1999-10-12AGENDA
MOUND CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 12, 1999 7:30 PM
MOUND CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
1. OPEN MEETING - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
PAGE
2. APPROVE AGENDA.
3. *CONSENT AGENDA
*A.
MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 21, 1999, COMMITTEE
OF THE WHOLE MEETING ...................... 3372-3378
*B.
MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 28, 1999, REGULAR
MEETING .................................. 3379-3391
*C.
CASE//99-34: VARIANCE; FRONT YARD SETBACK; TO
CONSTRUCT A NEW DECK AT 4640 ISLAND VIEW
DRIVE; BLOCK 3, LOTS 16 & 17, DEVON; PAMELA
WEATHERHEAD, 37870, PID# 30-117-23 22 0019 .... 3392-3393
*D.
CASE//99-37: VARIANCE; LOT SIZE AND STREET
FRONTAGE; TO CREATE A BUILDABLE PARCEL AT
17XX WILDHURST LANE; BLOCK 13, LOT 1,
SHADYWOOD POINT; DAVID & CAROL BABLER,
61980, PID # 13-117-24 14 0017 ................ 3394-3395
*E.
SET DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON THE ADOPTION OF
BUSINESS SUBSIDY CRITERIA ................... 3396
(SUGGESTED DATE: DECEMBER 14, 1999)
*F.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A TAX RATE INCREASE FOR
THE 1999 TAX LEVY, COLLECTIBLE IN 2000 ..... 3397-3399
*G.
APPROVAL OF BID FOR CBD SNOWPLOWING .... 3400-3403
*H.
APPROVAL OF WATER AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
CITIES OF MINNETRISTA AND MOUND FOR THE
INTERCONNECTIONS OF THEIR WATER SYSTEMS.
3404-3405
*I.
CASE//97-37: APPROVAL OF ANOTHER ONE YEAR
EXTENSION UNTIL OCTOBER 14, 2000 FOR RESOLUTION
3369
#97-106, APPROVED ON OCTOBER 14, 1997, THAT WAS
GRANTED A ONE YEAR EXTENSION BY RESOLUTION g)8-
101, ON, OCTOBER 14, 1995, WHICH WOULD EXPIRE ON
OCTOBER 14, 1999. (THIS REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION .
WILL BE BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON
OCTOBER 11, 1999. THE PLANNER HAS
RECOMMENDED APPROVAL.) ............... 3406-3423
*J.
APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING
APPLICATION FOR THE LIVABLE COMMUNITIES
DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM ................ 3424-3441
*K.
PAYMENT REQUEST//4, AUDITOR'S ROAD IMP. -
KUSSKE CONSTRUCTION - $12,638.89 .......... 3442-3446
*L.
BID AWARD - HALSTEAD LANE/WESTEDGE BLVD.
STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ........ 3447-3449
*M.
PAYMENT OF BILLS ...................... 3450-3461
4. COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT ABOUT ITEMS NOT
ON THE AGENDA. (THIS WILL BE LIMITED TO 3 MINUTES PER
PERSON.)
PUBLIC HEARINGS: ASSESSMENTS
A. DELINQUENT WATER & SEWER BILLS;
UNPAID TREE REMOVAL BILL; AND
UNPAID GARBAGE REMOVAL BILL ............ 3462-3468
B. CBD PARKING MAINTENANCE ................... 3469
C. NORWOOD LANE SUPPLEMENTAL ASSESSMENT ...... 3470
CASE//99-35:
RESOLUTION TO DENY MINOR SUBDIVISION;
TO CREATE TWO (2) PARCELS FROM EXISTING
ONE; LOTS 8,& 20-22, BLOCK 8, THE HIGHLANDS;
6033 CHERRYWOOD ROAD; RICHARD
LILLEHEI, 61610, PID #23-117-24 34 0011 .... 3471-3495
INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS
Financial Report for September as prepard by Gino
Businaro, Finance Director ........................ 3496
Planning Commission Minutes of September 27, 1999. . . 3497-3505
POSC Minutes of September 9, 1999 .............. 3506-3512
DCAC Minutes of September 16, 1999 ............ 3513-3517
Quarterly Report from Police Chief, Len Harrell ...... 3518-3541
Fo
Letter from Tom Casey to Jim Fackler regarding the
Comprehensive Plan ........................ 3542-3543
3370
G. EDC Minutes of September 16, 1999 ............. 3544-3547
3371
DISCUSSION DRAFT
Rental Forbearance Agreement
Parties: HRA and property owner.(PO)
Basic Agreement:
PO agrees not to rent, occupy or otherwise use the property for the term of the
Agreement, and HRA agrees to pay PO a rent forbearance payment (RFP) plus interest if
and when the HRA acquires the property.
