The URL can be used to link to this page

2022-04-12 CC Agenda PacketPLEASE TURN OFF ALL CELL PHONES & PAGERS IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS. CITY OF MOUND MISSION STATEMENT: The City of Mound, through teamwork and cooperation, provides at a reasonable cost, quality services that respond to the needs of all citizens, fostering a safe, attractive and flourishing community. AGENDA MOUND CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING 1. Opening meeting 2. Pledge of Allegiance 3. Approve agenda, with any amendments TUESDAY, APRIL 12, 2022 - 7:00 PM MOUND CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS *Consent Agenda: Items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered routine in nature, have been evaluated by staff, recommended by staff for approval by the Council, and will be enacted by a single roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Council Member or Citizen so requests. At this time, anyone present who wishes to offer dissenting comment to any items on the Consent Agenda is invited to identify themselves and the item of concern so that the it may be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered after discussion in normal sequence. Separate introduction or further support from petitioners or requestors is not required at this time and removal of an item from the Consent Agenda for this purpose is not required or appropriate. 4. *Consent Agenda Page *A. Approve payment of claims 669-699 *B. Approve minutes: March 22, 2022 Regular Meeting 700-702 *C. Approve minutes: February 15, 2022 Special Meeting 703-704 *D Approve Resolution Approving Public Gathering Permit for community 705-711 and parks clean up and use Surfside Park and Beach by Abracadabra 707 Environmental Services on Friday, April 22, 2022 and reducing fees due to public purpose of gathering *E Approve Resolution Approving Public Gathering Permit for family fun day 712-718 and fundraiser for Island Park Village Hall reuse and renovation project and 714 use of Swenson Park on Saturday, May 21, 2022 and waiving fees due to public purpose of gathering *F Approve Resolution Approving Restoration/Removal Agreement with Regard 719-732 to the Hazardous Building Located at 3053 Brighton Boulevard 720 *G Approve Resolution approving variance and expansion permit at 6041 733-761 Ridgewood Road 735 5. Comments and suggestions from citizens present on any item not on the agenda. (Limit to 3 minutes per speaker.) PLEASE TURN OFF ALL CELL PHONES & PAGERS IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS. 6. Planning Case No. 21-18 - continued from February8, 2022 meeting 762-800 Consideration/action on revised plans for "Northland Mound" development applications from Northland Real Estate Group for Northland Mound project involving property generally located southwest of the intersection of Commerce Boulevard and the Dakota Rail Regional Trail on the eastern shore of Lake Langdon and undeveloped street right of ways 7. Consideration/action on Resolution Ordering the Abatement of a Hazardous Building 801-829 at 2396 Commerce Boulevard 802 8. Information/Miscellaneous A. Comments/Reports from Council members B. Reports: Liquor Store — March 2022 830 C. Minutes: Docks & Commons Commission —January 20, 2022 831-836 Planning Commission — February 1, 2022 837-851 Planning Commission — March 1, 2022 852-854 D. Correspondence: 9. Adjourn COUNCIL BRIEFING April 12, 2022 Council meetings are held in the City Council Chambers in the Centennial Building on the second and fourth Tuesday each month at 7:00 PM with agendas and meeting details/locations posted to the City website the Thursday prior under the "Mayor and Council' section of the "Government" tab of the Home Page. Government I Mound, MN (cityofmound.com) *** All Meetings At City Council Chambers, Centennial Building *** Upcoming Events Schedule: Don't Forget!! April 12 — 6:55 PM — HRA Regular Meeting (as may be required) April 12 — 7:00 PM — City Council Regular Meeting April 19 — 6:30 PM— City Council Special Meeting Workshop, Department Reports April 26 — 6:55 PM — HRA Regular Meeting (as may be required) April 26 — 7:00 PM — City Council Regular Meeting May 10 — 6:55 PM — HRA Regular Meeting (as may be required) May 10 — 7:00 PM — City Council Regular Meeting May 24 — 6:55 PM — HRA Regular Meeting (as may be required) May 24 — 7:00 PM — City Council Regular Meeting Events and Activities: Subscribe to RAVE messaging tool for emergency notifications and updates RAVE Emergency Notifications I Mound, MN (cityofmound.com) City Offices: City Official's Absences Please notify the City Manager in advance of an absence. Inquire in advance. please...... Council members are asked to call or email their questions in advance of a public meeting so that more research may be done or additional information may be provided that will assist in your quality decision - making. 2022 City of Mound Claims 04-12-22 YEAR BATCH NAME 2022 BOLT#2-2022 2022 HOISINGTO222 2022 KENGRAV0222 2022 ELANCC032322 2022 032322CTYMAN 2022 NAGELLAPPRAISE 2022 040622CTYMAN 2022 041222CITY 2022 041222HWS DOLLAR AMOUNT 40,200.50 7,855.78 5,505.82 6,280.67 10,009.30 3,000.00 204,912.49 21,023.62 102,703.42 TOTAL CLAIMS 11 $ 401,491.60 1 I'M&] Payments Batch BOLT#2-2022 CITY OF MOUND Payments Current Period: April 2021 $40,200.50 Refer 857 BOLTON AND MENK INCORPORA Cash Payment E 101-43100-300 Professional Srvs Invoice 0285539 2282022 Cash Payment E 601-49400-300 Professional Srvs Invoice 0285539 2282022 Cash Payment E 602-49450-300 Professional Srvs Invoice 0285539 2282022 Cash Payment E 401-43100-300 Professional Srvs Invoice 0285548 2282022 Transaction Date 4/62022 Refer 858 BOLTON AND MENK, INCORPORA Cash Payment E 101-43100-300 Professional Srvs Invoice 0285538 2282022 Cash Payment E 602-49450-300 Professional Srvs Invoice 0285538 2282022 Cash Payment E 601-49400-300 Professional Srvs Invoice 0285538 2282022 Transaction Date 4/62022 Refer 861 BOLTON AND MENK, INCORPORA Cash Payment E 602-49450-500 Capital Outlay FA Invoice 0285535 2282022 Cash Payment E 602-49450-500 Capital Outlay FA Invoice 0285536 2282022 Cash Payment E 401-43124-303 Engineering Fees Invoice 0285537 2282022 Cash Payment E 404-43100-303 Engineering Fees Invoice 0285544 2282022 Transaction Date 4/62022 Refer 863 BOLTON AND MENK, INCORPORA Cash Payment E 101-41600-314 Legal PAN GIB UPDATES ENG SVC JAN 8 THRU FEB 4, 2022 GIB UPDATES ENG SVC JAN 8 THRU FEB 4, 2022 GIB UPDATES ENG SVC JAN 8 THRU FEB 4, 2022 MSA SYSTEM COORDINATION UPDATES ENG SVCS JAN 8 THRU FEB 4, 2022 04/06/22 3:25 PM Page 1 $1,640.50 $1,640.50 $1,640.50 $312.00 U.S. Bank 10100 10100 Total $5,233.50 GENERAL ENGINEERING SVCS JAN 11 $1,494.34 THRU FEB 7, 2020 GENERAL ENGINEERING SVCS JAN 11 $1,494.33 THRU FEB 7, 2020 GENERAL ENGINEERING SVCS JAN 11 $1,494.33 THRU FEB 7, 2020 U.S. Bank 10100 10100 Total $4,483.00 2021 B-2 LIFT STATION IMPROV PROJ PW 21-03 - ENG SVCS JAN 8 THRU FEB 4, 2022 Project PW2103 2021 MANHOLE REHAB PROJ- PW 21-04 ENG SVCS JAN 8 THRU FEB 4, 2022 Project PW2104 2021 PAVER SIDEWALK REPLACEMENT PROJ PW 21-08 ENG SVCS JAN 8 THRU FEB 4, 2022 Project PW2108 2021 MOUND ENTRANCE MONUMENT REPLACEMENT PROJ PW 21-13 ENG SVCS JAN 8 THRU FEB 4, 2022 Project PW2113 U.S. Bank 10100 10100 Total LMCIT 2018 WESTEDGE STREET PROJ- PW 18-01- ASSESSMENT OBJECTION SUPPORT- ENG SVCS JAN 8 THRU FEB 4, 2022 Invoice 0285534 2282022 Cash Payment G 101-23451 VILLAGES OF ISLAND PAR VILLAGES OF ISLAND PARK DEVELOPMENT- MISC ENG SVCS JAN 8 THRU FEB 4, 2022 Invoice 0285550 2282022 Transaction Date 4/62022 U.S. Bank 10100 10100 Total $546.00 $156.00 $9,841.00 $312.00 $10,855.00 $156.00 $539.00 $695.00 Refer 864 BOLTON AND MENK, INCORPORA _ 670 CITY OF MOUND Payments Current Period: April 2021 Cash Payment E 601-49400-500 Capital Outlay FA Invoice 0285546 2282022 Cash Payment E 602-49450-500 Capital Outlay FA Invoice 0285540 2282022 Cash Payment E 404-45200-303 Engineering Fees Invoice 0285541 2282022 Cash Payment E 404-45200-303 Engineering Fees 2022 LYNWOOD WATERMAIN IMPROV PROJ PW 22-01 ENG SVCS JAN 8 THRU FEB 4, 2022 Project PW2201 2022 LIFT STATION IMPROV PROJ PW 22-03 ENG SVCS JAN 8 THRU FEB 4, 2022 Project PW2203 2022 SURFSIDE DEPOT SITE IMPROVEMENT PROJ PW 22-09 ENG SVCS JAN 8 THRU FEB 4, 2022 Project PW2209 2022 SURFSIDE PARK IMPROVEMENT PROJ PW 22-09 ENG SVCS JAN 8 THRU FEB 4, 2022 Invoice 0285549 2282022 Project PW2209 Cash Payment G 101-23446 LIFESTYLE HOMES MOUN LIFESTYLE HOMES- ARTESSA MOUND PROJECT- ENG SVCS JAN 8 THRU FEB 4, 2022 Invoice 0285545 2282022 Transaction Date 4/62022 Fund Summary 101 GENERAL FUND 401 GENERAL CAPITAL PROJECTS 404 COMMUNITY INVESTMENT RESERVE 601 WATER FUND 602 SEWER FUND U.S. Bank 10100 10100 Total 10100 U.S. Bank 10100 $4,297.84 $10,153.00 $1,319.00 $9,898.83 $14,531.83 $40,200.50 Pre -Written Checks $0.00 Checks to be Generated by the Computer $40,200.50 Total $40,200.50 04/06/22 3:25 PM Page 2 $6,764.00 $10,695.00 $539.00 $468.00 $468.00 $18,934.00 Me` Payments Batch HOISINGTO222 CITY OF MOUND Payments Current Period: March 2022 $7,855.78 Refer 1001 HOISINGTON KOEGLER GROUP, 1 Cash Payment E 101-42400-300 Professional Srvs MISC GENERAL PLANNING SVCS FEBRUARY 2022 Invoice 020-002-25 3202022 Cash Payment G 101-23451 VILLAGES OF ISLAND PAR VILLAGES OF ISLAND PARK BLDG PERMITS - PLANNING SVCS FEBRUARY 2022 Invoice 020-002-25 3202022 Cash Payment G 101-23470 Northland Real Estate-104 u NORTHLAND REAL ESTATE- NORTHLAND MOUND 104 UNIT PUD- PLANNING SVCS FEBRUARY 2022 Invoice 020-002-25 3202022 Cash Payment E 475-46386-300 Professional Srvs MOUND HARBOR DISTRICT PARK - CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT TO FINAL DOCUMENT&APPROVALS- PLANNING SVCS FEBRUARY 2022 Invoice 021-003-12 3/162022 Cash Payment G 101-23464 2631 COMMERCE SUNSET 2631 COMMERCE BLVD -SUNSET VILLAS - SUBDIVISION & PUD- NEVE- PLANNING SVCS FEBRUARY 2022 Invoice 020-002-25 3202022 Cash Payment G 101-23446 LIFESTYLE HOMES MOUN LIFESTYLE HOMES- HARBOR DISTRICT LAND USE & PLAT- MISC PLANNING SVCS FEBRUARY 2022 Invoice 020-002-25 3202022 Cash Payment E 101-42400-300 Professional Srvs Invoice 020-002-25 3202022 Transaction Date 3282022 MISC MILEAGE & TRAVEL EXPENSES FEBRUARY 2022 U.S. Bank 10100 10100 Total Fund Summary 10100 U.S. Bank 10100 101 GENERAL FUND $5,231.16 475 TIF 1-3 Mound Harbor Renaissan $2,624.62 $7,855.78 Pre -Written Checks $0.00 Checks to be Generated by the Computer $7,855.78 Total $7,855.78 03/28/22 2:06 PM Page 1 $881.22 $37.50 $4,050.00 $2,624.62 $75.00 $150.00 $37.44 $7,855.78 MO N CITY OF MOUND Payments Current Period: March 2022 Payments Batch KENGRAV0222 $5,505.82 Refer 1000 KENNEDY AND GRAVEN _ Cash Payment E 101-41600-300 Professional Srvs ADMINISTRATIVE LEGAL SVCS FEBRUARY 2022 Invoice 166573 3/142022 Cash Payment G 101-23440 4848/4852 LANARKABATE 4848/4852 LANARK RD ENFORCEMENT MATTER -LEGAL SVCS FEBRUARY 2022 Invoice 166573 3/142022 Cash Payment G 101-23454 2396 COMMERCE BLVD HA 2396 COMMERCE BLVD HAZARDOUS BLDG MATTER -LEGAL SVCS FEBRUARY 2022 Invoice 166573 3/142022 Cash Payment G 101-23453 5872 GLENWOOD ABATE 5872 GLENWOOD RD HAZARDOUS BLDG ABATEMENT -LEGAL SVCS FEBRUARY 2022 Invoice 166573 3/142022 Cash Payment E 101-41600-316 Legal P & I PLANNING LEGAL SVCS FEBRUARY 2022 Invoice 166573 3/142022 Cash Payment G 101-234501720 RESTHAVEN ABATEM 1720 RESTHAVEN LN HAZARDOUS BLDG MATTER LEGAL SVCS FEBRUARY 2022 Invoice 166573 3/142022 Cash Payment G 101-23455 3053 BRIGHTON BLVD ABA 3053 BRIGHTON BLVD HAZARDOUS BLDG ABATEMENT MATTER -LEGAL SVCS FEBRUARY 2022 Invoice 166573 3/142022 Cash Payment G 101-23464 2631 COMMERCE SUNSET 2631 COMMERCE SUNSET VIEW VILLA NEVE -LEGAL SVCS FEBRUARY 2022 Invoice 166573 3/142022 Transaction Date 3282022 U.S. Bank 10100 10100 Fund Summary 101 GENERAL FUND 10100 U.S. Bank 10100 $5,505.82 $5,505.82 Pre -Written Checks $0.00 Checks to be Generated by the Computer $5,505.82 Total $5,505.82 Total 03/28/22 1:45 PM Page 1 $592.00 $970.04 $722.00 $589.00 $20.00 $247.53 $2,319.00 $46.25 $5,505.82 MAN CITY OF MOUND 03/28/22 1:25 PM Page 1 Payments Current Period: February 2022 Payments Batch ELANCC032322 $6,280.67 Refer 967 ELAN CREDIT CARD _ Cash Payment E 101-41920-440 Other Contractual Servic ZOOM.US- MONTHLY CHARGE TO RECORD $43.01 COUNCIL MEETINGS TO CLOUD FOR LMCC Invoice 032322 2282022 Cash Payment E 101-45200-434 Conference & Training MN NURSERY- MN SHADE TREE COURSE- $600.00 MARCH 15 & 16 -R. PRICH, G. BALL & D. KOSKELA Invoice 032322 2/152022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-218 Clothing and Uniforms SIMPLE GRACE- EMBROIDER HWS LOGO $140.60 ON 25 SHIRTS- STAFF UNIFORMS Invoice 032322 322022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-205 Computer Hardware/Soft AMAZON.COM- 2 POWER BATTERY BACKUP $185.90 & SURGE PROTECTOR UPS SYSTEM- 12 OUTLETS- HWS Invoice 032322 2/32022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-328 Employment Advertising GOVERNMENT JOBS.COM- NEO GOV- JOB $300.00 POSTINGS- HWS- LIQUOR STORE OPENINGS Invoice 032322 2282022 Cash Payment E 101-45200-328 Employment Advertising GOVERNMENT JOBS.COM- NEO GOV- JOB $300.00 POSTINGS- PARKS DEPT Invoice 032322 2282022 Cash Payment E 101-41500-433 Dues and Subscriptions MGFOI- MN GOVT FINANCE OFFICERS $70.00 ASSOC- 2022 MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL- N. IVERSON Invoice 032322 3/12022 Cash Payment E 101-41500-433 Dues and Subscriptions MGFOI- MN GOVT FINANCE OFFICERS $70.00 ASSOC- 2022 MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL- C. PAUSCHE Invoice 032322 3/12022 Cash Payment E 602-49450-210 Operating Supplies AMAZON.COM- 4 QTY MAGNUM LED $89.80 FLASHLIGHT WORKLIGHTS- SEWER DEPT Invoice 032322 2/102022 Cash Payment E 601-49400-434 Conference & Training KIWK TRIP- ST. CLOUD- GAS R. PRICH- MN $66.85 RURAL WATER CONFERENCE- 3-2-22 Invoice 032322 322022 Cash Payment E 602-49450-210 Operating Supplies AMAZON.COM- 2 QTY- "DANGER- PROPANE, $25.90 NO WORKING' NFPA SIGNS- 10" X 14" ALUMINUM- PUBLIC WORKS SHOP Invoice 032322 2/102022 Project 22-5 Cash Payment E 601-49400-455 Permits MN DEPT OF NATURAL RESOURCES- MN $2,153.76 DNR WATER SUPPLY- PERMITS- WATER USAGE & SUMMER OVERAGE SURCHARGE Invoice 032322 2/152022 Cash Payment E 101-45200-404 Machinery/Equip Repairs BOYER FORD TRUCKS- ALTERNATOR- 12V $406.99 130 AMP- PARKS EQUIPMENT Invoice 032322 3/12022 Cash Payment E 602-49450-210 Operating Supplies AMAZON.COM- 6 PACK STEAM MOP $29.99 REPLACEMENT PADS- SHARK LIFT -AWAY SYSTEM- PUBLIC WORKS SHOP Invoice 032322 2/62022 Project 22-5 Cash Payment E 602-49450-210 Operating Supplies AMAZON.COM- SHARK HARD FLOOR $139.95 CLEANING SYSTEM POCKET STEAM MOP - PUBLIC WORKS SHOP Invoice 032322 2/52022 Project 22-5 674 CITY OF MOUND 03/28/22 1:25 PM Page 2 Payments Current Period: February 2022 Cash Payment E 602-49450-210 Operating Supplies AMAZON.COM- SET OF 30 LETTER SIZE $40.94 CLIPBOARDS, VINYL STICKER AED- PUBLIC WORKS SHOP Invoice 032322 2212022 Project 22-5 Cash Payment E 101-41920-205 Computer Hardware/Soft AMAZON.COM- TECHNOLOGY ASSISTS- $74.18 HDMI CABLE, 2 QTY GEL FOAM KEYBOARD WRIST REST -PADS, 2 QTY GEL ERGONOMIC MOUSE PAD WRIST SUPPORTS & KEYBOARD WRIST RESTS - CITY HALL & FIRE DEPT Invoice 032322 2212022 Transaction Date 3/182022 U.S. Bank 10100 10100 Total $4,737.87 Refer 968 ELAN CREDIT CARD _ Cash Payment E 222-42260-210 Operating Supplies AMAZON.COM- RETURN CREDIT- -$81.59 RETRACTABLE EXTENSION CORD- FIRE DEPT Invoice 032322-2 2/32022 Cash Payment E 222-42260-216 Cleaning Supplies AMAZON.COM- MICROFIBER CLEANING $18.95 CLOTHS- 50 PK- FIRE DEPT Invoice 032322-2 2/32022 Cash Payment E 222-42260-210 Operating Supplies AMAZON.COM- STENO NOTEBOOKS- PINK $126.98 PAPER PERFORATED, TORK PAPER WIPER WHITE 600 SHEETS, TORK PAPER INDUSTRIAL WIPER BLUE 750 SHEETS - FIRE DEPT Invoice 032322-2 2/42022 Cash Payment E 222-42260-210 Operating Supplies AMAZON.COM- RETURN CREDIT- OLYMPIA -$34.99 TOOLS 18" PORTABLE PLASTIC ORGANIZER- FIRE DEPT Invoice 032322-2 2/42022 Cash Payment E 222-42260-216 Cleaning Supplies AMAZON.COM- 2 QTY 4- PK GLASS $36.00 CLEANER- FIRE DEPT Invoice 032322-2 2/32022 Cash Payment E 222-42260-216 Cleaning Supplies AMAZON.COM- MICROFIBER CLEANING $14.95 CLOTH- FIRE DEPT Invoice 032322-2 2/102022 Cash Payment E 222-42260-200 Office Supplies AMAZON.COM- STORAGE ORGANIZER W/ $16.49 DIVIDERS- FIRE DEPT Invoice 032322-2 2262022 Cash Payment E 222-42260-200 Office Supplies COSTCO.COM- 3 QTY LOGITECH WIRELESS $64.48 MOUSES- FIRE DEPT Invoice 032322-2 3/12022 Cash Payment E 222-42260-210 Operating Supplies COSTCO.COM- CLOROX CLEAN, DAWN, $103.53 SPONGES, GARBAGE BAGS, WATER 40 PACK- FIRE DEPT Invoice 032322-2 2/42022 Cash Payment E 222-42260-434 Conference & Training FDIC/JEMS- FDIC INTERNATIONAL 2022 $639.00 CONFERENCE REGISTRATION- INDIANAPOLIS APRIL 26- 30- A. DRILLING Invoice 032322-2 3/32022 Cash Payment E 222-42260-434 Conference & Training FDIC/JEMS- FDIC INTERNATIONAL 2022 $639.00 CONFERENCE REGISTRATION- INDIANAPOLIS APRIL 26- 30- C. HEITZ Invoice 032322-2 3/32022 Transaction Date 3/182022 U.S. Bank 10100 10100 Total $1,542.80 McAl Fund Summary 101 GENERAL FUND 222 AREA FIRE SERVICES 601 WATER FUND 602 SEWER FUND 609 MUNICIPAL LIQUOR FUND CITY OF MOUND Payments Current Period: February 2022 10100 U.S. Bank 10100 $1,564.18 $1,542.80 $2,220.61 $326.58 $626.50 $6,280.67 Pre -Written Checks $0.00 Checks to be Generated by the Computer $6,280.67 Total $6,280.67 03/28/22 1:25 PM Page 3 M61161 Payments Batch 032322CTYMAN CITY OF MOUND Payments Current Period: February 2022 $10, 009.30 Refer 986 ALLIED MEDICAL TRAINING _ Cash Payment E 222-42260-434 Conference & Training EMT RECERTIFICATION COURSE- B. GORMAN- FIRE DEPT Invoice 2459 3232022 PO 25281 Transaction Date 3252022 U.S. Bank 10100 10100 Refer 953 CORE & MAIN LP Cash Payment E 601-49400-210 Operating Supplies Invoice Q488890 3/102022 Cash Payment E 601-49400-210 Operating Supplies Invoice Q516494 3/152022 Cash Payment E 601-49400-210 Operating Supplies Invoice Q497034 3/152022 Transaction Date 3242022 Refer 987 HOME DEPOT/GECF (PN1) Cash Payment E 222-42260-210 Operating Supplies Total WATER SUPPLY PARTS- HYDRANT OIL- 18 GALLONS, 12 LBS HYDRANT GREASE, 6 BREAKLABLE KIT FLGS- WATER DEPT I:RHAG1 7 ��:IIG[�7w•�q�DOL�] 7 ��[H:11 5 LBS HYDRANT GREASE, - WATER DEPT U.S. Bank 10100 10100 Total 4 MULTI FUNCTION PLIERS, MARKERS-6 PK, 2 SCREWDRIVER SETS, UTILITY KNIFE- 2 PK, 25' CENTERREAD LEVERLOCK, HEX NUTS, HI VIS T-HANDLE RATCHET, STANLEY RATCHET STRAP 4 PK- FIRE DEPT 03/25/22 10:12 AM Page 1 $230.10 $230.10 $4,082.03 $91.84 $259.01 $4,432.88 $179.89 Invoice 6021665 3/122022 Transaction Date 3252022 U.S. Bank 10100 10100 Total $179.89 Refer 988 LANO EQUIPMENT, INCORPORAT Cash Payment E 101-45200-404 Machinery/Equip Repairs SPA GLASS DOOR, SPA SEAL DOOR- T-66- $336.68 PARKS Invoice 03-897633 3/102022 Transaction Date 3242022 U.S. Bank 10100 10100 Total $336.68 Refer 990 MINNESOTA DEPT OF HEALTH _ Cash Payment E 601-49400-434 Conference & Training WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM OPERATOR $23.00 CERTIFICATION FEE- S. PEDERSON Invoice 032522 3212022 Transaction Date 3242022 U.S. Bank 10100 10100 Total $23.00 Refer 989 MN STATE COMMUNITY/TECH CO _ Cash Payment E 222-42260-434 Conference & Training FIRE SCHOOL- DETROIT LAKES- 4-2-22 D. $140.00 BERENT Invoice 032522 3/152022 Transaction Date 3242022 U.S. Bank 10100 10100 Total $140.00 Refer 991 NEWMAN SIGNS, INC. _ Cash Payment E 101-43100-226 Sign Repair Materials SIGN MATERIALS- SHIPPING DUE ON $29.75 RETURNED MDSE INVOICE Invoice 0001019 3232022 Transaction Date 3242022 U.S. Bank 10100 10100 Total $29.75 Refer 992 OPUS 21 MGMT SOLUTIONS, LLC _ Cash Payment E 601-49400-307 Admin/Finance/Compute FEBRUARY 2022 -CIS DATA HOSTING, $1,791.21 PRODUCTION, BILLING, CALL CTR SUPPORT Invoice 220263 3/152022 Cash Payment E 602-49450-307 Admin/Finance/Compute FEBRUARY 2022 -CIS DATA HOSTING, $1,791.21 PRODUCTION, BILLING, CALL CTR SUPPORT Invoice 220263 3/152022 677 CITY OF MOUND Payments Current Period: February 2022 Cash Payment E 601-49400-322 Postage FEBRUARY 2022- UTILITY BILLING POSTAGE Invoice 220263 3/152022 Cash Payment E 602-49450-322 Postage FEBRUARY 2022- UTILITY BILLING POSTAGE Invoice 220263 3/152022 Transaction Date 3252022 U.S. Bank 10100 10100 Total Refer 993 POSTMASTER Cash Payment E 101-41110-322 Postage Invoice 032522 3202022 Transaction Date 3252022 USPS MARKETING MAIL- ANNUAL BULK MAILING PERMIT 2022 U.S. Bank 10100 10100 Total Refer 994WESTONKACOMMUNITY-COMME _ Cash Payment E 101-41110-433 Dues and Subscriptions 2022 MEMBERSHIP DUES- CITY OF MOUND Invoice 032522 3/182022 Transaction Date 3252022 U.S. Bank 10100 10100 Total Fund Summary 10100 U.S. Bank 10100 101 GENERAL FUND $731.43 222 AREA FIRE SERVICES $549.99 601 WATER FUND $6,591.88 602 SEWER FUND $2,136.00 $10,009.30 Pre -Written Checks $0.00 Checks to be Generated by the Computer $10,009.30 Total $10,009.30 03/25/22 10:12 AM Page 2 $344.79 $344.79 $4,272.00 $265.00 $265.00 $100.00 $100.00 MA] CITY OF MOUND Payments Current Period: March 2022 Payments Batch NAGELLAPPRAISE $3,000.00 Refer 931 NAGELL APPRAISAL AND CONSUL _ Cash Payment E 101-41600-316 Legal P & I APPRAISE 3 PARCELS IN LANGDON DISTRICT- XXXX COMMERCE BLVD Invoice 30153 3/32022 Transaction Date 3/162022 U.S. Bank 10100 10100 Fund Summary 101 GENERAL FUND 10100 U.S. Bank 10100 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 Pre -Written Checks $0.00 Checks to be Generated by the Computer $3,000.00 Total $3,000.00 Total 03/29/22 10:58 AM Page 1 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 M601 Payments Batch 040622CTYMAN CITY OF MOUND Payments Current Period: March 2022 $204,912.49 Refer 400 A-1 RENTAL OF LAKE MINNETONK Cash Payment E 101-45200-220 Repair/Maint Supply Invoice 164842-1 3/142022 Transaction Date 3/302022 Refer 401 BOYER TRUCKS-MPLS Cash Payment E 602-49450-220 Repair/Maint Supply Invoice 007P29089 3/182022 Transaction Date 3/302022 Refer 800 CADY BUILDING MAINTENANCE Cash Payment E 101-41930-460 Janitorial Services Invoice 4983240 4/12022 Cash Payment E 222-42260-460 Janitorial Services Invoice 4983240 4/12022 Cash Payment E 602-49450-460 Janitorial Services Invoice 4983240 4/12022 Cash Payment E 101-41910-460 Janitorial Services Invoice 4983240 4/12022 Transaction Date 4/52022 EXCAVATOR BOBCAT W/ BUCKET RENTAL - PARKS DEPT U.S. Bank 10100 10100 Total 6 CASES- AUTOMATIC TRANSMISSION OIL - PUBLIC WORKS Project 22-5 U.S. Bank 10100 10100 Total 04/06/22 3:40 PM Page 1 $381.70 $381.70 $57.12 $57.12 APRIL 2022 CLEANING SVCS- CITY HALL $550.00 /POLICE APRIL 2022 CLEANING SVCS- FIRE DEPT $299.00 APRIL 2022 CLEANING SVCS- PUBLIC $425.00 WORKS BLDG Project 22-5 APRIL 2022 CLEANING SVCS- CENTENNIAL $425.00 BLDG U.S. Bank 10100 10100 Total $1,699.00 Refer 402 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC _ Cash Payment E 609-49750-202 Duplicating and copying MARCH 2O22- COPIER RENTAL- HARBOR WINE & SPIRITS Invoice 28258075 3/122022 Transaction Date 3242020 U.S. Bank 10100 10100 Total Refer 403 CENTERPOINT ENERGY Cash Payment E 602-49450-383 Gas Utilities Invoice 033022 3242022 Transaction Date 3/302022 Refer 404 CINTAS Cash Payment E 602-49450-210 Operating Supplies Invoice 4113859804 3/182022 Cash Payment E 602-49450-210 Operating Supplies Invoice 4114601895 3252022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-210 Operating Supplies Invoice 4113859893 3/182022 Cash Payment E 602-49450-210 Operating Supplies Invoice 4111783426-CR 3252022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-210 Operating Supplies Invoice 4114601874 3252022 $34.40 $34.40 5808 GRANDVIEW BLVD LS GENERATOR $37.43 NATL GAS SVC 2-20-22 THRU 3-20-22 U.S. Bank 10100 10100 Total $37.43 MATS, TOWELS, CENTERPULL TOWEL $58.16 REFILL- PUB WKS SHOP- 3/1822 Project 22-5 MATS, TOWELS, CENTERPULL TOWEL $58.16 REFILL- PUB WKS SHOP- 3/25/22 Project 22-5 MATS, TOWELS, DUST MOP, WET MOP- $56.84 HWS- 3/1822 OVERPYMT CREDIT- INVC #4111783426 W/ -$6.41 CHECK #070820 Project 22-5 MATS, TOWELS, DUST MOP, WET MOP- $56.84 HWS- 32522 CITY OF MOUND Payments Current Period: March 2022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-210 Operating Supplies Invoice 4115228459 4/12022 Cash Payment E 602-49450-210 Operating Supplies Invoice 4115228471 4/12022 Transaction Date 3292022 Refer 418 CORE & MAIN LP Cash Payment E 601-49400-210 Operating Supplies Invoice Q172098CR 3/302022 Cash Payment E 601-49400-210 Operating Supplies Invoice P[900193 3242022 Transaction Date 3/302022 MATS, TOWELS, DUST MOP, WET MOP- HWS- 4/01/22 MATS, TOWELS, CENTERPULL TOWEL REFILL- PUB WKS SHOP- 4/01/22 Project 22-5 U.S. Bank 10100 10100 Total 04/06/22 3:40 PM Page 2 $56.84 $58.16 $338.59 DUPLICATE PAYMENT INVOICE -$402.97 #Q252389/(Q172098-INCORRECT)- TRACE WIRE LIDS FOR CURB BOX- WATER SUPPLY PARTS WATER SUPPLY- I PERIL WATER METERS- $1,337.41 QTY 6 & M2 WIRED DP HR & LD- 27 QTY U.S. Bank 10100 10100 Total $934.44 Refer 801 FIRSTNET _ Cash Payment E 222-42260-321 Telephone, Cells, & Radi DATACARD SVC- XXX-0353 FIRE UNIT #39 FIRE CHIEF RESCUE UTILITY 2-26-22 THRU 3-25-22 Invoice 04032022 3252022 Cash Payment E 222-42260-321 Telephone, Cells, & Radi DATACARD SVC XXX-0545 FIRE #43 RESCUE TRUCK SVC 2-26-22 THRU 3-25-22 Invoice 04032022 3252022 Cash Payment E 222-42260-321 Telephone, Cells, & Radi DATACARD SVC XXX-1887 FIRE LADDER TRUCK#44 SVC 2-26-22 THRU 3-25-22 Invoice 04032022 3252022 Cash Payment E 222-42260-321 Telephone, Cells, & Radi DATACARD SVC XXX-1962 FIRE ENGINE #29 SVC 2-26-22 THRU 3-25-22 Invoice 04032022 3252022 Cash Payment E 222-42260-321 Telephone, Cells, & Radi DATACARD SVC XXX-4845 FIRE UNIT #42 DUTY OFFICER SVC 2-26-22 THRU 3-25-22 Invoice 04032022 3252022 Cash Payment E 222-42260-321 Telephone, Cells, & Radi CELLPHONE SVC XXX-0150- CHIEF G. PEDERSON - 2-26-22 THRU 3-25-22 Invoice 04032022 3252022 Transaction Date 4/52022 U.S. Bank 10100 10100 Tota $38.23 $38.23 $38.23 $38.23 $38.23 $53.59 $244.74 Refer 802 FIVE TECHNOLOGY _ Cash Payment E 101-41920-440 Other Contractual Servic Invoice 10422-12 4/12022 Transaction Date 4/52022 MONTHLY MANAGED SVC & NETWORK MTCE- APRIL 2022 U.S. Bank 10100 10100 Total $1,290.00 $1,290.00 Refer 803 FLEETPRIDE TRUCK & TRAILER P _ Cash Payment E 101-43100-404 Machinery/Equip Repairs FUEL SPIN ON W/ OPEN PORT- STREETS $109.70 TYMCO SWEEPER #304 Invoice 97701739 Transaction Date 3/312022 U.S. Bank 10100 10100 Total $109.70 Refer 804 FRONTIER/CITIZENS COMMUNICA _ Cash Payment E 101-45200-321 Telephone, Cells, & Radi PHONE SVC-3-30-22 TO 4-29-22 $124.69 Invoice 040622 3/302022 Cash Payment E 602-49450-321 Telephone, Cells, & Radi PHONE SVC-3-30-22 TO 4-29-22 $40.06 Invoice 040622 3/302022 681 CITY OF MOUND 04/06/22 3:40 PM Page 3 Payments Current Period: March 2022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-321 Telephone, Cells, & Radi PHONE SVC-3-30-22 TO 4-29-22 $311.73 Invoice 040622 3/302022 Cash Payment E 602-49450-321 Telephone, Cells, & Radi PHONE SVC-3-30-22 TO 4-29-22 $198.93 Invoice 040622 3/302022 Cash Payment E 601-49400-321 Telephone, Cells, & Radi PHONE SVC-3-30-22 TO 4-29-22 $193.08 Invoice 040622 3/302022 Cash Payment E 101-43100-321 Telephone, Cells, & Radi PHONE SVC-3-30-22 TO 4-29-22 $193.08 Invoice 040622 3/302022 Cash Payment E 101-41930-321 Telephone, Cells, & Radi PHONE SVC-3-30-22 TO 4-29-22 $438.10 Invoice 040622 3/302022 Cash Payment E 222-42260-321 Telephone, Cells, & Radi PHONE SVC-3-30-22 TO 4-29-22 $146.03 Invoice 040622 3/302022 Cash Payment E 101-41910-321 Telephone, Cells, & Radi PHONE SVC-3-30-22 TO 4-29-22 $73.02 Invoice 040622 3/302022 Cash Payment E 101-42110-321 Telephone, Cells, & Radi PHONE SVC-3-30-22 TO 4-29-22 $73.02 Invoice 040622 3/302022 Transaction Date 4/52022 U.S. Bank 10100 10100 Total $1,791.74 Refer 405 FRONTIER/CITIZENS COMMUNICA _ Cash Payment E 222-42260-321 Telephone, Cells, & Radi NETWORK ETHERNET SVC 3-22-22 THRU 4- $150.00 21-22 Invoice 000033022 3222022 Cash Payment E 101-41920-321 Telephone, Cells, & Radi NETWORK ETHERNET SVC 3-22-22 THRU 4- $175.00 21-22 Invoice 000033022 3222022 Transaction Date 3/302022 U.S. Bank 10100 10100 Total $325.00 Refer 805 GOPHER STATE ONE CALL _ Cash Payment E 601-49400-395 Gopher One -Call MARCH 2O22 LOCATES $31.72 Invoice 2030310 3/312022 Cash Payment E 602-49450-395 Gopher One -Call MARCH 2O22 LOCATES $31.73 Invoice 2030310 3/312022 Transaction Date 4/52022 U.S. Bank 10100 10100 Total $63.45 Refer 806 HECKSEL MACHINE SHOP, INC. _ Cash Payment E 602-49450-400 Repairs & Maintenance 1" CIRCULAR DRAIN COVERS- 5 QTY, 3" $376.00 STEEL PIPE- PUBLIC WORKS SHOP Invoice 109306 3/302022 Project 22-5 Transaction Date 4/52022 U.S. Bank 10100 10100 Total $376.00 Refer 822 HYDROV _ Cash Payment E 601-49400-220 Repair/Maint Supply 2 HYDRANT BUDDY VALVES EXERCISERS & $9,910.00 2 GATE VALVE KEYS Invoice 3565 2/11/1982 Transaction Date 4/62022 U.S. Bank 10100 10100 Total $9,910.00 Refer 807 JUBILEE FOODS-(HWS) _ Cash Payment E 609-49750-210 Operating Supplies JIF PEANUT BUTTER & MOUSE TRAPS- HWS $5.74 Invoice 033022 3/302022 Transaction Date 4/52022 U.S. Bank 10100 10100 Total $5.74 Refer 406 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATI _ Cash Payment E 101-41110-433 Dues and Subscriptions 2ND QTR 2022 LMCD LEVY PAYMENT- $5,003.00 ANNUAL MUNICIPAL DUES Invoice 2022Q2MOUND 3212022 Transaction Date 3/302022 U.S. Bank 10100 10100 Total $5,003.00 Refer 808 LAWSON PRODUCTS, INC 001/ CITY OF MOUND 04/06/22 3:40 PM Page 4 Payments Current Period: March 2022 Cash Payment E 101-45200-220 Repair/Maint Supply MISC PARTS- NON -CHLORINATED BRAKE $61.24 KLEAN, 4 1/2" SEAL HOSE CLAMPS- PUBLIC WORKS SHOP Invoice 9309406229 3242022 Transaction Date 4/52022 U.S. Bank 10100 10100 Total $61.24 Refer 809 LEAGUE MN CITIES INSURANCE T _ Cash Payment E 101-41110-151 Worker s Comp Insuranc 2ND INSTALLMENT 2022 WORKERS COMP $32.48 INS PREMIUM 2-1-22 THRU 2-1-23 Invoice 040622 4/42022 Cash Payment E 101-41310-151 Worker s Comp Insuranc 2ND INSTALLMENT 2022 WORKERS COMP $181.15 INS PREMIUM 2-1-22 THRU 2-1-23 Invoice 040622 4/42022 Cash Payment E 101-41500-151 Worker s Comp Insuranc 2ND INSTALLMENT 2022 WORKERS COMP $724.58 INS PREMIUM 2-1-22 THRU 2-1-23 Invoice 040622 4/42022 Cash Payment E 101-42115-151 Worker s Comp Insuranc 2ND INSTALLMENT 2022 WORKERS COMP $105.94 INS PREMIUM 2-1-22 THRU 2-1-23 Invoice 040622 4/42022 Cash Payment E 101-42400-151 Worker s Comp Insuranc 2ND INSTALLMENT 2022 WORKERS COMP $474.72 INS PREMIUM 2-1-22 THRU 2-1-23 Invoice 040622 4/42022 Cash Payment E 101-43100-151 Worker s Comp Insuranc 2ND INSTALLMENT 2022 WORKERS COMP $6,246.38 INS PREMIUM 2-1-22 THRU 2-1-23 Invoice 040622 4/42022 Cash Payment E 101-45200-151 Worker s Comp Insuranc 2ND INSTALLMENT 2022 WORKERS COMP $3,248.12 INS PREMIUM 2-1-22 THRU 2-1-23 Invoice 040622 4/42022 Cash Payment E 222-42260-151 Worker s Comp Insuranc 2ND INSTALLMENT 2022 WORKERS COMP $9,994.21 INS PREMIUM 2-1-22 THRU 2-1-23 Invoice 040622 4/42022 Cash Payment E 601-49400-151 Worker s Comp Insuranc 2ND INSTALLMENT 2022 WORKERS COMP $3,747.82 INS PREMIUM 2-1-22 THRU 2-1-23 Invoice 040622 4/42022 Cash Payment E 602-49450-151 Worker s Comp Insuranc 2ND INSTALLMENT 2022 WORKERS COMP $3,123.19 INS PREMIUM 2-1-22 THRU 2-1-23 Invoice 040622 4/42022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-151 Worker s Comp Insuranc 2ND INSTALLMENT 2022 WORKERS COMP $2,748.41 INS PREMIUM 2-1-22 THRU 2-1-23 Invoice 040622 4/42022 Transaction Date 4/52022 U.S. Bank 10100 10100 Total $30,627.00 Refer 811 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL WASTE _ Cash Payment E 602-49450-388 Waste Disposal-MCIS WASTEWATER SVCS FEE MAY 2022 $71,941.74 Invoice 0001137778 4/52022 Transaction Date 4/52022 U.S. Bank 10100 10100 Total $71,941.74 Refer 810 MIDWEST SERVICES _ Cash Payment E 602-49450-404 Machinery/Equip Repairs MECHANIC SVCS-MARCH 2O22 - TRUCK $776.25 #214, TRUCK #1604 Invoice 8717 3/312022 Project 22-5 Cash Payment E 602-49450-404 Machinery/Equip Repairs MECHANIC SVCS-MARCH 2022- TRUCK $1,552.50 #312- CLEANED SHOP, ORGANIZED NEW PARTS Invoice 8717 3/312022 Project 22-5 Cash Payment E 602-49450-404 Machinery/Equip Repairs MECHANIC SVCS-MARCH 2O22 - TRUCK $828.00 #416, #216- BOBCAT BROOM, AVANT #220, JOHN DEERE QAT� R #305 Invoice 8717 3/312022 6 j Project 22-5 CITY OF MOUND Payments Current Period: March 2022 Cash Payment E 602-49450-404 Machinery/Equip Repairs MECHANIC SVCS-MARCH 2O22 - TRUCK #412, #121- BOBCAT, AVANT #220,ORDERED PARTS Invoice 8717 3/312022 Project 22-5 Cash Payment E 602-49450-404 Machinery/Equip Repairs MECHANIC SVCS-MARCH 2O22 - TRUCK #214, AVANT #220, JOHN DEERE GATOR #305, TRACK SKID STEER #121,TRUCK #415, #412 Invoice 8717 3/312022 Project 22-5 Cash Payment E 602-49450-404 Machinery/Equip Repairs MECHANIC SVCS-MARCH 2O22 - TRUCK #119, BAYWOOD SHORES & C5 COMMERCE GENERATORS, BUILD HENDERSON PLOW ANGLE CYLINDER FOR FREIGHTLINER TRUCKS Invoice 8717 3/312022 Project 22-5 Cash Payment E 602-49450-404 Machinery/Equip Repairs MECHANIC SVCS-MARCH 2O22 - TRUCK #214, PELICAN SWEEPER #407 Invoice 8717 3/312022 Project 22-5 Cash Payment E 602-49450-404 Machinery/Equip Repairs MECHANIC SVCS-MARCH 2O22 - TRUCK #119, PELICAN SWEEPER #407, JOHN DEERE GATOR #305, TYMCO SWEEPER #304 Invoice 8717 3/312022 Project 22-5 Cash Payment E 602-49450-404 Machinery/Equip Repairs MECHANIC SVCS-MARCH 2O22 - GENERATOR TRAILER #509, PARTS $594.60 Invoice 8717 3/312022 Project 22-5 Cash Payment E 602-49450-404 Machinery/Equip Repairs MECHANIC SVCS-MARCH 2O22 - TRUCK #315, JOHN DEERE GATOR #305, TOOK PICTURES OF LAST OF THE EQUIPMENT INTO MP WEB, -UPDATED WORK ORDERS Invoice 8717 3/312022 Project 22-5 Transaction Date 4/52022 U.S. Bank 10100 10100 Total Refer 812 MINNESOTA EQUIPMENT Cash Payment E 101-45200-404 Machinery/Equip Repairs HUB KIT, PAD KIT, FILTER ELEMENT, - PARKS GATOR #305 Invoice P67993 3292022 Transaction Date 4/52022 Refer 813 MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTRO U.S. Bank 10100 10100 Total Cash Payment E 601-49400-434 Conference & Training WASTEWATER TRAINING- PUMP WORKSHOP- JUNE 15 VADNAIS HEIGHTS- M.TESSEN Invoice 040522 3/312022 Cash Payment E 602-49450-434 Conference & Training Invoice 040522 3/312022 Cash Payment E 602-49450-434 Conference & Training Invoice 040522 3/312022 Transaction Date 4/52022 WASTEWATER TRAINING- PUMP WORKSHOP- JUNE 15 VADNAIS HEIGHTS- L. PITSENBERGER WASTEWATER TRAINING- PUMP WORKSHOP- JUNE 15 VADNAIS HEIGHTS- T. SORENSEN U.S. Bank 10100 10100 Total Refer 814 MINNESOTA RURAL WATER ASSO _ Cash Payment E 601-49400-433 Dues and Subscriptions 2022 MEMBERSHIP MINNESOTA RURAL WATER ASSOC. Invoice 033122 3/312022 Transaction Date 4/52022 U.S. Bank 10100 10100 Total 04/06/22 3:40 PM Page 5 $828.00 $776.25 $879.75 $517.50 $828.00 $1,763.92 $776.25 $9,526.42 $354.45 $354.45 $130.00 $130.00 $130.00 $390.00 $300.00 $300.00 Refer 407 MINNESOTA VALLEY TESTING LA _ 684 CITY OF MOUND 04/06/22 3:40 PM Page 6 Payments Current Period: March 2022 Cash Payment Invoice 1133789 Transaction Date E 601-49400-470 Water Samples 3/142022 3292022 MONTHLY CHLORINE REPORT & COLIFORM WATER TESTS -10 U.S. Bank 10100 10100 Total $130.00 $130.00 Refer 815 MINNESOTA WASTEWATER OPER _ Cash Payment E 602-49450-434 Conference & Training MWOA CONFERENCE JULY 26-29 GRAND $285.00 RAPIDS- REGISTRATION R. PRICH Invoice 033121 3/312021 Project 22-5 Cash Payment E 602-49450-434 Conference & Training MWOA CONFERENCE JULY 26-29 GRAND $285.00 RAPIDS- REGISTRATION T. SORENSEN Invoice 033121 3/312021 Cash Payment E 601-49400-434 Conference & Training MWOA CONFERENCE JULY 26-29 GRAND $285.00 RAPIDS- REGISTRATION M. TESSEN Invoice 033121 3/312021 Transaction Date 4/52022 U.S. Bank 10100 10100 Total $855.00 Refer 816 MNSPECT _ Cash Payment E 101-42400-308 Building Inspection Fees MARCH 2O22 BUILDING INSPECTION FEES Invoice 8927 3/302022 Cash Payment G 101-20800 Due to Other Governments MARCH 2O22 - ELECTRICAL STATE SURCHARGE FEE CREDIT Invoice 8927 3/302022 Cash Payment R 101-42000-32220 Electrical Permit Fee MARCH 2O22- ELECTRICAL INSPECTION PERMIT FEE CREDITS Invoice 8927 3/302022 Transaction Date 4/62022 U.S. Bank 10100 10100 Total Refer 817 MOUND FIRE RELIEF ASSO CIA TIO Cash Payment E 222-42260-124 Fire Pens Contrib Invoice 040122 4/12022 Transaction Date 4/52022 APRIL 2022 - FIRE RELIEF PENSION CONTRIBUTION U.S. Bank 10100 10100 Refer 818 MTI DISTRIBUTING, INC. _ Cash Payment E 101-45200-434 Conference & Training TOTO IRRIGATION CLASS- D. KOSKELA Invoice 1337629 3/172022 Transaction Date 3292022 U.S. Bank 10100 10100 Refer 819 OFFICE DEPOT Cash Payment E 609-49750-200 Office Supplies Invoice 235945942001 3252022 PO 32322 Transaction Date 4/52022 Refer 410 OFFICEDEPOT Cash Payment E 101-41930-200 Office Supplies Invoice 230551554001 3/162022 PO 25195 Cash Payment E 101-41500-200 Office Supplies Invoice 230551554001 3/162022 PO 25315 Cash Payment E 101-41500-200 Office Supplies Invoice 230551554001 3/162022 PO 25315 $12,409.70 -$16.00 -$189.00 $12,204.70 $11,500.00 Total $11,500.00 $130.00 Total $130.00 THERMAL PAPER ROLLS- 4, COPY PAPER $110.92 CASE, SHARPIE MARKERS, POST -IT NOTES, RED/BLACK INK ROLLS-2- HWS U.S. Bank 10100 10100 Total $110.92 COPY PAPER, LARGE PAPER CLIPS, 2 $170.23 PACKS BROTHER ADDRESS LABELS- CITY HALL ERGONOMIC WIRELESS COMPUTER $84.99 MOUSE-C. PAUSCHE ERGONOMIC WIRELESS COMPUTER $84.99 MOUSE- C. ROBERTS 1�i 91 CITY OF MOUND 04/06/22 3:40 PM Page 7 Payments Current Period: March 2022 Cash Payment E 101-41500-200 Office Supplies COMPUTER DOCUMENT HOLDER- N. $12.74 IVERSON Invoice 230551554001 3/162022 PO 25315 Transaction Date 3/302022 U.S. Bank 10100 10100 Total $352.95 Refer 825 PLUNKETT S, INCORPORATED _ Cash Payment E 101-41910-440 Other Contractual Servic PEST CONTROL SVC- QUARTERLY -CENT $112.49 BLDG Invoice 7474805 4/12022 Transaction Date 4/62022 U.S. Bank 10100 10100 Total $112.49 Refer 820 POTTS, KENNETH N. P.A. _ Cash Payment E 101-41600-304 Legal Fees 1ST QTR 2022 PROSECUTION SVCS $12,500.00 Invoice 040622 3/312022 Transaction Date 4/62022 U.S. Bank 10100 10100 Total $12,500.00 Refer 821 REPUBLIC SERVICES _ Cash Payment E 602-49450-384 Refuse/Garbage Dispose APRIL 2022 GARBAGE SVC- PUB WRKS $122.82 Invoice 0894-005639044 3252022 Project 22-3 Cash Payment E 670-49500-440 Other Contractual Servic MARCH 2O22 CITYWIDE RECYCLING SVC $18,650.70 Invoice 0894-005637491 3252022 Cash Payment E 101-45200-384 Refuse/Garbage Dispose APRIL 2022 GARBAGE SVC- PARKS $122.82 Invoice 0894-005639044 3252022 Transaction Date 4/62022 U.S. Bank 10100 10100 Total $18,896.34 Refer 417 SUN NEWSPAPERS-HWS ACCT. _ Cash Payment E 609-49750-328 Employment Advertising HELP WANTED AD- ASSISTANT STORE $110.00 LEADER- HWS Invoice 884260 3272022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-340 Advertising STATEMENT CREDIT- DISCOUNTED REPEAL -$126.00 OF PROHIBITION AD 11-27-21 Invoice 865827-CR 3272022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-351 Legal Notices Publishing FINANCIAL STATEMENT- MUNICIPAL $107.94 LIQUOR STORE- HARBOR WINE & SPIRITS - PUBLISHED 4-2-22 Invoice 885235 422022 Transaction Date 3/302022 U.S. Bank 10100 10100 Total $91.94 Refer 411 USA BLUEBOOK Cash Payment E 602-49450-210 Operating Supplies Invoice 915864 3/182022 Cash Payment E 601-49400-210 Operating Supplies Invoice 909685 3/142022 Transaction Date 3282022 12 QTY 20# BLOCKS DEODORANT CHERRY- SEWER DEPT DBI SHOCKWAVE 2 LANYARD W2 LOCKING SNAP HOOKS- WATER DEPT U.S. Bank 10100 10100 Total $1,166.38 $150.66 $1,317.04 Refer 412 VERIZON WIRELESS _ Cash Payment E 101-43100-321 Telephone, Cells, & Radi STREETS LEAD WORKER TABLET- $35.01 INTERNET SVC- 2-11-22 THRU 3-10-22 Invoice 9901505204 3/102022 Cash Payment E 602-49450-321 Telephone, Cells, & Radi PUBLIC WORKS SUPERVISOR- RYAN $35.01 PRICH TABLET- INTERNET SVC-2-11-22 THRU 3-10-22 Invoice 9901505204 3/102022 Project 22-5 Cash Payment E 602-49450-321 Telephone, Cells, & Radi PUBLIC WORKS DEPT-TABLET- HOT SPOT $35.01 SVC 2-11-22 THRU 3-10-22 Invoice 9901505204 3/102022 Project 22-5 686 CITY OF MOUND 04/06/22 3:40 PM Page 8 Payments Current Period: March 2022 Cash Payment E 602-49450-321 Telephone, Cells, & Radi UTILITY LEAD WORKER TABLET- INTERNET $17.50 SVC- 2-11-22 THRU 3-10-22 Invoice 9901505204 3/102022 Cash Payment E 601-49400-321 Telephone, Cells, & Radi UTILITY LEAD WORKER TABLET- INTERNET $17.51 SVC- SVC 2-11-22 THRU 3-10-22 Invoice 9901505204 3/102022 Cash Payment E 101-45200-321 Telephone, Cells, & Radi PARKS LEAD WORKER TABLET- INTERNET $35.01 SVC 2-11-22 THRU 3-10-22 Invoice 9901505204 3/102022 Cash Payment E 101-43100-321 Telephone, Cells, & Radi STREETS DEPT TABLET INTERNET SVC 2- $35.01 11-22 THRU 3-10-22 Invoice 9901505204 3/102022 Cash Payment E 602-49450-321 Telephone, Cells, & Radi PUB WKS OPEN LINE INTERNET SVC 2-11- $35.01 22 THRU 3-10-22 Invoice 9901505204 3/102022 Project 22-5 Cash Payment E 101-42400-321 Telephone, Cells, & Radi FIELD OFFICER INTERNET SVC 2-11-22 $17.51 THRU 3-10-22 Invoice 9901505204 3/102022 Cash Payment E 101-42115-321 Telephone, Cells, & Radi FIELD OFFICER INTERNET SVC 2-11-22 $17.50 THRU 3-10-22 Invoice 9901505204 3/102022 Cash Payment E 602-49450-321 Telephone, Cells, & Radi UTILITY DEPT TABLET- INTERNET SVC 2-11- $17.51 22 THRU 3-10-22 Invoice 9901505204 3/102022 Cash Payment E 601-49400-321 Telephone, Cells, & Radi UTILITY DEPT TABLET- INTERNET SVC 2-11- $17.50 22 THRU 3-10-22 Invoice 9901505204 3/102022 Cash Payment E 101-45200-321 Telephone, Cells, & Radi PARKS DEPT TABLET- INTERNET SVC 2-11- $35.01 22 THRU 3-10-22 Invoice 9901505204 3/102022 Transaction Date 3/302022 U.S. Bank 10100 10100 Total $350.10 Refer 823 VERIZON WIRELESS _ Cash Payment E 101-43100-321 Telephone, Cells, & Radi CELL PHONE CHARGES 2-14-22 THRU 3-13- $108.36 22 Invoice 9901789968 3/132022 Cash Payment E 601-49400-321 Telephone, Cells, & Radi CELL PHONE CHARGES 2-14-22 THRU 3-13- $108.36 22 Invoice 9901789968 3/132022 Cash Payment E 602-49450-321 Telephone, Cells, & Radi CELL PHONE CHARGES 2-14-22 THRU 3-13- $76.36 22 Invoice 9901789968 3/132022 Cash Payment E 101-42400-321 Telephone, Cells, & Radi CELL PHONE CHARGES 2-14-22 THRU 3-13- $28.34 22 Invoice 9901789968 3/132022 Cash Payment E 101-45200-321 Telephone, Cells, & Radi CELL PHONE CHARGES 2-14-22 THRU 3-13- $96.03 22 Invoice 9901789968 3/132022 Cash Payment E 101-41310-321 Telephone, Cells, & Radi CELL PHONE CHARGES 2-14-22 THRU 3-13- $56.01 22 Invoice 9901789968 3/132022 Cash Payment E 101-42115-321 Telephone, Cells, & Radi CELL PHONE CHARGES 2-14-22 THRU 3-13- $16.01 22 Invoice 9901789968 3/132022 Transaction Date 4/52022 U.S. Bank 10100 10100 Total $489.47 Refer 416 WATER CONSERVATION SVCS IN _ 687 CITY OF MOUND Payments Current Period: March 2022 Cash Payment E 601-49400-440 Other Contractual Servic LEAK LOCATE @4629 HANOVER RD 3-10-22 Invoice 12201 3292022 Transaction Date 3/302022 U.S. Bank 10100 10100 Total Refer 414WESTSIDE WHOLESALE TIREAND _ Cash Payment E 101-45200-404 Machinery/Equip Repairs 4 CARLISLE TURF TRACK TIRES- PARKS ATV UNIT #305 Invoice 394454 3222022 Transaction Date 3/302022 U.S. Bank 10100 10100 Total Refer 415 WIDMER CONSTRUCTION, LLC _ Cash Payment E 601-49400-440 Other Contractual Servic REPAIR WATERMAIN BREAK @ 4929 HANOVER RD 3-11-22 Invoice 5053 3/182022 Transaction Date 3/302022 U.S. Bank 10100 10100 Refer 824 XCEL ENERGY Cash Payment E 602-49450-381 Electric Utilities Invoice 773416883 3292022 Cash Payment E 602-49450-381 Electric Utilities Invoice 773582286 3292022 Cash Payment E 101-43100-381 Electric Utilities Invoice 773501837 3292022 Transaction Date 4/62022 Fund Summary 101 GENERAL FUND 222 AREA FIRE SERVICES 601 WATER FUND 602 SEWER FUND 609 MUNICIPAL LIQUOR FUND 670 RECYCLING FUND Total 04/06/22 3:40 PM Page 9 $414.78 $414.78 $178.00 $178.00 $9,180.00 $9,180.00 ELECTRIC SVC 12-28-19 THRU 1-27-20 $111.18 CARLOW RD LIFT STATION ELECTRIC SVC 12-28-19 THRU 1-27-20 1871 $151.30 COMMERCE BLVD LIFT STATION 1790 COMMERCE STREET LIGHTS 12-27-21 $33.38 THRU 1-26-22 U.S. Bank 10100 10100 10100 U.S. Bank 10100 $46,379.51 $22,333.98 $25,550.87 $88,523.77 $3,473.66 $18,650.70 $204,912.49 Pre -Written Checks $0.00 Checks to be Generated by the Computer $204,912.49 Total $204,912.49 Total $295.86 [:l:Z:3 CITY OF MOUND 04/06/2211:14AM Page 1 Payments Current Period: April 2021 Payments Batch 041222CITY $21,023.62 Refer 855 AMERICAN MESSAGING _ Cash Payment E 601-49400-321 Telephone, Cells, & Radi APRIL 2022- MONTHLY PAGER- PG COPY $2.70 CELL & EMAIL FEE- 2 PAGERS UTILITY DEPTS Invoice D2062026WD 4/12022 Cash Payment E 601-49400-321 Telephone, Cells, & Radi MAY 2022- MONTHLY PAGER- PG COPY $2.70 CELL & EMAIL FEE- 2 PAGERS UTILITY DEPTS Invoice D2062026WD 4/12022 Cash Payment E 601-49400-321 Telephone, Cells, & Radi JUNE 2022- MONTHLY PAGER- PG COPY $2.70 CELL & EMAIL FEE- 2 PAGERS UTILITY DEPTS Invoice D2062026WD 4/12022 Cash Payment E 601-49400-321 Telephone, Cells, & Radi MARCH 2O22- MONTHLY PAGER- PG COPY $2.70 CELL & EMAIL FEE- 2 PAGERS UTILITY DEPTS Invoice D2062026WD 4/12022 Cash Payment E 602-49450-321 Telephone, Cells, & Radi MARCH 2O22- MONTHLY PAGER- PG COPY $2.70 CELL & EMAIL FEE- 2 PAGERS UTILITY DEPTS Invoice D2062026WD 4/12022 Cash Payment E 602-49450-321 Telephone, Cells, & Radi APRIL 2022- MONTHLY PAGER- PG COPY $2.70 CELL & EMAIL FEE- 2 PAGERS UTILITY DEPTS Invoice D2062026WD 4/12022 Cash Payment E 602-49450-321 Telephone, Cells, & Radi MAY 2022- MONTHLY PAGER- PG COPY $2.70 CELL & EMAIL FEE- 2 PAGERS UTILITY DEPTS Invoice D2062026WD 4/12022 Cash Payment E 602-49450-321 Telephone, Cells, & Radi JUNE 2022- MONTHLY PAGER- PG COPY $2.70 CELL & EMAIL FEE- 2 PAGERS UTILITY DEPTS Invoice D2062026WD 4/12022 Transaction Date 4/62022 U.S. Bank 10100 10100 Total $21.60 Refer 850 BENIEK PROPERTY SVCS INC. _ Cash Payment E 101-43100-440 Other Contractual Servic AREA #1 CBDMARCH 2O22 PLOWING $415.00 Invoice 157985 4/12022 Cash Payment E 101-43100-440 Other Contractual Servic AREA #2 TRUE VALUE -RAMP -SIDEWALKS $590.00 MARCH 2O22 PLOWING&SHOVELING Invoice 157985 4/12022 Cash Payment E 101-43100-440 Other Contractual Servic AREA #3 COMMERCE BLVD MARCH 2O22 $4,075.00 PLOWING Invoice 157985 4/12022 Transaction Date 4/62022 U.S. Bank 10100 10100 Total $5,080.00 Refer 852 BERENT, DAN _ Cash Payment E 222-42260-434 Conference & Training REIMBURSEMENT- MEALS- D. BERENT $132.50 DETROIT LAKES FIRE SCHOOL-APRIL 1-3 Invoice 040622 4/52022 Cash Payment E 222-42260-434 Conference & Training REIMBURSEMENT- FUEL- D. BERENT $57.00 DETROIT LAKES FIRE SCHOOL-APRIL 1-3 Invoice 040622 4/52022 Transaction Date 4/62022 U.S. Bank 10100 10100 Total $189.50 Refer 856 CENTRAL MCGOWAN, INCORPOR _ 689 CITY OF MOUND Payments Current Period: April 2021 Cash Payment E 602-49450-210 Operating Supplies Invoice 164114 3/312022 Cash Payment E 602-49450-210 Operating Supplies Invoice 164114 3/312022 Transaction Date 4/62022 HIGH PRESSURE MEDIUM CYLINDER RENTALS- QTY 7 Project 22-3 ACETYLENE MEDIUM CYLINDER RENTALS- QTY 5 Project 22-3 U.S. Bank 10100 10100 Total Refer 853 FIRE CHIEFS ASSOC, HENNEPIN C _ Cash Payment E 222-42260-434 Conference & Training BLUE CARD SIM TRAINING- MARCH 11-13, 2022 - FIREFIGHTER J. BLACKSTONE Invoice 22-018 3/312022 Cash Payment E 222-42260-434 Conference & Training BLUE CARD SIM TRAINING- MARCH 11-13, 2022 - FIREFIGHTER M. FOLEY Invoice 22-018 3/312022 Cash Payment E 222-42260-434 Conference & Training BLUE CARD SIM TRAINING- MARCH 11-13, 2022 - FIREFIGHTER M. LINDER Invoice 22-018 3/312022 Transaction Date 4/62022 U.S. Bank 10100 10100 Total 04/06/22 11:14 AM Page 2 $10.23 $10.23 $20.46 $133.34 $133.33 $133.33 $400.00 Refer 851 INNOVATIVE WOODWORKING SO _ Cash Payment E 222-42260-500 Capital Outlay FA ORGANIZER FOR 2022 TAHOE FIRE $3,000.00 VEHICLE- INCLUDES INSTALLATION Invoice 65 4/12022 Transaction Date 4/62022 U.S. Bank 10100 10100 Total $3,000.00 Refer 854 STRYKER MEDICAL _ Cash Payment E 222-42260-500 Capital Outlay FA LUCAS CHEST COMPRESSION SYSTEM- $11,204.86 FIRE DEPT Invoice 3718610 3292022 PO 25290 Cash Payment E 222-42260-500 Capital Outlay FA LUCAS 2 RECHARGEABLE BATTERIES, $1,107.20 EXTERNAL POWER SUPPLY, DISPOSABLE SUCTION CUPS- 3 PK- FIRE DEPT Invoice 3717260 3282022 PO 25290 Transaction Date 4/62022 Fund Summary 101 GENERAL FUND 222 AREA FIRE SERVICES 601 WATER FUND 602 SEWER FUND U.S. Bank 10100 10100 10100 U.S. Bank 10100 $5,080.00 $15,901.56 $10.80 $31.26 $21,023.62 Pre -Written Checks $0.00 Checks to be Generated by the Computer $21,023.62 Total $21,023.62 Total $12,312.06 M6 0181 Payments Batch 041222HWS Refer 911 56 BREWING, LLC CITY OF MOUND Payments Current Period: April 2021 $102,703.42 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale Invoice 5618148 3282022 Transaction Date 4/62022 Refer 912 ARTISAN BEER COMPANY Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale Invoice 3528621 4/12022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale Invoice 3526271 3/182022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale Invoice 3527344 3252022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale Invoice 329096 3282022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale Invoice 327156 2282022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale Invoice 327184 3/12022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale Invoice 3523925 3/32022 Transaction Date 4/62022 BEER U.S. Bank 10100 10100 Total BEER BEER BEER BEER CREDIT BEER CREDIT BEER CREDIT BEER U.S. Bank 10100 10100 Total Refer 913 BELLBOY CORPORATION _ Cash Payment E 609-49750-210 Operating Supplies SUPPLIES, BAGS Invoice 0104901200 3232022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MIX Invoice 0104901100 3232022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-255 Misc Merchandise For R MDSE- PLASTIC FLASKS, JELLO SHOT CUPS Invoice 0104901200 3232022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MIX Invoice 0094161600 3232022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-210 Operating Supplies SUPPLIES, BAGS Invoice 0104926900 3/302022 Transaction Date 4/62022 U.S. Bank 10100 10100 Total Refer 914 BELLBOY CORPORATION 04/07/22 11:57 AM Page 1 $140.00 $140.00 $232.90 $336.30 $561.75 -$81.60 -$178.36 -$23.16 $256.00 $1,103.83 $43.75 $74.00 $12.85 $36.60 $43.75 $210.95 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $0.00 Invoice 0094161100 3232022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight FREIGHT $0.00 Invoice 0094161100 3232022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $3,561.85 Invoice 0094161100 3232022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight FREIGHT $46.20 Invoice 0094161100 3232022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $615.00 Invoice 0094114200 3232022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $1,189.50 Invoice 0094115300 3232022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight FREIGHT $8.25 Invoice 0094114200 3232022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight FREIGHT $8.25 Invoice 0094115300 3232022 691 CITY OF MOUND Payments Current Period: April 2021 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR Invoice 0094112400 3232022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight FREIGHT Invoice 0094112400 3232022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR Invoice 0094240700 3/302022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight FREIGHT Invoice 0094240700 3/302022 Transaction Date 4/62022 U.S. Bank 10100 10100 Refer 921 BOURGET IMPORTS, LLC _ Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE Invoice 185445 3/172022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight FREIGHT Invoice 185445 3/172022 Transaction Date 4/62022 U.S. Bank 10100 10100 Refer 918 BREAKTHRU BEVERAGE MN BEE _ Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER Invoice 343512129 3/302022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER Invoice 343512128 3/302022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER Invoice 343512127 3/302022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER Invoice 343418331 3232022 Transaction Date 4/62022 U.S. Bank 10100 10100 Refer 920 BREAKTHRU BEVERAGE MN WINE _ Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE Invoice 343419870 3232022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR Invoice 343419871 3232022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE CREDIT Invoice 409543534 3/182022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR Invoice 343513788 3/302022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE Invoice 343513789 3/302022 Transaction Date 4/62022 U.S. Bank 10100 10100 Refer 923 CAPITOL BEVERAGE SALES, L.P. _ Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR Invoice 2664916 3222022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER Invoice 2664917 3222022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MIX Invoice 2664918 3222022 Transaction Date 4/62022 U.S. Bank 10100 10100 Refer 922 CAPITOL BEVERAGE SALES, L.P. _ Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER CREDIT Invoice 2668127 3292022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MIX Invoice 2668128 3292022 04/07/22 11:57 AM Page 2 $263.33 $8.25 $1,171.55 $15.26 Total $6,887.44 $248.00 $3.50 Total $251.50 $83.10 $667.25 $4,451.60 $1,720.95 Total $6,922.90 $210.00 $2,951.98 -$192.00 $1,892.40 $96.00 Total $4,958.38 $292.50 $1,296.45 $49.47 Total $1,638.42 -$102.00 $20.49 M60y% CITY OF MOUND Payments Current Period: April 2021 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale LIQUOR Invoice 2668092 3292022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER Invoice 2668093 3292022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER CREDIT Invoice 2664915 3222022 Transaction Date 4/62022 U.S. Bank 10100 10100 Refer 924 CLEAR RIVER BEVERAGE CO. Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale Invoice 623163 3212022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale Invoice 624127 3282022 Transaction Date 4/62022 Refer 925 DAHLHEIMER BEVERAGE LLC Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale Invoice 1560186 3/302022 Transaction Date 4/62022 Refer 926 DRASTIC MEASURES BREWING Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale Invoice 2028 3/152022 Transaction Date 4/62022 BEER BEER U.S. Bank 10100 10100 BEER U.S. Bank 10100 10100 Total Total Total BEER U.S. Bank 10100 10100 Total Refer 927 HOHENSTEINS, INCORPORATED Cash Payment E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MIX Invoice 493607 4/52022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER Invoice 493609 4/52022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER Invoice 491564 3292022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MIX Invoice 491564 3292022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER Invoice 491565 3292022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER Invoice 489612 3222022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER Invoice 489611 3222022 Transaction Date 4/62022 U.S. Bank 10100 10100 Refer 928 INBOUND BREWCO _ Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER Invoice 13229 3/182022 Transaction Date 4/62022 U.S. Bank 10100 10100 Refer 929 JACK PINE BREWERY Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale Invoice 4300 3222022 Transaction Date 4/62022 Total Total BEER U.S. Bank 10100 10100 Total Refer 930 JJ TAYLOR. DISTRIBUTING MINN _ Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER Invoice 3281076 3/312022 04/07/22 11:57 AM Page 3 $103.50 $1,591.00 -$23.68 $1,589.31 $2,533.20 $186.00 $2,719.20 $661.35 $661.35 $222.17 $222.17 $26.95 $203.40 $54.00 $34.50 $1,078.50 $1,023.90 $27.00 $2,448.25 $420.49 $420.49 $78.00 $78.00 $180.20 �:�x3 CITY OF MOUND Payments Current Period: April 2021 Cash Payment E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MIX Invoice 3281075 3/312022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER Invoice 3281046 3242022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER Invoice 3281047 3242022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER Invoice 3281015 3/172022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER Invoice 3281014 3/172022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER Invoice 3254398 3/312022 Transaction Date 4/62022 U.S. Bank 10100 10100 Refer 932 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale Invoice 2021380 3/302022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale Invoice 2021379 3/302022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale Invoice 192873 3/172022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale Invoice 192873 3/172022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale Invoice 192874 3/172022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale Invoice 2021381 3/302022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale Invoice 2021378 3/302022 Transaction Date 4/62022 Refer 931 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale Invoice 2014144 3212022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale Invoice 2016720 3232022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale Invoice 2016718 3232022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale Invoice 2014143 3212022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale Invoice 2016717 3232022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale Invoice 2016719 3232022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale Invoice 193589 3232022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale Invoice 2013096 3/172022 Transaction Date 4/62022 Refer 933 LUPULIN BREWING COMPANY LIQUOR WINE LIQUOR CREDIT WINE CREDIT WINE CREDIT WINE LIQUOR U.S. Bank 10100 10100 WINE LIQUOR WINE LIQUOR LIQUOR WINE WINE CREDIT WINE U.S. Bank 10100 10100 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER Invoice 43922 3242022 Total Total 04/07/22 11:57 AM Page 4 $3,363.45 $6,099.25 $33.85 $50.90 $2,912.80 $1.50 $12,641.95 $1,515.18 $774.52 -$39.00 -$4.83 -$66.18 $4,178.80 $1,047.46 $7,405.95 $1,118.52 $1,636.90 $899.87 $877.20 $6,319.94 $636.66 -$82.72 $585.85 Total $11,992.22 $426.05 [:�sLI Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale Invoice 748892 3242022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale Invoice 43774 3/172022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale Invoice 748886 3/102022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale Invoice 43206 3/172022 Transaction Date 4/62022 Refer 934 LUTHERAN PRAYERBOOK Cash Payment E 609-49750-340 Advertising Invoice 46630 3172022 Transaction Date 4/72022 Refer 934 MAVERICK WINE COMPANY CITY OF MOUND Payments Current Period: April 2021 BEER CREDIT BEER BEER CREDIT BEER U.S. Bank 10100 10100 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale Invoice 749469 3/302022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight Invoice 749469 3/302022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale Invoice 745997 3232022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight Invoice 745997 3232022 Transaction Date 4/62022 2022 HWS ADVERTISING- WEEKLY BULLETIN- 12 MONTHS U.S. Bank 10100 10100 WINE FREIGHT WINE FREIGHT U.S. Bank 10100 10100 Total Total Total Refer 935 MINNEHAHA BUILDING MAINTENA _ Cash Payment E 609-49750-400 Repairs & Maintenance WASH WINDOWS INSIDE & OUT 2-21-22 Invoice 180201983 3202022 Transaction Date 4/62022 U.S. Bank 10100 10100 Total 04/07/22 11:57 AM Page 5 -$30.80 $78.50 -$16.17 $402.40 $859.98 $267.00 $267.00 $596.16 $6.00 $463.16 $6.00 $1,071.32 $74.81 $74.81 Refer 936 MINT ROOFING, INC. _ Cash Payment E 609-49750-400 Repairs & Maintenance LOCATE & REPAIR ROOF LEAKS-2 ON 3-2- $1,093.63 22; RETURNED TO INVESTIGATE ONGOING LEAK 3-7-22 FOUND ANOTHER LEAK CENTRALIZED AROUND AC UNITS ON ROOF- HWS Invoice 136933775 3/152022 Transaction Date 4172022 U.S. Bank 10100 10100 Total $1,093.63 Refer 937 MODIST BREWING CO. LLC _ Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $308.00 Invoice 29798 3232022 Transaction Date 4/62022 U.S. Bank 10100 10100 Total $308.00 Refer 938 MOUND, CITY OF _ Cash Payment E 609-49750-412 Building Rentals WATER SERVICE 1-31-21 THRU 2-28-22- HWS Invoice 040722 3202022 Transaction Date 4/62022 U.S. Bank 10100 10100 Total Refer 939 MUZAK - LLC Cash Payment E 609-49750-440 Other Contractual Servic 2ND QTR 2022- APRIL, MAY & JUNE- MUSIC SERVICE- HWS Invoice 56752873 4/12022 Transaction Date 4/72022 U.S. Bank 10100 10100 Total $67.59 $67.59 $502.68 $502.68 Refer 941 PAUSTIS AND SONS WINE COMPA _ 695 CITY OF MOUND Payments Current Period: April 2021 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE Invoice 160830 4/42022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight FREIGHT Invoice 160830 4/42022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR Invoice 160831 4/42022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight FREIGHT Invoice 160831 4/42022 Transaction Date 4/62022 U.S. Bank 10100 10100 Refer 940 PAUSTIS AND SONS WINE COMPA _ Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE Invoice 159302 3212022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight FREIGHT Invoice 159302 3212022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE Invoice 160063 3282022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight FREIGHT Invoice 160063 3282022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE Invoice 160060 3282022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight FREIGHT Invoice 160060 3282022 Transaction Date 4/62022 U.S. Bank 10100 10100 Refer 942 PEQUOD DISTRIBUTION Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER Invoice 140046 3242022 Transaction Date 4/62022 U.S. Bank 10100 10100 Refer 943 PHILLIPS WINE AND SPIRITS, INC _ Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR Invoice 6372388 3/302022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE Invoice 6372389 3/302022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE Invoice 6368695 3232022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MIX Invoice 6368696 3232022 Transaction Date 4/62022 U.S. Bank 10100 10100 Refer 944 PRYES BREWING COMPANY, LLC Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale Invoice 34755 3/312022 Transaction Date 4/62022 BEER U.S. Bank 10100 10100 Refer 945 SHAMROCK GROUP, INC. _ Cash Payment E 609-49750-255 Misc Merchandise For R ICE Invoice 2744281 3/302022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight FREIGHT Invoice 2744281 3/302022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-255 Misc Merchandise For R ICE Invoice 2741007 3232022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MIX Invoice 2744281 3/302022 04/07/22 11:57 AM Page 6 $243.08 $7.00 $294.99 $2.25 Total $547.32 $634.00 $10.00 $96.00 $2.25 $255.00 $4.50 Total $1,001.75 $240.50 Total $240.50 $2,237.95 $7,523.28 $268.20 $26.00 Total $10,055.43 $692.00 Total $692.00 $64.00 $3.00 $47.40 $405.05 M60I61 CITY OF MOUND Payments Current Period: April 2021 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight FREIGHT Invoice 2741007 3232022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-255 Misc Merchandise For R ICE Invoice 2740833 3/172022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight FREIGHT Invoice 2740833 3/172022 Transaction Date 4/62022 U.S. Bank 10100 10100 Refer 947 SMALL LOT MN Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale Invoice 51491 4/12022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight Invoice 51491 4/12022 Transaction Date 4/62022 Refer 948 SOUTHERN WINE & SPIRITS OF M 04/07/22 11:57 AM Page 7 $3.00 $178.45 $3.00 Total $703.90 WINE $432.00 FREIGHT $5.00 U.S. Bank 10100 10100 Total Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR Invoice 2195277 3/312022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR Invoice 2195281 3/312022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR Invoice 2195280 3/312022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE Invoice 2195279 3/312022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MIX Invoice 2195278 3/312022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR Invoice 2192737 3242022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE Invoice 2192736 3242022 Transaction Date 4/62022 U.S. Bank 10100 10100 $437.00 $1,576.52 $3,153.25 $810.00 $4,568.00 $19.00 $2,932.78 $222.00 Total $13,281.55 Refer 949 ST. CLOUD REFRIGERATION, INC _ Cash Payment E 609-49750-400 Repairs & Maintenance MEET ROOFING COMPANY @ HWS- ON ROOF TO LIFT UP NEWLY REPLACED CONDENSING UNIT TO CHECK FOR LEAKS 3-18-22- HWS Invoice W74508 3/312022 Transaction Date 4/62022 Refer 951 STARRY EYED BREWING CO. LLC U.S. Bank 10100 10100 Total Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER Invoice 5729 3/312022 Transaction Date 4/62022 U.S. Bank 10100 10100 Total Refer 950 STA-SAFE LOCKSMITHS COMPAN Cash Payment E 609-49750-440 Other Contractual Servic SVC CALL @ HWS -REKEY LOCK, CHANGE SAFE COMBINATION, 16 DO NOT DUPLICATE KEYS, LATCH FOR BACK DOOR & REPAIR BACK DOOR Invoice 0007706 4/42022 Transaction Date 4/72022 $400.95 $400.95 $60.00 $60.00 $340.80 U.S. Bank 10100 10100 Total $340.80 Refer 883 TOTAL REGISTER SYSTEMS, INC. Cash Payment E 609-49750-205 Computer Hardware/Soft CAYAN GENIUS ITX DEVICE STANDS- 2- HWS Invoice 59500 222022 $113.95 WON CITY OF MOUND Payments Current Period: April 2021 Cash Payment E 609-49750-200 Office Supplies CASE-50 ROLLS RECEIPT THERMAL PAPER- HWS REGISTERS Invoice 59500 222022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-210 Operating Supplies V-SHELF LABELS- HWS Invoice 59500 222022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-200 Office Supplies ZEBRA LABEL PRINTER- HWS Invoice 59525 2/172022 Transaction Date 4/62022 U.S. Bank 10100 10100 Total Refer 952 TRADITION WINE & SPIRITS, LLC Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale Invoice 30898 3252022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight Invoice 30898 3252022 Transaction Date 4/62022 04/07/22 11:57 AM Page 8 $96.95 $106.48 $569.72 $887.10 WINE $320.00 FREIGHT $6.00 U.S. Bank 10100 10100 Refer 953 VINOCOPIA, INCORPORATED _ Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR Invoice 0300172 3/172022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight FREIGHT Invoice 0300172 3/172022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE Invoice 0300173 3/172022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight FREIGHT Invoice 0300173 3/172022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MIX Invoice 0300179 3/172022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight FREIGHT Invoice 0300179 3/172022 Transaction Date 4/62022 U.S. Bank 10100 10100 Refer 954 WINE COMPANY Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale Invoice 200237 3/312022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight Invoice 200237 3/312022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale Invoice 200237 3/312022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight Invoice 199667 3242022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale Invoice 199667 3242022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale Invoice 199090 3/172022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight Invoice 199090 3/172022 Transaction Date 4/62022 Refer 955 WINE MERCHANTS Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale Invoice 7373007 3232022 Transaction Date 4/62022 Refer 956 WINEBOW Total Total $326.00 $1,114.75 $18.00 $312.00 $7.50 $240.00 $19.50 $1,711.75 WINE $236.00 FREIGHT $10.00 LIQUOR $118.00 FREIGHT $10.00 WINE $304.00 WINE $232.00 FREIGHT $10.00 U.S. Bank 10100 10100 Total $920.00 WINE $2,013.60 U.S. Bank 10100 10100 Total $2,013.60 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR Invoice 110449 3/312022 698 $414.00 CITY OF MOUND Payments Current Period: April 2021 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE Invoice 109803 3/172022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight FREIGHT Invoice 110449 3/312022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE Invoice 109986 3222022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight FREIGHT Invoice 109803 3/172022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR Invoice 109986 3222022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight FREIGHT Invoice 109986 3222022 Transaction Date 4/62022 U.S. Bank 10100 10100 Refer 958 WOODEN HILL BREWING COMPAN _ Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER Invoice 3306 3/312021 Transaction Date 4/72022 U.S. Bank 10100 10100 Refer 957 Z WINES USA LLC _ Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE Invoice 25310 3232022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight FREIGHT Invoice 25310 3232022 Transaction Date 4/62022 U.S. Bank 10100 10100 Fund Summary 10100 U.S. Bank 10100 609 MUNICIPAL LIQUOR FUND $102,703.42 $102,703.42 Pre -Written Checks $0.00 Checks to be Generated by the Computer $102,703.42 Total $102,703.42 04/07/22 11:57 AM Page 9 $1,080.00 $4.50 $276.00 $13.50 $153.00 $6.75 Total $1,947.75 $351.20 Total $351.20 $240.00 $7.50 Total $247.50 M6010.1 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 22, 2022 The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, March 22, 2022 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in the Centennial Building. Members present: Mayor Ray Salazar; Council members, Paula Larson and Sherrie Pugh Members absent: Council Members Phil Velsor and Jason Holt Others present: City Manager Eric Hoversten, City Clerk Kevin Kelly, Assistant City Engineer Matt Bauman, Orono Police Department Sergeant Tim Sonnek, Mary Davis Consent agenda: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine in nature by the Council. There will be no separate discussion on these items unless a Councilmember or citizen so requests, in which event it will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence. 1. Open meeting Mayor Salazar called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. 2 Pledae of Alleaiance 3. Approve agenda Hoversten noted Council packet replacement page 617 to correct the minutes as requested by Council Member Holt. Hoversten said the amendment was to correct the attribution of the quote at the bottom of the page to Council Member Velsor. MOTION by Larson, seconded by Pugh, to approve the amended agenda. All voted in favor. Motion carried. 4. Consent agenda MOTION by Pugh, seconded by Larson, to approve the consent agenda. Upon roll call vote, all voted in favor. Motion carried. A. Approve payment of claims in the amount of $330,430.24. B. Approve minutes: 03-08-22 regular meeting C. RESOLUTION NO. 22-25: RESOLUTION REESTABLISHING PRECINCTS AND POLLING PLACES D. RESOLUTION NO. 22-26: RESOLUTION APPROVING VARIANCE FOR 3061 WESTEDGE BOULEVARD PLANNING CASE NO. 21-19 E. Approve 2022 Planning Commission Work Plan and Staff Project List 5. Comments and suggestions from citizens present on any item not on the agenda. None were offered. 700 Mound City Council Minutes — March 22, 2022 6. Orono Police Sergeant Tim Sonnek presenting the February Activity Report: Sonnek presented the February Activity Report for Mound. Sonnek stated there were 296 total incidents compared to 264 incidents in February of 2021. Sonnek listed two crashes, 10 alarms, nine animal complaints, two assaults, 59 medical calls, seven burglaries, one DUI, six domestic calls, four mental health calls, seven thefts, 18 parking complaints, 14 welfare checks and 60 traffic stops. Sonnek said that Officer Jay Dembowski will be retiring at the end of month after 30 years of service. Sonnek said he has been the field trainer for the OPD and nearly all the officers received their training from Dembowski. Sonnek added that Dembowski is also a former Marine. Sonnek said there are a couple of promising candidates who are interviewing for the embedded Social Worker position. Sonnek mentioned a news article about the app named Neighbors in which people can send videos from their Ring or Nest surveillance cameras to the OPD. Sonnek said the article gave the impression that the OPD can look through these cameras at all times which he said is not being done. Salazar said to thank Office Dembowski for his service. Pugh asked Sonnek about the number of medical calls in the report which led to a discussion about the trend in the increase in medical calls to both Police and Fire over the last few years. Hoversten mentioned spring road restrictions are in place and Sonnek stated the OPD officers on the day shift are actively looking for weight restriction compliance and Officers have two sets of scales to weigh vehicles if needed. 7. City Engineer Matt Bauman from Bolton & Menk requesting discussion and action on the following: Bauman presented the results of four bids received on March 16th. Bauman said this is Phase 2 of the project and the low bid was 29% below estimates. Bauman said Widmer Construction was the low bidder and have done similar work in the City. Bauman said the resolution is to accept the Widmer Construction bid. MOTION by Larson, seconded by Pugh, to approve the following resolution. All voted in favor. Motion carried. a. RESOLUTION NO. 22-27: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND APPROVING AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR LYNWOOD WATERMAIN IMPROVEMENT PHASE 2: BIRCH TO SOUTHVIEW; CITY PROJECT NO. PW 22-01 Bauman said the City received five bids on March 16th for the Liftstation project. Baumann said these competitive bids were quite spread out with the low bid being 1 % below estimates and 30% below the highest bid. Bauman said Pember Companies was the low bidder. Hoversten noted the City buys the controls and technical equipment for the Liftstation which will cost $128K. Hoversten said the City purchase of the tech equipment is part of resolution being approved by the Council. MOTION by Larson, seconded by Pugh, to approve the following resolution. All voted in favor. Motion carried. 701 Mound City Council Minutes — March 22, 2022 b. RESOLUTION NO. 22-28: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND APPROVING CONTRACT FOR 2022 LIFTSTATION IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT PW 22-03 Hoversten thanked the Council for getting these projects started last fall which allows staff to get started early in this calendar year to get these projects out for bid in February. Hoversten said getting four bids for the one project and five bids for the other indicate a healthy bid environment. Hoversten said there were revised estimates last year and the new estimates came in favorably, especially the watermain project which was an excellent bid. Hoversten said staff read the market well regarding the low bid for the lift station project. 8. Information/Miscellaneous A. Comments/reports from Council members/City Manager: Hoversten said he sent a note to Council Members about tax valuations being up in Mound. Hoversten said the increase for off lake properties has gone up to 25% and lakeshore properties tax values have increased 29% which reflects market behavior. Hoversten said there could be a substantial change for individuals on their tax number but rising tides raise all boats. Hoversten said the Hennepin County suburban average has gone up 18%which should allow for only modest tax increases for most residences. Hoversten said there will probably be questions from residents who can call the County Assessors with those questions. Hoversten said the Hennepin County Open Book Meetings have been scheduled for April 26th and 28th Hoversten said these will be virtual meetings for residents to ask their questions and make arrangements from there. Hoversten said Mound is a great place to be an owner of property right now and the City's taxable market value will be up 25 or 26% which should lower tax rates. Hoversten added it is the City's job to manage the tax levy and operating costs and not property valuations, noting there shouldn't be too much fluctuation in individual property tax payments. Larson congratulated the Westonka High School Boys Basketball team for making the state tournament for the first time in 49 years. B. Reports: Fire Department —February 2022 C. Minutes: D. Correspondence: Mediacom Notification - Rate Increase HC Elections Notification - Third Party Voter Registration HC Assessors Notification — Open Book Meeting Schedule 9. Adjourn ACTION by Pugh, seconded by Larson, to adjourn at 7:20 p.m. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Attest: Kevin Kelly, Clerk Mayor Raymond J. Salazar 702 MINUTES CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING WORKSHOP FEBRUARY 15, 2022 CALL TO ORDER The City Council met in a special session on February 15, 2022 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in the Centennial Building located at 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN. The purpose for the special session was a concurrent meeting workshop with the Planning Commission to review and discuss 2021 projects and the Planning Commission's work plan and Staff's projects list for 2021. Mayor Salazar called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. City Council members present: Mayor Ray Salazar, Phil Velsor, Paula Larson, Sherri Pugh and Jason Holt. Planning Commission members present: Chair David Goode; Commissioners Kevin Castellano, Jason Baker, Drew Heal, Allen Andersen, Samantha Erickson and Jason Holt. Several members of the public also were present at the Planning Commission and City Council concurrent special meeting workshop. Staff Present: City Manager -Public Works Director Eric Hoversten, Community Development Director Sarah Smith and HKGI Consultant Planner Rita Trapp. WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS Mayor Salazar welcomed attendees to the concurrent special meeting workshop. Members of Staff, the City Council and the Planning Commission introduced themselves. REVIEW OF 2021 PLANNING COMMISSION WORK PLAN AND STAFF PROJECT LIST Staff summarized the list of completed projects on the 2021 Planning Commission Work Plan and the Staff Project List, including the approval and recording of the Mound Harbor plat, several ordinances related to implementation of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan (new districts and rezonings) and the project approvals for the Villages of Island Park. Staff also informed the City Council and Planning Commission that the City's new electronic building permitting system will be starting in March. OVERVIEW AND DISCUSSION —2021 PLANNING COMMISSION WORK PLAN AND STAFF PROJECTS LIST Members of the Planning Commission and City Council reviewed the proposed 2022 Planning Commission Work Plan and Staff Projects List as follows: 703 2022 Planning Commission Work Plan 1. Development review procedure/process 2. City Code Chapter 119 (signage) and City Code 121 (subdivision) review; also City Code Chapter 129 (miscellaneous zoning) 3. Review/discussion of code enforcement procedures, policy development and related activities (i.e. code amendments, etc.) 4. Long-term home rental study 2022 Staff Project List 1. Amendment of City Code Chapter 113 related to building code to update of property maintenance regulations with MnSpect 2. Special project studies 3. Restudy of animal regulations Staff commented that continued review of the City's development review procedures and processes is important, including ways or tools to improve communication such as the City website. Additionally, ongoing efforts to address and resolve nuisance and similar type matters is also included on this year's work plan. Council members and commissions also discussed the opportunity to assist owners to address and improve property conditions by volunteer or service type efforts. Staff commented that the long-term rental study has been on the list for several years and attendees expressed support for this research project. Staff will include the 2022 Work Plan and Staff Project List on the upcoming Planning Commission agenda for review and its recommendation for order of priority that will be forwarded to the City Council for consideration. Mayor Salazar thanked the Planning Commission for their hard work and service to the community. INFORMATION A. 2022 Planning Commission Case List ADJOURN MOTION by Velsor to adjourn the meeting at 8:30 p.m. seconded by Pugh. MOTION carried unanimously. Submitted by Sarah Smith 704 2415 Wilshire Boulevard Mound, MN 55364 (952) 472-0604 MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Sarah Smith, Community Development Director Date: April 6, 2022 Re: Consent Agenda Item for April 12, 2022 Meeting— Public Gathering Permit for Special Event at Mound Depotand Surfside Park and Beach for Earth Day Overview. Abracadabra Environmental Services submitted a Public Gathering Permit application for a community and park clean up event being held on Friday, April 22, 2022 and includes use of the Mound Depot and Surfside and Beach from 9am to Noon (excluding set up and tear down activities. A Mound Depot Rental Agreement was also submitted. Details. • The special event includes community park cleanup activities and includes use of the Mound Depot and Surfside Park and Beach to celebrate Earth Day. • Staff recommends a waiver of the public gathering permit fee and damage deposit but recommends payment of the Mound Resident Depot rental fee of $125 along with the required $350 damage deposit due to the community benefits. • Staff notified the Orono Police Department, the Public Works Department and the Mound Fire Department about this event. Staff also notified affected public agencies (i.e., Three Rivers Park District Hennepin County Transportation Department etc.). Recommendation. Staff recommends approval of the requested permits subject to the following conditions: 1. Applicant shall be responsible for procurement of all required local and public agency permits that are needed to hold the event. 2. Applicant shall work with the Orono Police Department, the Mound Fire Department (MFD) and the Public Works Department, as needed, regarding logistics for the upcoming event including, but not limited to, equipment and personnel needs, site set-up and staging, traffic/pedestrian control and circulation, road closure needs, etc. Applicant is responsible for payment of fees for public safety or public services that may apply. 3. Amplified music, speakers and PA/sound systems are to be directed in the direction best suited to minimize impact upon neighbors. 705 4. Placement of any and/or all temporary signs shall be subject to regulations contained in City Code Chapter 119 and may include issuance of a permit and payment of the required fee. 5. No signage can be placed upon private property unless permission from the private property owner and/or other interested party has been provided to the applicant who shall be responsible for obtaining same. 6. Signage placement is subject to review and approval by the City of Mound. No signage shall be placed in a location so as to affectvehicular and pedestrian traffic. The City of Mound reserves the right to modify sign placement in the field. 7. The submittal of a Certificate of Insurance, naming the City of Mound as an additional insured, is required and shall be provided prior to the release and issuance of the Public Gathering Permit and Musical Concert Permit. Required insurance and coverage shall be in accordance with the City's established policies. 8. If different from the application, contact information, including name and cell phone number, for the person(s) who will be on site the day of the event shall be provided prior to the release of the Public Gathering Permit. 9. Applicant is required to comply with the CDC guidelines for the COVID 19 pandemic and the Governor's Executive Order in effect at the time. A resolution, approving the permit application, subject to conditions, based on Staff's recommendation, has been prepared for Council's consideration. Staff recommends approval. • Page 2 706 CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION NO. 22- RESOLUTION APPROVINGPUBLIC GATHERING PERMIT FOR COMMUNITY AND PARKS CLEAN UP AND USE OF SURFSIDE PARK AND BEACH BY ABRACADABRA ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES ON FRIDAY, APRIL 22, 2022 AND REDUCING FEES DUE TO PUBLIC PURPOSE OF GATHERING WHEREAS, on December 14, 2021, the City Council of the City of Mound approved Resolution 21-129 which adopted the 2022 Fee Schedule; and WHEREAS, the Fee Schedule sets the Public Gathering Permit Category I Location Fee at $300 per day and the Damage Deposit at $500 per day; and WHEREAS, Abracadabra Environmental Services submitted a Public Gathering Permit application for a community and park clean up event being held on Fri., April 22, 2022 and includes use of the Mound Depot and Surfside and Beach from 9am to Noon (excluding set up and tear down activities. A Mound Depot Rental Agreement was also submitted; and WHEREAS, City Staff has reviewed said applications and has recommended reasonable conditions to protect the public's investment in its public parks and common areas as set forth in a staff memorandum to the City Council dated April 6, 2022 and ("Conditions"); and WHEREAS, the City Manager and City Staff desire to waive a portion of said fees and to charge a reduced fee for the special event because it is a public celebration that benefits the community as a whole, it requires an extremely limited amount of city expenditures, and the primary objective of the event is not to benefit a private interest but rather to showcase the economic, recreational, and residential opportunities and amenities located within the City of Mound as a whole and within the geographic area of the proposed public gathering. follows: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound as The recitals set forth above are incorporated into this Resolution. The reduced fee of $125 plus $350 damage deposit for the special event is in the public interest due to the overwhelming public benefits. The damage deposit is waived. The permits for the community and parks clean up event are approved with Conditions. 707 Passed by the City Council this 12'h day of April, 2022. Mayor Raymond J. Salazar Attest: Kevin Kelly, City Clerk Cl Y OF MOUND 2415 1 VILSHIRE BLVD. )UND MINNESOTA 55364 Use of a public park or commons by any Use is not to interfere with traffic and g ability of the police in maintaining order. BUILDINGS. Group is to remove all litter and trash area. *"tv_ s4 k& Category I Locations: Pa , Grc PERMIT FEE: $300/DAY consisting of 15 or more individuals. use of the park or commons or to be beyond the I provide ad�eposit toXlinsu�rQ�le cleaning up of the park VC ,A 4 Qom, way, Centerview Park and Parking Deck LMAGE DEPOSIT: $500/DAY Category II Locations:5�01Mr arks (neigh orhoods, veteran's parks PERMIT FEE: $50/DAY D GE DEP SIT: $200/DAY A Certificate of Insurance naming tl Insured is required with respect to the Date(s) of Use OL1- Area to be Used SAt bps, b $ D44.� Time Frame yQ,,,, _ , Intended Use b(_0 Expected Attendance �j-9 b Organization A6,,, 1(-. a,; L n. Representative's Name I Address Derr Telephone No. Daytime: 61A- i E-Mail:r�ev!