Loading...
2000-04-11 y,i SPECIAL MEETING OF THE MOUND HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 2020 COMMERCE BOULEVARD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 DATE: APRIL 11, 2000, 6:30 P.M. LOCATION: COUNCIL CHAMBERS, MOUND CITY HALL ROLL CALL: TAX INCREMENT FINANCING AGENDA: 1. MOTION TO APPROVE MINUTES OF MARCH 28, 2000. 2. REVIEW OF POLICY ISSUES RELATED TO THE LAKE LANGDON AREA DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. 3. REVIEW OF MOUND FAMILY HARDWARE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. 4. DISCUSSION -POST OFFICE RELOCATION. INFORMATION/NIISCELLANEOUS A. Letter dated April 4, 2000, from the Netka's. ADJOURNMENT. t lvmvuTF..s REGULAR MEETING MOUND HRA -MARCH 28, 2000 The Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in a regular session on Tuesday, March 28, 2000, at 7:00 p. m. , in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present: Chairperson Pat Meisel; HRA Board Members: Bob Brown and Leah Weycker. Absent and Excused: HRA Board Members Andrea Ahrens and Mark Hanus. Also in attendance were Acting City Manager Fran Clark, City Attorney John Dean, HRA Director Pinky Charon, Mound Visions Coordinator Bruce Chamberlain, and Secretary Sue McCulloch. Others present: Randy Beyreis, Jane Carlson, Walter Couden, Blair Lindemyer, Mrs. Longpre, Peter Meyer, Mike Pfeiler, Frank Weiland. Consent Agenda: All items listed under this Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember or citizen so request, in which event the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence. Chairperson Meisel called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Weycker, to approve the agenda and consent agenda as submitted. Motion carried. 3-0. *1.0 INDIAN KNOLL MANOR CONSENT AGENDA. A. MONTHLY BILLS. B. MINUTES -FEBRUARY 22, 2000. 1.1 ACCOUNTING REPORTS. A. ACCOUNTANT REPORTS. HRA Director stated she has started using the monies received from the $67,000 grant. She has tinted the windows and is getting bids to have the vents cleaned. She is a bit frustrated with the two bids because they are $7,000 apart from each other. HRA Board Member Brown asked the HRA Director if she has heard from a man by the name of "Mike" who could give her a quote on a new type of vent cleaning process. She stated she has not heard from "Mike. " HRA Board Member Brown will contact "Mike" and have him call her. MOUND HRA MINUTES -MARCH 28. 2000 HRA Director stated she would be making landscaping improvements as well with the grant money. B. BANK ACCOUNTS. HRA Director reported no new information. 1.2 HRA ACTION ITEMS. A. RESOLUTION #00-6 MAINTENANCE POLICY. HRA Director stated in May, 2000, she will be presenting afive-year maintenance plan to the HRA Board Members that will need to be submitted by July 15, 2000. Chairperson Meisel asked how the HRA Director intends to comply with the maintenance plan with regard to the 32 hours of training requirement. HRA Director stated she would do the best job possible. She further stated her caretaker has quit and she will actively be pursuing another candidate to fill this spot. Chairperson Meisel suggested calling an insurance company that might have videos that would assist in this training. HRA Director will speak to the Public Works Director about this as well. HRA Director noted the requirements with this policy are excessive for her small building. MOTION by Weycker, seconded by Brown, to accept the Maintenance Policy as submitted. RESOLUTION #00-6: RESOLUTION ADOPTING MAINTENANCE POLICY EFFECTIVE APRII. 1, 2000. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 3-0. B. RESOLUTION #00-7 TENANT CHOICE IN RENT. HRA Director stated the agreement specifies there will be a flat rent policy by tenant choice put into effect upon the acceptance of the attached resolution. HRA Board Member Weycker noted the word "Hopkins" should be replaced with the word "Mound" in the resolution. HRA Director agreed with this correction. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Weycker, to accept the Tenant Choice in Rent -Flat Rent Policy with the above change. RESOLUTION #00-7: RESOLUTION ADOPTING TENANT CHOICE IN RENT -FLAT RENT POLICY. 2 MOUND HRA MINUTES -MARCH 28. 2000 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 3-0. 1.3 INFORMATION ITEMS. A. THE CONTINUING SAGA WITH HUD. B. APRIL 25, 2000, INDIAN KNOLL MANOR MEETING. 1.4 MISCELLANEOUS. HRA Director will not be in attendance at the April 25, 2000, meeting because of her scheduled surgery. She stated if there are no TIF items, the meeting could be cancelled. Chairperson Meisel asked about the March 21, 2000, meeting. HRA Director had nothing to report to date because of active discussions to date. HRA Board Member Weycker asked about the March 16, 2000, hearing. HRA Director stated she has not read the documents to date, but will review them at a later date and time. 1.5 TENANT REPRESENTATIVE REPORT. There was nothing to report. 1.6 TAX INCREMENT FINANCING AGENDA. A. MOTION TO APPROVE RENTAL FORBEARANCE AGREEMENT ON LONGPRE PROPERTY. Mounds Visions Coordinator summarized the rental forbearance agreement. He restated the rental forbearance agreement is intended as an incentive for property owners within the redevelopment district to not release property if it becomes vacant. The advantage to the HRA in this scenario is that tenant relocation costs would not be incurred when and if the property is redeveloped. The advantage to the property owner is that they will receive payment in lieu of rent if the property is redeveloped. Chairperson Meisel wanted to be assured the project is moving forward and the developer does understand the City of Mound is anxious to see some progress very soon. She further stated by having the rent forbearance agreement we are helping the City of Mound by keeping relocation costs down as well as assisting current property owners, such as Mrs. Longpre. Mounds Visions Coordinator stated~the project is progressing forward at an acceptable rate. There will be documentation presented on April 11, 2000. He wanted the Board Members assured this type of redevelopment takes time to work through the development agreement. He is confident this project will be successful. 