Elements of Agreement:
Monthly RFP to be equal to the average monthly rent received by PO during the 6-
month period prior to Agreement.
RFP will be "credited" to account monthly beginning on the date of the Agreement.
Interest will accrue at the annual rate of __%, from the date of each deposit. (Would
be nice to figure out a simple way to do this.)
The Agreements probably should terminate before the end of 2000, and sooner if the
HRA determines not to proceed with the development.
PO would acknowledge that HRA is under no obligation to acquire, and has made no
representations to PO of its present intention to acquire. (Mac, you may have some
additional ideas for this element)
HRA would agree that the RFP would be in addition to any negotiated purchase price
or any finally adjudicated award in any condemnation action.
RFP would be due and payable on the date title passes, and would be credited up to
that date.
· Owner would continue to be responsible for maintaining the property consistent with
all laws and regulations.
· The Agreement should be recordable and run with the land and bind successors.
· The HRA would have no maintenance or repair obligations, and would have no
liability for any claim by third parties based on the property or its condition.
Qualifications:
I suggest that the Agreement be available only if certain qualifications are met. They
would include:
-the property is currently vacant, but was occupied by a tenant for a continuous
six-month period ending not longer than 30 days prior to the date PO makes a rental
forbearance request.
-the property has been occupied by tenants for at least 30 months during the last
three years.
-the property is habitable (rentable).
JBD-170012
MU195-2
MINUTES - MOUND COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - SEPTEMBER 21, 1999
The Committee of the Whole for the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in
regular session on Tuesday, September 21, 1999, at 7:30 P.M., in the Council Workroom at
5341 Maywood Road, in said City.
Those present were Mayor Pat Meisel, Councilmembers: Andrea Ahrens, Mark Hanus, Leah
Weycker. Absent and excused: Councilmember Bob Brown. Also in attendance: Acting
City Manager Fran Clark and City Attorney Karen Cole. Others present: City of Mound
Fire Department staff: Jeff Andersen, Randy Engelhart (treasurer), Lisa Johnson (secretary),
Greg Pederson (chief), Mike Savage.
Mayor Meisel opened the meeting at 7:31 P.M.
1.01 FIRE DEPARTMENT RELIEF ASSOCIATION PRESENTATION.
Mr. Andersen introduced those fire department staff members present to the Committee of
the Whole.
Mr. Andersen stated he and Mayor Meisel discussed the upcoming budget and have worked
out a plan for the year 2000. Mr. Andersen handed out a packet of information giving
details on the background of the Relief Association and some statistical budget information
from other cities regarding calls. Mr. Andersen stated an actuarial would be presented at the
end of the year showing unfunded liability. The Relief Association is 92 percent funded and
they had received a raise of $460 to $510 per month in their pensions.
There was discussion by Ms. Johnson and Mr. Andersen regarding the apportionment
agreement. Ms. Johnson stated that Maple Plain Fire Department was apportioned 20 percent
of the 2 percent money from the state fire area fund and in actuality they cover only 6
percent.
Mr. Pederson and stated that Mound and St. Bonifacius were the only cities with changes in
their apportionment agreement. That is because the Mound Fire Dept. picked up
approximately 100 parcels in the City of Minnetrista from the St. Boni Fire Dept.