(�abvlracl��„ Departmental Approval City Clerk 0 City of Mound as Certificate Holder/Additional ty's ownership of the public lands. tv-sv' �_ 4w, ork: 0330 Police Dept. Works Fire 710 CI OF MOUND An DEPOT R NTAL AGREEMENT �P..., 2415 Wilshir Blvd, Mound, MN 55364 Phone 95242-0603, Fax 952-472-0620 EN AL INFORMATION (Renter must t e a minimum of 25 years old) Name(s)e Organization (if applicable)_ Address: -4 Yd, Cow,wc b(vj, Mo d pW 5S3 6 Daytime Phone_ 70 - 53 7 - 0 330 Email Add Event Type Date '4.. ra Evening/Weekend Phone �U-770-5600 of Attendees Event Time d ` 0o- 1K0o (Rental period is from 7:00 am to Midnight, all set-up (without prior approval) and clean-up must be completed during this ti e. Maximum building capacity is 141 persons) Comments: Mee� & s .. f fi4e , cL11c F►i bk�e s an,o/,e s. „f'cY&Z"v Al 1— . .1 4, If (&— A. /I Rental Fee: Mound Residents for private $ 125.00/day October -April $ 150.00/day May-Septemb( Non -Mound Residents for pr Damage & $400.00 - Require $350.00 i Cleaning Deposit will be held by the C Cancellation: $50 of the rental fee is refuni notice. Rental fee and signed agreeme required on back *** FEES . (i.e., parties, receptions, showers, etc.) use and Non -Local Non -Profit Groups eyc.1 4, f b l` c a check and $50.00 Cash—' of Mound until after your rental. �d if reservation canceled with less than 30 days must be received before the date will be al for your use. For Office Use Only: Rental Fee: $ Receipt # Date Received Deposit: $ Check $ Cash $ Date Returned Key # Date Picked -up Date Returned Comments: Inspected By: 711 2415 Wilshire Boulevard Mound, MN 55364 (952) 472-0604 MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Sarah Smith, Community Development Director Date: April 6, 2022 Re: Consent Agenda Item for April 12, 2022 Meeting— Family Fun Day and Island Park Village Hall Project Fundraiser at Swenson Park Overview. Shelly Zimmerschied submitted a Public Gathering Permit for a family fun day and fundraiser for the Island Park Village Hall remodel project and use of Swenson Park on Saturday, May 21, 2022 from 2:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. Details. • The special event is being held as a fundraiser for the Island Park Village Hall renovation project and includes family fun activities including, but not limited to, yard games, pony rides, an Island Park Village Hall project informational table, a selfie station, crafts, a book vendor and a food truck. The applicant submitted a preliminary site plan with the application. Staff recommends waiver of the permit fees and damage deposit due to overwhelming public benefits. • Staff notified the Orono Police Department, the Public Works Department and the Mound Fire Department about this event. Staff also notified affected public agencies about the event (i.e., Three Rivers Park District Hennepin County Transportation Department etc.). Recommendation. Staff recommends approval of the requested permits subject to the following conditions: 1. Applicant shall be responsible for procurement of all required local and public agency permits that are needed to hold the event. 2. Applicant shall work with the Orono Police Department, the Mound Fire Department (MFD) and the Public Works Department, as needed, regarding logistics for the upcoming event including, but not limited to, equipment and personnel needs, site set-up and staging, traffic/pedestrian control and circulation, road closure needs, etc. Applicant is responsible for payment of fees for public safety or public services that may apply. 3. Amplified music, speakers and PA/sound systems are to be directed in the direction best suited to minimize impact upon neighbors. 712 4. Placement of any and/or all temporary signs shall be subject to regulations contained in City Code Chapter 119 and may include issuance of a permit and payment of the required fee. 5. No signage can be placed upon private property unless permission from the private property owner and/or other interested party has been provided to the applicant who shall be responsible for obtaining same. 6. Signage placement is subject to review and approval by the City of Mound. No signage shall be placed in a location so as to affectvehicular and pedestrian traffic. The City of Mound reserves the right to modify sign placement in the field. 7. The submittal of a Certificate of Insurance, naming the City of Mound as an additional insured, is required and shall be provided prior to the release and issuance of the Public Gathering Permit and Musical Concert Permit. Required insurance and coverage shall be in accordance with the City's established policies. 8. If different from the application, contact information, including name and cell phone number, for the person(s) who will be on site the day of the event shall be provided prior to the release of the Public Gathering Permit. 9. Applicant is required to comply with the CDC guidelines for the COVID 19 pandemic and the Governor's Executive Order in effect at the time. A resolution, approving the permit application, subject to conditions, based on Staff's recommendation, has been prepared for Council's consideration. Staff recommends approval. • Page 2 713 CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION NO. 22- RESOLUTION APPROVING PUBLIC GATHERING PERMIT FOR FAMILY FUN DAY AND FUNDRAISER FOR ISLAND PARK VILLAGE HALL REMODEL PROJECT AND USE OF SWENSON PARK ON SATURDAY, MAY 21, 2022 AND WAIVING FEES DUE TO PUBLIC PURPOSE OF GATHERING WHEREAS, on December 14, 2021, the City Council of the City of Mound approved Resolution 21-129 which adopted the 2022 Fee Schedule; and WHEREAS, the Fee Schedule sets the Public Gathering Permit Category I Location Fee at $300 per day and the Damage Deposit at $500 per day; and WHEREAS, the Fee Schedule sets the temporary sign permit fee for a banner at $25; and WHEREAS, Shelly Zimmerschied submitted Public Gathering Permit and Outdoor Music Permit applications for a family fun day and fundraiser for the Island Park Village Hall remodel project and use of Swenson Park on Saturday, May 21, 2022 from 2:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.; and WHEREAS, City Staff has reviewed said applications and has recommended reasonable conditions to protect the public's investment in its public parks and common areas as set forth in a staff memorandum to the City Council dated April 6, 2022 and ("Conditions"); and WHEREAS, the City Manager and City Staff desire to waive a portion of said fees and to charge a reduced fee for the special event because it is a public celebration that benefits the community as a whole, it requires an extremely limited amount of city expenditures, and the primary objective of the event is not to benefit a private interest but rather to showcase the economic, recreational, and residential opportunities and amenities located within the City of Mound as a whole and within the geographic area of the proposed public gathering. follows: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound as The recitals set forth above are incorporated into this Resolution. Waiving the permit fees and damage deposit for the special event is in the public interest due to the overwhelming public benefits. The permits for the family fun day and fundraiser special event are approved with Conditions. 714 Passed by the City Council this 12'h day of April, 2022. Attest: Kevin Kelly, City Clerk Mayor Raymond J. Salazar 715 CITY OF MOUND 2415 WILSHIRE BLVD. MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 PUBLIC GATHERING PERMIT Use of a public park or commons by any group consisting of 15 or more individuals. Use is not to interfere with traffic and general use of the park or commons or to be beyond the ability of the police in maintaining order. NO LIQUOR OR BEER MAY BE USED IN ANY OF THE CITY PARKS OR BUILDINGS. Group is to remove all litter and trash and provide a deposit to insure cleaning up of the park area. Category I Locations: Surfside Park, Greenway, Centerview Park and Parking Deck PERMIT FEE: $300/DAY DAMAGE DEPOSIT: $500/DAY r Category II Locations: Other Parks (neighborhoods, veteran's parks) PERMIT FEE: $50/DAY , p DAMAGE DEPOSIT: $200/DAY 2,-00, ® _L) A Certificate of Insurance naming the City of Mound as Certificate Holder/Additional Insured is required with respect to the City's ownership of the public lands. Date(s) of Use Area to be Used _t) u) i Time Frame Intended Use I' 14 AA i 10 F Expected Attendance 1 Organization IV ; IIAat 1-�Aa ?p Representative's Name 1-DhfUL4 Address 1 Gt t� h► 1� `�% ►`� I Llro Telephone No. Daytime: �1`i�� -�Aa4 - Work: E-Mail: I Departmental Approval City Clerk Police Dept. Public Works Dept. Fire Dept. 716 h, sm. —=Ad _A6 x� J - �C+ f A ? �q6 N J � Q O = ti N v v � v O � Z F� b ly v- LL- s J 07 E All � O U On Street Parking Availability Wo '5eaees? Parking allowed . DnY aI K rS IAJe are. exp ecTl G1 I�� j i Ke W I, e n we had a- Cr1 i n i event ;n +he VH lot in November. 718 2415 Wilshire Boulevard Mound, MN 55364 (952)472-0604 Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Sarah Smith, Comm. Dev. Director Date: April 7, 2022 Re: Discussion/Action —Approving Restoration/Removal Agreement Regarding Hazardous Building at 3053 Brighton Boulevard Summary. The abatement action for the property at 2396 Commerce Boulevard that was previously approved by the Council under Res 21-58 was recently heard by the court. In the case, the Judge offered the owner the option to put the property on the market within prescribed timelines, and sell to owners more capable of addressing the magnitude of the issues with the property. The owner agreed to this and the Judge provided continuance of the matter to support. In working with the Judge toward a reasonable resolution of the matter, Staff and the City Attorney have prepared a Restoration/Removal Agreement as a mechanism to ensure the City hazard and abatement actions and expectation that the matter be promptly resolved survive the likely transfer of ownership from its sale. The Owner agreed with this request. The attached Restoration/Removal Agreement ("Agreement') was prepared by the City Attorney. The Agreement requires removal of the structure or restoration of the property, and includes timelines and requirements for either/or activities. The Agreement was reviewed and signed by the current owner and proposed purchase and included as an exhibit. A resolution has been prepared by the City Attorney to approve the Restoration/Removal Agreement for the hazardous building at 3053 Brighton Boulevard. Staff recommends approval of the draft resolution. 719 CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION NO.22- RESOLUTION APPROVING RESTORATION/REMOVAL AGREEMENT WITH REGARD TO THE HAZARDOUS BUILDING LOCATED AT 3053 BRIGHTON BOULEVARD IN THE CITY OF MOUND WHEREAS, Gary A. Field is the fee owner (the "Owner") of the property located at 3050 Brighton Boulevard, Mound, Minnesota and legally described as: Lot 14 in Block 15 and all of Lot 15, except the South 1/2 thereof in Block 15 of Arden. Hennepin County, Minnesota Torrens Property Certificate of Title No. 859425 (the "Property"); and WHEREAS, on June 8, 2021, the City Council passed Resolution No. 21-58, which concluded that the building on the Property is hazardous within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes, section 463.15 and authorized issuance of an order for abatement thereof, and WHEREAS, Resolution No. 21-58 and the City's Order for Abatement of a Hazardous Building (the "City Order") was personally served on the Owner on December 3, 2021, along with a Summons; and WHEREAS, the Owner seeks to sell the Property, and upon purchasing the Property, the purchaser ("Purchaser") proposes to either rehabilitate and restore the Property, or to demolish the building on the Property, within a timeline set forth in the Restoration/Removal Agreement and which would ultimately allow the Purchaser to rehabilitate and restore the Property by August 15, 2022, or in the alternative, to demolish the building on the Property no later than July 1, 2022; and WHEREAS, the closing on the purchase of the Property is scheduled for April 15, 2022, and the Owner and the Purchase have signed a Restoration/Removal Agreement that will be including as part of the closing on the Property; and WHEREAS, the City consents to the rehabilitation of the Property or the removal of the building on the Property without further court action on this matter subject to the terms of the Restoration/Removal Agreement; and WHEREAS, under the Restoration/Removal Agreement, the City may perform any outstanding work not completed pursuant to the terms of the agreement and may assess the costs for the work against the Property. 1 720 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound as follows: 1. The Restoration/Removal Agreement is approved. 2. The Mayor and City Manager are authorized to execute the Restoration/Removal Agreement. 3. The City Attorney and City staff are authorized to take all necessary legal steps to secure compliance with the Restoration/Removal Agreement. 4. The Mayor and City Manager are authorized to execute a release of the Restoration/Removal Agreement, a discharged of the Notice of Lis Pendens, and dismissal of the currently pending action in Hennepin County District Court (Court File No. 27-CV-21-15182) at the request of the City Attorney and City staff under the terms outlined in the Restoration/Removal Agreement providing for such a release. 5. The City Attorney and City staff are authorized to carry out the intent of this resolution. Adopted by the City Council this 121' day of April, 2022. ATTEST: Kevin Kelly, City Clerk Raymond J. Salazar, Mayor 2 721 Authenfisign ID 9D71C818F6B4EC11-997E501AC586CB79 RESTORATION/REMOVAL AGREEMENT This Restoration/Removal Agreement (the "Agreement') is entered into as of this day of , 2022, by and between the City of Mound, a Minnesota municipal corporation (the "City"), Gary Field (the "Owner") and (the "Purchaser"). The City, the Owner and the Purchaser shall be referred to collectively herein as the "Parties." RECITALS WHEREAS, Gary Field is the fee owner ("Owner") of certain real property located at 3053 Brighton Boulevard in the city of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota and legally described on the attached Exhibit A (the "Property"); WHEREAS, the Property contains a single-family dwelling (the "Dwelling"); WHEREAS, subsequent to an inspection by the City Building Official on November 19, 2020, a recommendation was made that prior to any occupation of the Dwelling, a structural analysis by a licensed engineer would be required, and the Owner had the option to repair or remove the Dwelling following issuance of all required permits and information; WHEREAS, on January 25, 2021, a letter was sent by certified mail to the Owner, which included reports for all inspections and which determined that (1) the Dwelling was in violation of and not in compliance with the City Code and the 2000 International Property Maintenance Code, which the City has adopted and enforces, (2) the certificate of occupancy for the Building was revoked in accordance with Minnesota Rule, 1300.0220, subpart 7, (3) the Dwelling was posted as an unsafe structure on January 25, 2021, and (4) the Dwelling was being declared an unsafe structure and was therefore a hazardous property under Minnesota Rule 1300.0180 and Minnesota Statutes, section 463.15. The letter further identified the following City Code violations: Sections 303.5 (foundation walls), 303.7 (roofs and drainage), 303.11 (chimney and towers), 303.13.1 (glazing), 304.1 (interior structure), 304.2 (structural members), 304.3 (interior surfaces), 504.1 (plumbing systems and fixtures), 601.2 (general) and 604.3 (electrical system hazards); 1 722 Authenfisign ID 9D71C818F6B4EC11-997E501AC586CB79 WHEREAS, on June 8, 2021, the City Council passed Resolution No. 21-58 (the "Resolution") declaring the Dwelling located on the Property to be a hazardous building within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes Section 463.15; WHEREAS, the Resolution authorized the issuance of an order for abatement of the hazardous building on the Property within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes Section 463.15; WHEREAS, the Resolution and the City's Order for Abatement of a Hazardous Building dated November 24, 2021 (the "City Order") was personally served on the Owner on December 3, 2021 along with a Summons; WHEREAS, the City recorded a notice of lis pendens against the Property on January 12, 2022 with the Hennepin County Office of the Registrar of Titles (Doc. No. 5914455); WHEREAS, the City initiated legal action enforce the City Order in Hennepin County District Court on December 15, 2021 (Court File No. 27-CV-21-15182); WHEREAS, the Owner now seeks to sell the Property, upon the condition that the Purchaser will abate and rehabilitate the Property, or that the Dwelling will be demolished or removed from the Property; WHEREAS, the Owner and the Purchaser have entered a purchase agreement for the Property with a closing date of April 2022; and WHEREAS, by entering into this Agreement, the Parties wish to facilitate the abatement of the Dwelling and to avoid further court action on this matter pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 463.151, subject to the terms of this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises set forth in this Agreement, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are acknowledged by the parties to this Agreement, the City and the Owner agree as follows: AGREEMENT 1. Recitals. The Parties agree that the foregoing Recitals are true and correct and are fully incorporated into this Agreement. 2. The Property. The Parties agree and acknowledge that the present condition of the Property and the Dwelling violates numerous provisions of the City Code and is hazardous, as that term is defined by Minnesota Statutes Section 463.15. The Owner represents that he owns the Property and that the Owner has the authority to enter into this Agreement. 3. Abatement of the Property. The Purchaser, at its own cost and expense, agrees to undertake all work necessary to bring the Property in compliance with City Code (the "Work") and in accordance with the following requirements and timeline: 11 723 Authenfisign ID 9D71C818F6B4EC11-997E501AC586CB79 a. On or before May 15, 2022, the Purchaser shall provide notice to the City, in writing, as to whether it will (1) demolish and remove the Dwelling on the Property or (2) rehabilitate and abate the Property as set forth in this Agreement. b. In the event the Purchaser determines that it will demolish and remove the Dwelling on the Property, the following requirements and timeline shall apply: i. The Purchaser shall submit a building permit application for the demolition and removal of the Dwelling to the City on or before June 1, 2022; ii. The demolition and removal of the Dwelling shall be completed on or before July 1, 2022; iii. Demolition and removal shall include (1) the removal of all structures and foundations/footings on the Property, (2) the backfill of all open holes, (3) and the removal of all garbage and debris from the Property; iv. The Purchaser shall provide and maintain sediment control on the Property during the project and shall reestablish grade and establish and maintain weed free ground cover; V. The Purchaser hereby authorizes the City to inspect the Property on or before July 1, 2022 to ensure that the Work has been completed and is in compliance with City Code. C. In the event the Purchaser determines that it will rehabilitate and abate the Property, the following requirements and timeline shall apply: i. On or before May 1, 2022, remove all accumulations of rubbish on the Property; ii. On or before May 1, 2022, test for mold and remediate any mold present in the Dwelling on the Property; iii. On or before May 15, 2022, allow the City's Building Official to inspect the interior of the Dwelling on the Property to identify all code violations and provide a list of all interior deficiencies that will need to be remedied; iv. On or before May 15, 2022, prepare a structural analysis to be completed by a licensed engineer; V. On or before June 15, 2022, obtain permits and begin work on needed repairs according to the City's Building Official's assessment, including needed structural repairs; and vi. On or before August 15, 2022, the Purchaser hereby authorizes the City to inspect the Property to ensure that the Work has been completed and is in compliance with City Code, including, if necessary, the repair or replacement of all faulty mechanical, plumbing and electrical systems, the repair or replacement of all damaged walls, ceilings, and subfloors, and the proper insulation of all walls, ceilings and floors. Inspections by the City will take place when necessary, as determined by the City's Building Official, during the course of the rehabilitation and abatement. 3 724 Authenfisign ID 9D71C818F6B4EC11-997E501AC586CB79 d. In the event the Purchaser fails to provide the written notice set forth in paragraph 3. a. above, the Purchaser shall demolish and remove the Dwelling on the Property in accordance with the requirements and timeline set forth in paragraph 3. b. above. e. In the event the Purchaser does not purchase the Property, the Owner shall demolish and remove the Dwelling on the Property in accordance with the requirements and timeline set forth in paragraph 3. b. above. 4. Performance. So long as the Owner and Purchaser comply with the terms of this Agreement, the City agrees that it will not enforce the City Order, will discharge the notice of lis pendens against the Property, will dismiss the currently pending action in court without prejudice (Court File No. 27-CV-21-15182) and will record a release of this Agreement with Hennepin County. If the Owner or Purchaser fails to comply with this Agreement, then the Owner and Purchaser agree that the City may immediately perform any of the Work outstanding, including removal or demolition of the Dwelling, and assess its costs as set forth in paragraph 5 of this Agreement without the need for further action or approval by the court. If the Owner and Purchaser complete the Work as provided herein, there shall be no additional amounts owed to the City other than any cost to obtain the permits required to complete the Work. 5. Special Assessment of City Expenses, Waiver. If the Owner or Purchaser fails to complete the Work as set forth in paragraph 3, the City is authorized, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 463.21, 463.22 , the City Code, and this Agreement, to assess the reasonable and necessary expenses that it incurs to undertake the Work, which includes specifically, but not exclusively, demolition of the Dwelling, filing fees, service fees, publication fees, attorneys' fees, witness fees and traveling expenses (the "Expenses"). If the Owner or Purchaser fails to comply with the terms of this Agreement, then the Owner and Purchaser hereby waive their right to object to the City's assessment of 100 percent (100%) of the Expenses that have been incurred by the City. The Owner and Purchaser hereby further waive their right to appeal the levy of the special assessment pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.081, or reapportionment thereof upon land division pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.071, subdivision 3, or otherwise; and further specifically agrees with respect to such special assessment against the Property that: a. Any requirements of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429, with which the City does not comply are hereby waived by the Owner; b. The Owner and Purchaser's waiver of their right to object to the City's assessment of 100 percent of the Expenses against the Property as outlined above is reasonable, fair and equitable and there are no other properties against which the Expenses should be assessed; and C. It is the intention of the City to assess and such special assessment in the year 2023 to provide for the payment in one annual installment in the year 2023, with interest at the annual rate of eight percent (8%) accruing from the date of the assessment hearing. 4 725 Authenfisign ID 9D71C818F6B4EC11-997E501AC586CB79 6. Right of Entry. (a) The Owner and Purchaser hereby grant to the City, and its agents, employees, contractors, and invitees, the right to immediately enter upon the Property and the Dwelling contained thereon for the purpose of conducting all activities on the Property necessary to accomplish the Work, which may include demolishing the Dwelling, in accordance with this Agreement, for the further purpose of storing materials, equipment, and other items thereon which are needed in connection with the said work, and for the purpose of inspecting the Property and the Dwelling to determine compliance with this Agreement. (b) The right of entry outlined herein shall expire upon completion of the Work, including removing or demolishing the Dwelling, and final inspection by the City of the Work. (c) In consideration for such right of entry, the City agrees to use the Property only for the purposes described herein and will do no unnecessary damage to the land. 7. Indemnification, Waiver of Claims. The Owner and Purchaser agree to indemnify, hold harmless, and defend the City, its officials, employees, contractors, and agents from and against any and all liability, loss, costs, damages, expenses, claims, actions, or judgments, including reasonable attorneys' fees which they, or their agents or contractors may hereinafter sustain, incur, or be required to pay, arising out of or by reason of this Agreement. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as a waiver by the City of any immunities, defenses, or other limitations on liability to which the City is entitled by law, including but not limited to the maximum monetary limits on liability established by Minnesota Statutes Chapter 466 or otherwise. Should the City complete any of the Work, which may include demolishing the Dwelling, in accordance with this Agreement, the Owner and Purchaser waive any and all claims against the City for the removal or destruction of any and all personal items. As part of this waiver, the Owner and Purchaser knowingly acknowledge and agree that none of the items that remain inside of the Dwelling have value, nor are they salvageable and, accordingly, the City may dispose of said items and need not make any attempt to salvage or sell said items. 8. General Provisions. This Agreement represents the entire agreement between the Parties and supersedes in all respects all prior agreements of the Parties, whether written or otherwise, with respect to the Property and the Dwelling. No change, modification or waiver of any provisions of this Agreement will be binding unless it is in writing and signed by the Parties. This Agreement shall be construed according to the laws of the state of Minnesota. 9. Execution in Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed and delivered in multiple counterparts, each of which, when so delivered, shall be an original, but such counterparts shall together constitute but one and the same instrument and agreement. 5 726 Authenfisign ID 9D71C818F6B4EC11-997E501AC586CB79 10. Run with the Land. The provisions of this Agreement shall run with the land and be binding upon the Parties and their respective heirs, successors, and assigns. 11. Recording. The City may record this Agreement against the Property in the land records of Hennepin County. It is the intent of the Parties that this Agreement is in a form which is recordable among the land records and the Parties agree to make any changes to this Agreement as may be necessary to effectuate the recording and filing of this Agreement against the Property. 12. No Occupancy. The Property is presently unoccupied, and the Owner and Purchaser agree not to occupy the Property or otherwise allow occupancy until the Work occurs abating or eliminating the Dwelling on the Property. 13. Severability. If any term, provision, or condition contained in this Agreement shall, to any extent, be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement (or the application of such term, provision, or condition to persons or circumstances other than those in respect to which it is invalid or unenforceable) shall not be affected, and each term, provision, or condition of this Agreement shall be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law. 14. Compliance with Laws and Regulations. In performing all obligations contained herein, the Parties must abide by all applicable federal, state, and local statutes, ordinances, rules, and regulations. 15. Permits. The Owner and Purchaser shall apply for all necessary permits from the City, to include all required information, for any of the work necessary to abate the hazardous conditions or otherwise described in this Agreement. This Agreement is neither a substitute for, nor a waiver of, the City's permitting and inspection requirements. If the Owner and Purchaser meet the conditions to obtain permits, the City will not withhold or otherwise interfere with the Owner or Purchaser's ability to obtain permits. For any necessary permits issued by the City, the City will charge the normally applicable permitting fees as reflected in the City's Building Code Fee Schedule, which includes fees for building permits, inspections, and special investigations for work done without a permit. Any future permitting fees for the Property will be charged in accordance with the City's Building Code Fee Schedule. If the time period from the date the Owner submits all necessary permits to complete the Work until the Owner receives approval of those permits is longer than two weeks, the City agrees to grant to the Owner an extension of two weeks upon written request for such extension from the Owner. 16. Force Majeure. The Owner and the Purchaser shall not be held responsible for delay or failure to perform under this Agreement due to any of the following uncontrollable circumstances, unless the act or occurrence could have been foreseen and reasonable action could have been taken to prevent the delay or failure: fire; flood; epidemic; strikes; wars; acts of God; or acts of public authorities; provided the Owner or Purchaser gives written notice as soon as possible to the City of the inability to perform and an explanation of the reasons. Upon written notice by the Owner or Purchaser, the Owner, Purchaser and City agree to confer within 10 business days and determine a new deadline for completion of the Work. If a matter arising 6 727 Authenfisign ID 9D71C818F6B4EC11-997E501AC586CB79 under this paragraph is unable to be resolved within twenty (20) days, any party may terminate this Agreement upon ten (10) days' written notice. 17. Termination of Agreement. This Agreement shall terminate upon the earlier date of either the Owner or Purchaser's satisfactory completion of the Work in accordance with paragraph 3, or, if the City undertakes any of the Work, upon final payment of the special assessment levied against the Property regarding said work. Upon termination of this Agreement, the City shall thereafter execute and deliver such documents, in recordable form, that are necessary to extinguish the rights hereunder. 18. Attorney Representation. The Parties acknowledge that they have been represented by counsel in connection with the execution of this Agreement or have had sufficient time to consult legal counsel and intend that no rules construing provisions of this Agreement against the position of the drafter shall be applied. The Parties further represent and declare that in executing this document they have relied solely upon their own judgment, belief and knowledge, or the advice and recommendation of their own independently selected counsel, and that they have not been influenced to any extent whatsoever in executing this document by any representations or statements except those expressly contained or referred to in this Agreement. 19. Authority. Any person signing this Agreement in a representative capacity represents and warrants by signing this Agreement that it is the signer's intent to bind the principal being represented to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, that the signer has been authorized to bind the principal to the terms and conditions, and that it is the intent of the principal to be so bound. [Remainder ofpage intentionally left blank] 7 728 Authenfisign ID 9D71C818F6B4EC11-997E501AC586CB79 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Agreement to be duly executed in their names and on their behalf on or as of the dates indicated herein. THE CITY: By: Raymond J. Salazar, Mayor By: Eric Hoversten, City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 12022, by Raymond J. Salazar and Eric Hoversten, the mayor and city manager, respectively, of the city of Mound, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the city. Notary Public 729 Authentisign ID: 9D71C818-F6B4-EC11-997E-501AC586CB79 STATE OF NIlNNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN GARY FIELD By: [Authe tisiGn Gary F e/a( 04/05/22 Gary Field ss. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of by Gary Field, owner. Notary Public 2021, 9 730 Authentisign ID: 9D71C818-F6B4-EC11-997E-501AC586CB79 [PURCHASER] hu By: [L�Ah W Huhter 04/05/22 CAuthen- 1 A I's 9 1 utilihh x rfusiter 04/05/22 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 12022, by , purchaser. THIS INSTRUMENT DRAFTED BY: Kennedy & Graven, Chartered 700 Fifth Street Towers 150 South Fifth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 (612) 337-9300 Notary Public 10 731 Authenfisign ID 9D71C818F6B4EC11-997E501AC586CB79 EXHIBIT A Legal Description of the Property Lot 14 in Block 15 and all of Lot 15, except the South 1/z thereof in Block 15 of Arden. Hennepin County, Minnesota Torrens Property Certificate of Title No. 859425 732 n ©8 an of Mouno_ MIN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TO: Planning Commission FROM: Sarah Smith, Community Development Director and Rita Trapp, HKGI Planning Consultant DATE: April 7, 2022 PLANNING CASE NO. 22-01 SUBJECT: Variance— Front Setback for House Addition and Expansion Permit for House Additions APPUCANT: J. Brothers Design/Building/Remodel OWNER: Jim Ebsen LOCATION: 6041 Ridgewood Road MEETING DATE: April 12, 2022 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Low Density Residential ZONING: R-1 Single Family Residential BACKGROUND The Planning Commission, at its April S'" meeting, reviewed the requests submitted by J. Brothers Design/Build/Remodel, on behalf of the property owner, Jim Ebsen, including a variance application requesting approval to allow a reduced front setback for a single level, covered front porch addition to be constructed on the front (north) side of the existing house at 6041 Ridgewood Road that does not meet the required 30-foot front setback and an expansion permit to allow for additions on the west and east sides that will expand the footprint but not change the current, nonconforming setbacks. STAFF/CONSULTANT/AGENCY REVIEW Copies of the requests and supporting materials were forwarded to involved City Departments and affected public agencies for review and comment. No objections or concerns were received as of the writing of the Planning Report. NOTIFICATION Adjacent property owners of the subject site, per Hennepin County tax records, were mailed a letter on April 7th to inform them of the City Council's consideration of the applications at its April 12'" meeting and that the matter was being included on the Consent Agenda. 733 Planning Commission Review and Recommendation The Planning Commission reviewed the variance request at their April 5th. Draft minutes have been prepared and included as an attachment to the Executive Summary Report. Representatives from J.Brothers and Jim Ebsen, the property owner, were present at the meeting. Gene Peterson, an adjacent property owner, was present at the meeting and expressed his support for the project and applications. J.Brothers explained the proposed project including the proposed additions and indicated that the height of the addition would be similar to the existing roof line excluding the top portion of the gable; also that the house was getting a new roof and building exterior. Staff's recommendation was for approval for the variance and expansion permit, to include findings and conditions. Recommendation Given Staff and the Planning Commission recommendation for approval, the attached resolution has been prepared for your consideration and includes a recommended edit, shown in strikeout/underlined form, on page 3 of the resolution to include both the 1 and 2 story project additions. 734 RESOLUTION NO. 22- RESOLUTION APPROVING VARIANCE AND EXPANSON PERMIT FOR 6041 RIDGEWOOD ROAD WHEREAS, the applicant, J. Brothers Design/Build/Remodel, on behalf of the property owner, Jim Ebsen, submitted a variance application requesting approval to allow a reduced front setback for house addition to be constructed on the front (north) side of the existing house at 6041 Ridgewood Road that does not meet the required 30-foot front setback as part of a house remodel project. Additionally, the applicant submitted an expansion permit request for the house remodel project and additions on the west and east sides that will expand the footprint but not change the current, non -conforming setbacks; and WHEREAS, the property is located in the R-1 single-family residential zoning district; and WHEREAS, City Code Section 129-39 (a) outlines the criteria for granting variances which is provided below: (a) Criteria. A variance to the provisions of this chapter may be granted, but is not mandated, to provide relief to the landowner in those zones where this chapter imposes practical difficulties to the property owner in the use of the owner's land. No use variances may be granted. A variance may be granted only in the event that the following circumstances exist: (1) The variance proposed meets the criteria for Practical Difficulties as defined in City Code Sub. 129-2. (2) Granting of the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this chapter to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the same district nor be materially detrimental to property within the same zone. (3) The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the practical difficulty. (4) A variance shall only be permitted when it is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance and when the terms of the variance are consistent with the comprehensive plan. -1ii: WHEREAS, according to City Code Sec. 129-2, "Practical Difficulties" is defined as follows: Practical Difficulties, as used in conjunction with a variance, means that: (i) The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance; 735 (ii) The plight of the landowner is due to circumstance unique to the property including unusual lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances not created by the landowner; and (iii) The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. ; and WHEREAS, City Code Section 129-40 (a) states that an expansion permit for a nonconforming structure may be granted to provide relief to the landowner where the application of the City Code imposes practical difficulties. In determining whether practical difficulties exist, the City Council shall evaluate the following criteria: (1) the proposed expansion is a reasonable use of the property considering: a. function and aesthetics of the expansion. b. absence of adverse off -site impacts such as from traffic, noise, odors and dust. c. adequacy of off-street parking. (2) exceptional or extraordinary circumstances justifying the expansion are unique to the property and result from lot size or shape, topography, or other circumstances over which the owners of the property since enactment of this chapter have had no control. (3) the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. (4) the expansion would not adversely affect or alter the essential character of the neighborhood. (5) the expansion requested is the minimum needed ; and WHEREAS, details regarding the requested variance and expansion permit for the proposed project are contained in the Planning Report for the April 5, 2022 Planning Commission meeting and the submitted application and supporting materials from the applicant; and WHEREAS, Staff recommended approval of the variance and expansion permit subject to conditions and to include findings of fact; and WHEREAS, the variance and expansion permit were reviewed by the Planning Commission at its April 5, 2022 meeting; and 736 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended Council approval of the variance and expansion permit, as recommended by Staff; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the variance and expansion permit requests at its April 12, 2022 meeting and determined that approval would allow the property to be used in a reasonable manner: and WHEREAS, the City Council's decision on the variance and expansion permit applications was made within the timelines included in Minnesota Statutes 15.99; and WHEREAS, in granting approval of the variance, the City Council makes the following findings of fact: The criteria of City Code Section 129-39 (a) are being met. 2. Improvements to the residential use of this property are in keeping with how it is zoned and guided in the comprehensive plan and will not change the existing neighborhood character. 3. It is reasonable to desire a covered, front porch entry area. WHEREAS, in granting approval of the expansion permit, the City Council makes the following findings of facts: The criteria of City Code Section 129-39 (a) are being met. 2. Improvements to the residential use of this property are in keeping with how it is zoned and guided in the comprehensive plan and will not change the existing neighborhood character. 3. It is reasonable to desire a covered, front porch entry area. 4. It is reasonable to expand to construct a eae-ste4y-additions to the home's living area while maintaining the existing setbacks. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound does hereby approve the variance and expansion permit and does incorporate and restate the recitals set forth above and approve the variance and expansion permit for a house remodel/additions project at 6041 Ridgewood Road for the property described in Exhibit A, with the following conditions: Applicant shall be responsible for payment of all costs associated with the land use request. 2. No approval of any future development plans and/or building permits is included as part of this action 3. Applicant shall provide all required information upon submittal of the building permit application. 737 4. Proposed / post construction hardcover on the property shall not exceed 40 percent for a lot of record with the project unless lawful, nonconforming in which case the current the current amount must not be increased 5. Applicant shall be responsible for procurement of any and/or all local or public agency permits including, but not limited to, the submittal of all required information prior to building permit issuance. 6. The applicant shall be responsible for recording the resolution with Hennepin County. The applicant is advised that the resolution will not be released for recording until all conditions have been met. The applicant may also direct the City to record the resolution with the fee(s) to be taken out of the escrow. 