3 MOUND HRA MINUTES -MARCH 28, 2000 Mounds Visions Coordinator stated this agreement does not disallow the property owner to lease its property, but its does try to discourage the property owner from doing so. MOTION by Weycker, seconded by Brown, to accept the Rental Forbearance Agreement on Longpre Property as submitted. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 3-0. B. APPROVE ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION TO JRW PROPERTIES - RE: COMMERCE PLACE SHOPPING CENTER. C. APPROVE ASSIGNMENT OF REMAINING OBLIGATIONS OF JRW PROPERTIES CONTRACT TO UNITED PROPERTIES. D. AUTHORIZE THE ACCEPTANCE OF A SUBSTITUTE LETTER OF CREDIT FROM UNITED PROPERTIES. E. AUTHORIZE RELEASE OF THE CURRENT LETTER OF CREDIT TO fTRW PROPERTIES UPON RECEIPT OF LETTER OF CREDIT FROM iTNITED PROPERTIES. The City Attorney summarized the private redevelopment agreement and stated this is a fairly routine process and the HRA will be seeing more of these in the future. He stated items B, C, D and E all relate to the private redevelopment agreement. He stated JRW Properties is a creditable operation as well as United Properties. He stated United Properties would be assuming the obligations JRW Properties had with regard to the tax situations and such. The City Attorney stated the original agreement stated United Properties would assume these obligations by a letter of credit, although with the second supplement to the agreement for private redevelopment that the City Attorney presented tonight, United Properties would assume these responsibilities by a letter of credit or a substitute letter of credit. The City Attorney further stated no changes would take place until either of the letter of credits have been presented adequately. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Weycker, to accept B, C, D and E of the private redevelopment agreement as submitted above. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 3-0. 1.7 INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS. Letter that will be sent to Langdon District property owners. The Acting City Manager stated the letter was sent on March 28, 2000, to the property owners. 2. Note from Bruce Chamberlain regarding the Balboa Property Purchase Agreement. 4 MOUND HRA MINUTES -MARCH 28. 2000 The City Attorney stated Maxwell rejected the City of Mound's offer because of three points. (1) not sufficient price; (2) the closing date does not satisfy the specific environmental concerns; and (3) he is interested in 100 percent cash at closing or a short term note with a balloon payment. The City Attorney stated the financial arrangements should be discussed with the Finance Director before making a decision. Chairperson Meisel suggested the next step would be to have the HItA renegotiate the price and she would like to have discussions about the price at the April, 2000, COW meeting when all members are present. Mounds Vision Coordinator stated Maxwell would not consider the City of Mound's offer if the City is not willing to address his three concerns of rejection. Maxwell does have another interested individual in the property. The City Attorney suggested to the HRA that when they meet at their COW meeting to consider the remediadon costs. 1.8 ADJOL1ltNMENT. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Weycker, to adjourn the meeting at 7:25 p.m. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 3 -0. Fran Clark, Acting City Manager Attest: Chairperson Meisel 5 City Of Mound Housing and Redevelopment Authority Letter 4/6/00 Issue Statement: Consideration to authorize actions to secure a site for a Post Office relocation site. Background: The HRA has previously purchased the Post Office site in order to permit the constriction of public improvements within the Downtown Redevelopment area. The Post Office retains a lease on the site, which terminates in 2002. In order to permit the installation of public improvements in a timely manner it is necessary to relocate the Post Office by June 2001. The Post Office has reviewed several relocations options and has indicated preliminary acceptance of the United Propertied/Willette site Recommended Motion: Authorize actions to secure the United Properties/Willette site for a Post Office relocation site. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The site meets the site selection criteria established by the Post Office. 2. The site is consistent with Downtown Redevelopment guidelines. 3. The site is consistent with the Mound Comprehensive Plan. 4. Action to secure the Post Office site will allow the relocation to proceed in a timely manner. Alternative Recommendations: 1. The HRA may decide to defer discussion to a later date. 2. The HRA may direct project staffto seek an alternative site. 3. The HRA may determine not to assist with the relocation of the Post Office' Decision Mode: This matter will be presented at the HRA meeting of April 11, 2000. Jim Prosser Redevelopment Coordinator N: \Mirmsota\Mound\hraltr2.18.00. doc 612-3306030 HOISINGTON KOEGLER 946 P01 MAR 27 '00 09:30 t T HK 3i FAX To: Fran Clark City of Mound From: Bruce Chamberlain Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. 123 North 3`d Street, Suite 100 Minneapolis, MN 55401 voice: 612.338.0800 fax: 612.338.6838 ItE: Post Office Date: 27 March, 2000 Fran, r Yi -Here is the fax sent to the Postal Service. I think they'll go for the site. Bruce 612-3306030 HOISINGTON KOEGLER 946 P02 MAR 2? '00 09:39 ®© Fax ®a To: Ruthann Coburn, fax: 913.261.2510 Brian Marshall, fax: 349.3569 U.S. Postal Service From: Bruce Chamberlain Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. 