Mr. Andersen stated he has spoken with the Mayor about forming a Committee consisting
of about six people, to set goals for the future of the Fire Dept. He suggested the
Committee meet in January of each calendar year. The Committee could consist of the
Mayor, the Finance Director, a retired fire fighter and active members of the Fire Dept.
Mayor Meisel stated it has been 14 years since the Fire Dept. has received a raise in their
hourly rate for fire and rescue calls. Mayor Meisel would like this committee to meet on
January 24 in hopes of coming up with a numbers that work for fire calls and for the Relief
Association.
MOUND COMMITrEE OF THE WHOLE REGULAR MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 21, 1999
Mr. Andersen stated that some of the fire department prefer receiving the raise in their
pension rather than an increase in the dollars per hour for fare and rescue calls. Mr.
Andersen further stated that when the Association comes to the City for a raise, the monies
are available as stated in the actuarial due to investments and elimination of administrative
expenses by the Fire Department.
Mr. Pederson stated currently the fire department's rate of pay is $6.50 per hour for fire and
rescue calls. Mr. Pederson stated there is concern by some of the younger fire fighters about
their per hour pay for fire and rescue calls and Mound would like to keep the younger
volunteers happy. There is interest of having the Committee that looks at this be balanced
appropriately with both the active volunteers and the retirees.
Ms. Johnson stated even though each of the City of Mound fire fighters have their full-time
jobs elsewhere, the fire fighters still spend about 75 hours per month at the fire station
because of calls, drills, etc.
Mr. Pederson compared the survey of other fire departments in the area with Mound's cost
for fire service and found even though Mound had the most calls, they are the lowest cost
per call. Mr. Pederson also stated that in comparison to other cities our size fire fighters
receive in the range of $6.50 to $10.00.
Councilmember Hanus asked if the salary were increased, would this be enough to keep the
younger fire fighters in the department. Mr. Pederson stated the department needs to come
up with more creative ways to keep the people as volunteer fire fighters.
Mr. Andersen stated there are about 15 fire fighters available during the day. Mr.
Andersen also stated that the fire fighters have to live in Mound or a distance of no more
than 3 1/2 miles out from the fire service area to be considered as a fire fighter.
The Council and the Fire Dept. are looking forward to forming the Committee and meeting
on January 24th of next year.
1.1 PRESENTATION BY CITY ATTORNEY - BAILEY V. LIEN. ET AL.
City Attorney Karen Cole gave an update on this case. She briefed the Council on the work
that needed to be done to complete the settlement agreement. She stated that 80 of the
households have signed the agreement. She stated the title work has been completed to date
and now the legal papers could be served. Ms. Cole presented a Notice of Heating that was
put in laymen's terms so that all the petitioners would understand. The next step would be to
participate at the heating within 30 days of service of this Notice. After the hearing and the
judge makes his ruling, the LMCD would need to give their final approval.
MOUND COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE REGULAR MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 21. 1999
The consensus by the Council was to go ahead with the draft of the Notice of Hearing
presented tonight by counsel.
1.2 STORM SEWER RATE STUDY/CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN.
The Acting City Manager stated Mr. Daniel Hartman of Springsted Public Finance Advisors
sent a proposed work plan for a storm sewer rate analysis (SSRA) and capital Improvement
Program (CIP). The SSRA for the City of Mound would determine the appropriate rate
structure needed to pay for ongoing operations and a planned capital improvement to the
Storm Sewer Utility established in City Code Section 650. This CIP would develop a plan
that assists the City in its budgeting process by outlining its CIP and identifying the different
funding options. The Plan also would include the possibility of a street lighting utility. The
cost is approximately $10,000.
Councilmember Hanus stated the rate for this study is about one-third of the cost of the
actual implementation of the Plan.
After discussion, the consensus from the Council was to have Ehlers submit a proposal.
This will then be brought back to the Council for their review at a future meeting.
1.3 CONSUMER CONFIDENCE REPORT.
The Acting City Manager stated the Consumer Confidence Report was presented tonight as
information for the Council to be aware of what action is being taken in case they receive
any phone calls from concerned citizens or other individuals regarding the water samples
being taken. This is a requirement of the Minnesota Dept. of health.