7. No building permit will be issued until evidence of recording of the resolution at Hennepin County is provided unless an escrow of sufficient amount is on file with the city. 8. The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) is the regulatory authority for rules and permitting for wetlands, floodplain, erosion control and shoreline stabilization. These rules are now under the jurisdiction of the MCWD as regulatory authority and Applicant is directed to contact the MCWD related to the new regulations and applicable permits that may be needed to undertake the proposed project. Evidence from the MCWD in the form of a permit or waiver must be provided before release of any future building permit. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, the City Council's approval of the variance and expansion permit requests is based on information contained in the record including but not limited to, the applicant's request and submitted information, the Planning Report, and the Planning Commission's review and recommendation. Adopted by the City Council this 12T" day of April, 2022. Attest: Kevin Kelly, Clerk Raymond J. Salazar, Mayor 738 Lot 6, Block 21, THE HIGHLANDS Hennepin County, Minnesota Exhibit A 739 MINUTE EXCERPTS - DRAFT MOUND PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 5, 2022 Vice Chair Baker called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. ROLL CALL Members present: Vice Chair Jason Baker, Kevin Castellano, Jon Ciatti, Samantha Erickson, Jason Holt, Allen Andersen Staff present: Sarah Smith and Secretary Jen Holmquist. Members of the public: Jim Ebsen, 6041 Ridgewood Road, Mike and Carrie Johnson, 10025 County Road 115, Corcoran, Gene Peterson 6033 Ridgewood Road BOARD OF APPEALS Planning Case No. 22-01 Review/recommendation of variance and expansion permit requests for house remodel/additions project at 6041 Ridgewood Road Applicant: J Brothers Design I Build I Remodel, on behalf of property owner Jim Ebsen Smith presented the case. The request includes a request for a front yard set back variance and an expansion permit for alterations to the existing structure, which has non -conforming setbacks with additions that will expand those conditions. Smith provided a graphic of the property boundaries. She shared that neighboring properties are single family homes. The subject property has frontage on Ridgewood Road and sits on Lake Minnetonka with private lake frontage. The current setback on a previous attached garage addition is close to the Ridgewood Road. This is an existing condition and it was approved for a variance a few years prior. The existing side set backs are deficient but is an existing condition. This application does not seek to expand the deficiencies along the east or the west elevation. The corner of the existing and the expansion of current conditions can be authorized with an expansion permit. The proposed addition will be closer to the set back so a variance is needed. The existing conditions make it difficult to remain in the setback. The variance will be less than the minimum 30 foot requirement but there is some distance between the property line and the curb of the road. additional footage in front of the road. Smith showed the house from the elevations and the street view as it will look with the expansion. She also provided a graphic of the proposed addition from the lake side and how it will look from each neighboring property. 740 Planning Commission Minutes - Draft The application was routed to staff and consulting agencies and no comments were received. Notification was provided to adjacent and neighboring property owners. Staff finds proposed conditions to be acceptable. The entry addition is modest and the applicant is attempting to minimize the nonconformance. Staff recommends approval with conditions and findings of fact, as outlined. Smith asked for questions from the planning commissioners. Saystrom asks if the impervious hardcover will remain the same. Smith noted the application shows existing hardcover at 39.3%the property is under allowed amount and must remain under 40%. If the project is over, post construction, it will need to be modified to conform to that requirement. Baker asked for clarification on what's included in the expansion permit. Smith said it's for the west side setback for the foyer, the attached covered porch, expanding to a second story, as well as the east side expansion of the great room. Baker asked about the previous variance when the homeowner expanded a garage. Smith explained that variance was for that project only. Existing condition, including the garage is 4.9 feet front setback. This improvement will not be the required 30 feet, it is less than that previous approved improvement, being a little more than 27 feet. Baker asked if the applicant would like to speak. Jim Ebsen — 6041 Ridgewood Road, Homeowner. He thanks the commissioners for their consideration. He is hopeful that he can operate within the setbacks, where able. He noted the improvement won't expand any further into the setback than the current deck does. The foyer addition will allow for interior remodel to improve movability through the home. This is a covered patio. Carrie Johnson — 10025 County Road 115, Corcoran: JBrothers Design -Smith asked Johnson to outline what is currently there for height. Johnson noted the peak will be a little taller than what is existing but will match what is there. Smith noted with how the measurements are taken at the mid -point it may actually be smaller. Gene Peterson — 6033 Ridgewood Road. He is in support of this project. The original structure was built in 1929. It was a small cabin. The structure has been modified several times. The add- ons make the layout of the home feel chopped up. He believes this the roof lines are horrible because of these previous add-ons and he believes this project will correct that. He hopes the commissioners will approve the project. Smith asked the contractor to show what will people see during construction. Johnson outlines on the graphic how the improvements will make the project look. 741 Planning Commission Minutes - Draft Baker asked for additional questions. Hearing none, he asked for a motion. MOTION by Saystrom to recommend City Council approval of the expansion permit and variance, subject to conditions and findings of fact; seconded by Andersen. MOTION carries unanimously. 742 MIN ciiv of Mouno ©e PLANNING REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Sarah Smith, Community Development Director and Rita Trapp, HKGI Planning Consultant DATE: March 31, 2022 PLANNING CASE NO. 22-01 SUBJECT: Variance— Front Setback for House Addition and Expansion Permit for House Additions APPUCANT: J. Brothers Design/Building/Remodel OWNER: Jim Ebsen LOCATION: 6041 Ridgewood Road MEETING DATE: April S, 2022 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Low Density Residential ZONING: R-1 Single Family Residential BACKGROUND The property owner/applicant, J. Brothers Design/Build/Remodel, on behalf of the property owner, Jim Ebsen, submitted a variance application requesting approval to allow a reduced front setback for a singlelevel, covered front porch addition to be constructed on the front (north) side of the existing house at 6041 Ridgewood Road that does not meet the required 30-foot front setback. Additionally, the applicant submitted an expansion permit request to allow for additions on the west and east sides that will expand thefootprint but not changethe current, nonconforming setbacks. REVIEW PROCEDURE Variance City Code Section 12939 (a) states that a variance may be granted to provide relief to a landowner where the application of the City Code imposes practical difficulty forthe property owner. In evaluating the variance the City Council must consider whether. (1) The variance proposed meets the criteria for Practical Difficulties as defined in City Code Sub. 129-2. (2) Granting of the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this chapter to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the same district nor be materially detrimental to property within the same zone. 743 (3) The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the practical difficulty. (4) A variance shall only be permitted when it is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance and when the terms of the variance are consistent with the comprehensive plan. According to City Code Sec. 129-2, 'Practical Difficulties" is defined as follows: Practical Difficulties, as used in conjunction with a variance, means that: (i) The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance; (ii) The plight of the landowner is due to circumstance unique to the property including unusual lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances not created by the landowner; and (iii) The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Expansion Permit City Code Section 129-40 (a) states that an expansion permit for a nonconforming structure may be granted to provide relief to the landowner where the application of the City Code imposes practical difficulties. In determining whether practical difficulties exist, the City Council shall evaluate the following criteria: (1) the proposed expansion is a reasonable use of the property considering: a. function and aesthetics of the expansion. b. absence of adverse off -site impacts such as from traffic, noise, odors and dust. c. adequacy of off-street parking. (2) exceptional or extraordinary circumstances justifying the expansion are unique to the property and result from lot size or shape, topography, or other circumstances over which the owners of the property since enactment of this chapter have had no control. (3) the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. (4) the expansion would not adversely affect or alter the essential character of the neighborhood. (5) the expansion requested is the minimum needed. 60-DAY PROCESS Pursuant to Minnesota statutes 15.99, the City of Mound has sixty (60) days to approve or deny the land use request unless an extension is executed by the City in accordance with state rules. Minnesota statutes 645.15 sets forth the procedures for determining "Day 1" for the purpose of application of the 744 60-day rule. "Day 1" for the variance was determined to be March 8, 2022 and "Day 1" for the expansion permit was determined to be February 26, 2022. STAFF/CONSULTANT/AGENCY REVIEW Copies of the requests and supporting materials were forwarded to involved City Departments and affected public agencies for review and comment. No objections or concerns were received as of the writing of the Planning Report. NOTIFICATION Adjacent property owners of the subject site, per Hennepin County tax records, were mailed a letter on March 301' to inform them of the Planning Commission's review of the applications at its April 5"' meeting. SITE INFORMATION AND DISCUSSION 1. The property is generally described at Lot 21, Block 6, the Highlands. 2. The existing lot of record, totaling approximately 8,785 square feet, includes improved road frontage on Ridgewood Road and private lakeshore frontage on Lake Minnetonka. Topography on the lot slopes downward from north to south to the Lake. Per Hennepin County property tax information, the house was constructed in 1925. 3. The property previously received variance approval for a house and garage addition that was constructed in 2003. The garage is side -loaded and located 4.9 feet from the front property line. 4. The front entrance of the house is located 40 feet from the front property line, which is greater than the required setback of 30 feet. The historic side yard setbacks are 7.1 feet on the west and 5.9 feet on the east, which are under the required setbacks of 10 feet and 6 feet. The house is more than 77 feet from the OHWM of 929.4 for Lake Minnetonka. 4. The property owner is proposing to remodel the existing home and construct the following additions: Front - 2-story foyer addition that is 20 feet by 9 feet (180 square feet) Front - a one-story covered porch addition that is 20 feet by 5 feet (100 square feet) Rear/East — a two-story great room expansion that is 12.5 feet by 3.5 feet (43.75 square feet) 5. The requested variance, if approved, would allow a setback of 27 feet, 8 inches for the proposed addition to the front of the house. The other additions proposed will maintain but not expand the current nonconforming setbacks. 6. Proposed hardcover on the property shall be under the 40 percent maximum allowed hardcover for a "lot of record." Due to seasonal conditions, hardcover on the property has not been field verified. Post construction hardcover on the subject site must be at or below the 40 percent allowance as allowed by code or not exceed the existing lawful, nonconforming hardcover amount. 745 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval of the expansion permit and variance, for this site subject to the following conditions: 1. Applicant shall be responsible for payment of all costs associated with the land use request. 2. No approval of any future development plans and/or building permits is included as part of this action. 3. Applicant shall provide all required information upon submittal of the building permit application. 4. Proposed / post construction hardcover on the property shall not exceed 40 percent for a lot of record with the project unless lawful, nonconforming in which case the current the current amount must not be increased 5. Applicant shall be responsible for procurement of any and/or all local or public agency permits including, but not limited to, the submittal of all required information prior to building permit issuance. 6. The applicant shall be responsible for recording the resolution with Hennepin County. The applicant is advised that the resolution will not be released for recording until all conditions have been met. The applicant may also direct the City to record the resolution with the fee(s) to be taken out of the escrow. 7. No building permit will be issued until evidence of recording of the resolution at Hennepin County is provided unless an escrow of sufficient amount is on file with the city. 8. The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) is the regulatory authority for rules and permitting for wetlands, floodplain, erosion control and shoreline stabilization. These rules are now under the jurisdiction of the MCWD as regulatory authority and Applicant is directed to contact the MCWD related to the new regulations and applicable permits that may be needed to undertake the proposed project. Evidence from the MCWD in the form of a permit or waiver must be provided before release of any future building permit. In recommending approval of the variance, staff offers the following findings of fact: 1. The criteria of City Code Section 129-39 (a) are being met. 2. Improvements to the residential use of this property are in keeping with how it is zoned and guided in the comprehensive plan and will not change the existing neighborhood character. 3. It is reasonable to desire a covered, front porch entry area. In recommending approval of the expansion permit, staff offers the following findings of fact: 746 1. The criteria of City Code Section 129-40 (a) are being met. 2. Improvements to the residential use of this property are in keeping with how it is zoned and guided in the comprehensive plan and will not change the existing neighborhood character. 3. It is reasonable to expand to allow for an updated / replacement entry for an existing structure. 4. It is reasonable to expand to construct a one-story addition to the home's living area while maintaining the existing setbacks. CITY COUNCIL REVIEW In the event a recommendation is received from the Planning Commission, it will be forwarded to the City Council for action at an upcoming meeting. At this time, the possible meeting date is April 12, 2022. 747 I, 2415 Wilshire Boulevard, Mound, MN 55364 Phone 952-472-0600 FAX 952-472-0620 VARIANCE APPLICATION Application Fee and Escrow Deposit required at time of application. Planning Commission Date 301512022. Case No. City Council Date 3122I yo2Z riease tvpe or print ieallm SUBJECT Address- 111i ��6'YodG� l�d� PROPERTY rJ LEGAL Lot L� Block DESC. Subdivision ►' ) PID # Zoning: R1 R1A R2 R3 B1 B2 B3 (Circle one) PROPERTY Name T ni 4' A u t-b �Viw Email cvw OWNER Lj Address U0+1 fz -&q (food Koad Phone Home��?7-12-43 Work Fax AA II'' APPLICANT Name �i1'tl,(fk `Jyhyis o/l Email b�C: bry4-hcrsre`n0.wv' (IF OTHER ,j Brt_Fk_CrS Doctil)1_5 ln(d - THAN Address l U b 2-6 UKd 11(i i! Corcoran Mr\) 5632 ]- OWNER) P*K�ue HomebV1 45�- 1' 3 Work(M)W- M31 Fax i . rias an application ever peen made Tor zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? Yes ( ) No Q(). If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. _ 2. Detailed description of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): Variance Information (3/30/2020) Page 4 of 6 Case No. 3. Please complete the following information related to the property and building's conformity with the zoning regulations for the district in which it is located including the expansion permit request. SETBACKS: Front Yard: O S E & Side Yard: (NSEW) Side Yard: (NSEW) Rear Yard: (NSEW) Lakeside: (NSEW) (NSEW) Street Frontage: Lot Size: Hardcover: REQUIRED REQUESTED (or existing) 14 ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. 14 ft. sq ft sq ft EXPANSION ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. sq ft sq ft 4. Does the presenj use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes a), No ( ). If no, specify each non -conformity: 5. Are there exceptional or extraordinary circumstances justifying the expansion unique to the property such as lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owners of the property since enactment of this chapter have no control? Please check all that apply: ( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil ( ) too small ( ) drainage ( ) existing situation ( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify Please describe: I Expansion Permit Information (12/22/2020) Page 5 of 6 749 Case No. 6. Were the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes ( ), No If yes, explain: 7. Were the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances created by any other person -made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes ( ), No ( If yes, explain: 8. Are the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances for which you request an expansion permit peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (j�, No ( ). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? 9. Comments: -I ht owylt/1- W 0 bt( d l 1 kU iD tw(w /I 4hc - ►" M+ o-' 4^rc k o VA � 10 clM6l-0 0, V16W q' x 20' tot" w U W A V)ty 5'x 20` Pouch. Also, bUwed a U`x 2-41 2- "D�'Lf I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I acknowledge that I have read all of the variance information provided. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Owner's Signatu Applicant's Sigrn Date Date O� S Expansion Permit Information (12/22/2020) Page 6 of 6 750 I, 0. CITY OF MOUND 2415 Wilshire Boulevard, Mound, MN 5531 Phone 952-472-0600 FAX 952-472-0620 EXPANSION PERMIT APPLICATION Application Fee and Escrow Deposit required at time of application. SUBJECT I Address PROPERTY LEGAL Lot I DESC. Subdivision PID # Please type or print iegip Rlo46'vfpoj K06 Case No. Block Zoning: R1 R1A R2 R3 B1 B2 B3 (Circle one) PROPERTY Name lYV1 rl Email 11 m . �b5ef7 (a Glh)(ht , CeW OWNER Address Phone Home b LDS -11q'12-43Work ax APPLICANT Name Ck LLCk J 0kn s tr Email Gllt Ca i bt-6kkV Sremo de(, Co (IF OTHER <j P I-0+hf'rS Dc-sigh—OIL i d THAN Address I DD25 Cfu Rd I l U I (x rc orCtn MIJ 56M4 OWNER) a Home N3)4a-9 I H Work_(1L13)g3Z- M 31 Fax 1. Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? Yes ( ) No W. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. 2. Detailed description of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): W d °I'X 20° *�vJA4 +0 ."i & Of kO Ws-e wl A 5'x 2®"1)oy-d l . Expansion Permit Information (12/22/2020) Page 4 of 6 751 Case No. 3. Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes ( ) No (X). if no, specify each non -conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): S-Oba& < IS 30`. Owr M Ash W wl +he �p►o► th s 2 4" (M-O +ho 30" s-ObaGK. SETBACKS: REQUIRED REQUESTED VARIANCE (or existing) Front Yard: ( N S E W) 30 ft. 2-rl, 8 Side Yard: (N S E W) ft. Side Yard: (N S E W) ft. ft. ft. Rear Yard: (N S E W) ft. ft. ft. Lakeside: (N S E W) ft. ft. ft. (NSEW) ft. ft. ft. Street Frontage: Lot Size: sq ft sq ft sq ft Hardcover: sq ft sq ft sq ft 4. Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (f), No ( ). If no, specify each non -conforming use: 5. Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil (..) too small ( ) drainage ( ) existing situation ()(j too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify Please describe: We rir° ed 2_4' I VIt +hC .301 5f,fbaG_ +o CACLO'►m od&h(f + 6 coyf/rt d p a rol of- +re cad dliwh & . Variance Information (3/30/2020) Page 5 of 6 752 Case No. 6. Was the practical difficulty described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes ( ), No 0. If yes, explain: 7. Was the practical difficulty created by any other human -made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes ( ), No If yes, explain: 8. Are the conditions of practical difficulty for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (x), No ( ). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? 9. Comments: I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I acknowledge that I have read all of the variance information provided. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Owner's Signature Date Applicant's Signature Date hAg Variance Information (3/30/2020) Page 6 of 6 753 946.9 Certificate of Survey for - Jim Ebsen 6041 Ridgewood Road Mound, MN 55364 i 949.5 9 R�ZF "943.0 \ \ Z c, 944.65'2 I \ \ Z�cN 1 < o Zo. _ 1 / r � J , � FDyEs pDDj1i z r 00001* I 948.9 947. Nk 00,14p5o Gofto 948.1 ,7"L — •W r 0 20 40 SCALE IN FEET IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE: EXISTING HOUSE. 1,815 S.F. DECK. 329 S.F. CONCRETE: 1,193 S.F. STORAGE SHED: 60 S.F. FOYER/PORCHADD. (NET) 53 S.F. EXPANDED GR ROOM NA TOTAL IMPERVIOUS: 3,450 S.F. LOTAREA (TO O.H.W.): 8,785 S.F. IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE. 39.3 x934.9 /x933.0 / / .—N I i \ c\ / = i x x \\ r 932.1 r 933.5 \ O- / \\\ x932.0 Ar LEGEND Set 1/2"X 14" rebar marked 0 with cap number 22703 • Found Iron Monument Deciduous Tree — — — — — Contour Line X Spot Elevation -0- Power Pole 1 hereby certify that this survey was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that 1 am a duly licensed Professional Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. m `\ x 0 / o , o � JP �� REVISED: 03101122 - SETBACKS DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY.- Lot 21, Block 6, THE HIGHLANDS, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Subject to easements of record. OREMIER LAND SURVEYWG, LLC 1600 Arboretum Blvd., Suite 203 Victoria, MN 55386 952-443-3010 22703 07121121 Steven V. Ische License No. Date PROJ. #1958-00 Traverse PC 754 o O s O Q EXI5TINCi EXI5TINCi m A 70 El JIM t ANGIE EBSEN Residence 6041 Ridgewood Road Mound 10'-w6l, 23'-I V2 Q WIS S ■❑ m x CP 1 z G� � Q Qn Q � o � � �w � � LO NW �o N x z� l larn 4 E rn tv WEl ZA z 755 ci m T 1g'-I'2 111 5 9'-1V2II X -4 G� X N z (2) 1 3/4" x S 1/4" LVL PORCH �EAM ON 6x6 PORCH POSTS _____________________ _ ___________________________ X Q III X I I 13-3�II 0 O I II I II 3-10 2-6 O�r -4 m cn n 2-2 10 ICA 541 I> 11 z 21-0" x 31-114" 2-2x10 31-011 I I I I I IIII � I I I I IIII m I IIII I I I I I IIII OZ � I I I I I III v I I I I I Q I I I I I II O X I I I I I O O— w I I I I I —4 O - I I I I II" IUJI Q O I I I I I CP Q z I I I I I N EE � I I I I I I I I I I O v O r � I I I I I r O 21 A 11 00 ------ ------ �I� EXISTING ^ U r o m 31-��411 m V ----------- 70 m -`-- "-- `r-z-- N m X 2011 DEEP FLOOR z < o III TRUSSES - III O.C. m DJ 1 cn m 1 T-011 x 5'-Al ICA2963 3W E 11-L x 5'-3V ICA2963 3W E CP y rn �a 12'-211 N (P C� 7W1 rn 31-011 MAO W C) U3 n N — Z z m U3 r z 4, =moo N m Z m ,,..`` _ r ]� N X W m p m - X II r m w rn X = IIX �' � —4- z < r p D C)O w O T r m = �, = O I CZ N z iu m I, A 3 W (2) 1 3/4 x 16 VL FLUSH BEAM � - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -CV- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - rI- = W = Q � I (2) 1 3/411 x 9 1/2" LVL HDR. (3) 1 3/4'11 9 1/2" LVL HDR. 5 _ 111 61-0" b -011 6 -01 (2) 1 3/4II x 911/2u LVL HDR. 3 ca O 61-2211 1I-�" 61-2211 5I-OV211 6'--III 6'--iII 51-5II '20'-O 11 'L 23'-i V2 11 � 0 s ^, m O z 43'-1 V2II JIM t ANGIE EBSEN Residence 6041 Ridgewood Road Mound -4 � Q Qn Q o �� a� �w NW o �n Qn LD N x z� 'm m z z 756 11 LO 1 w r. 1 4. 1 X w x lD o LO N J T W O N O � _ N x z x � O w LO z AN Q rt O O � o s ^,Vam Q O \ Z JIM t ANGIE EBSEN Residence 6041 Ridgewood Road Mound EXISTING W 1- N_ W m X UN z 0 m X z 0 O c `� CQ m�w � � LO NW �o �n Qn N x z =. rn � rn to �� W s 16 (6 m Z Z 757 n 0 N CA CP m 0 4 11 I 0 N N N m 0 4 11 3 o O cn o O s ^, Z Q( rn all,O z \ Z JIM t ANGIE EBSEN Residence 6041 Ridgewood Road Mound 1'-83/4 n -4 -4Q Q Q Lo o 0 O cn cn �w ,9 NW o �n Qn �43 � tv s�o Z Z 758 U m O m O O N `a � s 3 rn Q N d O Z 21'-5" t W iz m CP U m CP O 4 m 4 O JIM t ANGIE EBSEN Residence 6041 Ridgewood Road Mound 81-9�4"t i7 � 10"t m 34'-S 21/32"t 9'-lyb" 1 i-83/4" �wQLNW o to s � (6 m Z Z 759 � a, •Zit �, N m D7 D7 � o U� U� m m O� ID U p 0 � :F„Z6/lZ 4 *.Vlrc-,S a :F„9l/Sl 6-,LZ LU LU a LU punow PPON pooms+ PIN «og aO+apigaa 49G3 31&)N#V ► wir Z M � � N � U-6 � O' „9V51 S-,9Z p' O .Q O O O Ol 760 DO Dv lD 7 O Q N m c (p N O L O- N 3 W O N CD N A A ZJl O m QO m CD O O O n Q I NO ;or Ln 1CD O OWo A: r W 0 N N N r o O C- n m m : f�D 3 X (D O 7 _Q N n N O 7 O C N 761 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ADDENDUM TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Sarah Smith, Community Development Director Rita Trapp, Consulting Planner DATE: April 7, 2022 SUBJECT: Northland Mound (Case No. 21-18) Consideration/action on revised plansfor development applications from Northland Real Estate Group for Northland Mound project involving property generally located southwest of the intersection of Commerce Boulevard and the Dakota Rail Regional Trail on the eastern shore of Lake Langdon and undeveloped street right of ways APPLICANT: Brian Farrell, Northland Real Estate Group OWNER: Arthur and Patricia Meisel LOCATION: Property southwest of Commerce Boulevard and Dakota Rail Regional Trail — involves parcels part of"KennedVs Subdivision of Lot 56, Lynwold Park, Lake Minnetonka" plat MEETING DATE: April 12, 2022 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Mixed Use —Downtown Lakes Mixed Use District ZONING: Mixed Use Downtown (MU -D) Council members are requested to bring their February St' City Council packets to the meeting. Alternately, members may individually contact Staff and request an electronic copy of the report and support materials related to this request beforwarded by email. Overview At its February 8, 2022 meeting, the City Council tabled the land use and subdivision requests from Northland Real Estate Group for its proposed market rate, multi -family building to be located southwest of the intersection of Commerce Boulevard and the Dakota Rail Regional Trail. The City Council directed the applicant to evaluate whether the project could have fewer units and to connect with the adjacent property owners to address concerns about traffic and circulation. 762 The applicant has submitted revisions for City Council reconsideration. The following are notable changes: 1) The project has been reduced from 104 dwelling units to 83 dwelling units. The following is the proposed unit mix: Type Original Submittal Revised Submittal Number Percentage Number Percentage Studio 33 32% 33 40% 1 bedroom 40 38% 33 40% 2 bedroom 31 30% 17 20% 2) The height of the building has been reduced from four stories to three stories. 3) The number of parking spaces has been reduced by a few stalls. The applicant is maintaining 124 parking stalls, which is a ratio of 1.5 stalls per dwelling unit. 4) A set of ground level walk -out dwelling units has been added under the Amenity Deck to provide additional units with direct outdoor access. Note that this change has eliminated the terraces previously proposed. Access to the lawn area is now provided through a staircase on the south side of the amenity deck. 5) The Applicant provided a revised site access and traffic circulation plan in response to Council's request for further refinement of this key aspect of the project. In addition, on April 7, 2022 the applicant submitted the two attached traffic exhibits providing additional detail about the proposed improvements. The proposed site alterations shown appear to depend heavily on modifications to adjacent private property. The proposed includes the widening of the southern entrance from Commerce to 28 feet through the conversion of the parallel parking stalls to perpendicular parking spaces on the north side of the entrance drive. The plan also shows reconfigured parking lots with additional islands and an all -way stop sign near the entrance to OLL parking lot. At the time of packet preparation, the revised project materials do not include expressed concurrence or approval from the respective adjacent owners as was included as necessary in the initial Council request for revisions to be coordinated among the three owners; and which would reasonably be expected in order for the plans to be constructed as depicted. Upon further request for clarification by Staff, the applicant has indicated he has support from one adjacent owner, but not both. 763 Project Plans Due to file size, the City Council packet contains the site context and traffic sheet, building perspective, and two traffic exhibits submitted by the applicant on April 7, 2022. The application and full plan set is available at this link. Hardcopies of plans will be provided to City Council members upon individual request. STAFF / CONSULTANT / AGENCY / UTILITIES REVIEW Copies of the revised plans were forwarded to involved departments, consultants, agencies, and private utilities for review and comment. The only comment received was the following from Jason Gottfried of Hennepin County Transportation by email on March 31, 2022: 'Just a quick follow-up on the revised site plan. While we support the proposed traffic calming (speed bumps, narrowed entryway, etc) along the existing shared driveway on the south end to CSAH 110, consistent with our previous comments, we were hoping this redevelopment might be an opportunity for more broader access consolidation along CSAH 110. We understand and respect though that those properties are exempt from this scope. To better ensure compliance at the northerly one-way inbound access along CSAH 110 we recommend they narrow the existing driveway. This would also help minimize conflicts with pedestrians and bicyclists along the sidewalk and the trail crossing. At minimum, better signage is needed both externally facing CSAH 110 and internally as well to ensure inbound only traffic compliance. Furthermore, its odd to have an 'exit only' onto the alley from the garage entryway on the northern end of the site? Recommend better circulation possibly by having this north -end of the driveway as 'entry only'. " Public Comments While the City Council closed the public hearings on the applications at its February 8, 2022 meeting, public comments will be accepted at the April 12' meeting. As discussed at the February 8tn City Council meeting, Staff sent mailed notice of the April 12' City Council consideration of the revised applications to property owners within 350 feet of the project area per Hennepin County. Information was also posted on the City's website, sent to the Planning Commission and City Council notification lists, and shared with staff, agencies, consultants, and utilities. Project comments and a petition received following the February 8tn City Council meeting prior to 11:00 a.m. on April 7, 2022 have been included as a attachments to the Executive Summary Addendum. Any comments received after that time will be provided at the City Council meeting. Supplemental Materials Included in the packet are the presentation slides 764 Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council take action on the subdivision and land use applications and related requests, including directing Staff to prepare resolutions with findings of fact and conditions that will be considered at the Council's April 26, 2022 meeting. The requests include: 1) Major Subdivision -Preliminary Plat 2) Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for Planned Unit Development in the Shoreland Area to construct an 83-unit market rate, multi -family apartment project 3) Vacation of a previously platted, but never constructed street right of ways 4) Public lands permit to allow for construction to occur on the City owned property immediately east of the site 5) Sale of City property comprehensive plan consistency determination Attachment • Project comments received following February 8, 2022 City Council meeting to 11:00 a.m. on April 7, 2022 • Petition signatures 765 O C z C) N O N z 0 CL C Q c rf �h 0 am cr 0 766 • • • • • r+ �-0 O n•• ,..r rD Q O rD _ Z r-r N D N O O Q Q Z3 C)7 0 -h Q 3 _0DO rD N rD N. rD - r-r 3 < � O. O rD N r-r rD 3 CD 3' C -, O �G I W Qficn O 70 --I Q * ( D in N r) rD O-Q U) Q O �* Z = O O N 70 N O rD v U) O O 3 rD rD O-Q U) U) r+ N O v r+ zT U rD rD . r D _ Q M. O O-Q rD � Q O -, -, O cy 3 = -, Q O D' O O-Q O D N O 00 w . rD Q r) rD Q D O 3 0- rD O m, O a) Q Q CD O Q Q -% NJ AD CL CD CD W CD-0 Q Q :3 N CD CD CL CD r* Q O n r* N Q � O Q r+ aq :3 n CD CD ai UG CD :3 cra CD :3 � a� n CD r+ O r+ O CD UG CD C fie 'Alb i -----------� i 'Am m 00 � 0 ^amnvmvvvmv ° Z C r �00 m 00 Io f N ti * 0 D �D 1 Tani°z mom�a NTHOS zz<�A wvmZa c�D m �m-US No D°mN mW C W Z O 0'mO ' moo mZ �Q�m py a OZ O[a A F i 2 � � m m m D O D ] NOZ Z r O< 0 °C A m m = r = 0 ld 01 movall5,0'Z7 I m x Cm W O 0 — _ < 0�m N D � Om BZ� A i x H101M 0350dOtld .O m 7�� rA0 z<� m m 2 g iA G)G �0m Z0 iYA1&alv�- - 772 m m m P D () > m0 O Z L Z N � C n A m Z m Z c I D y ti m r r x O N _ C Z Z Z 0 m0 > I m > 0 o 0 r m I m Z Z O A = I m X_ D Ll O Z ti m m x VJ z Z O 0 O c x v O m m I O m 3 3 c�rD O rD 3 r-r .. N 3 rD O 3 fD -0 rD rD cn r+ O fD rD � f�D fD• fD <' m rD r rD CU m' h o- m m 7 D rD m � rD a� 3 N o- O r-r rD 3 rD rD rD Dq zT Dq rD rD c� rD 0- O Ln O D rD 0- r-r rD m v D CL D O v 0 D Ln Ln m v cn r-r fi O Ln O v D Ln D rD D c? rD Ln c rD Ln ■ �7 rD Q O rD rD D rD I Ln 0' w Ln rD rD cu Ln Ln zT rD - N 773 0 v m 0 70 m 0 3 m m Ln <' m a� 0 m m m 3 a 0 1 0 a� rD 3 0 aF' 0 0 0 a c Ln rD 3 0 au a� m 0- m m 0 3 m cu 0 m a� a� m au 0 0 0' m 3 a� rn a 774 Northland Mound Comments April 7, 2022 —Tom & Cindy Notch The tricky part of your Mayor/Council elected positions is the wisdom in foreseeing not just the "pro's" of a proposal but also the "con's ". It is clear that if cities never improve, they will fall into blight. The attraction to 'improvement' must be wisely balanced against unintended consequences. We strongly encourage you to firmly reject the most recent Northland Mound application because of the following shortcomings that we observe: 1) Traffic and Safety: Reducing the car parking spots by merely 3 spots simply fails to address all the previous legitimately expressed problems that you have heard about traffic concerns and safety! (The previous proposal had 127 parking spots; the current proposal is for 124 parking spots, thus a mere 2.4% reduction) The developer fails to address traffic and safety issues. 2) Use of roadway: In thinking about the addition of the 4 way stop sign, you need to be aware that there will only be space for about 8 cars to be in line (heading west)between Commerce Blvd and the proposed 4 way stop sign before stacking up onto Commerce Blvd (both northbound and southbound) while all vehicles stop at the 4 way. When you add school buses into that traffic mix, YOU WILL CREATE a similar but much more dangerous problem in the city than currently exists in the school zones further north on Commerce near Grandview Middle School, Hilltop Elementary and MWHS when cars and school buses attempt to drop off children. The northerly school zones (Grandview/Hilltop / MWHS) on Commerce/Cty Rd 110N have turn lanes, large shoulders and a stop light. In thinking about the Northland/OLL area, stacking this development's proposal's traffic impact of a new 4 stop signs with traffic backing up onto Commerce because of this development should demand denial. If nothing less, the Mound Police department and Hennepin County Roads personnel should weigh in on the impacts because they ultimately get stuck with the problem. This will create an untenable traffic nightmare twice a day. There will be a similar problem before/after OLL church services. Oh, and don't forget about the pedestrians in the crosswalk walking through this stacked up traffic. During the spring and fall when students wish to walk or bike to school could create a perfect environment for fatalities!!!! 3) Property rights: Allowing the developer to placing islands and speed bumps on someone else's property (OLL) should never be codified by your vote because you are obliged by law to honor property ownership. Surely the City Of Mound doesn't want to face litigation risks if such a scenario would be allowed. Think about it this way, would you allow your home's neighbor to put a driveway across your property? This is wildly unreasonable and you should soundly reject this proposal. 4) DNR easement should not be allowed to be taken over by a developer, ever 775 5) Has Fire truck access to the entire proposed building been approved by the Fire Department. If not, you have the cart in front of the horse. 6) This proposal should have to start from scratch with a public hearing and adequate time for public response. Anything less feels like a classic bait and switch tactic. 7) Is the City of Mound in a position to take on a large number of new residents considering current water issues problems? Shouldn't you solve currently known problems to the entire populace before taking on more challenges that can be avoided? 8) The increased tax base of this project is truly a drop in the bucket. Our calculations reveal about a 1% impact and that doesn't even offset the new costs to the city. Thank you for your service! April 7, 2022 — Nicholas Forstek Ilcr�d i 'wogQ„� E wood Blvd IN _oo Trt E i'— S y I 0a ! tonkewooa Alder Rd APR 0 7 20n chdrni Rd m Lynwood Blyy Lynwood n�212n' - old shoreline or 01 Z0 A Auditors H1" J�eor� SaJ`P� u)o✓)J b2 able mt e✓d; n� r�� w eet� �� , F MvJiSh c ,rr v\c� heo✓t:��` �I�es Ana e i��i ©^ berdes�. y h FE;c a� vvl ass y o v �3c �� a ��c day dvv 5 y aOtt 776 April7, 2022—Shelby and Dan Hayes Thank you for your work and for listening to us. I am an Our Lady of the Lake elementary school parent and I would like to express my concern over these plans and the safety and traffic implications that I believe will affect our students. I do daily drop off and pickup in the back parking lot and its already busy and cant imagine the morning apartment traffic all trying to leave at the same time. Entering onto Commerce Blvd is already hard enough and slow with congestion at busy times, i cant imagine more than doubling that traffic in such a small area and EVEN MORE traffic on that road. Ive tried to look at the proposed traffic adjustments and it all seems so tight and squeezed in- more than it already is. It seems like this project needs much more land and access than is available at this spot. Im in real estate and i do understand development and developers and this just seems to be an odd use of this land due to its location and lack of access to it and the set back required from the lake. Many other uses would have less all day and all night parking needs and constant traffic coming and going. Smaller office or business use makes more sense, even retail or restaurant that fits in that area already. I am pro business and pro development. But high -density housing is very different to me in this location. We love the small town feel of mound and that is why we chose to send our kids to this school and have had a great experience at OLL so far. This whole project seems opposite of the small town vibe of mound that we love. Seems to pack in a high -density residential project into such a small space. That other options could have such neat natural ways to incorporate the lake too. Where will all the construction traffic and large trucks and heavy equipment enter and leave from?? The super close proximity to the church and school location of course brings up safety concerns as well -with such a constant flow of contractors and workers and residents and their guests. The school is a big part of the community with their events and use of their parking lot including fundraisers for local families like little Baby Elodie. Would this development affect those events and traffic and lose the access to parking that the church events need? Apartments do credit checks NOT background checks so to essentially share a parking lot with an elementary school, Id think there needs to be LESS people and a more regulated crowd. A school with kids playing right outside peoples apartment bedroom windows seems weird and uncomfortable to me. The world is getting crazier so giving strangers closer access to young school children at recess is more and more concerning every day. I wish i could see it operating more independently on their own land with a different access area and space but i see this development changing the landscape of the church/school/events/retail/parking so much when its not adding anything to the church or school- and needs to buy city owned land and lots to even be accessible in the first place. The lot is only 2.4 acres. Thats so small for this many units and cars coming and going all day and all night. Even if they buy more land which is not for sure to go though. 