123 North 3rd Street, Suite 100 Minneapolis, MN 55401 voice: 612.338.0800 fax: 612.338.6838 RE: Mound Post Office Date: March 27, 2000 Brian and Ruthann, The Mound post office saga continues. The Mound City Council reviewed a development concept (which included a post office location) of the former high school site last month. There were elements of the concept that the Council had concern over. As a result, the Council asked staff to once again explore the site options for the post office using the criteria of a downtown retail location, palatable cost to acquire and a site that accommodates the needs of the post office. We looked at numerous sites, which we would like to review with you at a meeting next week. But, one site rose to the tap. It is a vacant site adjacent to Commerce Place Shopping Center. Currently, the site has great access but is a little tucked away. The county road is scheduled for relocation adjacent to the site in 2002 making it a prominent retail location. You can see by the concept plan enclosed that the site has excellent circulation. Based on the initial sketch, there may need to be a few employee parking spaces accommodated across the street but the City is building a municipal parking lot in this location anyway and could designate postal stalls as needed. Please get back to me as soon as possible to establish a meeting the week of Apri13. The Council is highly motivated to get a post office site deal done by May 1 and has indicated that if necessary, they will use condemnation to do so. So, we are interested in your nod of approval on a site by about April 15. Sorry for the urgency. I' 11 talk to you soon. Bruce Chamberlain r 612-3306030 HOISINGTON KOEGLER 946 P03 f1AR 27 '00 09:39 2 v ~ o~ ^ ~ \.__--! 0 n~ ~ ~ ~ 0 O O ot,'J ~.-. a o o L7 ^ ^^ p p o~q d80 ^~'oo paD ooo~ o ^Rt..~ . ~ © q o0 Qo ~'G, ~ODol3 a O O t~ a n° O v° ~o p~ - s ~T E ~ o Q ru..c a 0 00©QD n Q ~ ' ~. O . N -J-.-~- - .... J ~ Q 1 ^^ ' m o D O D Q ~Q Q (3 ~ B. ~ . ~. ~ s ^ a a o6+~aBCde~j°a A. v• ~ -~... ~` .. ~ z LAKG 1 ~ ~ D ~NGObN ( ^ .~+ =.T a /~ ` D Q -CC, ° t] ~ .~ t ~~~ + Q J ~ ~~ 0 { r 0 D C / ~ ,,• E. `~ ~"'. .~ 3 ago P .~~ - ^ :S ~,~.: ~ ^ p~ o Qp c ~~ ' ~ l7 ~~ ~~ ~a~r LAres '~ ~ [] ^ ~~ p D ~ i ~ a d ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ Q n oa Dona ~ a ~. .. n $o o ° /. O ~~~~~ n D d Da~ ~ d d° ~ I ~ ° D ^ Q rp q0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ _ ~___ -- _ O O ~ :~' ~ LAKE HlN tvE TUNIC, ~. 0 Q~ ~ ,~ u u o c': r+.~Y QO ~.'''' ~ - _ ~ ~lblaiutton ICortlw• Croup Inc. . a..ur r. r.. n~ra r -~ xae is a xm ~® n a s ~ ^ 612-3306030 HOISINGTON KOEGLER s 11 ~: ~I ~ r' ,~~i Q ~~~,a ~ ,~ ~~~9 ~' ~ ~ ~ N1 1NOW-~~g ,~ .: ~~~~ ~ ~: ~~ :~ 946 P04 MRR 27 '00 09:40 _. ~.. , I / ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ / ~.~~ ~~ ~, ~ ~~~ ~~ ~. ~ ~~~ iI- ~~ ~~..1 Y~ ~J a p ~ ~ lL ^ r~ v ,~~~ ~~ a ~ / ~ v / a~ I ~~ ~ ' ~L 1 `y~~~ ~, L~ G 1 ~ ~t ~ ~- 4' r ~!~_ `~ V ~', _ ~ O J - ~'. D~a~r MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, MARCH 27, 2000 Those present: Chair Geoff Michael; Commissioners: Orvin Burma, Jerry Clapsaddle, Becky Glister, Cklair Hasse, Michael Mueller, Bill Voss, Frank Weiland, and Council Liaison Bob Brown. Staff present: Mound Visions Coordinator Bruce Chamberlain, Building Official Jon Sutherland, Engineer Consultant Dan Parks and Secretary Sue McCulloch. The following public were present: Peter Meyer. Chair Michael welcomed the public and called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. MINUTES -APPROVAL OF THE MARCH 13, 2000, MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Hasse, to accept the March 13, 2000, Planning Commission meeting minutes as submitted. MOTION CARRIED. 9-0. DISCUSSION. MOUND POST OFFICE SITE ALTERNATIVES. Mound Visions Coordinator Bruce Chamberlain explained he has been directed by City Council to have staff look at a number of alternative sites for the post office. He stated there are currently 9 sites that are under review. He presented a map showing the location of each site and stated he would further explain positive and negative points for the potential sites. He stated the Planning Commission should review these sites and keep as many potential sites as oossible open for the post office to review next week. Chamberlain stated there were a couple of promising sites for the post office. He stated an analysis matrix is included in the Planning Commission's packets to show the methodology that has been used for selection of the potential sites. Chamberlain stated there is a timing deadline involved to get the post office to a site, and if this deadline is not met, the $500,000 grant money for the redevelopment of Mound will expire. He stated the site must be chosen by April 15, 2000, and by May 1, 2000, a purchase agreement must be signed. He stated the post office must be completed by June of next year. He stated because of the deadlines involved, finding a new location for the post office must be as simple of a process as possible. Mound Planning Commission Minutes, March 27, 2000 ~ ~ ~' S'1 Chamberlain reviewed the following sites and explained the real potential for the post office to be located on each site. Site A: School property. This property was presented by Metro Plains for redevelopment and this would be a possible site for the post office, but there may be timing issues involved concerning the above-noted deadlines. This property is vacant and is a good size site. Site B: School property. He stated on this site the location of the post office would be brought up to County Road 15 allowing the post office to have street frontage. This property may also have a problem with the deadline involved. This property is vacant and is good size site. Site 3: Willette. This is a promising site and it is just slightly smaller than what the post office has requested. Site 4: Coast to Coast: This site has been determined to be too small for what the post office would like. The post office is very adamant on the exact size it wants. Site 5: Balboa: This is a potential site, but there are issues of how to divide the building, where to relocate the docks currently in existence, and how to allow for enough parking for the complete building. Site 6: Bowling Alley: This site has been eliminated. Site 7: Jubilee: This site is too small and has been eliminated. Site 8: Eden Road: This location is in the back of the Jubilee store and it faces Eden Road. The cost of this project would be very intense so it has been eliminated. Site 8a: GTE: This is a site with potential. It is a nice size and has good frontage. Site 9: Randy's Auto: The location of this site is by Bartlett and County Road 15. He stated if all of the sites would be assembled in this location, it would be a large enough site. Although, this site has been eliminated because of the cost in assembling the sites together. Brown stated he heard the Willette site was eliminated because United would not sell to a specific individual. Chamberlain stated he had discussions with United and they are now willing to sell and this is not a concern anymore. Clapsaddle stated the sites that are favorable are A, B, 3, 5, and 8a. Chamberlain agreed. 