. 6 - located next to City Hall, the well has a depth of
175 feet and provides about 37% of the City's annual water
supply
· Well No. 7 - located at the intersection of Three Points
Boulevard and Commerce Boulevard, the well has a depth of
133 feet and provides about 44% of the City's annual water
supply.
Elevated Storage Tanks - · Elevated Storage tank on Chateau Lane - 75,000 gallon capacity
· Elevated Storage tank on Evergreen Rd. - 300,000 gallon
capacity
· Standpipe on Donald - 265,000 gallon capacity
· Distribution System - consisting of about 50 miles of distribution mains
ranging in size from 4 to 10 inches.
· Treatment System - Mound does not have a water treatment plant but does
treat water at each well site with chlorine and fluoride.
Water System issues
The water supply system in Mound is generally well equipped to serve the City's
needs through the year 2004 with routine maintenance and replacement of worn out
equipment. Based on Metropolitan Council population projections, the City does
City of Mound
Comprehensive Plan - April 11, 2000 Draft
Public Facilities
p. 93
not anticipate an increase in water use. The Water Supply Plan identifies an average
daily demand is approximately 785,000 gallons or about 27% of the total daily
capacity of 2,900,000 gallons. This is based on a 10 year average water use
numbers. No additional wells are planned rather, one well, Well No. 1, is planned to
be taken out of service in the next few years. Although it provides a small
percentage of the City's total water supply, it will impact water supply to the
western portions of the community where there are concems regarding the
adequacy of the system to both supply residential water needs and emergency
service for fire fighting. Additional planning is needed to identify and correct any
potential system deficiencies. The Water Supply Plan also identifies the need to
replace the Chateau Lane storage tank sometime after 2004. A new storage tank
would be built on the same site to serve future needs.
Sanitary Sewer System
The City of Mound is within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area allows for the
provision of sanitary sewer services to the entire community. Sanitary sewer service
connection is required for all uses in the City. On-site sewage disposal systems are
not allowed. In 1998, there were a total of 3534 sewer connections with a total flow
of 319,000,000 gallons. The number of connections have increased since 1994 by
about 110 from 3424. Total flow however, has decreased from a high in 1997 of
351,000,000. Based on the Metropolitan Council projections, Mound does not
anticipate an increase in sanitary sewer system flow.
City of Mound
Comprehensive Plan - April 11, 2000 Draft
Public Facilities
p. 94
CITY OF MOUND
Comprehensive Plan
IMPLEMENTATION
IMPLEMENTATION
INTRODUCTION
The Mound Comprehensive Plan provides direction in making decisions about the
community's furore growth. The narrative sections and supporting graphics within
this plan provide direction for solving existing problems and dealing with future
change. Plan implementation involves the conversion of the recommendations into
measures of action. The implementation section, like the plan itself, is a flexible
tool and should be amended or adjusted as conditions warrant.
The Mound Comprehensive Plan will be implemented in a number of ways. Actual
implementation of the plan is accomplished on a daily basis by City personnel and
on a regular basis by the decisions that are made by the various commissions and the
City Council. Implementation will involve the modification of existing ordinances,
the adoption of new ordinances, maintaining a housing program, administrative
procedures, directives from the City Council and use of a capital improvements
program.
ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
The City of Mound like most communities has defined a series of ongoing tasks and
established commissions to specifically focus on each area of emphasis. Each of
these commissions has a role in the implementation of the comprehensive plan. It is
important that their efforts coincide with the policy direction that is established by
the City Council.
City Council
The City Council is the final authority in the implementation process. The Council
has official approval of all plans and ordinances, the authority to earmark funds and
the ability to execute funding agreements with state and federal agencies.
The City Council needs to work closely with ail of the commissions in
implementing the recommendations found within this plan. The council members
and the mayor have frequent contacts with residents and business people in the
community and can contribute to continued public support of adopted policies and
recommendations.
Planning Commission
The Planning Commission plays a key role in all development and redevelopment
decisions. It is important that the Commission's role be closely coordinated with the
City Council to assure continuity between policies and what they strive to achieve
City of Mound
Comprehensive Plan - April 11, 2000 Draft
Implementation
p. 96
and what is actually allowed by the City's codes and ordinances.
The Planning Commission is the entity with primary responsibility for the
preparation of this plan. After adoption of the plan, two areas of emphasis remain.