777 This seems like a win for one developer at the expense of the current area resident businesses and OLL and all it does for the community- the things that currently make Mound the special and unique city that it is. Please reconsider your support of this project- move it to an area where the space and access allows it to operate more logically, safely and independently from imposing on the current buildings. Thank you for valuing the existing businesses and current use of the area over a new large developer. April 7, 2022 — Becky Kennedy My name is Becky Kennedy, the Principal of Our Lady of the Lake Catholic School (OLL) and school parent, and I submit the following for dissemination to the members of the Mound Planning Commission, and to be made part of the public record. OLL serves the community through its School (of almost 200 students and growing), the mitigation efforts proposed by the developer do not minimize what would be a significant change in the volume of traffic and therefore there is a continued concern. The south entrance curbing and width to the back parking lot of OLL off of Commerce blvd is not wide enough and when there are two cars one car ultimately ends up driving over a curb. The number of cars exiting and entering at this location south of the church will only add unnecessary volume. I see what happens on Commerce by Grandview every morning and the necessary precautions needed with a police officer directing traffic. I would expect the city to cover the cost for this added personnel needed for the entrance at Auditors and Commerce BLVD when school is in session. OLL already has many people trying to cut through the back parking lot at all hours of the day, including car and foot traffic. This is a safety concern for our students and staff. Adding more housing right next to a school parking lot and playground only adds to this concern. I do not foresee a four-way stop with curbing deterring people from using the lot as a pass -through. I envision more people using our lot as a pass -through, parking spot, and turn around. After looking at the revisions submitted on March 30th, 2022 my concerns remain the same. I continue to agree with what Mr. Biglow submitted on February 4, 2022 "The Developer, City, or eventual Management Company cannot effectively mitigate nor monitor very real safety and hazard issues that will accompany this volume with this adjacency. OLL will be left managing new and ongoing issue management and compromising our #1 responsibility to our families, their children, and the greater community we serve: Safety." The city of Mound has already approved 52 front doors across the street from OLL along Auditors Rd and this is so exciting! I encourage the city to first experience the traffic volume this approved project will bring in before entertaining another housing project less than a block away, directly affecting the same neighbors. 778 April 7, W22—Brian Holt My family attends Our Lady of the Lake BOLL) and our Mound address is 2880 Highland Blvd m concerned about the development being proposed adjacent Off. I've reviewed the Applicant's proposed plan. Where fbey4e produced many detailed tlrowingsfbece don't appearfo adequately address how the ChurWs property will be Impacted by the Increased traffic and parking demand or how itwill Impact the school. Their latest drawing appearsto show parking, medians, circulation mail stop signs constructed on the ChurWs property. However,tbesedon't show who's responsible for Installation and maintenance costs of all this nor do these indicate any agreement with the Church. It's also not clear in these aawirgswhat property is owned by the applicant, what Is owned by the Church, and what easement rights are In place. TheAppllants33122letter references"attached Traffic and Parking Exhibit" which doesn't appear to be on the Development's share site Another consideration forthe Council lathe school at OLLwMM is directly adjacent to this proposed development. ([doesn't appear dear bow the proposed development will Impact safe bussing and transportation of school children. Also, Off'sparking lot is used for recess and bow this can safely continue should be addressed. The burden of proof should be on the Applicant to show conformance to Iamsand codes in barony with the neighboring properties. An adjacent property owner should not be forced to Marge their property or materially as341n the development of an adjacent property. It appears that lswhatthe Applicant Is asking the City to make OLL do. I think there are too many open questions In the current proposed plan to proceed with the development. April J, 2022—Mike Schulz left you a volcemall at 9:10 am today. l wanted to express my concern with the development since the number of parking spots has been Increased from the original papoal, which would indicate an 779 increase in traffic flowing through the property, further complicating safety concerns. I have strong safety reservations with this and oppose the approval of the new plan. In addition, I did not see anything in your letter stating that Northland or the contractor met to work out a plan that would be acceptable to both parties, as had been requested by the mayor and council at the city council meeting on February 8, 2022. April 7, 2022 — Kassie Ricke Thank you for taking the time to ensure our concerns are heard and addressed. As a long time resident of Mound, I see both sides of this project. Living so close to other lake communities, we see the benefits and drawbacks of growth. Certainly the increased tax base would help the city's deficit, but at what cost? The Northland Development Project is too large for Mound. There are numerous concerns: traffic, aesthetics, long term Mound vision, watershed concerns on Lake Langdon and most significantly is the safety concern relating to OLL. OLL is not only the largest church in Mound, with community events many nights of the week, it also has 200+ students and staff on site every day. The increase in traffic flow and unwanted use of the OLL parking lot is a safety hazard for everyone at OLL. We do not need an additional 100+ cars driving through the OLL parking lot multiple times per day endangering our students, staff, parishioners, and community at large and adding additional traffic to Commerce Blvd. While Mound could benefit from additional housing, market rate apartments that can become lower income housing within a few years if it doesn't meet occupant quotas will not help increase the Mound tax base or help to attract commercial businesses that we need. It is common knowledge that apartment residents are typically transient; thus not investing in the health, vitality and safety of a community. We need a better solution that doesn't involve this location. April 7, 2022 — Keith Johnson Thank you for your canned response. I reviewed the changes presented by the developer yesterday. Please be sure to add for the record that even though the developer indicated updated traffic control measures, the City of Mound has not addressed the bottle neck and traffic flow on Commerce Blvd. The access to and from Commerce poses a very dangerous and congested situation. There are no proposed stop lights, turning lanes or other types of traffic safety for vehicle traffic and pedestrians in this plan. As I addressed in my prior letter, community safety should be the first issue addressed and the planners and council have not addressed this this concern to the community. Based on the way this process is being pushed through I suspect only about 40% of the Mound Community are even aware of this major proposed project that will have a negative effect on many. WE April 7, 2022 — Bjorn Carlson As a property taxpayer in the City of Mound and parishioner of Our Lady of the Lake Catholic Church (OLL), the proposed changes to resolve the safety issue should be considered insufficient. Anyone who spends time watching traffic patterns in our impatient world will let you know that islands, stop signs, and speed bumps slow some people down, and in the 10+ studies I reviewed, the high end of that number is 52%. That leaves —48% or more of the drivers to choose the path of least resistance (including cutting through the OLL parking lot) when leaving the vicinity at a rate of speed that puts pedestrians, especially children and people with limited hearing and mobility, at significant risk. This ties back to the first two sentences of the third paragraph of Mr. Biglow's letter, "The Developer, City, or eventual Management Company cannot effectively mitigate nor monitor very real safety and hazard issues that will accompany this volume with this adjacency. OLL will be left managing new and ongoing issue management and compromising our #1 responsibility to our families, their children, and the greater community we serve: Safety." this has not changed after the March 30th plan submission. While I understand the desire to increase the population of Mound and add to the tax base to drive increased revenue for our city, the safety of our citizens should be of more significant concern when voting on this proposal. April 7, 2022 — Crystal Johnson I am very disappointed that the April 12th council meeting will not include a public hearing on the proposed Northland Mound Project. I appreciate the efforts that the developer has made to address our concerns. However, I think he fell short. In the applicant narrative, he stated that he met with the adjacent property owners regarding the traffic concerns. He also stated that he was able to work with one of the owners to remove the parallel parking spots in the south access. My understanding is that those spots belong to OLL and they did not agree to give those up. I feel like this is not the first time he has been dishonest and misleading. There is also an addition of four way stop signs where the apartment traffic and south access flow into the OLL parking lot. This will only increase congestion and safety issues, especially during the multiple peak times such as school drop off, pick up, prior to mass, and after mass. Plus, none of these are going to stop the residents or their guests from flying through the OLL parking lot as a cut through. It seems how busy the OLL building is has been sorely underestimated. In addition to school and mass, there are many functions including but not limited weddings, funerals, fundraisers, community events, after school events, and other gatherings. Now, you want to add in 124+vehicles essentially in the same parking lot. Not to mention, this does not address the traffic congestion and safety issues this will cause on Commerce Blvd. First, that is a blind intersection and there is no mention of additional traffic control 781 to help prevent accidents. We also need to consider that Auditors Rd will be closing, additional homes are going up in that current green space and many additional homes are being built in Minnetrista. These homes are all in the Mound school district. This means all that extra traffic will be flowing into Mound when our streets and current traffic controls are not yet equipped for the drastic increase all these projects will bring. In addition to the traffic safety, I also have concerns on the general safety of the students at OLL. What precautions are being taken to ensure all residents and guests will not put our children at risk? Also, anytime there is an incident at the apartment complex will the school and/or church need to be put on lockdown? This could cause a lot of unnecessary stress and emotional trauma to students, staff and parents.But, if that precaution is not taken, the outcome could be even more tragic. I also still believe that a three story building in that area is too big. The OLL school looks on the large side in that area and it is only a two and a half story building. This reduction was not enough. Personally, I think our town could use more homeowners, not renters. If it is determined that another apartment complex really is necessary in this town, It needs to be in a better location. And, more needs to be done to improve traffic flow and safety in whatever area is chosen. On top of that, people live in Mound because we love the small town feel. A large urban apartment complex does not fit in with that. High density housing will not solve any of the issues our town may currently be facing. This new proposal still ignores the fact that our schools are already bursting at the seams. If these projects bring more students to the schools, how is this going to be handled? It also still ignores the fact that the DNR reviewed the proposal and did not recommend approval. In addition to making an eye sore on the trail, you are eliminating habitat for much of our local wildlife. There are still too many issues with this project. I respectfully request that you deny this proposal. April 7, 2022 - Ginger Skaja I have been following the Northland development proposal. My concerns run deep and I do not support advancing the proposal. I first attended the planning commission meeting, followed by the city council meeting. I have been engaging in many conversations with residents, business owners and patrons of the city of Mound regarding this proposal since that time and have not yet met anyone in favor of this project in the proposed location. While I appreciate growth and development, the updated proposal continues to place burden and safety concerns on our community. The location is simply not suited for 83 apartments. The updated proposal suggests adding speed bumps and an island. *Who takes on the cost of such measures? *What analysis was completed to support these measures as improving safety? *How does it effect snow removal? *Who does the burden of upkeep fall on? 782 Creating a four way stop at the indicated location appears to be a traffic backup nightmare, particularly from Commerce. *What analysis was done to support this suggestion being beneficial? We have yet to see the real day-to-day impact that the closure of Auditors road will have on Commerce and the major intersection in Mound. With that, the continued building in the Woodland Cove area is substantial. These homes are zoned Westonka schools and we have yet to see the full impact of traffic coming into town from these developments. I continue to have great concern for the students that pass through this parking lot area for drop-off, pick-up, bus transfers to area schools, and outdoor time for students at OLL. I invite you to ask yourself, would a shared parking lot with an apartment complex at Shirley Hills or Hilltop even be considered? I would argue, no. Do not put this safety burden on OLL and the hundreds of students that attend there either! I, like so many others, want Mound to be a vibrant and robust community. With that, being mindful of what draws us here, and what is often promoted, is our "small town' feel. Please keep Mound true to that. This decision will directly impact safety of children and at the end of the day no one can, or should, put a price tag on that. April 7, 2022 - Rhonda Eurich, OLL Thank you for the response. Removal of the parking stalls to widen the southern entry road has been on the table since the beginning of the discussion. Widening the road does nothing for the number of cars driving in the area, and certainly does not limit the traffic onto an already over -crowded Commerce Blvd. And, as I have mentioned before, speed bumps, directional islands, signs, etc. are suggestions for what OLL can do to our property, and not what the development should do on their site. Also, isn't another building going up east of Commerce —where Auditor's Rd. is now? And Auditor's Rd. will be eliminated there. More traffic in one area. I have heard mention of Hennepin County and a study from 2016, but wonder why they are not involved in studying current conditions onto Commerce Blvd. (Cty. Rd. #110)? Why has the DNR said this project is not a good idea and the City is not listening to them? Where is the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District in this development? I know all the requirements that our Grace Family Center (Food Shelf bldg.) had to adhere to — over $125,000. of additional changes we were forced to make to safeguard Lake Langdon. Doesn't the City need to follow these same safeguards also? Our building is farther back from the lake than the development would be.... April 7, 2022 - Keith Johnson I am writing regarding the proposed land development efforts behind the Northland Mall complex and adjacent to Our Lady of the Lake Church and School. I am a MWHS parent, and our family has lived in the community since January of 2003. 783 We chose to relocate our family to the Mound area from Golden Valley MN simply due to the small town feel, (no major apartment dwellings and no big box retailers to create excessive traffic) and active community programs. The school programs offered smaller classrooms then most districts and was rated as one of the best places in MN to raise a family. Over the years we have witnessed small changes in the city of Mound landscape that still fit the narrative making it attractive to raising a family and living in this community... However, it does appear in the last couple of years... there is a big push by city planners and you the City Council members to eliminate most of the open green space the members of the community enjoy. For example, last year's move to push through the proposed development behind True Value next to the Lost Lake Ice Cream business. This Lost Lake proposal is taking away another one of the reasons most people in the community chose the Mound area to raise a family. Is this all in the name of bringing in more tax revenue?? Or city planners, Mayor and Council Members trying to give themselves an ego boost of power and add a legacy to their tenure? As we enter 2022, we now are seeing another land grab by an investor and developer to build an apartment complex squeezed into a small green space behind the Northland Mall complex. Does this project really have the community of Mound's interest? And what about the stress on the already busy traffic infrastructure? What about the pressure on the members of Our Lady of the Lake which continues to grow more members for both Church and private schooling? What about the excellent community fund raisers OLL puts on every year... How is that going to work? As the developer now shares in the revised proposal, a reduced number of apartments (I think the last number I read was 84) and each of those dwellers own two cars or more if they have a driver child going to school, there will problems with accidents/injury's caused by the increase in traffic with only two options to enter or exit Commerce Blvd. This is already a very busy area even when OLL does not have Church or school in session. I am only speculating, but I imagine the Mound city planners and City Council members will push this through and ignore the dangerous consequences you will put the citizens of this community every day and for what a crowed space that will add tax revenue! Now that the road is closing by Lost Lake due to your other approved development and only an assumption that you know this... Each year, the church puts on the Incredible Festival — how is traffic, traffic control and parking going to be addressed? Or is the City Council and planners going to wash their hands and ignore? When the OLL school chooses to expand due to capacity requirements, then what? Is there any long-term thinking and planning to continue providing access to private education with many parents electing to take this route for their children? Have you ever made the drive on Commerce Blvd. in the morning say between 7:30 AM and 8:15 AM or in the afternoon between 2:30 PM and 3:30 PM ... it is already so congested at the intersection of 15 & Commerce, not to mention the roads leading to Hill Top and the access into Grandview? How is the city, the planners and developer going to make this safer with hundreds of new cars and drivers added to the main drag? I reviewed the new proposed traffic plan on the website for the 4/12 meeting and other then some speed bumps and a wider lane I see nothing to address the traffic flow on Commerce such as turn lanes, etc. M We as members of the community ask for each of you demonstrate and prove your theories and why the Northland Project makes sense for current and longtime residents. Unfortunately, this project really appears to look like a complete lack of looking at the trees through the forest and without a solid plan. My family supports smart and sustainable growth, however with the lack of smart and thoughtful planning on the Northland project and the prior Lost Lake project we are not supporting the efforts at hand on this "Bridge to No -Where" project and I hope the members of the council make the right decision for the people of Mound. April 6, 2022 — Rhonda Eurich, OLL The updated plan that Northland submitted on 3-30-22 does not change any of my original concerns. The original plan was for 104 units, and parking spaces for 127. We all knew that was not enough parking space for 104 units. The plan that was now submitted has 83 units and 127 parking spaces. While they have removed the top floor for the project, the traffic issues still apply ...... 127 cars added to the traffic congestion and safety concerns. Northland has also included the islands and speed bumps from their previous plans. These are what Northland has said that OLL would need to put on our property to make their area safer! As I have said before, I have worked at Our Lady of the Lake for 35 years, and have been a resident of Mound for 27 years. I have heard you say that the Council will do the'right'thing — and money would not be a deciding factor. I hope that you are correct. April 6, 2022 — Scott & Sharon Rosengren It has come to our attention that this proposed project, while being scaled back, is still being considered. As 45 year residents of the Mound and Minnetrista area, and having raised our 4 children here,* we have welcomed most changes/improvements but, we question why this project is being squeezed into this small parcel of land. Has there been a demographic study to determine the need for more rental units, in Mound, where we have a plethora of them already? Is it the convenient access to city utilities reducing developer's costs? How will it effect traffic, at a currently busy thoroughfare on Commerce and where Auditors Road intersect? To say nothing about traffic in and around Our Lady Of The Lake Church AND school. Is access to Lake Langdon going to increase traffic/activity here as well? At what cost, is this project going to advance the tax base for the city? Full disclosure... we are planning on downsizing and moving from our Minnetrista home into Mound, as we have committed to a condo unit in the Artessa project. (Which will also add to congestion in 785 the area.) If this project is approved, it could effect others who are considering investing in living in Mound. (And why is this a closed meeting??) Please consider the above issues. We thank you. April 6, 2022 —Angie Stevens I drive my children from Watertown to attend Our Lady of the Lake School in Mound. If this proposed development goes through, I do fear for my children's safety. Any additional traffic into the parking lots and onto Commerce Blvd. and Auditor's Road would be disastrous. I would have to consider sending my kids to school in Watertown that has better safety plans. April 6, 2022 - Todd Schmidt I am writing regarding the proposed land development efforts behind the Northland Mall complex. am an OLL parent, a MWHS parent along with being the current technology chair on the OLL School Board and Director of Hockey Operations for MWHA. My wife and I chose to relocate our family to the Mound area because if provided us with the small town experience which we were looking for. Needless to say, we were disappointed last year when the city pushed through the proposed development by Lost Lake Creamery. This city seriously lack green space and spaces to enjoy the fantastic lakes and wildlife. Now with this space beginning development next to Lost Lake, we've lost precious green space and this proposal is prepared to take -a -way even more. It has been very disappointing to see how the council has been addressing this and city planning team is of greater disappointment. What is important to this small town? Why is the city, planners and developers now choosing to hide behind closed doors in meetings? Our Lady of the Lake school and church are growing tremendously. There will problems and God forbid accidents/injury's caused by the increase in traffic in a very tight spaces all ready, but also to the one intersection we will have left, now that the road is closing by Lost Lake due to your other approved development. Each year, the church puts on the Incredible Festival — how is traffic, traffic control and parking going to be addressed or is the city + planners going to wash their hands and ignore?? When the school chooses to expand due to capacity requirements, then what? Is there any long term thinking and planning— from what I've seen in your current plans, it appears minimal at best, leaning towards reactionary versus proactive management and the desire by the city is to generate as much cash as possible to hide the management mistakes and leadership issues of the past and current. Will the police force require expanding, how about the fire department, other city works departments? What are the hidden costs the residence will have to pick up once this is approved? When I drive my high school daughter to MWHS on Commerce in the morning it is already so congested at the intersection of 15 & Commerce, not to mention the roads leading to Hill Top and the access into Grandview. How is the city, planners and developer going to make this safer with 127 cars added? Can you demonstrate and prove your theories — unfortunately all you have currently are theories— if you have something, share with all of us. Lastly my family is blessed to not need or require water from the city. How will this proposed development impact my neighbors who do rely on the city for clean, safe drinking water? To date, water management/treatment has been expensive to those residents and the quality is dismal at best. I am for smart and sustainable growth —with the lack of planning to date, a cohesive message, I am struggling to get behind the efforts at hand. April 6, 2022 — Father Peter Richards, OLL My name is Fr. Peter Richards, the Pastor of Our Lady of the Lake Catholic Church (OLL) and I submit the following for dissemination to the members of the Mound Planning Commission, and to be made part of the public record. I refer to the letter written to you by Mr. John B. Biglow, a lay trustee of Our Lady of the Lake Catholic Church (OLL) on February 4, 2022 (see below). The first two sentences of the third paragraph of Mr. Biglow's letter, 'The Developer, City, or eventual Management Company cannot effectively mitigate nor monitor very real safety and hazard issues that will accompany this volume with this adjacency. OLL will be left managing new and ongoing issue management and compromising our #1 responsibility to our families, their children, and the greater community we serve: Safety.", has not changed after the March 30th plan submission. February 4, 2022 Letter from Mr. John B. Biglow referenced above: My name is John B. Biglow, one of the Lay Trustee's of our Lady of the Lake Catholic Church (OLL) and I submit the following for dissemination to the members of the Mound Planning Commission, and to be made part of the public record. Our Lady of The Lake serves the community through its School (of 200 students), the Church (with 1280 families and 2900 members), and the Grace Family Center/Westonka Food Shelf/PennyWise Thrift Store (which serves over 1,900 local Families). Collectively the teams, and leaders have thoughtfully reviewed and discussed the plans, revisions, and the mitigation efforts proposed by the developer. We greatly appreciate the efforts aimed at minimizing the added impact a development this size would bring. However, signage, curbing, and speedbumps do not minimize what would be a significant change in volume of traffic and therefor there is continued concern across leaders, teams, and parish members. The concern remains that the size of the development and number of units will create issues with corresponding traffic, parking, and safety within an already busy shared North Ingress/egress and Commerce Blvd. There continue to be concerns as well that the South entrance will be used as a cut through. Safety is the main concern. The development and the increase in traffic will present concerns for our children attending school, our senior citizens attending church or activities and the community at large who participate with the church events and the Grace Family Center. 787 The Developer, City, or eventual Management Company cannot effectively mitigate nor monitor very real safety and hazard issues that will accompany this volume with this adjacency. OLL will be left managing new and ongoing issue management and compromising our #1 responsibility to our families, their children, and the greater community we serve: Safety. Understandably the City has a goal of measured growth, and OLL wants to be a supportive partner in fostering that, but that doesn't come at a cost to the existing infrastructure that has built and continues to serve this community. Numerous constraints seem to indicate that this plan might not be the right fit for this location, space, and adjacencies. April 6, 2022 - Anna Schmidt I will start by disclosing that I am an OLL parent, a MWHS parent and a staff member of OLL Parish. My husband and I moved to this area 3 years ago because of the small town feeling it had. We were disappointed last year when the development next to Lost Lake Creamery was approved due to the fact that this town has so few green spaces and so few public lake views to sit and enjoy. And now we are speeding towards adding to this congested small intersection. I have been disappointed in the leadership of this town in not listening to the city when approving the last development and I am once again disappointed. Have you ever heard the saying "Just because you can, doesn't mean you should." That certainly applies here. Just because you can put these units on this small wetland parcel.. it doesn't mean you should. I also understand the underlying motivator - money. And apparently for the council money trumps safety and money trumps common sense. Our Lady of the Lake is a large church with a growing school. The strip mall next to the church has worked with the church and school to help with parking and drop off/pick up. This development negates all of this and puts the responsibility of the traffic completely on the church. This is not the churches problem.. this is the town and developers' problem. Please explain to me how the Incredible Festival is going to work with this development? Has anything talked about that? A large festival with carnival rides directly against the development? And where will everyone park? When I drive my high school daughter to MWHS on Commerce in the morning it is already so congested at the intersection of 15/Commerce. When I drop my daughter off at OLL in the morning it is already so busy. How are you going to make this safer with 127 cars added? You can't. We already have 52 units being built across the street and the loss of the road to cut through. All this traffic will be fed onto Commerce and 15. I understand you prefer money.. I get it. But it is a sad to see how willing you are to sell out. Please do not let this development happen .. you can say no. It is simply not feasible at this location. April 6, 2022 - Bradley and Maria Evans Now that we've seen even more of the Northland Real Estate plans, I'm 100%opposed to this project moving forward. Do we not respect our green spaces that are becoming more and more rare? I don't walk through large parking lots to get peace. I walk next to beautiful green spaces and thrive in the beauty that is natural and Mother Nature provided. I'm not a tree hugger. But another apartment complex that will degrade over time and become another eye sore. For what? Property Taxes. More Revenue...... Then you have the traffic issues and the selfish planning that is again, going to squeeze a square peg in a round hole. Tighten up the traffic so everyone else in the community can be inconvenienced for 1 investor. Really. Is this how the city operates. Let's put our pedestrians closer to danger. There are several wheel chair and handicap people that need that space to go to the grocery store. You see them all the time. Children who are still learning about traffic. Right next to the school. Another cash grab just like our property taxes. April 5, 2022 - Dana Eads I don't know a single resident who wants this housing project. We have enough apartments in the area and do not need more - they ruin the integrity and feel of small towns, and considering the proposed location, it could create safety issues near a school, not to mention traffic congestion. Common sense says this is a bad idea. It makes me wonder what kind of back door dealings are going on when the Mayor of a town who claims to care about it pushes projects like this, especially when you are not holding a meeting for public comment. Shame on you. Represent the city appropriately. March 31, 2022 - Rhonda Eurich, OLL Parish Administrator Mr. Farrell told us that he was gathering business owners to meet/talk with the City. That may have already happened. I have a comment about this.... We all want to see Mound grow. More people in the community is good for everyone. That is not what the issue is with this apartment development. It is about the safety and traffic concerns that this building makes for us -and for the City. If the apartment building was built right near one of the retail businesses in favor of this, and it affected the safety of their customers/clients, they would not approve of the development. March 9, 2022 - Bradley and Maria Evans Thank you for considering my note. I wanted you to know that as a member of Our Lady of the Lake Church, my family does not support the development being considered. My family moved from Indiana 8 years ago. We could have lived anywhere in the Metro Area. We decided on Mound/Minnetrista for the obvious reasons you know of and appreciate. Build, Build, Build seems to be what other communities are selling. And in the process, they lose in the long run. Loss of green space. Overcrowding. Crime. Most importantly loss of trust in their communities. This is what I hope you will help us preserve. March 4, 2022 —John Bigelow, OLL My name is John B. Biglow, one of the Lay Trustee's of our Lady of the Lake Catholic Church (OLL) and I submit the following for dissemination to the members of the Mound Planning Commission, and to be made part of the public record. Our Lady of The Lake serves the community through its School (of 200 students), the Church (with 1280 families and 2900 members), and the Grace Family Center/Westonka Food Shelf/PennyWise Thrift Store (which serves over 1,900local Families). Collectively the teams, and leaders have thoughtfully reviewed and discussed the plans, revisions, and the mitigation efforts proposed by the developer. We greatly appreciate the efforts aimed at minimizing the added impact a development this size would bring. However, signage, curbing, and speedbumps do not minimize what would be a significant change in volume of traffic and therefor there is continued concern across leaders, teams, and parish members. The concern remains that the size of the development and number of units will create issues with corresponding traffic, parking, and safety within an already busy shared North Ingress/egress and Commerce Blvd. There continue to be concerns as well that the South entrance will be used as a cut through. Safety is the main concern. The development and the increase in traffic will present concerns for our children attending school, our senior citizens attending church or activities and the community at large who participate with the church events and the Grace Family Center. The Developer, City, or eventual Management Company cannot effectively mitigate nor monitor very real safety and hazard issues that will accompany this volume with this adjacency. OLL will be left managing new and ongoing issue management and compromising our #1 responsibility to our families, their children, and the greater community we serve: Safety. Understandably the City has a goal of measured growth, and OLL wants to be a supportive partner in fostering that, but that doesn't come at a cost to the existing infrastructure that has built and continues to serve this community. Numerous constraints seem to indicate that this plan might not be the right fit for this location, space, and adjacencies. 790 February 22, 2022 — Rhonda Eurich, Father Peter Richards, OLL On page 6 of the Mound Planning Commission Minutes of February 1, 2022, it states that "Holt noted that there 127 stalls and that seems to not give a spot to every unit. Trapp noted not everyone will be parked at the same time. HOLT STATED THAT A LETTER IN THE PACKET FROM THE DEVELOPER OUTLINED THAT THE CHURCH CAN BE USED FOR OVERFLOW." That is not a true statement! Neither our Pastor Fr. Peter Richards, or our Trustee Atty. John Biglow, or I have told Northland that they could use our parking lot for overflow. John Biglow has sent two letters to the Council explaining our position. I have attached both of those letters. We will NOT sell or lease any of our parking lot. I noticed in one of the minutes I have a copy of that someone (the developer?) watched as our parking lot cleared after a recent weekend schedule of Masses. Right now our attendance is lower because of COVID. We have not had as many after Mass events because of COVID. We do have funerals that fill up our parking lot. The Westonka Food Shelf uses it for food giveaways, and the traffic is lined up onto Commerce Blvd.... We (Fr. Richards, Parish Council Chair Rusty Stockinger, Trustee John Biglow and myself) are meeting with Northland's Mr. Farrell on March 2nd. This is the first face-to-face meeting since the plans were developed. And again, we will NOT sell or lease any of our parking lot. February 22, 2022 — Rhonda Eurich Last Tuesday, Feb. 15th, there was a hit and run accident on our property. A silver/gray pickup hit our 3 Y2' tall brick fence along Commerce Blvd. We were not able to see a license plate number on any of the video. I have attached a copy of the damage [photo omitted from packet)]. A 9' area of brick was knocked over and driven on, and a 40' crack along the rest of the wall was discovered. As we get quotes, I think we will be looking at close to $20K in damages. Several years ago, a car ran into our chain link fence south of the school on a weekend and left the scene. In the last two weeks, there have been two accidents at the intersection of Commerce and the road into our parking lots. I do not mean to be flippant, but I have come to the conclusion that the last thing we need is more traffic on Commerce. February 9, 2022 - Mallory Branch I know there was a city council meeting last night but I wasn't able to attend. I had family members attend though and they had to leave at 9:45 PM and said it was nowhere near over. Let me tell you a little story about how Mound stole our hearts. My family and I recently moved to Mound from Hopkins. Years ago my aunt found a little property on Langdon Lake. My husband and I just had our first child and he ended up doing a lot of handyman work for her around the house to make it livable. We spent countless days and nights and weekends at the house which happens to be on Langdon Lake. My oldest learned to swim and fish on Langdon. Over the two years that we 791 would head to Mound, we ended up falling in love with my aunt's neighbors house. We would joke about how one day we would win the lottery and buy the house and raise our kids on a lake. I grew up on Gull Lake and the memories I have as a child are priceless. This is something we always dreamt of for our children. While we were working on my aunt's house, we ended up purchasing my childhood home from my mother and calling Hopkins our forever home. We loved everything about Hopkins.... then one day we got an email from the homeowner of our dream home asking us if we were interested in purchasing the home before it was listed on the market. Our jaws dropped. Would we finally be able to live in a small town with a lake in our backyard? Would we finally be able to move away from the countless "luxury" apartments that Hopkins tossed up all over town? Over the next 6 months we did everything we could to make our dream a reality. We were so excited to be able to live somewhere with less noise and light pollution. We were so excited to be able to experience this with our now two growing boys. Wildlife! Fast forward to the end of 2021 and we were able to move into our dream home. We finally have peace and quiet. We can see the stars at night and deer running in our yard!!! Our family loved Hopkins but we moved to Mound for the quietness, for the ability to see the stars and not have huge buildings. We moved to Langdon Lake because we could finally have our property and not have the noise and chaos of Lake Minnetonka. Mound is a hidden gem and I truly believe that. The city can't possibly think that adding an apartment complex with over 100 units is something that would benefit the city. We don't even have drinkable water for the residents that do live here.... Please reconsider what the residents of Mound truly need. Bringing more residents into Mound will not bring more business into Mound. We need businesses in Mound before we even consider something like this. 792 APARTMENT PROJECT ON LAKE LANGDON I am signing this petition because I am completely against this developer putting a 104-unit apartment building in the heart of Mound. There are many reasons that it is poor planning. Some of them are: 1. This space is not large enough for this size building. 2. The traffic is already congested at the main intersection on Commerce Blvd. and Ct. 15. 3. The Dakota Trail crosses Commerce Blvd. at the proposed entrance and is very dangerous as is. 4. The other entrance that is proposed for use of this apartment building is not wide enough for this additional use of two-way traffic plus parking. 5. OLL Parish has no intention of selling any of that land to anyone. 6. The tenants of the building will cut through the OLL parking lot to avoid the traffic congestion. 7. This building will change the appearance and view of nature, the lake and - the Dakota nature trail. Na Date 793 APARTMENT PROJECT ON LAKE LANGDON I am signing this petition because I am completely against this developer putting a 104-unit apartment building in the heart of Mound. There are many reasons that it is poor planning. Some of them are: 1. This space is not large enough for this size building. 2. The traffic is already congested at the main intersection on Commerce Blvd. and Ct. 15. 3. The Dakota Trail crosses Commerce Blvd. at the proposed entrance and is very dangerous as is. 4. The other entrance that is proposed for use of this apartment building is not wide enough for this additional use of two-way traffic plus parking. 5. OLL Parish has no intention of selling any of that land to anyone. 6. The tenants of the building will cut through the OLL parking lot to avoid the traffic congestion. 7. This building will change the appearance and view of nature, the lake and - the Dakota nature trail. --------Na Date------ ---- ----------------------------- Oj-/-22., .9-- a 0 - z-";t_ 5 �y el / (,,?-1'7 'A n d v -e-t� 3I ZV/ APARTMENT PROJECT ON LAKE LANGDON 1 am signing this petition because 1 am completely against this developer putting a 104-unit apartment building in the heart of Mound. There are many reasons that it is poor planning. Some of them are: 1. This space is not large enough for this size building. 2. The traffic is already congested at the main intersection on Commerce Blvd. and Ct. 15. 3. The Dakota Trail crosses Commerce Blvd. at the proposed entrance and is very dangerous as is. 4. The other entrance that is proposed for use of this apartment building is not wide enough for this additional use of two-way traffic plus parking. 5. OLL Parish has no intention of selling any of that land to anyone. 6. The tenants of the building will cut through the OLL parking lot to avoid the traffic congestion. 