2 Mound Planning Commission Minutes. March 27 2000 AFT Glister asked how much space the post office needs for an adequate site in its eyes. Chamberlain stated they need 65,000 square feet. They currently have about 20,000 square feet, but they want the additional square feet for parking. Sutherland asked if the post office building would increase in size. Chamberlain stated it would increase to about 6,500 square feet, which is only slightly larger than what they currently have. The post office requested the additional space for parking purposes. Sutherland asked about Site 5, the Balboa location. He was concerned about the limited access. He asked if it would be possible to take the access across the railroad tracks. Chamberlain demonstrated the area at the Balboa property the post office needs. He stated this is a small portion of the overall building space. He stated it would be workable to have a lease agreement with Balboa. Chamberlain further stated the parking is the real difficult scenario. He stated this would be shared by the tenants of the whole building, as well as the citizens entering the post office. Also, there are 4 docks located on the property that would need to be relocated, although, he is certain that issue can be resolved. He stated the real issue with this site is the employee parking. Chamberlain would like to know what the post office thinks about this space. Chamberlain further stated the post office has high ceiling requirements. Sutherland stated there appears to be enough square feet to build a post office in the north corner of the tracks. Chamberlain stated this is a remote location, so he would not recommend that location for that reason. Mueller questioned the criteria for eliminating some of the sites noted above. Mr. Chamberlain stated the Bowling Alley site was eliminated because of the relocation costs that would incur, which would be very expensive. He stated Randy's was eliminated because of the acquisition value. Clapsaddle questioned why the property north of bowling would not be accep~able. Chamberlain stated there are severance damage issues involved at this site. Brown stated he would recommend the GTE site. He stated it would give the post office a nice size building and also a lot of parking space. He further stated the building is empty and there would be no relocation costs. Clapsaddle questioned the reasons for moving the post office. He felt he was informed those reasons were to facilitate street realignment for the downtown redevelopment project and to have the post office in a more advantageous location that would enforce the downtown business operation. He questioned whether all of the proposed sites do follow these criteria. • Mound Planning Commission Minutes, March 27. 2000 S ~ `a ..'°'"~E.4~ b Mueller stated typically any developer would like a large amount of traffic and would be interested in having the post office as part of their agreement for redevelopment. He stated the developer that is working with the City of Mound does not want the post office included in the development because of the level of truck use causing the property to be included as industrial and retail. .Brown stated initial discussions where the post office should be located were at the Langdon site, but this would have taken a large chunk of the Langdon site being proposed for redevelopment. Chamberlain agreed with Brown. Chamberlain stated strongly the post office should be located downtown. He stated this would provide a destination for the people of Mound. The Langdon location was a good location initially, but the developer did not want it in the redevelopment section he was proposing. The second location proposed was the community site which would offer greater traffic exposure and would tie into the downtown core location. Mueller asked about the assessed properties of the sites. He suggested Randy's could be a good location in that it would introduce the new Mound to the balance of the whole community. Chamberlain stated this site does hold promise for Mound. He would like Mound to encourage redevelopment at this site. Mueller stated a portion of this location is already available and relocation may not be an issue if the tenant is anxious to move. Mueller stated he would like the City Council to consider this site. He suggested maybe it would be beneficial for the City to improve this end of town by putting the post office at that location where there is downtown activity. Brown agreed with Mueller. He stated it could be possible to make the post office a destination other than downtown. He stated all intersections are at Randy's which make it a convenience for when driving around town. He further stated that he is in favor of the GTE site because it too has good access and is located at an intersection. Chamberlain stated the difficulties for Randy's would include the relocation costs and contamination cleanup. Weiland stated accessibility is a must and should be a major consideration when finding the post office site. He further strongly stated he is very disappointed in this whole rushed process os locating a spot for the post office, when the City was well aware of the need for the post office to be moved two years ago. He is very frustrated with all of the locations being proposed. Voss asked Chamberlain if the City would lose $500,000 for the downtown project if the post office would not be moved with the certain criteria mentioned above. Chamberlain agreed. Voss then asked if the City of Mound really needs the post office to be located in its town. If it would be relocated elsewhere, would this stop the downtown • 4 ~, Mound Planning Commission Minutes. March 27. 