First, it is the role of the Commission to ensure that the framework of codes and
ordinances is in conformance with the recommendations of the plan. Conformance
may require periodic updates of the zoning code and other sections of the
ordinances. Secondly, on an ongoing basis, it will remain the charge of the
Commission to review all development and redevelopment proposals including but
not limited to site plans, subdivisions, lot splits, rezonings and variances.
Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Mound's Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) has been involved in two
types of projects: senior citizen housing and commercial redevelopment. The
commercial project included tax increment financing. In order to achieve some of
the recommendations found in this plan, involvement by the HRA may be
necessary. The HRA's involvement may be especially critical in financing
redevelopment efforts where building and property constraints may preclude
development solely by the private sector.
Economic Development Commission
In 1989, Mound formed an economic development commission to coordinate
business development efforts. The Economic Development Commission (EDC) has
the key role in the Mound Visions Project. The EDC continued involvement with
downtown redevelopment will be key to its success.
Park and Open Space Commission
All decisions pertaining to the development of municipal parks and open space
within the City of Mound are reviewed by the Parks and Open Space Commission.
The Commission has the lead role in implementing the park recommendations
found within the comprehensive plan. Since the Park and Open Space
Commission's recommendations are formally approved by the City Council, it is
important that the two groups work together closely to attain identified objectives.
HOUSING
Statistics presented in the housing chapter reveal that Mound is presently meeting
regional goals for low and modest cost housing. The plan further identifies a
shortage of "move up" housing in Mound. Mound's housing goal involves the
provision of a range of types and sizes of housing that will provide a variety of
housing opportunities. At the present time, the supply of housing is heavily
City of Mound
Comprehensive Plan - April 11, 2000 Draft
Implementation
p. 97
weighted toward lower cost, single family detached units.
Achievement of the goal of providing additional move up housing can be realized
only if the community is willing to emphasize such construction in the few
remaining vacant land parcels. In remaining vacant areas, the city will stress
compliance with zoning and subdivision ordinances. Additionally, utilizing the
Planned Development Area (PDA) provisions of the zoning ordinance and other
tools, Mound will emphasize the inclusion of amenities in development plans.
Items such as street and cul-de-sac layouts, entrance landscaping and signage
treatments, locations of open space and other items will be carefully reviewed
during the development approval process.
Although this plan places a heavy emphasis on the provision of new, move up
housing, the provision of lower cost housing and the maintenance of the existing
housing stock are equally important aspects of the overall housing supply. Mound's
housing program employs a multi-jurisdictional approach. The city will continue to
cooperate with Metro and County HRA's to provide affordable housing units.
Maintenance of housing units will also be accomplished through the programs and
resources of a variety of jurisdictions. At the county, federal and state level, the City
of Mound will utilize programs such as CDBG funds for housing rehabilitation
loans and grants. At the local level, the City will adopt a housing maintenance
ordinance as an added tool in upgrading substandard housing.
The City should be more active in promoting housing related ordinances and
programs. The City's quarterly newsletter should be used as a forum to disseminate
information on the availability of rehabilitation programs and ordinance
requirements.
LAND USE
Zoning and subdivision ordinances are the primary tools for implementing land use
policies and plan recommendations. Mound has had zoning ordinances in effect of
over 50 years. During that time, numerous amendments to the zoning code have
been enacted in response to changes in demographic and development trends. At
the present time, the community's zoning ordinance, subdivision ordinance, sign
ordinance and wetland ordinance are all generally consistent with the
recommendations in this plan. Minor modifications of these ordinances may be
required to further encourage implementation of the plan.
All municipal ordinances should be continually monitored and updated as needed.
Immediately following adoption of this plan, the City of Mound will conduct a
thorough review of all ordinances impacting land use.
City of Mound
Comprehensive Plan - April 1 I, 2000 Draft
Implementation
p. 98
TRANSPORTATION
Because Mound is almost fully developed, the comprehensive plan does not
advocate any major new transportation improvements. The transportation section of
this plan' advocates continued maintenance of existing facilities. Maintenance of
existing routes also involves coordination with Hennepin County and other
jurisdictions.
New local streets will be required to serve vacant land areas. The proper alignment
and phasing of furore streets may be complicated by land ownership patterns. If this
situation occurs, the City will work cooperatively with private parties to ensure that
an efficient street network is implemented. In extreme cases, Mound's ability to
condemn property for public right-of-way may be used.