1.4 CITY MANAGER SEARCH UPDATE - MERCER GROUP.
The Acting City Manager stated Mercer Group, Inc. has signed the Agreement to start a
search for a new City Manager. Mr. Mercer will prepare a Position Profile based on
information received from the City, Councilmembers and Department Heads. After the
compilation was complete, a specific profile for a City Manager for the City of Mound
would be sent back to Mercer Group, Inc. for review.
Mr. Mercer will be available to conduct interviews with th~ Councilmembers and
Department Heads on October 5~ and 6~, 1999.
MOUND COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE REGULAR MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 21. 1999
Mayor Meisel called the Council's attention to the questions for the City Council which were
attached to the Agreement tonight.
The Acting City Manager will coordinate times for everyone to meet with Mr. Mercer.
1.5
RESTORATION OF CRESCENT PARK. JIM'S MEMO WAS SENT TO THE
CITY PROSECUTOR AND HE HAS OK'D IT. IF THE COUNCIL AGREES.
CRAIG MERTZ WILL SEND A LETTER TO MR. BAUER.
The Acting City Manager presented this case. Evidently, Mr. Bauer did not perform the
restoration to replace trees he cut down in 1997 in a timely manner according to Resolution
//97-100 and an extension was given in 1998 which had now expired. Even though planting
did not occur, the Acting City Manager stated nature had taken its course and new trees and
brush have grown to a level where the cutting down had occurred in 1997. Staff is
recommending that Mr. Bauer's Public Lands Permit be retracted and a letter be sent
notifying him that any further cutting on public lands will be given to the City Attorney for
immediate prosecution.
After discussion the consensus by the Council was to have the City Attorney write a letter to
Mr. Bauer explaining if further cutting does occur, he will be immediately prosecuted.
STREET LIGHT REQUEST ON ALEXANDER LANE. THIS WILL BE ON
THE SEPTEMBER 28TM AGENDA.
The Acting City Manager explained that a the present the light that is there is a security light
that was put in by NSP at the request of the previous owner. The current owner is having
problems with it and NSP cannot repair it because of its age, therefore, the installation of a
street light has been requested to replace it. The request was reviewed by the Police Dept.
and Staff and the recommendation was to approve the installation. This will be before the
Council at the September 28, Council Meeting.
1.7 LIQUOR STORE LEASE NEGOTIATION.
The Acting City Manager stated Joel Krumm, the Liquor Store Manager, informed her the
three-year lease agreement on the Liquor Store will expire at the end of this year. Shoreline
Plaza is presenting a $.50 per square foot increase ($7.50 per square foot to $8.00 per square
foot) from last year which will result in about $1,500 of additional expense to the liquor
store. A decision needs to be made regarding the renewal of the lease and for how long of a
time period.
MOUND COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE REGULAR MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 21, 1999
The Acting City Manager stated the liquor store manager does not want to be put in a
cubbyhole in the downtown area with the redevelopment of the downtown area. Ideally, the
manager of the liquor store would like to build a new store in the Lost Lake area.
The Liquor Store Manager submitted a memo to the Council addressing the following: 1. Staying where he is at the new $8.00 per square foot.
2. How important location is for this store.
3. How this could work if the City built a free standing new store.
The Council discussed various options. The consensus of the Council was to try to extend
the current lease for two more years with a one year option.
The Council appreciated Mr. Krumm's ideas conceming the liquor store which could be
discussed at a later date and time.
1.8 APPOINTMENTS AND REAPPOINTMENTS TO ADVISORY COMMISSIONS.
Mayor Meisel stated this matter has been tabled to a future COW meeting.
1.9
LOCAL PROGRAMMING FACILITIES AGREEMENT WITH LAKE
MINNETONKA CABLE COMMISSION.
The Acting City Manager stated the most significant change in the Agreement is LMCC
proposing the City dedicate not only the $.84 per subscriber per month which the City
receives for support of PEG access from Triax/Mediacom, but also a portion of the City's
franchise fees to help offset the costs associated with the operation of the studio. This is a
proposal at present and the City will be getting back to the LMCC in October. In the
meantime, the City of Mound does not have anyone to do the reruns of the tapes of the
Council Meetings so they are not being shown. More to come at a future meeting.