2000 ~ =;~ ~,~ T redevelopment project from moving forward? He asked if it would be better to use the land for something else. Clapsaddle stated the City of Mound does not have many destinations in its town, and he strongly stated the post office would serve that purpose. Chamberlain agreed. Chamberlain further stated the post office would draw traffic and give it some community identity. He stated with no post office the City of Mound would lose part of its identity and would hurt the redevelopment project. Hasse asked if a site proposed up by the library was ever considered, as well as a location near the new senior citizen center. Chamberlain stated these two locations would be too complex due to the short amount of time involved in locating a post office site. Weiland suggested the ice arena for the post office. Chamberlain stated this site is too complex also. Chamberlain stated there are currently nine possibilities that have been suggested and the City of Mound has to move forward with those sites. Sutherland suggested the Saliterman site as a possible site for the post office. He suggested this location because of the hours the post office may be open, which is not determined at this point. The sites A and B would be good sites for day hours of the post office, but not necessarily night hours; the ECFE location was intended to be temporary and if the liquor store was moved this site may be appropriate. Chamberlain stated he did not investigate this option. Brown agreed with Clapsaddle that the post office should stay in Mound because of the potential 3,500-4,000 people going in and out of the post office each day. This traffic would be an asset for the City of Mound. Mueller stated he agreed with Weiland and is totally frustrated with the rushed process of deciding where the post office should be relocated. He stated this could have been alleviated. Although, he stated he would give his thoughts about each site proposed. Mueller stated Site A is a bad idea because of the balance of the neighbofiood- meaning it is next to residential and there is no frontage. He stated there would be too much traffic for this residential area. Mueller stated Site B has the same concerns as Site A, but in addition the main access would be Lynwood Boulevard and with the senior citizens building, there would be more traffic with that complex as well. The Willette site appears to be the best site in his opinion because it is vacant and there is no cost of reoutfitting it. The Balboa site, in Mueller's opinion, is not good because of poor access and not enough parking. The GTE site is just as good of a site as Willette because it has ponding and parking on the facility and it is situated on a descent corner, although it does not help the downtown redevelopment project. Mueller stated 5 Mound Planning Commission Minutes, March 27, 2000 is he had to vote for one location, he would choose Willette. Mueller also agreed the Saliterman site would be acceptable as well. Sutherland stated moving the liquor store to a larger site would benefit the City. Voss stated he is opposed to the GTE site because of its close location to the school. Clapsaddle asked about the intersection between sites A and B and what is going to be going in between these two sites. He stated it no longer is going to be the community center. Brown stated the concept plan showed 153 unit homes on 9 acres and this was not acceptable to the City Council. He stated with the post office site and the retail, it would have been all parking between Commerce, a post office and 153 rental/townhomes on the other 9 acres. Brown stated this was too dense of a proposal. Mueller stated the developer might come back with a less dense proposal at a later date and time, so not to be too discouraged about this site. Clapsaddle asked about the density on Langdon. Chamberlain stated it would be about 12 acres with housing and retail. Clapsaddle strongly stated he does not like the position the City is in now with having to find a location for the post office is such a short timeframe. He stated this was initially brought up 9 years ago. He is very frustrated. MOTION by Voss, seconded by Clapsaddle, to relocate the post office to the Willette site. Discussion. Brown suggested rather than stating the Willette site is the preferred one, to recommend to staff the three most favored sites, including Willette, GTE and Balboa, to not limit the post office. Glister asked if the post office would negotiate the 65,000 square feet they are requesting. If they would, the Coast to Coast site would be ideal. Chamberlain stated the post office would not negotiate the square footage of the site. Hasse stated if we do not allow the square footage they are requesting, there might not be room for growth. • s Mound Planning Commission Minutes. March 27, 2000 ~ ~ ~~~ Weiland suggested another proposed site which would be next to City Hall. Chamberlain stated there is not enough property west of City Hall to allow for the post office. Chamberlain stated the comments and suggestions made tonight have been appropriate and adequate. He stated he is clear on what the Planning Commission has recommended as a suitable site for the post office. Mueller suggested making a motion that would prioritize the favored sites, rather than limiting it to jus one. Surma suggested before voting on the motion, if a separate motion should be made on each of the three favored sites. Chamberlain stated the City Council directed him to approach the Planning Commission with several options for a site for the post office in hopes the Planning Commission would narrow it down to a few options, but certainty not just one site. He would appreciate offering to the post office a few more choices than just one site. AMENDED MOTION by Voss, seconded by Brown, to relocate the post office to the Willette site, the Balboa site, or the GTE site, and the order of the sites presented are the order they are favored as well. Cla saddle withdrew is second because he does not a ree with the other two sites. P 9 Burma had concerns regarding the third favored site called GTE. He stated he does not like the proximity it is from the school. He would prefer listing Randy's as the third favored site. He further stated that Randy's might not be as cost prohibiting as it is lead to believe. Mueller stated the school and the GTE site have enough separation with the employee parking lot between the two buildings, and does not see any problem with the proximity of the two buildings. He further stated while the children are at school, they are not allowed to play on this specific parking lot. Weiland stated he is not against having the GTE site listed as the third most favorite site for the post office. Glister stated she is not in favor of the GTE site because there may be a traffic problem with all of the buses at the end of each school day. The traffic from school and the post office may cause some type of traffic jam. • -, Mound Planning Commission Minutes. March 27. 