RECREATION
Recreation improvements are outlined in the park and recreation chapter of this
plan. In general, recreation improvements will be implemented over time as budget
resources permit. Where applicable, the City should seek outside funding from both
community groups and other governmental agencies. Programs such as
LAWCON/LCMR funding should be used supplement local funds. Details on
anticipated recreation expenditures are found in the capital improvements section of
this plan.
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
Citizen participation in the local planning process is a key element in the continued
implementation of the comprehensive plan. Open communication should
characterize the relationship between city government and local citizens. The
expression of public opinion and its subsequent consideration in decision making
are essential ingredients in implementing all public policy issues including
comprehensive plans.
Citizen participation was a component of the preparation and adoption of this
comprehensive plan. In addition to the input of the volunteer commissions that
contributed to this planning effort, public comments were continually sought at
numerous meetings and at formal public hearings.
The implementation of a comprehensive plan requires an even stronger citizen
participation effort. The community will need to continually re-evaluate the
comprehensive plan to ensure that it accurately portrays public opinion. If the
people of Mound are familiar with the plan and endorse its recommendations, the
implementation effort will be more effective. The City of Mound should use the
quarterly newsletter, other mailings, and its intemet site to portray the concepts
City of Mound
Comprehensive Plan - April 11, 2000 Draft
Implementation
p. 99
found in this plan and to apprise the public on progress toward meeting identified
goals.
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Capital improvement programming is the multi-year scheduling of public physical
improvements. Improvements to transportation, sewers, community buildings and
park and open space systems are typically projected over a five year period with
detailed items being projected during the first two years. Projects scheduled during
years three through five are considered more tentative and subject to future change.
In order to be effective, capital improvement programs should be updated annually.
Capital improvement programs should not be confused with annual municipal
budgets. Capital improvement budgeting identifies those items that are funded
during the following fiscal year. Capital improvement programming, as mentioned
previously, refers to programming over a five year period. The one year budget is
typically used by a municipality in making daily expenditure decisions. The CIP is
used for longer range, planning decisions. Capital improvements should not include
expenditures for equipment and services that are operating budget items. Such
items should be financed out of current revenues.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES
The City of Mound has the major role in future development decisions. The
decisions that are made pertaining to residential, commercial and industrial projects
have a lasting effect on the appearance and function of the community.
Development projects are regulated by a series of codes and ordinances, all
structured to ensure that minimum requirements are met. In addition to the
regulatory structure, the review process itself is also important. During project
reviews, the City and the developer conduct a critique of project details that
typically results in a final product that exceeds minimum requirements. Because of
the role of the review process, it is important that it is fully understood by the
decision makers, the development community and the citizens of Mound.
In most development decisions, an advisory public hearing is required by the
Planning Commission prior to a hearing by the City Council. The advisory public
hearing is held at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission. Ten days prior to
the hearing, a notice is published in the official newspaper and all residents with 350
feet are notified of the time and date of the hearing. Public hearings are required for
the following:
1 .Platting
2.Conditional Use Permits
3.Zoning Amendments
city of Mound
Comprehensive Plan - April I.I, 2000 Draft
Implementation
p. lO0
4.Planned Development Areas (PDA)
5.Planned Industrial Areas (PIA)
6.Wetland Permit
In addition to the items noted above, variances and the issuance of Operation
Permits require review by both the Planning Commission and/or City Council but
do not require public heatings. In the case of the Operations Permit, the City
Council has the option of calling a public hearing if it is deemed to be necessary.
Detailed application requirements and procedures for all review items are available
from the City of Mound.
City of Mound
Comprehensive Plan - April 11, 2000 Draft
Implementation
p. 101
Capital Improvement Program
The City has developed a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) which establishes
priorities on the basis of which improvements will have the greatest impact on
achieving the City's goals. The CIP is established for the years of 2000 through
the year 2006. The City reserves the right to change its Capital Improvement
Program to accommodate infrastructure repair and reconstruction as determined
by the City Engineer, Public Works Superintendent, and City Council.