1.10 SCHOOL DISTRICT.
Mayor Meisel stated she had delivered the redevelopment agreement to the School Board
with all Councilmembers' stamp of approval. The School Board's attorney reviewed the
agreement and talked about it at their Monday night Board meeting. There were
arrangements made by Mayor Meisel and a representative of the School Board to meet
Tuesday morning to discuss the redevelopment agreement and have a copy available for
Mayor Meisel to bring to the Council on Tuesday night. Iflstead of presenting the agreement
to Mayor Meisel, the Board tabled the Agreement. Before the agreement is signed by the
Board, the Board wants the City to write a letter stating the City owes the School Board
money and that the City of Mound is willing to negotiate. Mayor Meisel stated the
MOUND COMMI'ITEE OF THE WHOLE REGULAR MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 21, 1999
agreement is worthwhile for the School Board to sign, but yet they want a letter from the
City as well. Mayor Meisel stated that legally the City does not owe the School Board
anything, but yet they still want this letter from the City.
The meeting recessed at 9:45 P.M. into executive session to discuss this possible litigation.
The Committee of the Whole Meeting was called back into session at 10:10 P.M..
The Mayor stated the following was discussed in Executive Session.
1. That in a conversation with the City Attorney, John Dean, felt that in his
opinion the City would be successful in a court case if such was brought
against the City.
2. That the question at hand is whether there is an interest by the City Council to
negotiate with the School Board on what they think is owed by the City of
Mound. The consensus was that there may be room for negotiation.
1.11 INFORMATION ITEMS.
1. Financial report for August as prepared by the Finance Director, Gino Businaro.
2. L.M.C.D. information on private dock on wexford road.
Information on the two new police officers, Jami Burke and Michael Bruckner. They
will be sworn in at the September 28, 1999, City Council meeting.
Hiring schedule for a replacement for Bob Shanley who will be retiring on January 3,
2000.
Memo regarding CDBG funding for the year 2000. The Acting City Manager spoke
with Rod Wara and this could mean a 6 percent reduction in our CDBG funding for
next year.
Mayor Meisel informed the members tonight she wanted to reschedule the next Committee of
the Whole Meeting to October 5th because she will be out of town between October 16th
and October 24th.
and the COW Meeting on October 19'~ was to have the department heads present their
budgets
MOUND COMMI'I~FEE OF THE WHOLE REGULAR MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 21. 1999
The Acting City Manager was instructed to inform the following department heads to be in
attendance at the next Committee of the Whole Meetings would be October 5th and October
14th for the department heads to present their budgets for the year 2000. Scheduled for
October 5~ to discuss their budgets for the upcoming year will be Len Harrell, Jim Fackler,
and Joel Krumm. Scheduled for October 14th will be Greg Skinner, Jon Sutherland, Fran
Clark, Gino Businaro, and Greg Pederson.
1.12 ADJOURN.
MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Weycker to adjourn at 10:24 P.M. The vote
was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
Francene C. Clark,
Acting City Manager
Attest: Council Secretary
MINUTES - CITY COUNCIL - SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session
on Tuesday, September 28, 1999, at 7:30 P.M., in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood
Road, in said City.
Those present were Mayor Pat Meisel, Councilmembers: Andrea Ahrens, Bob Brown,
Mark Hanus, and Leah Weycker. Also in attendance were City Attorney John Dean, Acting
City Manager Fran Clark, City Planner Loren Gordon, and Secretary Sue McCulloch. The
following interested citizens were also present: Kim Anderson, Marshall Anderson, Robert
Bighl, L. and D. Bruckner, Beverly Burke, Lora Burke, Robert Burke, Martin Carten, David
A. Casey, Amy Cicchese, Jamie Demaris, Dean Ehlebracht, Linda Ehlebracht, Wayne E.
Ehlebracht, Katie Flann, Bill Gabby, Kim Gabby, H. and P. Haber, Orvella Hanson, Keith
Harrell, Barb Johnson, Brian Johnson, Bob Johnson, Jim Mathews, Jim and Joan McCabe,
Don McCarbel, Richard McCarthy, Tawn McCarthy, Peter C. Meyer, Sheila Murphy,
Rocky Nelson, Carol Perkldo, Eric Posnin, Linda Skorseth, Aeron Thorp, Leo Uthuack,
Sharon A. Voss, Pam Weatherhead, Mike Wolf.