2000 ~~ ~~T Clapsaddle is concerned about writing the community center site off as a possible site for the post office too soon. Sutherland stated there is a sketch plan that will be presented to the Planning Commission very soon for this corner location. Chamberlain stated he would recommend having the Planning Commission cut sites rather than recommend specific sites for the post office. He recommended the Planning Commission not to further limit the sites. • Glister agreed with Chamberlain. She stated the post office is going to decide in the end where it wants to be located, so limiting choices is not recommended. Mueller stated he would recommend the order of the post office sites to be changed slightly. He is in favor of Willette being number one, but would change GTE to number two and Balboa to number three. He further stated GTE is under utilized at this point. Chair Michael is very frustrated with this process of locating a post office in a short timeframe as well. He asked Chamberlain when did the request from the post office for 65,000 square feet arise and why did the Planning Commission get this request handed to them so late, when it should have been handed to them two years ago. Chair Michael is further frustrated with the fact the plans for the Langdon site have not been presented to the Planning Cpmmission for at least as a courtesy, if not to follow normal practice. Mueller suggested having the motion changed and reversing the favored order of the Balboa and GTE site. Voss stated he would like to keep his motion the way he presented it with the order being Willette, Balboa and GTE. MOTION CARRIED. 6-3. Burma, Brown, Clapsaddle, Hasse, Mueller, and Voss voting aye; Glister, Michael and Weiland voting nay. • Mueller would appreciate an explanation why the Commissioners voted nay. Glister stated she felt there was no need to rank the sites by favorites. Weiland stated he voted nay because he is opposed to more than just the Willette site. Chair Michael recessed at 9:01 p.m. and reconvened at 9:10 p.m. SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN. Dan Parks stated he recommends the SWMP be passed tonight for the City Council to review. He stated he has taken Mr. Casey's comments, the Planning Commission's recommendations, and created an underline/strikeout document for presentation to the City Council. 8 ' Mound Planning Commission Minutes. March 27 2000 ~ ~ ~~~ Mueller stated he appreciates all of Mr. Parks' expertise and hard work, but he does have a concern. Mueller stated he expected to see more strikeouts/underlines. Mueller was expecting to see all changes that have been made since the document was first reviewed, and not just the most recent changes from the latest draft. Muelle would appreciate the minutes being submitted with the proposed SWMP. Mr. Parks stated the minutes could be submitted as part of the SWMP. Sutherland agreed with this statement and would include the minutes. Mueller appreciate this extra effort. r MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Clapsaddle, to move the SWMP, with the attached exhibits, to City Council. Voss asked Mr. Parks about the wee-ds that grow in these buffer zones. Mr. Parks stated there is a nuisance ordinance that prohibits weeds from growing in the buffers that are not appropriate for a buffer zone. Mueller asked Commissioner Brown if he felt it was feasible the 25-strip buffer would be acceptable to City Council, even with the article Mr. Casey presented about environmental issues. Brown stated he cannot speak for the City Council, but he has not been in favor of a buffer zone, but he stated he could live with this adjustment made to the buffer zone section of the SWMP. Brown does realize the importance of environmental concerns for the City of Mound. Mueller stated this buffer was a requirement by the MCWD in order for the SWMP to be passed through by them. Weiland called the question. MOTION CARRIED. 9-0. MISCELLANEOUS: Brown asked the Commissioners if there were any concems, statements or questions they wanted to have presented to the City Council meeting tomorrow night. Brown stated he would get answers for them at the next scheduled Planning Commission meeting. Voss asked when the new City Manager would be officially employed for the City of Mound. Brown stated April 17, 2000, she would be on board. Voss asked if the City Manager would be attending Planning Commission meetings. Brown stated he would investigate this question. • 9 R _.. a .. ... ... ` ~ Mound Planning Commission Minutes March 27 2000 1 Mueller is very concerned about the City Council entering into developer agreements before there has been any input by the Planning Commission with regard to how those implementations of the plans will be instilled. He stated he is very frustrated with the people of Mound asking them questions about redevelopment projects when he has not been made aware of any projects, but the public has. He stated he finds the Planning Commission out of the loop. He would appreciate being put back in the loop. Mueller further stated he has been made aware the Laker has information about a preliminary plan for the Coast to Coast project which is going to be starting soon, but the Planning Commission has not seen this plan yet. Weiland stated he would appreciate receiving the City Council minutes in the Planning Commission packets. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION by Voss, seconded by Clapsaddle, to adjourn the meeting. MOTION CARRIED: 9-0. Chair Michael adjourned the meeting at 9:34 p. m. • • ~o 10 m ~ •~ ~ ~ o ~ _ ~ N ~ r C y O ~ ~ i ~ a ~ 0 ° C ~ M ~ o O ~~ M o 0 M ~ .. .... t- ~ D. . R' ~. ,, ~ ,~ r ~ ~ '~ r . ~. _ r~ ~ ~ ~~: • -•.