7. This building will change the appearance and view of nature, the lake and - the Dakota nature trail. -------- Name --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date ----------------------------------------- _S /Iwad 795 APARTMENT PROJECT ON LAKE LANGDON ! am signing this petition because I am completely against this developer putting a 104-unit apartment building in the heart of Mound. There are many reasons that it is poor planning. Some of them are: 1. This space is not large enough for this size building. 2. The traffic is already congested at the main intersection on Commerce Blvd. and Ct. 15. 3. The Dakota Trail crosses Commerce Blvd. at the proposed entrance and is very dangerous as is. 4. The other entrance that is proposed for use of this apartment building is not wide enough for this additional use of two-way traffic plus parking. 5. OLL Parish has no intention of selling any of that land to anyone. 6. The tenants of the building will cut through the OLL parking lot to avoid the traffic congestion. 7. This building will change the appearance and view of nature, the lake and - the Dakota nature trail. ----------------------------------------- Date --------------- ------------ ------------- �j ), 796 APARTMENT PROJECT ON LAKE LANGDON t am signing this petition because I am completely against this developer putting a 104-unit apartment building in the heart of Mound. There are many reasons that it is poor planning. Some of them are: 1. This space is not large enough for this size building. 2. The traffic is already congested at the main intersection on Commerce Blvd. and Ct. 15. 3. The Dakota Trail crosses Commerce Blvd. at the proposed entrance and is very dangerous as is. 4. The other entrance that is proposed for use of this apartment building is not wide enough for this additional use of two-way traffic plus parking. 5. OLL Parish has no intention of selling any of that land to anyone. 6. The tenants of the building will cut through the OLL parking lot to avoid the traffic congestion. 7. This building will change the appearance and view of nature, the lake and - the Dakota nature trail. Name--------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- Date --------------- — ------------------------ d 2 Z7) r 797 �,PARTMENT PROJECT ON LAKE LANGDON l am signing this petition because J am completely against this developer putting a 104-unit apartment building in the heart of Mound. There are many reasons that it is poor planning. Some of them are: 1. This space is not large enough for this size building. 2. The traffic is already congested at the main intersection on Commerce Blvd. and Ct. 15. 3. The Dakota Trail crosses Commerce Blvd. at the proposed entrance and is very dangerous as is. 4. The other entrance that is proposed for use of this apartment building is not wide enough for this additional use of two-way traffic plus parking. 5. OLL Parish has no intention of selling any of that land to anyone. 6. The tenants of the building will cut through the OLL parking lot to avoid the traffic congestion. 7. This building will change the appearance and view of nature, the lake and - the Dakota nature trail. APARTMENT PROJECT ON LAKE LANGDON I am signing this petition because I am completely against this developer putting a 104-unit apartment building in the heart of Mound. There are many reasons that it is poor planning. Some of them are: 1. This space is not large enough for this size building. 2. The traffic is already congested at the main intersection on Commerce Blvd. and Ct. 15. 3. The Dakota Trail crosses Commerce Blvd. at the proposed entrance and is very dangerous as is. 4. The other entrance that is proposed for use of this apartment building is not wide enough for this additional use of two-way traffic plus parking. 5. OLL Parish has no intention of selling any of that land to anyone. 6. The tenants of the building will cut through the OLL parking lot to avoid the traffic congestion. 7. This building will change the appearance and view of nature, the lake and - the Dakota nature trail. 799 APARTMENT PROJECT ON LAKE LANGDON ► am signing this petition because ► am completely against this developer putting a 104-unit apartment building in the heart of Mound. There are many reasons that it is poor planning. Some of them are: 1. This space is not large enough for this size building. 2. The traffic is already congested at the main intersection on Commerce Blvd. and Ct. 15. 3. The Dakota Trail crosses Commerce Blvd. at the proposed entrance and is very dangerous as is. 4. The other entrance that is proposed for use of this apartment building is not wide enough for this additional use of two-way traffic plus parking. 5. OLL Parish has no intention of selling any of that land to anyone. 6. The tenants of the building will cut through the OLL parking lot to avoid the traffic congestion. 7. This building will change the appearance and view of nature, the lake and - the Dakota nature trail. --------Name--------- ------------------------------------------------------------Date----------------------------------------- t -1 bg b e 2415 Wilshire Boulevard Mound, MN 55364 (952)472-0604 Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Sarah Smith, Comm. Dev. Director Date: April 7, 2022 Re: Discussion/Action — Resolution Ordering the Abatement of a Hazardous Building at 2396 Commerce Boulevard Summary. An alternative to an abatement action for the property at 2396 Commerce Boulevard was discussed at the January 26, 2021 City Council meeting and a resolution approving a Restoration Agreement for the building was adopted on March 23, 2021. Additionally, a First Amendment to the Restoration Agreement was approved by the City Council on November 23, 2021 to extend the schedule for correction of the hazardous building conditions to a new date of February 28, 2022 which did not occur. In accordance with the Restoration Agreement, the property owner was provided an additional 30 days, following the February 28, 2022 deadline, to cure the default, but he failed to do so, and therefore, on April 1, 2022, the final Notice of Default was sent to the property owner and his legal representative, and the property owner and his legal representative were notified that it was the intention of the City Council to address this matter at its meeting to be held on April 12, 2022. Due to the unresolved hazardous building and property at 2396 Commerce Boulevard, a resolution has been prepared by the City Attorney to authorize proceeding with a hazardous building declaration. Staff recommends approval of the draft resolution. CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION NO. 22- RESOLUTION ORDERING THE ABATEMENT OF A HAZARDOUS BUILDING LOCATED AT 2396 COMMERCE BOULEVARD WHEREAS, the real property located at 2396 Commerce Boulevard, Mound, Minnesota, legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto, Hennepin County PID 13-117-24-33-0057 (the "Property"), contains a commercial building (the `Building"); and WHEREAS, according to title documentation and Hennepin County property tax records, the Property was owned by Annabelle Williams as Trustee of the Annabelle Williams Trust, but the taxpayer for the Property is James Lang, and James Lang has represented to the City that he is the owner of the Property (the "Owner"); WHEREAS, the Building is currently unoccupied and has been vacant and unmaintained for many years; and WHEREAS, on August 13, 2020, at the bi-weekly City/MnSpect staff (the "Building Official") meeting, property concerns were discussed regarding the Property and the Building Official requested to contact the property owner to coordinate a meeting at the property; and WHEREAS, on August 24, 2020, a letter was sent to Keith Reitman, the taxpayer of record as of that date, citing International Property Maintenance Code violations and requesting entry to the Building. The deadline included in the letter for the owner to respond was August 28, 2020; and WHEREAS, on August 25, 2020, the Building Official received an email from the City with photographs documenting that a portion of the building fayade had fallen off the front of the Building and onto the sidewalk. The City's Public Works Department cleaned up the material from the sidewalk; and WHEREAS, on August 27, 2020, Tracy Reimann of the Building Official's office conducted a site inspection of the Property regarding apartially collapsed wall. Upon arriving, the Building Inspector observed that the masonry veneer on the southwest, front corner of the structure was not intact and the masonry veneer appeared to have separated from the supporting wall framing. Also, there appeared to be evidence of water damage to the wall cavity, which may have caused the failure; and WHEREAS, on September 1, 2020, the Building Official received a report of construction work being completed on the front of the building without a permit. A site inspection was conducted on September 2, 2020, and it was discovered that concrete was used to partially fill the missing masonry cavity; and WHEREAS, on September 8, 2020, an additional letter was sent to Keith Reitman, the taxpayer of record as of that date, requesting a site inspection to determine if there are any safety 1 concerns with the structure and to discuss property maintenance violations. The deadline included in the letter for the Building Official to inspect property was September 18, 2020; and WHEREAS, On September 9, 2020, the Building Official received a request to email the previous two letters to the Owner. The Owner represented to be the owner of the Property. The Building Official complied with this request on September 9, 2020; and WHEREAS, on September 17, 2020, the Building Official received a telephone call from the Owner's attorney, Michael Mahoney. Mr. Mahoney had informed the Building Official that a structural report and contractors' evaluation would be received within seven to ten days; and WHEREAS, on October 20, 2020, the Building Official recommended that the City proceed with an administrative search warrant to gain access to the Building and inspect the interior of the Building; and WHEREAS, on November 5, 2020, the Building Official received the structural assessment of the Property; and WHEREAS, on November 25, 2020, pursuant to an administrative search warrant, a physical inspection of the Property and the Building's exterior and interior was conducted by the Building Official. The Building Official prepared a report dated December 6, 2020, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference, which includes, but is not limited to, the following allegations: (1) water intrusion causing damage and deterioration of exterior framing and structural integrity, (2) failing joints and failures in Building additions, (3) unsound flooring and collapsing walls in a Building addition, (4) water damage to the front door, (5) visible light in the interior of the Building due to structural failures at wall/roof intersections, (6) evidence of water intrusion and failures in roof structures, ceilings and floors, (7) possible asbestos -containing materials, (8) holes in structural basement walls, presumably roughly created for doorways, (9) soil removal in the crawlspace that compromises the stability of walls and floors, (10) temporary and non -stable structural supports, (11) failed heat plant, (12) foundation failure in one corner of the Building with dirt eroding through the damaged block wall, (13) failing roof conditions in numerous locations causing water infiltration and damage, (14) significant trash and debris in the rear of the Property, (15) significant failures, including a foundation that has moved several inches and failed, in the final addition to the Building, (16) the chimney is not sealed, allowing water intrusion and (17) the presence of dangerous power lines above the Building and unprotected electrical wires; and WHEREAS, based on the conditions discovered during the November 25, 2020 inspection, the Building Official determined that (1) the Building and Property are "hazardous," as defined by Minnesota Statutes, section 463.15, and (2) both the exterior and interior portions of the Property are in violation of numerous provisions of the Mound City Code (the "City Code"); and WHEREAS, on December 10, 2020, the City sent the Owner aletter deeming the structure unsafe and hazardous as defined by Minnesota Statute 463.15. In addition, the Owner was advised that the City would be proceeding with the preparation of the required documents to authorize 2 proceeding with an order to abate the hazardous building conditions. The Owner was also advised that the City would entertain preparation of a removal agreement no later than January 15, 2021. A copy of the December 6, 2020 report was also provided to the Owner and his legal representative attorney; and WHEREAS, the City and the Owner were unable to reach an agreement with regard to removal and there had not been significant progress to address the unsafe condition of the Building on the Property, and therefore, on January 26, 2021, the City adopted Resolution No. 21-17, a Resolution to Authorize Proceeding with Hazardous Building Action for Property at 2396 Commerce Boulevard; and WHEREAS, subsequent to January 26, 2021, the City and the Owner continued to negotiate with the Owner with the stated desire to avoid demolition of the Building and to provide the Owner an opportunity to establish a framework to repair the Building; and WHEREAS, the Owner retained and engaged a professional engineer and construction company to perform inspections, make recommendations and issue reports that establish that the Building and the Property could be abated and the Building could be improved in a manner that would meet the City's zoning and building regulations and any and all other applicable City regulations; and WHEREAS, the City and the Owner jointly prepared a construction and improvement schedule, and the parties entered into a Restoration Agreement, as subsequently amended by the First Amendment to Restoration Agreement (collectively the "Restoration Agreement"), a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit C and incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, while the City has made repeated efforts to accommodate the Owner's efforts to repair and restore the Building, the City Attorney was required to send a Notice of Default to the Owner and his legal representative on May 25, 2021, March 1, 2022 and April 1, 2022. On May 25, 2021, the Notice of Default was based on the Owner's failure to timely provide architectural plans for the Building's repair prepared by a registered architect who would become the architect of record. On March 1, 2022, the Notice of Default was based on the Owner's failure to obtain a certificate of occupancy for the Building by February 28, 2022. In accordance with the Restoration Agreement, the Owner had another 30 days to cure the default, but he failed to do so, and therefore, on April 1, 2022, the final Notice of Default was sent to the Owner and his legal representative, which also notified the Owner and his legal representative that it was the intention of the City Council to address this matter at its meeting on April 12, 2022; WHEREAS, during the term of the Restoration Agreement, some work has been performed on the Building, including work on the fagade. However, none of the required inspections have been requested, and restoration of the electrical and heating plant in the Building likely required work that needed to be permitted and inspected, along with any roofing repair and foundation wall repair, and those inspections have not been requested or completed. WHEREAS, while the Owner has taken some steps to abate the hazardous conditions of the Building, the Building remains "hazardous," as defined by Minnesota Statutes, section 463.15, 3 and both the exterior and interior portions of the Property are in violation of numerous provisions of the Mound City Code (the "City Code"); and WHEREAS, City staff has exhausted its efforts attempting to accommodate the Owner and has significant concerns about the hazardous conditions of the Building; and WHEREAS, as is set forth in the Restoration Agreement, the City has communicated its intent to the Owner that if he failed to comply with the applicable City and State building codes and defaulted on the Restoration Agreement, the City would institute a hazardous building action; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, section 463.15, subdivision 3 defines a "hazardous building or hazardous property" as "any building or property, which because of inadequate maintenance, dilapidation, physical damage, unsanitary condition or abandonment, constitutes a fire hazard or a hazard to public safety or health"; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, sections 463.16 and 463.17 authorize the governing body of any city or town to order the owners of any hazardous property or building within the municipality to correct or remove the hazardous conditions; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, section 463.161 et seq. authorizes a city to correct or remove a hazardous condition of any hazardous property or building if the owner of record fails to do so after a reasonable time and the district court enters a judgment sustaining the city's order; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Rules, part 1300.0180 defines a building as unsafe "if it is structurally unsafe, not provided with adequate egress, a fire hazard, or otherwise dangerous to human life" and further expressly provides that all unsafe buildings are public nuisances that "must be abated by repair, rehabilitation, demolition, or removal according to Minnesota Statutes, sections 463.15 to 463.26'; and WHEREAS, to date, the Owner has failed to take the steps necessary to abate the hazardous conditions of the Building and is in default of the Restoration Agreement; and WHEREAS, based on the information presented, the City Council finds that the condition of the Building is both hazardous and unsafe and, therefore, must be abated in accordance with applicable state and local laws. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound as follows: 1. The City Council adopts, as factual findings, all of the above recitals. 2. The Building located on the Property is hazardous, as that term is defined by Minnesota Statutes, section 463.15, and unsafe, as that term is defined by Minnesota Rules, part 1300.0180. 4 3. The city attorney is authorized and directed to prepare an abatement order substantially similar to that attached hereto as Exhibit D. 4. The city attorney is authorized to take all necessary legal steps to effectuate service of this resolution and the corresponding abatement order in the manner required by law. 5. The city attorney, along with city staff, is further authorized to take all necessary legal steps in order to secure compliance with the abatement order and may effectuate the removal of the Building or otherwise abate the hazardous conditions on the Property by either agreement with the owners or by court order and subsequently assess the costs thereof against the Property in accordance with law. Adopted by the City Council this Passed and duly adopted this 12a' day of April, 2022. ATTEST: Kevin Kelly, City Clerk CITY OF MOUND Raymond J. Salazar, Mayor 5 :I. EXHIBIT A Legal Description Lot 14, McNaught's Addition to Mound Lake, Minnetonka A-1 EXHIBIT B December 6, 2020 Report (attached hereto) C :I: EXHIBIT C Restoration Agreement (attached hereto) C-1 :I• RESTORATION AGREEMENT t4 is Restoration Agreement (the "Agreement") is entered into as of this % day of ?: • , 2021, by and between the city of Mound, a Minnesota municipal corporation (the' "City"), and James Lang, a single person ("Lang"). The City and the Lang shall be referred to collectively herein as the "Parties." RECITALS WHEREAS, Lang is an owner of certain real property located at 2396 Commerce Boulevard in the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota and legally described on the attached Exhibit A (the "Property"); WHEREAS, the Property contains a single commercial building, with the exterior of the building facing Commerce Boulevard and the sides of the building lying on the applicable property lines with no setback (the "Building"); WHEREAS, on November 25, 2020, pursuant to an administrative search warrant, a physical inspection of the Property and the Building's exterior and interior was conducted by the City's Building Official. The City's Building Official prepared a report dated December 6, 2020, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference, which includes, but is not limited to, the following allegations: (1) water intrusion causing damage and deterioration of exterior framing and structural integrity, (2) failing joints and failures in Building additions, (3) unsound flooring and collapsing walls in a Building addition, (4) water damage to the front door, (5) visible light in the interior of the Building due to structural failures at wall/roof intersections, (6) evidence of water intrusion and failures in roof structures, ceilings and floors, (7) possible asbestos -containing materials, (8) holes in structural basement walls, presumably roughly created for doorways, (9) soil removal in the crawlspace that compromises the stability of walls and floors, (10) temporary and non -stable structural supports, (11) failed heat plant, (12) foundation failure in one corner of the Building with dirt eroding through the damaged block wall, (13) failing roof conditions in numerous locations causing water infiltration and damage, (14) significant trash and debris in the rear of the Property, (15) significant failures, including a foundation that has moved several inches and failed, in the final addition to the Building, (16) the 811 chimney is not sealed, allowing water intrusion and (17) the presence of dangerous power lines above the Building and unprotected electrical wires; WHEREAS, based on the conditions discovered during the aforementioned inspection, the City Building Official has determined that (1) the Building and Property are "hazardous," as defined by Minnesota Statutes, section 463.15, and (2) both the exterior and interior portions of the Property are in violation of numerous provisions of the Mound City Code (the "City Code"); WHEREAS, the City contends that pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, chapter 463, the City is authorized to initiate formal legal proceedings to require that Lang abate the Property's hazardous and unsafe conditions and, in the event that Lang fails to do so, the City is further provided with the statutory authority to facilitate said abatement on its own and assess the Property for the cost thereof, WHEREAS, Lang disputes the City's contentions regarding the Property and allegations the Building is structurally sound, the allegation by the City Building Official may be repaired and a decision to demolish the Building is unwarranted: WHEREAS, the City has stated it desires to avoid demolition of the Building, Lang desires to establish a framework to repair the building without admitting or denying the City's contentions: WHEREAS, Lang, with the assistance of a City resident and neighboring property owner, has retained and engaged a professional engineer and construction company to perform inspections, make recommendations and issue reports that establish that the Building and the Property can be abated and the Building can be improved in a manner that will meet the City's zoning and building regulations and any and all other applicable City regulations, as set forth in the City's Code of Ordinances; and WHEREAS, the Parties have jointly prepared the construction and improvement schedule set forth in this Agreement, and by entering into this Agreement, the Parties wish to jointly facilitate the abatement and improvement of the Property's and Building's alleged hazardous conditions set forth above and avoid legal proceedings; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises set forth in this Agreement, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are acknowledged by the Parties, the Parties hereby agree as follows: AGREEMENT 1. Recitals. The Parties agree that the foregoing Recitals are true and correct and are fully incorporated into this Agreement. 2. Performance. So long as Lang complies with the terms of paragraph 3 of this Agreement, the City agrees that it will not issue an order for abatement as authorized in Minnesota Statutes, chapter 463 and that it will not initiate formal legal proceedings in civil court. If Lang fails to 2 812 comply with the terms of paragraph 3 of this Agreement and is determined to be in default as set forth in this Agreement, then he agrees that the City may immediately perform any outstanding work specified in this Agreement and assess its costs as set forth in paragraph 7 of this Agreement. Lang also agrees that the City may opt to remove the Building instead of performing the outstanding work if it is deemed by the City to be more cost-effective to do so. 3. Abatement and Improvement of the Build. a. Removal of Trash and Debris. Lang, at his own cost and expense, agrees to remove the debris and trash outside the Property and trash inside the building and generally clean the building on or before March 31, 2021. Lang authorizes the City to inspect the Property on or before April 15, 2021 to ensure that the debris and trash has been removed from the Property. b. Plans. On or before April 30, 2021, Lang shall submit architectural plans for the Building's repair ("Improvements"). The plans will be prepared by a registered architect who will become the architect of record for the project. The plans will become Exhibit C of this Agreement upon approval of building permits as set forth below. The City agrees to cooperate with Lang and to use its best efforts to timely approve the permits required. Delay in the City's approval process shall result in deferral of the events set forth below by the days of delay and shall constitute extension of required completion and not result in a default under this Agreement. C. Planning and Zoning. On or before May 30, 2021, Lang shall submit all zoning requests required in support of the Improvements. This Agreement is neither a substitute nor a waiver of the City's planning and zoning application and review process and Lang will be solely responsible for obtaining necessary planning and zoning approvals required for the proposed uses and Improvements. The City agrees to cooperate with Lang and to use its best efforts to timely approve the permits required. Delay in the City's approval process shall result in deferral of the events set forth below by the days of delay and shall constitute extension of required completion and not result in a default under this Agreement. d. Repair and Improvements. On or before June 30, 2021, Lang shall obtain a building permit to complete construction of the Improvements. Lang shall substantially complete all work for the Improvements and obtain a certificate of occupancy on or before December 31, 2021. The City agrees to cooperate with Lang and to use its best efforts to timely approve the permits required. Delay in the City's approval process shall result in deferral of the events set forth below by the days of delay and shall constitute extension of required completion and not result in a default under this Agreement. e. Permits, Approval and Inspections. This Agreement is neither a substitute for nor a waiver of the City's permitting and inspection requirements. Lang or his contractor(s) will obtain all necessary permits for the work on the Property. To obtain a building permit, Lang will need updated plans for the Improvements that 813 meet current City Code. If Lang meets the conditions to obtain a permit, the City will not withhold or otherwise interfere with the Lang's ability to obtain a building permit. All plumbing permits will require a state plumbing licensed contractor. All electrical permits will require a state licensed electrical contractor. All mechanical permits will require a city licensed mechanical contractor. Any and all alterations of the property will comply with City Code requirements. Lang will allow the City access to all areas of the Property for the inspections. The City agrees to cooperate with Lang and to use its best efforts to timely approve the permits required. Delay in the City's approval process shall result in deferral of the events set forth below by the days of delay and shall constitute extension of required completion and not result in a default under this Agreement. 4. Default. The following events shall constitute an event of default by Lang: a. Failure by Lang to timely perform the work set forth in section 3(a)-(d) above, subject to unavoidable delays beyond Lang's control, including, but not limited to, delays in material and equipment deliveries, labor or equipment shortages, and weather conditions that interfere with completion, within 30 days after receipt by Lang of notice thereof by the City, or such longer period of time as may reasonably be required to cure such default provided Lang is proceeding with diligence to do SO. b. Failure by Lang to obtain a certificate of occupancy for the Property on or before December 31, 2021. 5. Remedies on Default. In the event of default which is not excused or timely cured the City may take any one or more of the following actions: a. The City may suspend its performance under this Agreement until it receives assurances from Lang, deemed adequate by the City, that Lang will cure his default and continue his performance under the Agreement. b. The City may initiate such action, including legal or administrative action, whether in law or in equity, as is necessary for the City to perform the work for the Improvements or recover any amounts due under this Agreement from Lang, or recover any damages sustained by the City as a result of Lang's default. C. This Agreement is a license by Lang for the City to enter the Property and it shall not be necessary for the City to seek an order from any court for permission to enter the Property for such purposes. If the City does any such work, the City may, in addition to its other remedies, exercise any authority available to it to recover its costs by a levy of special assessments against the Property to be paid over a period of ten (10) years. 4 6. No Occupanc%. Lang agrees that no new certificate of occupancy has been issued for the Property as of the date of this Agreement. Lang will not allow any other people to occupy the Building on the Property without a certificate of occupancy being issued. Until a new certificate of occupancy has been issued for the Property, Lang may continue to use the Property as he has in the past ten years provided Lang shall not conduct retails sales to the general public from the Property or personally use the Property as his residence. 7. S ecial Assessment of Costs and Expenses, Waiver. The City is authorized pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, sections 463.21 and 463.22 to assess the expenses that it incurs as a result of its enforcement of the City issuing a legally valid Order in the event of default by Lang including specifically, but not exclusively, demolition or repair costs, disposal costs including costs to remove items from the Property, other costs to remove the hazardous conditions on the Property, filing fees, service fees, publication fees, reasonable attorneys' fees, witness fees and traveling expenses (the "Expenses"). In the event of default by Lang and if the City has to perform work as outlined in Paragraph 3(a)-(d) of this Agreement, then Lang, for himself and his successors and assigns, hereby waives the right to object to the City's assessment of 100 percent (100%) of the Expenses incurred by the City. Lang hereby further waives his right to appeal the levy of the special assessment pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 429.081, or reapportionment thereof upon land division pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 429.071, subdivision 3; and further specifically agrees with respect to such special assessment against the Property that: a. Any requirements of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429, with which the City does not comply are hereby waived by Lang with respect to the City's Expenses; b. The increase in fair market value of the Property resulting from the work will be in an amount at least equal to the total cost for the work undertaken under Paragraph 3(a)-(d) and assessed to the Property, and that such increase in fair market value is a special benefit resulting from said work; C. Lang's waiver of his right to object to the City's assessment of 100 percent of the Expenses against the Property as outlined above so long as it is reasonable, fair and equitable and there are no other properties against which the Expenses should be assessed; and d. Such special assessment shall be payable in up to ten (10) annual installments starting in the year 2022, with interest at the annual rate of four percent (4%) accruing from the date of the assessment hearing. 8. Waiver of Claims. If the City has to perform work as outlined in Paragraph 3(a)-(d) of this Agreement, Lang agrees to waive any claims against the City, its officials, employees, contractors, and agents from and against any and all liability, loss, costs, damages, expenses, claims, actions, or judgments, including reasonable attorneys' fees which they, or their agents or contractors may hereinafter sustain, incur, or be required to pay, arising out of or by reason of this Agreement, except for personal injury, gross negligence, intentional behavior, and or actions arising from wanton disregard for the property or personal rights of Lang. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as a waiver by the City of any immunities, defenses, or other limitations on liability to 5 815 which the City is entitled by law, including but not limited to the maximum monetary limits on liability established by Minnesota Statutes Chapter 466 or otherwise. Should the City, complete any of the work as outlined in Paragraph 3(a)-(d) of this Agreement, the Lang waives any and all claims against the City for the removal or destruction of any and all personal items, provided, however that Lang shall receive advance written notice at least 10 days before any removal and be allowed to enter and remove such property. As part of this waiver, Lang knowingly acknowledges and agrees that none of the items that remain on the Property, after the agreed -upon removal date, need to be salvaged or sold, and, accordingly, the City may dispose of said items and need not make any attempt to salvage or sell said items. The City may not keep any said items, nor give them to any of its employees or agents. 9. Hazardous Building Action. By entering into this Agreement, the City agrees that it will not issue an order for abatement or initiate legal proceedings in court against Lang regarding the Property and Building's allegedly hazardous condition, unless the there is an event of default not cured as provided herein. 10. General Provisions. This Agreement, including the recitals, exhibits attached hereto, and the documents incorporated herein by reference, contains the entire agreement between the Parties and supersedes in all respects all prior agreements of the Parties, whether written or otherwise, with respect to the Property and the Building. No change, modification or waiver of any provisions of this Agreement will be binding unless it is in writing and signed by both Parties. This Agreement shall be construed according to the laws of the state of Minnesota. 11. Execution in Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed and delivered in multiple counterparts, each of which, when so delivered, shall be an original, but such counterparts shall together constitute but one and the same instrument and agreement. 12. Run with the Land. The provisions of this Agreement shall run with the land and be binding upon the Parties and their respective heirs, successors, and assigns. 13. Recordin . The City may record this Agreement against the Property in the land records of Hennepin County. It is the intent of the Parties that this Agreement is in a form which is recordable among the land records and the Parties agree to make any changes to this Agreement as may be necessary to effectuate the recording and filing of this Agreement against the Property. 14. Severabilihr. If any term, provision, or condition contained in this Agreement shall, to any extent, be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement (or the application of such term, provision, or condition to persons or circumstances other than those in respect to which it is invalid or unenforceable) shall not be affected, and each term, provision, or condition of this Agreement shall be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law. 15. Compliance with Laws and Regulations. In performing all obligations contained herein, the Parties must abide by all applicable federal, state, and local statutes, ordinances, rules, and regulations. MR 16. Termination of Agreement. This Agreement shall terminate upon the earlier date of either (a) Lang's satisfactory completion of the work set forth in paragraph 3, or (b) upon certification of the assessment of all costs associated with any work completed by the City if Lang fails to perform the work set forth in paragraph 5. Upon termination of this Agreement based on (a) of this Paragraph, the City shall thereafter execute and deliver such documents, in recordable form, that are necessary to extinguish the rights hereunder. Upon termination of this Agreement based on (b) of this Paragraph, the City shall have the ability to pursue all available legal remedies with respect to the hazardous conditions on the Property including but not limited to seeking a court order to demolish the dwelling. 17. Attorney Representation. The Parties acknowledge that they have been represented by counsel in connection with the execution of this Agreement and intend that no rules construing provisions of this Agreement against the position of the drafter shall be applied. The Parties further represent and declare that in executing this document they have relied solely upon their own judgment, belief and knowledge, or the advice and recommendation of their own independently selected counsel, and that they have not been influenced to any extent whatsoever in executing this document by any representations or statements except those expressly contained or referred to in this Agreement. [SIGNATURE PAGES FOLLOW] 817 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Agreement to be duly executed in their names and on their behalf on or as of the dates indicated herein. THE CITY: By: r t ymond f-*6aidr, Mayor Eric Hoversten, City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this H y of � , 2021, by Raymond J. Salazar and Eric Hoversten, the mayor and city manager, res ectively, of the City of Mound, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the city. MLLEM WIE KAE M ITS (Votary Public -Minnesota My COTn WM EWM JM 31, 2= Notary Public FIRST AMENDMENT TO RESTORATION AGREEMENT T s First Amendment to Restoration Agreement (the "Amendment") is entered into as of this go "Jay of _[:k eon&= , 2021, by and between the city of Mound, a Minnesota municipal corporatio (the "City"), and James Lang, a single person ("Lang"). The City and the Lang shall be referred to collectively herein as the "Parties." RECITALS WHEREAS, on or about the 13t' day of April, 2021, the Parties entered into a Restoration Agreement with regard to certain real property located at 2396 Commerce Boulevard in the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota and legally described on the attached Exhibit A (the "Property"); and WHEREAS, the Parties now desire to amend the Restoration Agreement for the purpose of extending the deadline for Lang to obtain a certificate of occupancy for the Property. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises set forth in this Agreement, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are acknowledged by the Parties, the Parties hereby agree as follows: AGREEMENT 1. Recitals. The Parties agree that the foregoing Recitals are true and correct and are fully incorporated into this Agreement. 2. Certificate of Occupancy. Section 3. d. of the Restoration Agreement is amended to provide that Lang shall substantially complete all work and obtain a certificate of occupancy on or before February 28, 2022, and Section 4. b. of the Restoration Agreement is amended to provide that failure by Lang to obtain a certificate of occupancy for the Property on or before February 28, 2022 shall constitute an event of default. 1 3. Reaffirmation. The Parties hereby agree that the Restoration Agreement, as amended hereby, is and shall be valid, binding upon and fully enforceable against the Parties in accordance with its terms and all the terms, conditions, provisions, agreements, requirements, promises, obligations, duties, covenants and representations in the Restoration Agreement, as amended hereby, are hereby ratified and reaffinned in all respects. 4. Effect of Amendment. Except as expressly amended in this Amendment, the terms and provisions of the Restoration Agreement shall remain in fall force and effect, including but not limited to, Section 4. a. of the Restoration Agreement, which provides that failure to timely complete the work is an event of default within 30 days after receipt by Lang of notice thereof by the City, or such longer period of time as may reasonably be required to cure such default provided Lang is proceeding with diligence to do so. 5. Execution in Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed and delivered in multiple counterparts, each of which, when so delivered, shall be an original, but such counterparts shall together constitute but one and the same instrument and agreement. 6. Run with the Land. The provisions of this Amendment shall run with the land and be binding upon the Parties and their respective heirs, successors, and assigns. 7. Recording. The City may record this Amendment against the Property in the land records of Hennepin County. It is the intent of the Parties that this Amendment is in a form which is recordable among the land records and the Parties agree to make any changes to this Amendment as may be necessary to effectuate the recording and filing of this Amendment against the Property. [SIGNATURE PAGES FOLLOW] fit 821 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Agreement to be duly executed in their names and on their behalf on or as of the dates indicated herein. THE CITY: r4y4mWS4z, .� r, ayor Eric Hoversten, ity Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me thisaaay of De-c e. n6-r 2021, by Raymond J. Salazar and Eric Hoversten, the mayor and city manager, respectively, of the City of Mound, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the city. LZ-d DOLLETIE WNEMBROM Notary PubBc-Minnesota ;2)Z� Aycomm�eion6goM�edenst.2oxa Notary Public 3 By: STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) A XTd- e The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 1 y ofK,-0yl0Cr , 2021, by James Lang, a single person. THIS INSTRUCvIENT DRAFTED BY: Kennedy & Graven, Chartered 700 Fifth Street Towers 150 South Fifth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 (612) 337-9300 0 Notary ul-lic fll1.r./✓I1JJ.l./✓ ----l.