Table Street Capital Improvement Program (2000-2006
YEAR TYPE OF COST FUNDING
IMPROVEMENT SOURCE
2001 Painting of street light $55,000 General Fund
poles and sign maker
2001 Road Overlay - 1.3 mi. $50,000 General Fund
2002 Road Overlay - 1.3 mi. $50,000 General Fund
2003 Road Overlay - 1.3 mi. $50,000 General Fund
2004 Road Overlay- 1.3 mi. $50,000 General Fund
2005 Road Overlay - 1.3 mi. $50,000 General Fund
2006 Road Overlay - 1.3 mi. $50,000 General Fund
Table Water Utility Capital Improvement Program (2000-2006)
YEAR TYPE OF COST FUNDING
IMPROVEMENT SOURCE
2000 New Municipal Well $200,000 Water Fund
2001 Hydrant Replacement $30,000 Water Fund
2002 Water Main $125,000 Water Fund
Replacement
Edgewater - Fairview to
Northern
2002 Hydrant Replacement $39,000 Water Fund
2002 Blacktop Disposal $30,000 Water and Sewer
Funds
2003 Paint Island Park Water $130,000 Water Fund
Tower
2003 Hydrant Replacement $30,000 Water Fund
2004 Water Main $180,000 Water Fund
Replacement
Bartlett- Whilshire to
Commerce
City of Mound
Comprehensive Plan - April 11, 2000 Draft
Implementation
p. 102
2004 Water Tower $600,000 Water Fund
2005 Water Main $175,000 Water Fund
Replacement
Lynwood - Grandview
to West Edge
2006 Water Main $115,000 Water Fund
Replacement
Highland - Commerce
to Park
Table Sanitary Sewer Capital Improvement Program (2000-2006)
YEAR TYPE OF COST FUNDING
IMPROVEMENT SOURCE
2002 Lift Station Panel $25,000 Sewer Fund
2002 Disposal of Blacktop $30,000 Water and Sewer
Fund
2003 Lift Station Panel $30,000 Sewer Fund
2004 Lift Station Panel $30,000 Sewer Fund
2005 Lift Station Panel $35,000 Sewer Fund
2006 Lift Station Panel $40,000 Sewer Fund
Table Storm Sewer Capital Improvement Program (2000-2006)
YEAR TYPE OF COST FUNDING
IMPROVEMENT SOURCE
2000 Storm Sewer $65,000 Storm Sewer Fund
Improvements -
Halstead/Westedge
2001 Storm Water Ponding - $150,000 Storm Sewer Fund
CSAH 15 ROW
Acquisition
2002 Storm Water Ponding - $50,000 Storm Sewer Fund
CSAH 15 Construction
2003 Dakota Rail/Cottonwood $70,000 Storm Sewer Fund
Lane (2 Projects)
2004 Storm Sewer $45,000 Storm Sewer Fund
Improvements -
Swenson Park
2004 Storm Sewer $25,000 Storm Sewer Fund
Improvements -
Jennings/Dove
2005 Storm Sewer $54,000 Storm Sewer Fund
City of Mound
Comprehensive Plan - April 11, 2000 Draft
Implementation
p. 103
Improvements -
Highland Blvd. Parkway
2006 Storm Sewer $43,000 Storm Sewer Fund
Improvements -
Glendale/Avon
2006 · Storm Sewer $40,000 Storm Sewer Fund
Improvements -
Carlo/Black Lake Lane
City of Mound
Comprehensive Plan - ,~pril 11, 2000 Draft
Implementation
p. 104
Resolution incorporating the Surface Water Management Plan into the Comprehensive
Plan and forwarding the Plan to the Met Council and Minnehaha Creek Watershed
District for review and comment.
Whereas the Metropolitan Land Planning Act requires a surface water management plan
addressing watershed plan elements, and
Whereas Minnesota Statutes 103B and Minnesota Rules Chapter 8410 requires
preparation of a local water management plan, and
Whereas the City of Mound has prepared a Surface Water Management Plan as part of
the City of Mound Comprehensive Plan, and
Whereas the Planning Commission of the City of Mound has carefully reviewed the
Surface Water Management Plan as part of the Comprehensive Plan review, held official
public hearings, and allowed formal public comment on the draft Surface Water
Management Plan
Now, therefore, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Mound that the Surface
Water Management Plan be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan.
Be it further resolved that the Surface Water Management Plan be forwarded to the Met
Council and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District for their review and comment.