~ .:~ '; j .. _ :. ~.... ~ r~_• ; r w. _ ~ ~ ~r -.. - s~ ..a,,:. a~ c Y ;x,~ J: t- -,.,a ~ ..... - ~ _ ;+ ' .. .. _. i y ~.:y. i ~ *. ~: '! ~~. ~ ~. ~ "'-[ r~;~_ 2 - - 1 _ - ~~ ~ - ~ ~q. f- t __ ~ _ _ ~. ~, '~ ~ Q _.. '~ e ~ i _. .. F .. ~/ c. ' '... t~ Y. F , +++~~F ;. ~' ~ ~ `~~ _ ~ ~ :~ .:; r s'. =y -s.' a ..F~ ,,~r ~ ~.~ - ~ ' . Icy `: .~ Cam; ~ ~`'' .-- n (,. , ~, >:. •~ ~~" ~ e ~ ~. - __ . , mss,;. _. - ,- - '~ ~ k i . ~r __ ~ ~~. ~- ` ~ - ~ _ .- - j, _ ~ 5. f i ~` ' .~ y~. 'rc'~5 - -_..,a n- ~ ,. .. 4 ~-~~ ~. T - ~ ~ ~' i-~~_ _.. ~ _~.; ~`~ --. ~z. wy 4. ~.' J-b A. ~.. w r-- ~~ rs- ', ~ .,. r... !!. y ~ ,~. ,- .- ,T r-- ~~ .. .~, .t~' _ ,.,.Q~,aw~ • t i ~ *_r ~r { £ r~ +/~ "'~?. ~. i{ f ~ ..... Il .. .. .. ~. ~~.. ~ a .... ~~ ~ f='"v3 ~,f~.; . `rte. ~. - • c r ~"~~ M - ` 7 a "~ ~~~~ay.? i .: -. ~, ~,. ~ Vii" ~ ~ ~ ) ~~ L - _ , _ - ~ ~. _. ,~ -,_ ~ _. ~ .' ~'' - / ~ w ` . r ~n~ ter. f •*, _ _ ~ M ~ ,' ~ ''rig ~ . :'r ~ r~ j ..~ ~ .~,,. k- :: .. -. `! r ~, ~~~ ~~ ~ • Z ~ • _ ~- .~ ~ ,.. ~ y ~y- S 9 •:, ~ _ _r" Ira- _~ t: _ ` ~ _ - _ ~ r ~ 1 ~. ~ ~" - OC ~' ... ,~• ~~ . :- ~ ~~~ ~ ~~._ ~- M1-. v - i ~~~/// ~" ~ w • ~ .: ~, ., t ' ~ ~ ~ r=~ .-. ..~~. ~. ~ s .. ..4c _ +~ ,M1 R ~- t _ r~, ~* ~. ' ~.. fir` (-,~ ,t ~ ` ~ ~' .A /--p ' ~ ~ ~, +~ ~~' YN• gT ~. '~ y~ ~ r, r ,*'1i j11`.~" .. ~ ~ •• r `~ is a~ ~ ,y,~ "a i .. .-. r- - ~~ - ~ i' 1 Y ' y -- y. _. ._ • - ~~ TM ., . - .. _ • `~ - ~ ., tlwFnx,. °' ~ .4 ~t~ • } ~ L ~~ ~ _} ~1 t "F ~"~w ~~• i~ /~- F ti- ~~ y ~r.~r.r i. .j r ^ , i~ ? ~~ ,. ~.+ 4 1 ~~ r ~ ti ~, ~~ ~_~~ . , ,.. _ 3 ~ '-~ ,+ _ at ~ .. _. yr ~ ~~ ~.~~ 1 ~ a~ +~~ ~ stir • ~~` ~ A ' ~ i ` 1 ~ ( j ~ _.. ,. i ~4~~, M ~ J .,,u ~ - .- ~-d ~: .~ L ` C : ... _ .. • O Y ~~ ~~ ~ ~r f ~ ~! » ,;~ - ~ ~ .. -,..~ _ F ...- t., l ' f ~ ~: - ~ ` '~ .~ t r ~ y~. ~- - w. Y-> r - _ ' ~ -. ' _ ' ~ I _ .. ,~`~ • :~ ,• '~' 1, ~ r a ~ • . t ~ : ':.r is ~; -~ -'~, , :~ `~ ~ '~~ ` - ,.. ~:_~, ~~ ~ --.+^ 'I. r -, ~ fi .. ,.,t` ~- `, r ~ ,~' a ~ . .~. :- _ -~ '~_~.~ `- z ~ - '~ - ~ ~`. t _ .. 'C L __ ~ i ~ ?• ~s ~~, r 5 _~~ i ~,' " ,,.~ ~ n --+r ,. ., - _ s ~.~ ~,S M ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ix a l~. mow' ~. ~ ~`- !'": • ~` ~. ~ ~ . ., ~ ~. i t Li Yf' ~ :.~' .~ s ~~. i~ ~ 3~ t~ 4 4 ~, '~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ~.. .:. _ ~ ,, ~~ - - ~' ails ~ :`~~` /" ^4z. -_ _ f ~~. '~ k: _. i- ~ ~ _ ~:. .. # ~, r ' ' ~ r _. _ r.. i ~' ~. -r, _ '~ 3 x. .~i ~'b~'1 ~ ~, rM ~~~ ~i ~- ~ ~ ~~ ~"` '_ !:f~ b t F 4 .Y .R ~ 2Orrrr '~~jyt~- ~..~ .~Y ' ~;: ~ "+; ~ ~~ is ~., .. ~ ' t r s +. w- .. ~.~ +~ ~~. ~~ ..mot' F ~ . ~.l a. ~ ~• ' i ;~ +.a_1 * 4 T~F i. ~" A f ~ ~ ~ ~. P j - ~~~. ~~ ~~_- V :~_ -~ +~ T- ~- . . _ ~ - .. _ - } . ~ ~`.~ <: P ~.::. X.bs ~-. f ~ .~ s. - .~ - ~ +--~ z~ ~` - - - `~~•~ ~ .. _ ,,. . _ ~ ~ ~- c~ - a..-- s~ . =;~ ~. 'j' L/ _ `. ~,h~, ri ~ '=`~ b 'r '~e "1 ~' . :.~ ti.~ ` ,~.~. Y'om' s~ , ft' ~ r ~J1 ~ ~ Z v~,' -~~ r ~. "~ ' k ~'t 4 2 ~rF ~~~ Y'k ., d ail 4~ Y ~'yT ~ ~o ~~ s t'l~S~ Y~Y ~~ rr. i~ .k ~..: ~^{ _ e~ '~ _ ~ _ ,= ~,.._ • s, .,;~ ,y ~ ~ ~ r i f.:. L, a ~,~ , 3 •' .~. .. ~. ,~ ~ f , ~. a k _ ~ i _' c S ... ". ..~. r y `u .a.~.. Ate, ~~~~. _ , ~ ~ _.° - - . i;°~, f _ _.......... ~ .. ~ ar:., . ~ _ ~ . t . ~. .~ 3j 1~ -~: ~- _ x. ~+ p Ys _ ~ ~ `~ Sjr ` -. .:. _ .' ~~ V ~~ .' w ._ w ~ ~ ~ ~~ --~ .s.. . ; ~ . _ ~ ,~* r F i~ .~*:: ,.,.,~ .~ ~k ''.. ~ ` t :f L f .x~~., 5~ ~~;'' X - ~~ N.. .~ /'j w' mow. .r ~ ~ 4 ~~. ~~ ~-:.,rte- y ~~.~ Wis. ~ 4 i- -` , ~. i-... - - ,~-: 'r. ~..>~ '' ~~. . ~: ~~ ./ice .._ ._ . n~~ + ). .a _ '• .y r ~( ~ ~- i'C SFr. y _ c I ,mow. ;'_ ~~ ~,~yFy~~ ~y~.. w~ ~ i ~~ ~~~~iGY ~ ~ _ ~i Y-t`~ . - !F - _ `r -., ....: .r. ~¢ ~ ~ . r:...^:.: 3 ~ ~ Z ~ • _~. _ ~ ~ ~r ,~ -- -~ ~ ~ - +y, ~ r :c _ . ~ _ _ ~,~j w: - ° ° ~' ' • ! ~~ ~r 1- ail + . k. ..• ~ - 11,E ~ ~ ~^ _ .~ S_ ~ .>.. f, _ ~. H y .,} A' ~r ~w mac.'. I`{ ,~ ~'~ ,~ F ' _ ~ ~};~ . ~r yr x - rZa r _i '9 ..._ ~ .. ., __ _ _ . -~•.;• •~":.: ~ .`_ _ r,' ai'd'! :. „ ~ _ _ ~ '~ t' .. _ A S ~. ~ .. +~ \ •` a" ~ ~. 4 -~ ~- ~ i _ ~+~ . _ y ,- s-~ ,,,.,,,~~ _ 1 _~j. F h; -... - r... _ ~ i~i ~.~~ , 'fir.,, ~`~~.. ~. ._ ' "", '~{ ~ ~ . ,. ~ ~> ~{> Y ~^ ~I ~_. -~ ~,,,. } ~ _~ ._ ti ;~ ~ £ Ma_. ~' 4 t*- ~~ `M.. .4 ~~' .: , t -,,,.. - . - . ~y .. r. ~~.. _ ,* ,.. r _ y~y M~ ~~ . ~, ,. _4__.w_ ~ . ., .,. b- Y `-~ ~ - ,: 'r3 ,*~!, " . , ~' ~ 1 .r w ~ ~.- ~' y, k 'mss-:: y~". ~ ~1' ..~ y. -.... ~ -i _ y~ yy, ~ uE `~~-~ .. ~ w .: F ' ~ .'~ ~ ~ y 3.. 1 - ~ - - y. ' .a:z ~ - - ~_ ~C r _ tiw 6'~ 1 {ii¢jl.. ~ ~ ~~_.,.~ - ~- _ _ sue., 'i, ~ .:: a ~r.t ' .~ i^ ,. ,.i' .. , y+~. "4. .._ - .. ; .. - i J.t~: .! y..! ~ ' -iY. r ~ - ":;! R - .~-... .- _- ~ -- ~ ~. -:.fit. -a: _- », .. `~ r- r t :.. v: .. ~ ..- . .. i fy ... :.: r D ~- ~. Y - .. 4 _ ~ l pF' - . p _ .. dy? - .~ ~ .. .. ;. s '' µ :.: ... t a y~ 1 .4 T n ~•, ,.: ' .. ,- :: , . __ , ,. ~ - _ ~' i r ~ ~ ~ A. y ,, .. ~.. ~;r ~ .,~ _ r -., .w r~4^~r, ,3G.. " _ "~~- ~ «.y,.: -~'#.4 fir` `^~ ;y~ „17/ISf~!'~ t ~ _ ~ .:r; ~ •i dpi. ~ ~ r '.~ ; ~d, ~~" _ i _~~ _ ~ ~ ~. 'tom'' _~.' ~ '~` ~, y ~ ~, 4} ~ L h ~ ... ~ - _ ,. . e / tX. . 7i-' . .1. ,~ :. ..:. .~'• -- r ~ .~ .. a .~ : ,.. T - Y t ~ ~,: .. _ .-.... ~r•y.- _ r ~.-r . ~ r_ _ ' ~ ., _. ,: ~.~ .~ r~ ., _ ~ .. y . _ ', i N_ J _ ~ j S ~ .~ a LL * ~ _ ~ Y; ~ :. i ~ ~ ~ _:Y _ [- ;,t. ~..: ~:.. :x ~ r- _ } _ 3 ' ~ .- . ~ r r: ,; , ~` ~ ~ ~ p •_ i _ i ~- _ t - .; _ •.. +~-g s. . aao F ~. 71 . am. , . ... f '` ... _ b y. 1 y - _`; y l y- ~~ ~ , ~.4 ;~r- ~~ ~~TV !"~~. _ ~ ••• t ~ ~ _ ..ra: ~#3t ~ ~ f t - y ~ _ . c ~ _ ~' •~ ~~' to , , J ~~'; ~ ~Xr '•~ ~ ~ y . 5 __ ~ ~ ~~ . -i _ ~,. x.r ~°r _ ~r(~.~, - - ~,w t t .. _. Me~Y~n! o c 4., Ro . ~ .. , ~ r ~ ~ . ~~ .~ i 4 ~ ~ ~ ~ r -_:. T ,~ _~ ~.^ ~~ a :. x t,;y +t . t.: ~ ~, t ~ "~ U ~ "' ... ~ r .r ~~ ~'? .. ~ ~"lip S r 4 - ~ i_ifi ~ _ .. `~~'" '~ ~ ~~ ~~~ 3 . ~~`'~ ~ _ t Sc~ Ar -k ~.. ~... ~:- ~i ~~~~~'' h4 ~ yf n '~i'~ .`.-. a vim, *~. ~ e itip.~.*. ~ _ ~ t _`p7 ~; ~x~~ ~ {. ~, _~ ~ . ~~ .r # ,. i w ~~ ~yi ~' ~ _ r _ ' ,w ~~_ ~. ~ ~ ~ -~ ~` ~ ~ " ~- h ~ ~ -~ ~ _ M b~p,y~i . ~ !~~ _T -I -~ ~. _ •; O .. ~ d~~ 4,. ~. i ` ? ~! a' ,.~ ...rR ~~~ ~ ~ 4.~ ~~ ~~.~ :~~ '' ~ ~' -~- ~, ~. ~, .~ . ~. M _ N. ~Nµ "s` ~ .~' r~ .N Y ,,-,.~. a ~. ~ L ,l' ~ ~. ~ ~ ` :i . ~ , ` ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ T~ ~' .r ~`~' • • ~_ rrC~ FPM •1~ C/1 V 0 ~r 0 ~N ^1 ~_ ~_ `..y 3 ~ ~ '~ v ., v c •> > u v ~ ° N f' x~ N ~ '° T ~ ~ O O O O F v O E- N > ~ u ~ L~ ~ L`~ ~ ~ .,,i ~ O c~ v` ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ ce ~ ~ o a o 0 _ .