----IJII. - 823 EXHIBIT A Legal Description of the Property Lot 14, McNaught's Addition to Mound Lake, Minnetonka Lai L-Ml EXHIBIT A Legal Description of the Property Lot 14, McNaught's Addition to Mound Lake, Minnetonka Lai 825 EHXIBIT D Abatement Order STATE OF MINNNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN DISTRICT In the Matter of the Hazardous Buildings Located at 2396 Commerce Boulevard, Mound, Minnesota TO: All owners, occupants, and lienholders of record. DISTRICT COURT FOURTH JUDICIAL Case Type: Other Civil ORDER FOR ABATEMENT OF A HAZARDOUS BUILDING The City Council of the City of Mound (the "City") orders that within 30 days of service of this Order you abate the hazardous conditions which currently exist on the property located at: 2396 Commerce Boulevard, Mound, Minnesota, Hennepin County PID 13-117-24-33-0057, which property is legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto (the "Property"). As further detailed herein, abatement shall occur by either (1) razing (demolishing) the hazardous building, or (2) carrying out in full the list of items outlined below. The City of Mound, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Sections 463.15 to 463.261, finds the building located at the above -referenced property constitutes a hazardous building within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes Section 463.15, subdivision 3, specifically due to the structural deficiencies and defects, the poor condition of the interior and exterior, roof damage, the water intrusion, and the overall condition of the structure. Pursuant to the above -referenced statutes, it is hereby ORDERED that you abate the hazardous property conditions within 30 days of the date of service of this Order by either removing the structure or completing the following: D-1 1. Allow the City's Building Official to inspect the interior of the property to identify all code violations and provide a list of all interior deficiencies that will need to be remedied; 2. Obtain permits, complete all required inspections and complete all work on needed repairs according to the City's Building Official's assessment; 3. Repair or replace all faulty mechanical, plumbing and electrical systems; 4. Repair or replace all damaged wall, ceiling, and subfloors; 5. All walls, ceilings and floors shall be properly insulated; 6. Remove all accumulations of rubbish on property; and 7. Test for mold and remediate any mold present in the structure. You must apply for and obtain any appropriate permit(s), if applicable, for the work you intend to perform from the appropriate City offices before abating the hazardous conditions, including the removal of the structure. This Order is not a permit. Further, all work completed is subject to inspection by the City's building inspector, fire inspector, and other staff as required to ensure compliance with applicable rules and law. You are further advised that unless such corrective action is taken or an Answer is served on the City and filed with the Hennepin County District Court Administrator within 21 days of the date of service of this Order upon you, a motion for summary enforcement of this Order will be made to Hennepin County District Court. You are further advised that if you do not comply with this Order and the City is compelled to take any corrective action, all necessary costs incurred by the City in taking the corrective action will be assessed against the property pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 463.21. In connection thereto, the City intends to recover all its expenses incurred in carrying out this Order, including D-2 827 specifically but not exclusively, filing fees, service fees, publication fees, attorneys' fees, appraisers' fees, witness fees, including expert witness fees and traveling expenses incurred by the City from the time this Order was originally made pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 463.22. Dated 12022. KENNEDY & GRAVEN, CHARTERED By: Jason M. Hill (#0298438) Brendan C. Johnson (#0403009) 700 Fifth Street Towers 150 South Fifth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 (612) 337-9300 ATTORNEYS FOR THE CITY OF MOUND D-3 EXHBIT A Legal Description Lot 14, McNaught's Addition to Mound Lake, Minnetonka D-A-1 829 Ha® MARCH 2O22 VS 2021 DATE SALES CUSTOMERS AVERAGE TICKET GROSS PROFIT % '22 '21 '22 '21 +/- '22 '21 +/- '22 '21 +/- '22 '21 +/- Monday 1 5,932 218 27 28% Tuesday 1 2 6,549 6,246 5% 261 239 9% 25 26 -4% 31% 31% 0% Wednesday 2 3 7,554 7,117 6% 262 262 0% 29 27 6% 31% 30% 3% Thursday 3 4 7,888 7,229 9% 294 271 8% 27 27 1% 30% 29% 3% Friday 4 5 13,462 14,843 -9% 464 463 0% 29 32 -9% 28% 28% 0% Saturday 5 6 10,536 13,756 -23% 339 467 -27% 31 29 6% 30% 30% 0% Sunday 6 7 6,255 6,909 -9% 252 255 -1% 25 27 -8% 30% 31% -3% Monday 7 8 5,181 5,443 -5% 211 256 -18% 25 21 15% 31% 30% 3% Tuesday 8 9 7,049 6,416 10% 253 255 -1% 28 25 11% 31% 30% 3% Wednesday 9 10 7,310 6,643 10% 263 258 2% 28 26 8% 30% 32% -6% Thursday 10 11 6,596 10,487 -37% 251 327 -23% 26 32 -18% 30% 32% -6% Friday 11 12 14,616 14,206 3% 447 441 1% 33 32 2% 29% 29% 0% Saturday 12 13 11,669 15,710 -26% 371 495 -25% 31 32 -1% 30% 30% 0% Sunday 13 14 6,636 5,729 16% 244 221 10% 27 26 5% 30% 30% 0% Monday 14 15 5,404 5,624 -4% 209 226 -8% 26 25 4% 30% 30% 0% Tuesday 15 16 7,446 7,114 5% 285 277 3% 26 26 2% 31% 31% 0% Wednesday 16 17 7,620 9,774 -22% 276 363 -24% 28 27 3% 30% 29% 3% Thursday 17 18 9,512 7,584 25% 343 270 27% 28 28 -1% 30% 30% 0% Friday 18 19 13,383 15,427 -13% 435 487 -11% 31 32 -3% 28% 28% 0% Saturday 19 20 10,983 13,891 -21% 385 442 -13% 29 31 -9% 30% 29% 3% Sunday 20 21 7,008 5,568 26% 255 231 10% 27 30% 31% -3% Monday 21 22 5,660 5,668 0% 236 248 -5% 24 23 5% 30% 30% 0% Tuesday 22 23 5,696 5,977 -5% 234 247 -5% 24 24 1% 31% 30% 3% Wednesday 23 24 6,249 7,377 -15% 255 289 -12% 25 26 -4% 30% 32% -6% Thursday 24 25 9,075 9,432 -4% 332 343 -3% 27 27 -1% 30% 29% 3% Friday 25 26 11,181 12,079 -7% 371 418 -11% 30 29 4% 27% 28% -4% Saturday 26 27 9,691 10,791 -10% 348 376 -7% 28 29 -3% 30% 30% 0% Sunday 27 28 5,432 5,570 -2% 217 210 3% 25 30% 30% 0% Monday 28 29 4,630 6,485 -29% 193 258 -25% 24 25 -5% 30% 30% 0% Tuesday 29 30 5,248 7,230 -27% 250 263 -5% 21 27 -24% 30% 29% 3% Wednesday 30 31 5,961 7,688 -22% 224 280 -20% 27 30% 31% -3% Thursday 31 6,653 277 24 30% TOTAL - March 248,132 269,945 -8.08% 9,037 9,656 -6.41% 27 28 -2% Sales Customer Avg Ticket 2022 2021 2022 2021 �2022 �2021 January 238,117 267,685 -11% 8,605 9,572 -10% 28 28 -1% February 274,733 251,310 9% 8,815 8,750 1% 31 29 9% March 248,132 269,945 -8% 9,037 9,656 -6% 27 28 -2% , FIRST QTR 760,983 788,940 -4% 26,457 27,978 -5% 29 28 2% MOUND DOCKS AND COMMONS COMMISSION MINUTES January 20, 2022 The Mound Docks and Commons Commission met on Thursday, January 20, 2022, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of the Centennial Building at 5341 Maywood Road in Mound. Present: Chair Derrick Hentz, Vice Chair Susan Gardner, Commissioners Heidi Peterson, Linda Muller and Dave Olson and Council Representative Paula Larson. Absent: None Others Present: Administrative Services Coordinator Kevin Kelly, Dock Inspector Barry Blievernicht, Taylor Lagieski and Claire Lagieski, Rodney Beystrom, Tom Delacy, Joe Goetz, Ted Breckheimer, Jay and Amy Stemler and Carl Palmquist Chair Derrick Hentz called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 1. Approval of Agenda. Kelly noted item No. 4 was not accurate and the minutes to be approved were the September 16, 2021 DCC Meeting Minutes. MOTION, by Muller, seconded by Gardner, to approve the amended agenda. All voted in favor. Motion carried. 2. Oath of Office by City Manager Eric Hoversten A. Commissioner Heidi Peterson — Non -Abutter Kelly administered the Oath of Office to Commissioner Peterson. 3. Election of Officers - Chair and Vice Chair Hentz asked if any of members present wanted to take on the officer positions. Both Peterson and Muller stated they would be interested in being Vice Chair. Hentz stated he has become much busier with work and would need to step down as Chair. Peterson said she had too much going on in her life to take on being Chair at this time. After discussion Muller stated she has recently retired and could take on the Chair position for 2022. Gardner stated she would like to stay on as Vice Chair. MOTION, by Gardner, seconded by Peterson, to nominate Linda Muller as Chair of the Docks and Commons Commission. All voted in favor. Motion carried. MOTION, by Peterson, seconded by Larson, to nominate Susan Gardner as Vice Chair of the Docks and Commons Commission. All voted in favor. Motion carried. 831 Muller took over the gavel and ran the meeting. 4. Approval of Meeting Minutes —September 16, 2021. Muller stated there was a date wrong on the minutes which Kelly said would be corrected. Olson asked if some of the items which were going to be addressed by staff were completed. Kelly said that Mr. Breckheimer and his request to be added as a share will be on the March 17 DCC agenda. Kelly said he addressed Mr. Lagieski's boat use as well. MOTION, by Gardner, seconded by Olson, to approve the minutes from the September 16, 2021 DCC Meeting. All voted in favor. Motion carried. 5. Comments and suggestions from citizens present Taylor Lagieski, 1713 Bluebird Lane, addressed the DCC. Lagieski stated he and his wife Clair have lived around the lake their entire lives and were overjoyed to get the dock site. Lagieski stated he wanted to respond to the comments made regarding his dock site made at the September 16, 2021 DCC meeting as he was not able to attend. Lagieski said he did not sublet his dock to any other person and completed the requirements regarding ownership of the watercraft as City staff requested. Lagieski said his family members have used the boat in a respectful manner including his 75-year-old father. Lagieski listed a number of incidents regarding an abutting Dreamwood neighbor who was confrontational and complained to them about their dock usage. Lagieski stated he discussed this behavior with other residents and his dock share and Lagieski stated that this abutter has a history of being confrontational. Lagieski said he has requested Dock Administration move him to another dock location in Dreamwood. 6. 2021 Annual Dock Report Kelly gave highlights from the 2021 Dock Report which included the hiring of Barry Blievernicht as Dock Inspector. Kelly noted that there were no non-residents who rented a slip at Lost Lake so of the 47 slips there 22 went to Villa townhome owners and 25 went to Mound residents. Kelly noted all 24 Canoe/Kayak racks were rented out with a couple of Mound residents who inquired too late to be assigned a rack. Kelly added there were 17 abutter docks which didn't moor a watercraft and five of those which didn't put a dock in the water. 7. Dock Map Addendum Kelly stated there is only one change to the Dock Map Addendum (DMA). Kelly said the DMA needs to be updated and approved by the City Council at least once a year. Kelly said the update this year is the combined and shared dock site at 4622 and 4626 Kildare Road. Kelly said a new owner purchased 4622 Kildare and made changes to the dock structure which impacted the private property setback to the east. Kelly said he received approval from the private property owner for the encroachment into the set back and added a formal note in the 832 DMA that the two abutters would only be allowed four watercraft total to be shared equally with the two abutters. MOTION, by Peterson , seconded by Olson, to approve the amendment to the Dock Map Addendum. All voted in favor. Motion carried. 8. Canoe/Kayak Rack Expansion Kelly stated that the Canoe/Kayak rack program continues to be popular with all 24 spots being rented out in 2021. Kelly said there are capital funds available to purchase another rack. Kelly added the cost of the racks has gone up and the fees charged have gone up to $65.00 for residents and $90.00 for non-residents. Kelly stated previous DCC discussions suggested the next rack be in the western area of Mound. Kelly said he suggests Twin Park for the new rack due to available parking, the shoreline topography level and that this area of the lake is good for this type of boating. Discussion ensued about other sites such as Beachside on Three Points which also has parking and is level. Peterson asked where Twin Park was located and what is the access to the shore. Kelly said the access is steep to the shore but the access is paved. Kelly added there is a lift station at the bottom of Twin Parkas well. Peterson said Beachside and West Arm Bay area of the lake can get busy. Gardner said that if Twin Park doesn't work out as planned the rack can be moved to another location. MOTION, by Gardner, seconded by Olson, to approve the addition of a Dock Doctors 8-craft Canoe/Kayak Rack to be placed at Twin Park. All voted in favor. Motion carried. 9. Temporary Visitors Permit Kelly stated the Council proposed to change the $50.00 fee for this permit to $150.00 during the October City Council workshop meeting. Kelly added a fee analysis was done and the temporary permit fee was the lowest fee per day of all dock license and permit fees. Kelly noted the increase to $150.00 was approved by the Council in December as an item in the fee schedule and the item for discussion by the DCC is approval of limiting the duration of the permit from 21 to 10 days. Larson said the Council felt the increase in fees and shortening the length of the permit was a compromise to a full removal of temporary permits as the majority of the temporary permits go to non-residents. DCC members asked Kelly how many temporary permits are issued a year and Kelly said between 8 and 10 on average. Kelly added that some of these permits take quite a bit of time to process and a few each year seem to be between people who don't know each other well. 833 Peterson and Olson asked about the rationale in both increasing fees and shortening the length of the permit and felt reducing the duration of the permit to 14 days would be fair. Discussion took place on what day people typically start the temporary rentals and whether the permits usually fall over two weekends. Kelly said that rentals do typically start before a weekend. Gardner said she felt the 10-day duration was fair as this would cover two weekends and would only be a $15.00 per day charge for a spot on the lake which would cost much more at commercial slips. MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Olson, to recommend approval of the temporary dockage permit ordinance with duration of the permit to be for 14 days. Muller, Hentz, Peterson and Olson voted in favor. Gardner and Larson voted no. Motion carried. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 78 OF THE MOUND CITY CODE AS IT RELATES TO WATERWAYS 10. City Participation in Lake Management/Avalon Channel Survey Kelly stated the policy is meant to clarify the prescribed obligations of the City when it comes to property owned by the City and in waters of the state. Kelly said the City has been and will continue to protect the City public land at and above the Ordinary High Water mark for Lake Minnetonka which is currently 929.4. Kelly said the City has completed rip rapping Devon Commons and will support shoreline work where there is significant erosion of areas which receive a lot of boat traffic and wave action. Kelly said that 2021 was a low water year which made navigation more difficult than in recent years and the Dock Program can't guarantee access to locations at all times. Kelly said he has heard from a number of boaters this year who had trouble with the low water levels and some needing to take their watercraft off of the lake earlier in the season than they expected. Kelly said that though the City has done dredges in the past the City does not own the lake and the regulatory environment has changed and the expense of dredges has increased. Kelly added another area which has impacted navigation on the lake are Aquatic Invasive Species (AIS) particularly vegetal growth in the lake in areas like Harrison's Bay. Kelly stated that a lakeshore resident came to the City to discuss the navigation difficulties he and fellow boaters were having with a large mat of AIS and other weeds in Harrison's Bay. Kelly said Council and staff directed the resident to the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) as they had a program to respond to weed growth on the lake. Kelly said the City provides funds for the LMCD to conduct work on the lake and to license the Dock Program. Kelly said the LMCD has changed their focus on how to treat weed growth from active harvesting with their own staff to now working with neighborhood and other associations and providing funds to assess AIS problem areas. Kelly said the LMCD will also provide funds to contractors through the lake associations to address the problem. Kelly said the lakeshore residents and other neighbors have created the Harrison's Bay Association. Kelly said the LMCD has provided 50% of the funding for the assessment of the weed growth in Harrison's Bay with the Association paying for the other 50%. Kelly said the LMCD will provide up to 25%of funding for the actual weed removal. Kelly said the dock program has discontinued non -abutter dock sites due to weed growth or access issues in the past. Peterson talked about the dock site called Bluebird South which is a dock in the Woodland Point neighborhood and it is not being used in the Dock Program due to weed growth blocking access to the dock. Peterson added she remembers draught years on the lake where they had to push their boat off from their dock to get to open water. Kelly said the DCC dredge sub -committee toured the Denbigh and Jennings Cove sites this summer to look at the areas in which residents were concerned about water depth and navigation. Kelly added the City paid for the Avalon Channel Survey to determine what was the content and if possible the cause of the buildup of this area. Kelly said the Channel Survey said there was sand and other deposits in the direct area of the outfalls but there was no evidence provided in the survey that it was spread out beyond the immediate area of the outfall. Kelly stated he looked at the original plats of the Avalon and Seton subdivisions from over 100 years ago which depicted the area where the channel is now to be a marsh with a Channel cut through. Kelly showed copies of the plats to the DCC and public and said it was highly unlikely that this was a publically funded dredge but rather funded by the development company to sell their lots. Rodney Beystrom, 4466 Denbigh Road, addressed the DCC by saying he has lived in Mound since 1987 and remembers the summer of 1988 which was an extreme drought year. Beystrom said he had to push with his oars off of sand to float his watercraft. Beystrom said he provided photos to the DCC prior to the meeting which showed the extent of weed growth at the entrance to Avalon Channel since 2002. Beystrom said in 2002 two boats could pass side by side which isn't the case now. Beystrom said that the run off from the property behind Island Park Skelley building through the storm water outfall has in the past has been very powerful and deposited sediment from the streets into the Channel. Beystrom stated this outfall caused the navigation issues at the entrance to the Denbigh Channel. Carl Palmquist, 4500 Denbigh Road, said the City dredged the stormwater outfall adjacent to his property in 2008 or 2009. Palmquist said the City should dredge the area of the outfall because it is the City stormwater which is causing the buildup in the Channel. Jay Stemler, Denbigh Road, didn't feel the Avalon Channel Survey was an accurate depiction of the sediment deposits in the Channel. Stemler said he has video of the storm water outfall 835 which he will send to Staff. Stemler said the Public Works Superintendent at the time said that the City will have to dredge the outfall from the storm sewer and Stemler said he would like the City to dredge the area from the outfall to the Channel opening. Tom Delacy, 4458 Denbigh, said he is a private property owner next to Beystrom and would be interested in paying a fair share for a dredge of the Channel. Joe Goetz, 2512 Shannon Lane, said what will happen to these dock sites if the City policy is to not pay for work in the lake. Goetz said in 30 years the Excelsior Commons would not be navigable. Goetz said the storm water outlets are creating water currents in the mud banks in the Excelsior Commons and Denbigh areas and is causing mud to be displaced. Goetz suggested a fee on each dock holder as the dock fees "are a steal" to create a dredge fund. Olson said the commons program is for the little guy in the City who lives off of the lakeshore and doesn't think the average taxpayer should pay for dredges benefiting lakeshore owners. MOTION by Hentz, seconded by Olson, to extend the meeting beyond 9:00 p.m. to complete item 11 Reports. All voted in favor. Motion carried. 11. Reports Larson provided the following highlights of recent City Council activity, • Approved the sale of the Lost Lake Harbor District for $700,000.00 to Artessa of Mound which will build 52 age 62+ co-op apartments • Finalized the 2022 Levy and Budget • Harbor District east end community space review and planning • Considering options for new playground equipment at Surfside Park • Clean up of the City Comprehensive Plan • New City entrance sign • Application in process at the Planning Commission of a four-story 104-unit market -rate apartment complex for the Lake Langdon/Dakota Trail Area • Village of Island Park townhomes are being built out • Commerce Place shopping center is actively seeking tenants including the Mound Artessa Coop sales/marketing center MOTION, by Peterson, seconded by Muller, to adjourn the meeting at 9:12. All voted in favor. Motion carried. • MINUTES ►Ti role] ►11] »_1010110[citi]►Ti I LTA I M1 [QL I FEBRUARY 1, 2022 Chair Goode called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. SWEARING IN OF PLANNING COMMISSIONER Drew Heal was sworn in by City Manager Eric Hoversten ROLL CALL Members present: Chair David Goode, Kevin Castellano, Jon Ciatti, Jason Holt, Samantha Erickson, Drew Heal, Jake Saystrom, Jason Baker Staff present: Consultant Planner Rita Trapp and Secretary Jen Holmquist. Members of the public: Scott Picha 2273 Cottonwood Ln; Cathi Dioszeghy 5900 Beachwood Rd; Jeff Wrede 29 Summit Court, St. Paul; Brian Farrell 2106 Priest Lane, Johan Chemin Danielson 6039 Beachwood Rd; Joe Harrison 5625 Grandview Blvd; Nancy Paulson 5860 Lynwood Blvd; Rusty Stockinger Our Lady of the Lake Parish; Scott Gates 4360 Wilshire Blvd; Jason Zattler 2345 Commerce Blvd; Kirk Lau 2636 Wilshire Blvd; Jim Myers; Ginger Skaja 5975 Maple Forest, Minnetrista; K. Miller 4716 W. Arm Rd, Spring Park; Mary Davis 3021 Inverness Ln; Jane Anderson 5060 Edgewater; Michelle Herrick 2630 Westedge Blvd. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA MOTION by Baker to approve the agenda as amended; seconded by Ciatti. MOTION carried unanimously. REVIEW OF JANUARY 4. 2022 MEETING MINUTES MOTION by Ciatti to approve the January 4, 2022 meeting minutes as written; seconded by Heal. MOTION carried unanimously. BOARD OF APPEALS Planning Case No. 21-19 Public Hearing — Comprehensive Plan Amendment to Modify Density in The Downtown Lakes Mixed Use Area in the 2040 Mound Comprehensive Plan Applicant: Northland Real Estate Group Trapp explained that the Downtown Lakes Area is designated mixed -use. The Comprehensive Plan guides each area as to how many units are allowed. Trapp explained how density is 837 Planning Commission Minutes - Draft calculated. She stated that there was vacated right of way in the Downtown Lakes Area that was not included in the original calculations for developable land. This proposal, as well as the Artessa project, included right-of-way that hasn't been constructed but is developable if vacated. When those areas are included, the density remaining is 110 units so this 104-unit project meets allowable density. Ciatti requested a visual of the previously uncalculated areas for this project. Trapp provided a graphic showing the areas requested to be vacated. Baker asked for clarification regarding why the vacated right of way near the Artessa development is included. Trapp explained the density is calculated based the entire Downtown Lakes Area, not on a project by project basis. Holt asked if another project were proposed, would a comp plan amendment be required. Trapp confirmed one may be needed depending on the number of residential units proposed. Saystrom asked about the DNR density concerns. Trapp explained that any multi -family project will fall outside of those DNR guidelines. The way the MnDNR calculates density would not support anything other than single family in Mound given the City's land constaints. She pointed out that Harrison's Bay, Artessa, Village by The Bay could not meet the DNR guidelines. Trapp said the city strives to meet all other DNR requirements like minimum open space and impervious surface but the density will never be met with a multi -family project. Saystrom asked about stormwater management. Trapp said the agency for that is MCWD and the city requires that the project meets MCWD stormwater requirements. Trapp asked for a formal withdrawal. Brian Farrell, 3106 Priest Lane, stated that the requested Comprehensive Plan Amendment is withdrawn as the project meets the Comprehensive Plan as proposed. Planning Case No. 21-18 Public Hearing - Review/recommendation on major subdivision -preliminary plat and site development plans of "Northland Mound" involving vacant parcels generally located southwest of the intersection of Commerce Boulevard and the Dakota Rail Regional Trail on the eastern shore of Lake Langdon; also review/recommendation of a conditional use permit application for a planned unit development in a shoreland area for a 104-unit market rate, multi -family apartment project, a street vacation of a previously platted, but never constructed street; a determination of consistency with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan for the potential sale of city - owned parcels; and a public lands permit application to allow for the construction to occur on the City parking area immediately to the east of the site Applicant: Northland Real Estate Group Goode outlined the process of the meeting. Planning Commission Minutes - Draft Trapp summarized the project. She noted that the January presentation included a detailed review of the project. The information presented at this meeting will answer and address missing information or questions from the previous meeting. Trapp explained the location of the proposed project and noted that this is in a mixed -use district. The proposal includes a 104-unit market rate apartment project. The major subdivision - preliminary plat is the foundation when you have numerous parcels and are trying to create an area for development. The other items included in the application are the conditional use permit for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) in a shoreland area, vacation of right-of-way, sale of public property, public lands permit and the site development plans. Trapp then summarized the nature of each of the applications. The preliminary plat will create one lot on the 3-acre site. Trapp explained that the City Council approved the sale of the public properties with conditions. The revised plans include the properties the city has agreed to sell. A conditional use permit for a PUD is required for any project, in Mound's mixed -use area. State statute requires the Planning Commission make a determination that the sale of public land is consistent with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. This determination will be a separate motion from the other land use requests. The public lands permit is how the city allows the construction/maintenance of projects on public property. This application is to improve the public parking immediately to the east of the property and will allow the installation of the landscaping, curb for stormwater management and a monument sign at the entrance of the property. Trapp provided the applicant supplemental information graphic as provided for the terraces in the open space on the lawn. Additional information on traffic and parking was provided. Trapp shared a graphic that showed the planned movement through the site to and from Commerce. The entrance to the north will be a one-way entrance, with signage stating as such. The main entrance will be on the south side with two-way traffic. The developer increased the drive aisle to 25 feet to meet code requirements. Trapp noted that the parking meets code requirement there will be 93 enclosed spaces and 34 surface spaces. A traffic study was completed using the industry standard Trip Generation Manual, Eleventh Edition. Trapp explained how trip generation is calculated and what is meant by peak hour trips. This project would generate 472 additional daily trips. This project is anticipated to generate 38 total trips in the AM peak and 41 total trips in the PM peak. This equates to one car about every 1-2 minutes. Planning Commission Minutes - Draft Trapp said the applicant continues to work with MCWD and the City regarding the wetlands. Since the January meeting, a portion of Wetland 1 has been determined to be incidental, while the remaining were not. The applicant will be required to work through the permitting process and meet the guidelines set forth by the City and MCWD. An example of this are the wetland buffers shown on the revised site plan. Trapp provided unit sizes and noted that these will be in flux until construction commences. Trapp noted that the applicant is aware that they must meet the minimum guidelines and current proposal does that. A revised landscaping plan was submitted. Trapp noted the applicant is in the process of doing a tree study so additional information will be provided. Trapp explained that landscaping is often an ongoing discussion throughout a development project and that the condition included states that the applicant needs to satisfy city staff. Usable open space is required to be 20,800 sq. ft. and the proposal met it with 21,014 sq. ft.. Agency review: The supplemental information from the applicant was provided to consulting agencies. The City has only received additional or revised comments from the MnDNR. MCWD noted the rules triggered are erosion control, stormwater management, wetland protection, waterbody crossing and structures. Applicant will be required to meet the MCWD requirements. They are still working through the process but MCWD doesn't believe there any major concerns requiring a significant change to the project. That is customary for a project this size. DNR noted that the impervious surface percentage exceeds what is allowed in the city. Trapp noted that the shoreland regulation in the city code state in business and industrial zones can be up to 75%with approved stormwater management. City practice has been that the mixed use districts are part of the business and industrial zones. The applicant is proposing 48% impervious surface for the site and a sophisticated underground stormwater management system. The other DNR comment is that the density is too high. Trapp noted that Mound is unable to meet shoreland density requirements for projects other than single-family residential based on the way they calculate density. Historically Mound recognizes the DNR requirements. However, in knowing we can't meet the density requirement, the city focuses on the other elements to minimize impact on the lake. Staff recommendation is that the applicant has responded to initial question and concerns and staff recommends approval of the land use and subdivision requests. :�I Planning Commission Minutes - Draft Baker asked about the traffic study. He asked if the traffic study included the other new project near this proposed site. Trapp stated the traffic study is based on the individual project. Baker noted that the challenge is getting on to Commerce. Trapp concurs. She noted that any new development will add traffic. Baker wondered at what point would a traffic light be considered. Trapp doesn't have that information but she doesn't believe this would warrant that. Baker asked if the building height will require a variance. Trapp stated the PUD can take care of the small overage on the stair towers. The majority of the building height is within code. Baker asked if there is concern with the traffic right near the trail. Trapp noted it is a "right in" and it's signed. Baker asked how to prevent people from using the right of way between the buildings. Trapp noted that the City could look at signage. Baker wondered why the supplemental parking is not near the building. Trapp noted that the area Baker is asking about is existing public parking. Trapp notes the applicant will be improving and striping. However, they are not part of the parking calculations for the project. Holt asked if the landscaping could be flipped so the spots face the development. Trapp explained this area is not parking for the apartments but rather public parking that is intended to be retained. Baker noted the parking from the apartments could bleed into this area. Trapp agreed it is possible. It is public parking on city right-of-way and the city participates in the maintenance of those spots. Holt asked for clarification if this parking exists currently. Trapp noted it's there, at the edge of the woods but it's not striped. Saystrom asked if the access point on the north is existing. Trapp noted all of the access points already exist. Saystrom thought from the January discussion the south access did exist. Trapp explained that the access and the adjacent building are on private property. It has an easement over it, in conjunction with the three adjoining entities. This private easement stands in perpetuity. Saystrom wanted clarification if there is guaranteed access for this project, as that was not established at January's meeting. Trapp confirmed. Baker asked if any parking spaces will be lost. Trapp stated that it has not been a topic of discussion as part of the review, but she believed the parking will remain. Holt pointed out that there is not a lot of room in that access with parking on either side, including 2-way traffic. Trapp agreed it will be tight but noted this is presently used as 2-way. Castellano wondered if there is a net increase of spaces in the area of public land the developer will be improving. Trapp noted the area will remain the same size but that stripped spaces will improve the efficiency of how people park. Erickson asked about the traffic study but wondered if the study data was based on information from 2016. Trapp explained that the 2016 data was the most current data that exists because it -O Planning Commission Minutes - Draft is only studied every few years. Trapp said there will be short windows where traffic may be noticeably higher, but the amount of the increase was not of concern for the engineers. Erickson wondered if the numbers are realistic. She knows traffic will be a concern for this project. Trapp noted the studies are based on industry standards. She understands that no matter what is proposed there will be cause a concern for increased traffic. Ciatti said he counted the cars in the parking lot at OLL during Saturday mass and during Sunday service. He noted Saturday 100 cars left in 6 minutes. On Sunday 200 cars left in 8 minutes. He noted there were no major backups. Ciatti conceded that the weekend traffic may look different during the week day, but for perspective, 200 cars leaving that area did not cause issues. Holt asked what the 472 number in the graphic is. Trapp noted that is the average total number of trips anticipated in a 24-hour period. The peak times are highlighted on the graphic because it is anticipated that those time blocks will generate a higher number of trips. Holt noted that there 127 stalls and that seems to not give a spot to every unit. Trapp noted not everyone will be parked at the same time. Holt stated that a letter in the packet from the developer outlined that the church can be used for overflow. Trapp said that was a question for the developer. Holt asked about the park dedication fee. Trapp said that is a City Council item that is part of the final plat process. She didn't have an exact number of what the project will generate but it is 10%of the value of the land. Holt asked what type of lighting will be lakeside. Trapp noted the city has guidelines and the applicant has provided a photometric plan. She noted that because this is residential living the lighting will be focused on keeping people safe but not disturbing them. The lighting will dissipate as it reaches the property lines, as required. Holt noted that the balconies are visible from the lake. He asked what's allowed. Trapp noted a condition of the CUP will be that the balconies cannot be used for storage of personal items to include paddle boards, bikes and other items besides typical patio furniture. Additionally, boats, trailers and recreational vehicles will not be allowed in the parking lot, either. Holt asked about the trees. He asked if the current trees can be preserved. The city doesn't have a tree preservation requirement. Trapp said the developers will have to remove a large amount of the current inventory of trees to make room for the project. The applicant is currently completing a tree survey on the western portion of the site. Trapp noted that they will be required to provide a certain number of trees with a diversity of species so disease and or pests will not wipe out all of the trees. M Planning Commission Minutes - Draft Holt asked how wetland 4 will be preserved. Trapp replied the developer is working with the city and MCWD to address wetland impacts for the entire project. While not preferred, wetland impacts can be allowed if certain steps are followed and mitigation provided. Baker asked about the incoming traffic and how people would be prevented from using the shared business parking. Trapp said we can't really prevent it. Erickson wondered whose responsibility it is to monitor that area. Baker wondered if a curb or other barrier could be added to prevent cross traffic. Saystrom noted that if it is a city right of way, why prevent it? Baker said eliminating the option is a discussion to have. Trapp outlined that there is a shared agreement with the businesses in that area. She noted the city and businesses contribute financially to the maintenance. Holt asked about a square of property on the church property. Trapp pointed out that is within the easement area. The church owns the area, but there is an easement with the church and two other property owners. Holt pointed out a letter was received from the church noting The Incredible Festival may be affected. Trapp noted that the easement would require that that area needs to remain open. She noted it is challenging to to account for every situation at every hour of the day. Holt addressed the church's concern for people cutting through and exiting through their south access point. He pointed out that people cut through. Holt asked how bus drop off works. Trapp said she is not familiar with that process and that would be a question for one of the members of the public. Goode asked for additional questions. Hearing none, he invited the developer to the microphone. Brian Farrell from Northland Property Group stated that this project has been in the works for several months. A lot of work has gone into the proposal. They are proud of the project. He believes this will be a compliment to the city. He lives here. He grew up here. He looks at towns a little differently as a developer. He recognizes that some residents don't want any change but he noted things are always changing. He said this housing product does not currently exist in Mound. It is highly amenitized rental project. This project will appeal to empty nesters who may want to have a place in town but allow for travel. The other target is young professionals. They work in the area and use the lakes and trails. This demographic doesn't want to own. They like low maintenance. The focus is on a walkable community. What that does is help local businesses. He recognizes the city's commitment to local businesses. This project was laid out carefully. He explained that the soils are bad and it will be an expensive fix but the parking is all on site. He noted that he and his family live here and believes the project would be a nice addition to the city and could help the community grow. He welcomed questions. O Planning Commission Minutes - Draft Goode asked if there is a plan for snow removal. Farrell noted that the plan is to use the open space areas to the west and north of the parking areas. If needed, they will remove the snow from the property. The easement to the south, along with the easement to the east are already in place. He said they are open to discussion regarding how to deter parking. He said they reoriented the entrance to the complex based on comments received. He noted the right of way in question is not their land. The main signage will be to the south. He said they are open to curbing that area. He noted discussions have happened with the church. He stated they will install "Resident Parking Only" on their side and they will entertain installing "Church Parking Only" on the church side. The intention is to be fully parked on their own site. Holt asked if they build this will they own it forever, or even for 5 years. He replied their intention is Long Term Hold. The strategy is to develop it and stabilize it and keep it. Holt asked how many other projects they own. Farrell replied they constructed 300-400 units last year. Holt asked about the reference regarding the Victoria Flats is included is their response to the January PC meeting. That project has 5 full time children. He wondered if a similar amount is expected. Farrell confirmed, with perhaps a few more as that project has 80 units. Holt noted the paragraph regarding "affordable housing" and asked how it works. Is there a way to put resident's minds at ease that this will not be affordable housing in 10 years? Farrell noted that subsidies come from government agencies and take a lot of effort to secure. He explained that you need to have professionals on staff to secure and incorporate those subsidies from the start of the project. Farrell understands the concern. He encouraged people to travel and see the other areas. He noted some retail/commercial have benefited from their projects. He reiterates he has no intention to be affordable. Holt asks about the 300-400 other projects; how many are affordable housing. Farrell said zero. He noted that is just not their business. There are larger agencies that specialize in that type of funding and they can't compete with them. Holt asked why so many units? Farrell noted you can't do 10 individual units. It's not possible on this site. There are economies to be gained from scaling the number of units higher. He also noted that fewer units would likely have had a bigger footprint than this project. Holt asked if the original proposal had a