~ ~, e_ p p p ~ E ~ ~ o. E"" E O O O v x ~ i a a c. U ~ a ~ C~ ~ v U - a a c a _° ~ o 0 ~ . H ~ ~` a Z z ~. ~ z z z z z z z z z z v ~ w Q N ~ v ~ .-: N L ., ~ .,+ ~ ir ., .., .. .. "" N ~ ~ r s r~ r r r ray . n ~ v O . r ~ C '+ ~ ~ ~_ 'L i. + L r ~ A u ' L L ~ U i- Z P~ ~"' ~" ~" ~"~ Z ~ Z Z Z z .. ~ 'L z z z ~- ~- ~- z r z :- N ~ ~ r' L _ OL C ~ .C ~ + + + ~ + t + '~' + ~- I N t .. ~-. ~ ~ z ~ ~ ~ z ~• z :~ z z z .~~r ~ u v? ~ T T T ~• 7 7 T ~ in •- E J o • (~ ~ 'R T 7 7 7 7, 7 7 7 7 7 ~ '~. .3 ~ ' d V Q < q ~ v ~ °' ~ ° C "' ~ pp ~ 'v ~ emu, h .". V _ G N C M .;, Q V1 h n ~ ~C C a n U OC Z OC V; O~ in 3G C 3L C 7t eJ 3G y~ y ?t ` N 7L ~ ~~ 3t ~ 3L C 3t 3[ 'fl C y t d L d ~ d O C d ~~ ' - C/ i V V f~I V 6J V ~ d C v; ~ ~ t%~ tip i v~ U U vJ v1 q Q /: - tip W V: cis L c!: C ~ N ~ ~ ~ _n U C A N C G' O ~ ~ •v ~ a ... c/1 U ie ~~ E T ~~ ~~ U U 7 7 'o ~v c c o O U U C O e v L 6J Pl M ^,. b c c C ., 2360 Commerce Blvd. Mound, Minn. 55364 Apri14, 2000 Mrs. Fran Clark, Acting City Manager Mound City Hall 5341 Maywood Rd. Mound, Minn. 55364 Re: Netka Building 2313 Coimmerce Blvd. Mound, Minn. 55364 To: Mrs. Fran Clark, Acting City Manager We wrote a letter to Bruce Chamberlain on February 7th, 2000, to advise him that we wish to build acommercial /residential building on our propery at 2313 Commerce Blvd., in Mound. We requested the final development plans and zoning ordinances for the Langdon area, so that we could give the information to our architect to go forward with our project. Evidently, these plans have not been finished as yet, as we have not been advised of this by Mr. Chamberlain. We are also again requesting TIF funding from the City of Mound for this new building. Please send us the necessary papers and information for the TIF funding as soon as possible. We are enclosing drawings of the proposed building we wish to build on 2313 Commerce Blvd., in Mound for your reference. Please send us information on the above at your earliest convenience. Very truly yours, 7 / ~ ",~'. Bill & Doroth Netka Y DN (Enclosures) ~~ r j ~~~ ^~ NVId 21001.1 ONOJ35 j I' ~ ~ j ~ I ~ ~Z ` ~a ~~ I _••'9 I I I II ~ ~ R I N ~. ~I_lel I=I Q e C ~~ ~~~~ ~T 111 ,, I I ~~ --- --2~ ~~ N ~~ t ~`~ v~ ^^ V a' a. O O z ,. O G r N ' V a ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ v~ z~~ - - e w - ~~~~' ~~' NVId 21001] 021IH1 / ON003S r ~, l~~i =s:g~ III -_ r~ I II tea ~w~ c~7 I __ I ~ i3 ~@ i~ / ~~ ~ I i ~ ,I -;~ ~~ I I J ~ ,, ;~ '~ ~ ~ ~ III ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~~ r~ ~ ~~ I I~1~~~!~r~~ ~~ ,~_~ ~ !i_' i~ ~'~j ,L ~ I ~~ ~'~. ~c ~~^ ,~ ,~ ~,` L~~! ~~ II~ ,;I i~ ,~ ., l ~~. I j v ~ ~ '~ '' ~`~~ I Z, ~ i`a a ;, ~; °i o~. ~, ~~ ~I o~ Z;o °' w, ~„_ C c V U ~ v~, ~N~ I ` ~~ g ~ ~_ .....,+_ NVId 13A31 213MO1 I I r ~( ~ o~~g~ ..a. I C Q aavti ~t 4x - -----~-- .,Id Div ~ ns~ a.. r- ~ i~:I ~I,.3 .+».. ,.. ,.. ~» ... I ~ t I «~~ ,....., a ,.~aix s ~~~ i I I ~ i 1I II I~ it I I I ~ -. j -~ ~ ~ I I I, ~~ I I~ ~r I ~r~~l ~, ~ ~ I ~---~ I i -~~- ~ I J a wi >i J Q':'o WI.~ ;i~ ai, Reply to Netka Letter From Jim Prosser. Bill and Dorothy Netka 2360 Commerce Boulevard Mound, MN 5364 Dear Bill and Dorothy Netka: I have been asked to respond to your letter addressed to Bruce Chamberlain dated February 7, ?000 Your letter, as I understand it, had two objectives: First, you were informing Mr. Chamberlain of your wish to build a commerciaUresidential building on your propem- at ?313 Commerce Boulevard in Mound; and in that connection were requesting information about zoning and final development plans for the Langdon area. Secondly, you were requesting TIF funding for the new building. In terms of the first objective, I believe that you both know that Mound is more than willing to cooperate with you in reviewing any plans that you may have for the development of your property. It is not the intention of the City to limit your use of your property so long as your proposed development is consistent with the land use regulations and building requirements of the City. I have asked Mr. Chamberlain to provide you with the current land use regulations applicable to your property. My response on the second objective, your request for TIF funding, is controlled by the agreement that is currently in place between the HRA and Mound Mainstreet, Inc., the developer that is proposing to develop the Langdon area. That agreement, which has an initial term of one year, prohibits the HRA from providing financial assistance to anyone else wishing to develop within the Langdon area during the term of the agreement. You may find it worthwhile to enter into discussions with Mound Mainstreet, Inc., concerning whether or not you could have a role in its development plans. To the extent your property is included in the l~found Vlainstreet, Inc. development. TIF funding is an option which the HRA would be willing to consider. I hope that this serves as an adequate response to your letter to Mr. Chamberlain. If I can be of further assistance, or provide you with additional information, please advise. .- 2360 Commerce Blvd. Mound, Minn. 55364 February 7, 2000 Mr. Bruce Chamberlain Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc. 123 N. 3rd St. Minneapolis, Minn. 55401 Re: Netka Building 2313 Commerce Blvd. Mound, Minn. 55364 To: Bruce Chamberlain: This is to advise you that we wish to build acommercial /residential building on our property at 2313 Commerce Blvd., in Mound. This will coincide with the new development plans that the City of Mound has in progress. We are requesting TIF funding from the City of Nlound for this new building. Please send us the necessary papers and information for the TIF funding as soon as possible. We would also like to get the final development plans and zoning ordinances for the Langdon area, so that we can give this information to our architect and go forward with our plans. We assure you we will build in accordance with the City of Mound's new development plans. Please send us the above information at your earliest convenience. Very truly yours, Bill & Dorothy Netka Telephone-612-472-3200 DN cc: Tim Sullivan cc: Mark Hanus, Council Member cc: Fran Clark, Acting City Manager