different unit count. Farrell answered they had indicated to the city that they were targeting 95-105. He said a lot of developers won't touch a project that is less than 150 units. He noted they could have requested more with the acquisition of the additional city property but they knew the city didn't have an appetite for that many units. Holt said a lot of resident comments state this feels too big for this town. Farrell agrees this is big for Mound. The only way to afford the nice amenities is to spread the costs between more Planning Commission Minutes - Draft units. He believes this project will help Mound stay healthy. Holt asked how hard it would be to have fewer studios and more 1-bedrooms. Farrell noted that there are multiple factors considered in determining the unit mix. He solicited input from the architect who has experience with multiple multi -family projects. They also have a market consultant who provides input on their target market and their desired unit size and rents. Holt asked what the difference in cost is to rent a studio vs. 1-bedroom. Farrell noted that it would be about $200- 300 more. Farrell said the trail is an attractive amenity. He noted that the amenities will include elements like the countertops being rock, stainless appliances and tile floors. He stated this will be similar to the Victoria project. Holt asked about the lake. The proposal does not include a dock, but it isn't ruled out. They will use what they are allowed by right. Goode opened the public hearing. Johan Chemin 6039 Beachwood Road. He thinks the developer is claiming to be the savior of our dead city. Health of a community isn't just density. Chemin believes the comparison to Victoria is not valid as that city is a dead residential area. He stated there is nothing wrong with affordable housing. Johan noted the 50 feet building height is tall and the building will be visible from all over the city. He believes there is one level missing from the diagram. He said the residents on the lake will not want to look at it. He noted that the pillars will have to pierce the area around the development for stabilization. He thinks the sewage in the lake may enter the water source through this construction. He thinks the foundation work pounding will affect surrounding buildings. He asks why there's no solar panels or charging stations for electric cars. He doesn't understand the math on the % parking spot for a studio. He doesn't believe the traffic study. He outlined an item from the applicant narrative that they want to connect to the Dakota Rail trail but that Three Rivers Park District has said they can't. Jane Anderson 5060 Edgewater Drive. She mentions unit sizes. She knows everyone wants a vibrant and robust city. The schools are good and we own the most lake shore. She stated we have more rentals than surrounding cities. She thinks we want to perpetuate being a bedroom community. She wonders if we want to make more bedrooms or bring in commerce. She doesn't think the parking requirements make sense. She believes 155 cars will be competing for 127 stalls. She says everyone will be there at night. The bigger picture, with the other development in the area, is all the traffic at the one stop light. She thinks it will be dangerous at that intersection. Kathy Dioszeghy Langdon Lake. She has lived here for 27 years. The lake is small, shallow and the water is bad. The highly amenitized building will be her view. She pays a lot of money to live on this lake and there's going to be rooftop grills, fire pits and a pool? She stated she can see the stop light from Commerce in the winter. This will be much more visible. She can't imagine what she will have to look at all year round. She is concerned with the docks, boats, paddle boards. She doesn't think this little lake has the capacity for 104 more people. Dioszeghy said O Planning Commission Minutes - Draft 10 they find tires and trash in the lake all the time. They pick it up. They put alum in the lake to clean it up and it never works. She is concerned with the big structure. The lake is already struggling. She doesn't know if the study included how it will affect the residents on the lake. She wants a lighting study to see what is going to glare at her. Scott Picha 2273 Cottonwood Lane. He doesn't know how they can move forward when nothing is put together. It's all theoretical. He doesn't trust any traffic study because Hennepin County and the city worked on the road by the post office. They figured out it was too much traffic and bikes can't cross so they were going to re -do it. They haven't. He pointed out the traffic issues will fall on the tax payers. He noted the salt in the snow mounds will go into the lake. He said he likes improvement to the community, but this project doesn't make sense. He thinks someone is going to make a lot of money, leave town and this will be an empty building. Chris Carlson 5950 West Branch Road, Minnetrista. He owns property in the city. He drives through town a lot. He thinks of Mound in long term. He spoke to someone at Hennepin County who told him the current traffic levels would cause expansion to 110 if the county had the time and the money. He went door to door for a different project asking why residents live here. The overwhelming answer was the small town. He has spent time with the businesses near this development. He thinks there is issues between the city and the business owners with the city owned space that never got resolved. He noted his son's friends live in apartments. There are parking lot horror stories. People park where ever they can. They don't care what the signs say. He noted the developer said this is the type of project they do. He wondered why. He said he built a duplex on Spruce Road and it's profitable. He asked residents if they would accept higher density to get more business. The answer was no. He noted the trees on the site add to the character of the city. He said the developer made a lot of good points but that doesn't mean we need to accept this in Mound. He thinks residents want to remain a bedroom community. Michelle Herrick 2630 Westedge. She owns property on Langdon Lake. She will be looking at this project. The trees do create a buffer. She can see the traffic lights in the winter. Her biggest concern is the water quality on the lake. The lake was treated with alum to attempt to seal the muck on the bottom. The water level was so low the past summer. The water quality is bad. She has pulled out dangerous items such as glass, beer cans, plastic and pet waste from the lake. The run-off is completely covered with algae. The city used to treat this, they don't any more. Her understanding from city manager is the algae is from run-off and lawn fertilizers. The bottom is solid muck. She doesn't know what the answer is, but is hopeful they will talk to the DNR. She is not necessarily against this project. She understands change happens. She thinks the city will have serious issues with water quality and noted this lake contributes to Lake Minnetonka. She said previously there were not going to be any docks and now the developers want docks. She is very very opposed to that. She said it's a quiet small lake with a lot of wildlife. Joe Harrison 5627 Grandview Blvd. His concern is public utilities are already bad. He wonders how it will affect the water in town that he already can't drink. O Planning Commission Minutes - Draft 11 Ginger Skaja 5975 Maple Forrest, Minnetrista. Her kids are in Mound schools and her two youngest attend OLL. She has lived in the area since 1999. She has seen the change. She didn't learn about this project until recently. Her primary concerns are congestion with traffic and parking and how it will impact the school and church. She is concerned to hear the answer is "people will just figure out the parking." She thinks there needs to be a plan. The spots that are there are tight. She thinks it's a safety issue. She thinks more retail/commercial is needed. Not Residential. She said aside from Surfside park and school functions, there are no city amenities she uses with her family. She takes her kids elsewhere. She thinks we need to draw young families here with amenities/parks. Businesses bring vibrancy to a community, not residential. Safety is number one. Once the Auditors Road project is done this will be too much. Baker asked Skaja for clarification on the drop off procedure of OLL. Several residents who are familiar with it provided how drop off/pick up for parents and bus transfers. Rusty Stackinger 4743 Organza Drive, Minnetrista. Representing OLL. He looks forward to collaborating with the developer if the project moves forward. He doesn't want someone else's problems to become an OLL problem. He mentioned the letter sent from OLL and confirmed it was sent to the commissioners. He pointed out they aren't just a church, there is a lot of school activity through out the entire week. The site serves 120+ kids and 30-40 staff. Overflow parking is a huge concern for them. They do not want to police that. He said the church is not interested in a parking agreement. The safety regarding the bus service and traffic at the proposed entrance is concerning. Jason Zattler 2345 Commerce Blvd business owner. He noted the comments he submitted that were part of the supplemental information received after packet deadline. He stated the comments from OLL prove that the developer is already seeking a parking agreement so that proves they know parking is not sufficient. He said the applicant representative is a professional and he will tell you what you want to hear. Zattler stated that he, along with two other business owners, own most of the public parking lot. He said they have the option to recuse the use of that parking lot. He knows the parishioners of the church use those spaces. The city will force their hand to make that not public. If this moves forward they will request the city install curb and fence because they didn't ask for this and it will create liability issues. He is not willing to have his parking be public parking if there are 104 units back there. He asked the commissioners to put themselves in his shoes as a business owner, as parishioners, as students and parents coming in and out of there. He cited an example of an accident that happened last week due to the traffic. The traffic study is hogwash. He wondered how the commissioners would feel if that were their family. This is bigger than what the city needs. Ciatti asked about the parking agreement. Zattler explained that it's an annual agreement with the city to make that parking available to the public. He promised that if this goes through, it O Planning Commission Minutes - Draft 12 won't be allowed anymore. He also won't allow construction equipment to cross his parking lot for the development. Mary Davis 3021 Inverness. She thinks the traffic study is weird. She said it's unlikely that people will go through the OLL parking lot now but when someone moves into a spot they will want to go through there. She noted the roped off area is for the kids on the playground. The pedestrians, bikes, busses and cars are not being taken into consideration with the traffic. She thinks it's too big. It will dwarf anything near it. She clarifies if the project was originally condos. Staff noted that the project has always been rental apartments. Zattler asked how the city will deal with the drainage. He said changing the current landscape will change how it drains. He pointed out that if they remove themselves from the parking agreement, it's forcing them, as owners, to figure out what they're going to do for snow removal. Where is all that snow going to go? Picha noted he lived here 30 years and was told by city council, public works, parks department that that land could never be built on. He doesn't understand how it suddenly isn't wetland that can never be built on. He spent a lot of money on that lake, trying to clean it up. Goode closed the public hearing at 9:48. Trapp returned to address some of the concerns brought up. She agreed that the info regarding the trail conflicts. Three Rivers said a direct connection is not possible. She noted that hasn't been addressed but said the original graphic that showed a direct connection to the subject property will most likely not be possible. Trapp stated the building will be one level of parking and three additional levels. The description may have been confusing, but this building will be 4 total levels. This was confirmed with the applicant's architect. Trapp pointed out that right now there is not storm water management on site. The developer is proposing an underground storage treatment system that will address both runoff rate and water quality. She noted that this developer will have to meet higher standards than other recent projects in town because it is starting from green space, not a redevelopment site. Trapp stated she cannot speak to what someone stated 30 years ago. She said there is an active wetland delineation for this project. It was reviewed by a panel that included staff, MCWD and other agencies. This is the representation of what exists today. The snow storage for the shared parking will have to be addressed as they have been using someone else's private property for storage. The property owner has a right to develop the land they own. Zattler stated it is not stored on the private property, it's on the public property. Chris Carlson noted the green space is a buffer for the run-off for the existing parking lot. How will the run off effect that? O Planning Commission Minutes - Draft 13 Jeff Wrede Momentum Design Group. They are architect for the design group. The lighting will be bound by the city code to stop the light levels at the property line. They use house side shields that reduce the glare. There is a trend that is eliminating balcony lighting. They can discuss it. Farrell pointed out that one resident said they don't need new restaurants and another stated they would like more restaurants. The developer feels that commerce driven retailers and businesses tend to demand a certain level of density. This project will benefit the existing local businesses. Farrell touched on the water quality concerns. They will have to have the watershed approval prior to moving forward. The goal is to have an attractive body of water. He recognizes that this land has been a dump site. Having development could actually eliminate that dumping on a previously unmonitored site. Patrick Sarver 4231 Abbot Ave., Mpls. All storm water will be treated prior to discharging into the lake. The drainage on the current site will be picked up by the storm sewer and routed around so as not to inhibit the storm water to continue to drain in that direction. Farrell addressed the concerns about the sidewalks and other improvements that are needed. He noted by increasing the tax base it will be a benefit for the town to use the tax dollars elsewhere. He stated the bus transfer concerns are out of their control. He doesn't see why the current system would change. They are happy to help if they can. They are just as concerned with resident safety as everyone else. He said this developer likes putting projects in communities where the residents are involved and passionate about where they live. That's why his family lives here. This developer wants to offer a housing option that isn't currently available in Mound for other residents to become passionate members of the community. Holt asked about the pylons, wondering if the pounding will affect the surrounding properties. Farrell responded that in other communities they have built where the ground is denser and more tightly packed. They have built a 200-unit project and shared walls and those buildings are okay. Holt asked how construction vehicles will be staged. Farrell said they will have to remain on their own property unless they have a written agreement with another entity. He believes they have enough space and would never violate adjoining property owner's rights by storing their equipment there. Holt stated he lives on this lake and he will be looking at this property. He said the tree buffer is important. He loves the lake and uses it frequently. He can see everything from his living room. M• Planning Commission Minutes - Draft 14 The church lights are already so bright. Farrell stated they want to make it attractive for their residents, as well. He said this lighting has low luminesces that dissipate. Holt wonders if trees could offer a buffer. Farrell noted the building is not right on the lake. He believes a sight line study could be added. Trapp noted a concern about run off from the current parking lot. The drainage will not join with the project's system. It will go into a separate swale and will still be treated and filtered before going into the lake. A resident would like an example of lighting. Goode offered that the resident should connect with the developer for that information. Trapp outlined the applications before the commission and noted the staff recommendations. She said conditions can be added based on the commissioners' discussion. Holt asked if more parking spaces for the project site is possible. Castellano thought parking signage for the project site and neighboring businesses might be a good condition. Ciatti would like a condition regarding the school pick up/drop off. Saystrom pointed out the developer followed the rules that the city requires and it seems unfair to make additional parking as a condition. Saystrom said the applicant is not asking to use the parking spots where the busses go. Baker's biggest concern is regarding the flow of traffic. What will the city do if it is worse than expected? He would like an answer from Hennepin County if a street light is even possible. Erickson pointed out most of the unknowns are around traffic. She isn't sure if the wetland issue is resolved. Trapp stated the wetland standards are what the standards are. The developer will have to meet the standards or the project can't be built. Trapp said there is not enough time for the City to wait for the wetland issue to be resolved before taking action. They will continue to work through it. Saystrom stated that the conditions need to be specific for what additional information is being requested in order for the developer to answer. Trapp pointed out that some of the issues being brought up are existing conditions and should not necessarily be the responsibility of the developer. Baker wondered what happens with the parking agreement if the commercial properties back out. Trapp noted the burden should not be on the developer to address a parking agreement they are not involved with. Trapp summarized that an additional condition could be that the developer will work with the city to identify potential alternatives to address traffic and circulation through this area. MOTION by Saystrom to recommend approval of the requested land use and subdivision requests based on the findings of fact and conditions identified by staff for each request, and to include the additional condition to identify potential alternatives for traffic and parking management; seconded by Castellano. MOTION carries unanimously. I Planning Commission Minutes - Draft 15 MOTION by Heal that the proposed sale of public land for the Northland Mound project is consistent with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan; seconded by Ciatti. MOTION carries unanimously. OLD / NEW BUSINESS Reminder: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 special Planning Commission and City Council concurrent annual special meeting workshop to discuss 2021 projects overview and 2022 work plan. 7:00 p.m. start City Council liaison / staff report Holt said the park plans are moving forward. He noted the water issues are being introduced to committees with our local politicians. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Baker to adjourn at 10:52pm; seconded by Heal. MOTION carried unanimously. Submitted by Jen Holmquist 851 MINUTES MOUND PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 1, 2022 Vice Chair Baker called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Members present: Vice Chair Jason Baker, Kevin Castellano, Allen Andersen, Jon Ciatti, Samantha Erickson, Drew Heal. Staff present: Sarah Smith and Secretary Jen Holmquist. Members of the public: Betsy Brady, 2180 Centerview Lane; Amy Pudil, 3061 Westedge Blvd; Mary Davis, 3021 Inverness Lane. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA MOTION by Castellano to approve the agenda as written; seconded by Andersen. MOTION carried unanimously. REVIEW OF FEBRUARY 1, 2022 MEETING MINUTES MOTION by Ciatti to approve the February 1, 2022 meeting minutes as written; seconded by Andersen. MOTION carried unanimously. BOARD OF APPEALS Planning Case No. 21-19 Review/recommendation of variance request for reduced front setback for house addition project at 3061 Westedge Boulevard Applicant: Mike Pudil Smith presented the case before the commission. Applicant is requesting a variance for a reduced front setback for a single level addition/deck on the east side of the existing single- family home. The property is zoned R-1 with a required front setback of 30 feet. The variance would allow a lesser setback from the corner of the deck entry to the set back. The variance, if approved, would allow a front setback of 25.6 feet for the proposed addition/deck at the SE corner. The applicant is requesting this variance because the lot is an irregular shape and the existing home's location determines where an addition can be added. Additionally, the parcel is encumbered by a utility easement, limiting the space the homeowner can expand in to. 852 Planning Commission Minutes - Draft Standard set back requirements are met on all other sides of the parcel. Only a small portion of the deck will be encroaching into the setback. This request is for a variance on the front side of the home, not the lake side. Smith added the roof won't be any higher than the existing roof and the project meets hard cover requirements. No comments were received by commenting agencies. Notification was not required, however, property owners surrounding the parcel were notified of the application, as a courtesy. Smith shared graphics showing the proposed entry and the proposed improvement, as it will be seen by neighbors. She noted the setbacks on the steps are conforming. Staff recommends approval with conditions and findings of fact. Baker asked for clarification of what the "front" is. Smith stated code will determine the front when two streets are involved. Ciatti asked what is there now. Smith stated it is steps and sidewalk. Amy Pudil, 21903 Portia Trail, Corcoran. Her parents have re -done a couple of houses and they keep everything modest but make it very nice. She noted there is no elevation change. They take the stairs and add them to the outside and make the house one level. MOTION by Castellano to recommend City Council approval of the variance for construction of a house addition/deck at 3061 Westedge Boulevard, subject to conditions and findings of fact; seconded by Ciatti. MOTION carries unanimously. OLD/NEW BUSINESS Review/Recommendation of 2022 Planning Commission and Staff Project List Smith presented the proposed 2022 Planning Commission and Staff Project List and summarized the recent special meeting workshop with the City Council. Smith commented that the list in the memo is in no particular order. Review of codes and ordinances are a high priority. There is a desire to look at long term rental regulations in addition to possible amendments for zoning for the comp plan and to help improve and streamline processes. Smith noted staff is working with the building official to bring the current IPMC regulations to be up to date. The new permitting system with MnSpect began on March V. t Ciatti asks what is involved with the long-term rentals study. Smith outlined taking a look at what our needs are. It's a discussion that needs to be had. The subject is broad. Castellano asks if we need long term rental regulations. What would be different here vs. state regulations. 853 Planning Commission Minutes - Draft Smith noted every city is different. The conversation will start with a big picture and can be narrowed down. Andersen believes the long-term rental study and review/discussion of code enforcement procedures is ongoing. Andersen suggested the priorities as per the numbered list in the packet should be 1. Development review, 4. Long term home rental study, 3. Review/discussion of code enforcement and 2. City Code Chapter 119 (signage) and City Code 121 (subdivision); City Code 129 (misc. zoning). MOTION by Andersen to recommend the order of priority for the Planning Commission Work Plan should be 1, 4, 3, 2; seconded by Castellano. MOTION carries unanimously. Smith outlined the 2022 Staff Project List and said she is open to any order. Castellano suggested the order outlined in the packet is acceptable, as is, being 1. Amendment of City Code Chapter 113, 2. Special project studies, 3. Restudy of animal regulations. MOTION by Castellano to recommend to keep the 2022 Staff Project List priority list the same as outlined in the packet; seconded by Andersen. MOTION carries unanimously. Review/Recommendation of 2022 Planning Commission Work Rules Smith outlined the recent work rule discussion. She recognized the Planning Commission Chair and the City Council Liaison were both absent from the meeting and noted if the commissioners wanted to think about it, it can be slid to the next meeting. Castellano agreed it would be a good idea to wait to the next meeting. Andersen asked if Smith had an idea of what the next meeting will be. She noted she is not aware of a heavy agenda. MOTION by Castellano to recommend to table the discussion until the April 2022 meeting; seconded by Heal. MOTION carries unanimously. City Council liaison / staff report City Council Liaison was absent and Smith had no items to report. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Andersen to adjourn at 7:41 pm; seconded by Castellano. MOTION carried unanimously. Submitted by Jen Holmquist 2415 Wilshire Boulevard Mound, MN 55364 (952) 472-0604 Staff Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Sarah Smith, Comm. Dev. Director Date: April 12, 2022 Re: April 12, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting Agenda - Item No. 3 Approval of the Agenda with any Amendments -- Requested Amendments to Consent Agenda Items No. 4D and 4F and Regular Agenda Item No. 6 Request As provided under Agenda Item No. 3 (Approval of the Agenda, with anyAmendments), Staff respectfully recommends the April 12, 2022 meeting agenda be amended to include an alternate date for Item No. 4D, to include an address correction for Item No. 4F, and to include additional comments received for Item No. 6 for the Northland project to be made part of the record, as follows: 1. Item No. 4D Agenda Cover Revise agenda title to change event date, as requested by the applicant, as follows: Approve Resolution Approving Public Gathering Permit for community and parks clean up and use Surfside Park and Beach by Abracadabra Environmental Services on pro 2- '^" Saturday, April 23,2022 and reducing fees due to public purpose of gathering Pages 705 to 711 Revise date for special event held by Abracadabra Environmental Services included in staff memorandum and draft resolution from PFiday, ApFil 22,2022 to Saturday, April 23, 2022 2. Item No 4F Page 719 Revise/correct property address in the first line of the summary in the staff memorandum from 2396 GempAeFee BoulevaM to 3053 Brighton Boulevard 3. Item No. 6 Pages 762 to 800 Amend agenda to add comments received after 11am on April 8 and prior to 6:30pm on April 12 for the revised plans Northland Mound development applications Northland Mound Comments April 11, 2022 — Johann Chemin-Danielson Presentation slides submitted: 1. 80-unit project deemed too big in November 2021 Mr. Mayor deemed the project too big back then Upped to 100+ units Back to 80 units Mr Mayor: Do you still think that 80 units is too big a project? If no, what made you change your mind? 2. No integration with future needs for solar energy - Deviance from 2040 comprehensive plan (p. 46): "consideration of solar access will occur during redevelopment efforts and on an individual basis." Huge flat rooftop available: Building structure must be cnWinccred to bear weight of solar power Panels will provide shading system and therefore diminish energy needed for cooling; off Design to include electric car charging stations in garage �. Boxing in the trail Above is the view from the trail' Deviance from 204© comprehensive plan for the Downtown Lake area: `mews across Lake Langdon & Lost Lake should be ma3dm zed for buildings away from the shoreline" Boxes in the trail and kill its peacefulness overbearing brick wall view 4. Traffic in and out • Is the owner of the lan&ok with less parking? • No room for mentioned traffic o If parking is at right angle, no room for 2 cars to cross each other • Now a road, no more a driveway o Impact to surrounding traffic (from auditor road, from Commerce Blvd going north) o Impact for pedestrian (note that children ride their bikes on this side -walk 5. Construction and impact on acquifer Langdon lake was a sewer lake Mitigation done to capture particles to settle in the bottom Possibly other chemicals poured in it over the years Pillars to be pounded through muck for stability of the building Aquifer for drinking water located right underneath Vibrations from pounding pillars to be felt by surrounding buildings and infrastructures => damages How deep will the pillars go? How deep is the aquifer? Have studies be completed to know all pollutants in that lake and its sediments? April 11, 2022 — Joanna Kahn I will not be able to attend the April 12 city council meeting but wanted to send in my comments as a Mound resident with property on Langdon Lake (6045 Chestnut Road). I am strongly against any new apartment complex in the proposed location. Time and again, residents of Mound have made it clear that we don't need more residences; we need more businesses. Mound has a very small city center that is centered on the intersection of Commerce and Shoreline. It seems foolhardy to cram yet another apartment complex into the heart of the very small, dense business district. When compared to cities of a similar population size (Waconia, Monticello) or even smaller population (Delano), Mound has shockingly few businesses. Building another apartment complex would permanently take away space that could be used for future businesses. Also, compared to surrounding areas, Mound already has what feels like a high percentage of apartment buildings, many unattractive and in some disrepair. The feel and character of a city is important in attracting new residents and new companies, and I feel that the city is focusing on the short term benefit of a few more people to add to the residential tax base rather than focusing on the long term health of Mound. Sandwiching a large apartment building on property that is smaller than my own single family property, located behind existing businesses, would be an aesthetic blight in the heart of downtown. April 11, 2022 — Rodney L. Beystrom I wanted to add one more perspective to my narration below previously sent to you. I have analyzed a lot of the comments and talked to others about this project that seem favorably inclined toward it. Looking at it in an ideal world it would be a good thing for the City of Mound and highly likely to spur more downtown business activity due to demand from an over expanded customer base from what we have now. The Coop Condo project in conjunction with this Apt. development project would create a real win -win for Mound and theoretically possible spread the tax base for everyone else that pays property taxes as well. I know downtown businesses and banks already there would love it. Having repeated these points and said that, there seems to be one main obstacle / roadblock <no pun intended > for this project and that is the entry/exit points of the proposed site. The main entry way between the church and Magic Cleaners area is not the churches but fortunately they get to use it for the church and church school. Their entry is on the opposite end which gets roped off during the week to make use of the parking lot as a church playground for the kids ---- which is good. I am glad they can have it to use and there is still ample parking on the other half of the lot. HOWEVER, perhaps the church can be a little kind since they are using a driveway not really there's to give a few feet of their actual boundary next to it to expand that entry into two possible access points...one for the church and school use and one for the Apt. development. I would think a good civil engineer could come up with a design that would work. This would be an important project for Mound and "where there is a will to make it work, there can be a way to make it work". Perhaps a minor concession on the churches part since they are using a driveway not there's anyway could allow this project to fly along with other avenues of resolvement in other areas. All the complaints seem to be about alleged traffic flow and yet on Sunday mornings and after school it all seem manageable under the present design which isn't that great anyway really now. I implore you dear folks to find a way with the traffic entry and exits to make this project work. It would be so important to Mound to make this development a successful one. I worked the last 18 years of my career as a Bldg. / Housing Inspector with a northern suburban city in which I saw an Apt. Complex and a owner occupied Condo Bldg. both built and within about 11/2 years of these projects all kinds of businesses and an actual new mini -mall with great retail outlets sprang up and became successful within blocks of these complexes. Mound has an opportunity here that we should not let escape. Someone should approach the church and see how they could help to make this project fly for the betterment of the city if that is what is needed. Effort is always needed for success. April 8, 2022 — Rodney L. Beystrom My name is Rodney Beystrom, a long time citizen of Mound since 1987 and a resident of this general area since April of 1982. 1 wanted to send a brief message off to you all collaboratively to encourage your support of the Downtown area Apt. Complex Development Project to be discussed at this coming week's City Council Meeting. I just don't fully understand why anyone would think negatively toward this project as a means of enhancing Mound's Downtown Business District potential and growth and bringing a spark into the local economy and providing a very wonderful place in which to live next to the Dakota Trail and on the shores of Lake Langdon. Very few communities near by in our area have such a great and advantageous location in which to proceed on a project like this. We are fortunate that the developer has chosen the City of Mound. In the past several years there has been much dialogue about the need to attract and help grow the business district and retail outlets in downtown Mound. Basic knowledge tells us all that the demand has to be there for successful business start-ups. This project, accompanied by the Condo Co-op Project a block or two away, will be wonderful incentives for new business start-ups and retail expansion through a an expanded near -by customer base. So many close -by amenities will be wonderful to have for the prospective owners and tenants who will be fortunate enough to live here in these locations. Banks, restaurants, walking trails, Lake Langdon, Lake Minnetonka Harbor District, Post Office, retail outlets, salons, pet -care, etc. One would not even have to drive much if one would so choose if located at these locations. This is a win -win scenario for the city and would provide great tax sharing for city property tax owners as well to spread things out a little more for all. Through predicted growth Mound has an opportunity to become more of a destination community rather than a drive-thru one. I greatly encourage you in your positions of influence on the development proposal to fully support it and get behind it with positivity and excitement regarding it's great potential for downtown Mound and the community as a whole. April 8, 2022 — Sacha Sweeney -Newman As a resident of Mound and a parent of 3 children that attend Our Lady of the Lake Catholic church and school, I request our comments and concerns be seriously considered and included in the public record for the agenda on Tuesday April 12, 2022. We ALL have a responsibility first and foremost towards protecting our children, who are vulnerable, as well as the staff and community, to ensure the utmost safety and wellbeing. We implore the city to reconsider the location of an apartment complex development location. There are several other prime development locations within city limits that are not within mere feet of a school and a church. The fact that this is still being considered and not allowing the 4/12/22 meeting to be public is truly unfathomable. The recent design adjustment in reducing the apartment units still does not reduce the multitude of safety risks associated with developing here. Point 1: Danger of introducing hundreds of new strangers within just a few feet of our school • A total of 780,407 people were listed on state sex offender registries as of May 2021. That's an increase of about 32,000 from our previous analysis in 2019. • Minnesota tops the list with 3 times higher than the national average rate of just the registered sex offenders! • What about predators that are not registered? Let's remember - the man who confessed to and was later convicted of Jacob Wetterling's abduction and murder would not have shown up on a registry because he had no prior convictions for sex crimes before he abducted and murdered Jacob. Stats sourced here: https://www safehome.org/data/registered-sex-offender-stats/ • Stating that property management runs background checks is a such a weak response to this issue of introducing anywhere from 180-400 new strangers right outside the door of our school & church. These apartment "background checks" are ultimately credit history checks and will not catch any offenders that have chosen to NOT register themselves, nor any predators that haven't been convicted yet. There is a huge list of non -convicted predators that are on watch, which doesn't even cover everyone Point 2: Traffic flow jams and safety risks will exist with any multi -tenant residential property - regardless of speed bumps and removing parking spaces • Traffic - there is already barely any space for ingress and egress. The proposal to remove the parallel parking widen the alley way and expect it to solve the issue of the increased traffic for this apartment building is absurd. Clearly the development team is not local to understand that considering turning an alley into a high traffic flow area, is not going to work. • Safety issues for the children, parishioners and community still exist by introducing any increase in traffic. Speed bumps for a short, small alley way do not fix anything. There isn't enough runway to speed in that area, so that is a mute point for effectiveness. • The traffic already gets backed up multiple times/day, and its' already difficult to get in and out safely from Commerce Blvd. • What will the other business owners do if their parking spaces are not available? We will lose the few independent business and shop owners that we do have. Point 3: Support and attract local businesses If we don't support, attract, and develop for our current local businesses and shops, then we will not create a vibrant community or economic stability. That is where our focus should be if that is a goal for the city of mound. Building more apartment complexes will not do it. Look at Wayzata & Excelsior. They created a vibrant Point 4: Why wasn't Our Lady of the Lake Church provided an opportunity to develop a workable agreement for this land? Referencing back to a more appropriate development or ownership of this land - OLL, a major Mound community centered organization that has been a part of this community since Mound's early inception This could deter potential new families from joining the parish and school April 7, 2022 — Dan & Margie Saatzer We are strongly opposed to the Northland proposal to the City of Mound for the following reasons: 1. As 39 year residents of Mound, we appreciate and love our small town atmosphere. This project will forever threaten the small town feel. 2. The proposal lacks serious safety, parking and traffic considerations. 3. We find the project disrespectful to Our Lady of the Lake Church which is a longtime supporter and asset to Mound. 4. This development will deliver lifetime negative implications to Mound and is hastily being force- fed through based on elementary planning and flimsy promises. Please consider YOUR Mound residents of many over profits of few. April 7, 2022 — Michelle Herrick The tricky part of your Mayor/Council elected positions is the wisdom in foreseeing not just the "pro's" of a proposal but also the "con's". It is clear that if cities never improve, they will fall into blight. The attraction to 'improvement' must be wisely balanced against unintended consequences. We strongly encourage you to firmly reject the most recent Northland Mound application because of the following shortcomings that we observe: I'll say it again, I am against high -density housing in the City of Mound. The project on Langdon Lake is to large, even at 84 units. I am concerned about: 1. Public safety and impact to the schools, fire department & police department 2. Traffic flow/right of way — OLL has spoken they disapprove of the project due to traffic and safety concerns. The right of way issues have not been resolved at least not with out twisting an arm. The exit is very close to the Dakota Trail. Causing even more issues. 3. Parking — while the developer has stated that he will have 124 parking spaces for 84 units. Does that include the parking spaces the city owns? If so who will pay for the blacktopping, stripping and snow removal? As a taxpayer I have no interest in paying for their parking. 4. The small town feeling we will loose as a result of building such a the large building on a vey small lot. When Schafer Richardson wanted to put up a large apartment complex a couple of years ago the community spoke up loud and clear, they said no. 5. The DNR has stated they are against this, yet it seems to be ignored. Yet when Surfside wanted to remove cat tails to provide access to their business they were told no because of the DNR. Why did we spend millions of dollars to dredge out lost lake if it wasn't to support our community and businesses? We can't say this is ok with the Lake Langdon and not allow Surfside to overrule the DNR. Most people I have spoken with think this is ridiculous and want to know what the city is thinking. "Such a small place to put a large building" "Bartlett is already congested, they want to add more traffic" . It has opened up a dialogue in the community. Unfortunately it is hard to get everyone involved during a short period of time. But make no mistake people are starting to listen. They will remember come November.