*Consent Agenda: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by
the Council and will be enacted by a roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of
these items unless a Councilmember or Citizen so requests, in which event the item will be
removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence.
OPEN MEETING - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Mayor opened the meeting at 7:33 P.M. and welcomed the people in attendance. The
Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
SWEARING IN OF JAMI BURKE AND MICHAEL BRUCKNER
Mayor Meisel introduced Chief of Police, Len Harrell, and informed the public he would be
swearing in two new police officers, Jami Burke and Michael Bruckner, this evening.
Chief of Police Len Harrell introduced Jami Burke and Michael Bruckner. Mr. Bruckner
started with the force on September 27, 1999, and Ms. Burke will be starting on October 4,
1999. The officers read to the public the Police Officer Code of Ethics and the Public Trust
Agreement that each officer agreed to abide by. Chief Harrell administered their oaths and
presented them with their badge.
APPROVE AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA
Councilmember Hanus requested Item A be pulled from the Consent Agenda.
The City Planner requested to have Item C removed from the Consent Agenda. It will be
Item 6a on the Agenda.
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Brown, to approve the Agenda and Consent
Agenda with the removal of Items A and C. A roll call vote was unanimously in
favor. Motion carried. 5-0.
CONSENT AGENDA
*1.0
CASE # 99-32: VARIANCE: FENCE HEIGHT, TO CONSTRUCT A 40 FOOT
PRIVACY FENCE 6 FEET IN HEIGHT TO BE LOCATED WITHIN THE
FRONT YARD AT 3188 TUXEDO BOULEVARD: BLOCK 9. LOTS 24-25-26,
WHIPPLE: KEITH HARRELL. 37970. PID# 13-117-24 21 0041.
RESOLUTION # 99-84
RESOLUTION TO DENY A
NONCONFORMING HEIGHT VARIANCE
FOR A 6 FOOT HIGH FENCE AT 3188
TUXEDO BOULEVARD, BLOCK 9, LOTS
24-25-26, WHIPPLE, PI]) # 13-117-24 21 0041.
P AND Z CASE # 99-32, 37970.
Hanus, Brown, unanimously.
*1.1 STREET LIGHT REQUEST AT 3064 ALEXANDER LANE.
RESOLUTION g99-85
RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE INSTALLATION
OF A STREET LIGHT ON A POWER POLE AT
3064 ALEXANDER LANE
Hanus, Brown, unanimously.
*1.2.
SET PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR ASSESSMENT HEARINGS
DELINQUENT WATER AND SEWER BILLS
UNPAID TREE REMOVAL BILL
UNPAID GARBAGE REMOVAL BILL
CBD PARKING MAINTENANCE
NORWOOD LANE SUPPLEMENTAL ASSESSMENT.
(SUGGESTED DATE: OCTOBER 12, 1999}
MOTION.
Hanus, Brown, unanimously.
'1.3 PAYMENT OF BILLS.
MOTION.
Hanus, Brown, unanimously.
MOUND C1TY COUNCIL MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
1.4 MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 14. 1999, REGULAR MEETING.
Councilmember Hanus stated on Page 3250, Paragraph 8, Line 2 the minutes should read as
follows: "Minnetrista's letter dated September 13, 1999, but then stated he disagreed that
any real benefit would be realized." Furthermore, on Page 3254, Paragraph 2, Line 1
should read as follows: "Councilmember Hanus stated to his knowledge there are no
abutters in other cities' systems."
MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Ahrens, to approve September 14, 1999,
minutes as amended above. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
5-0.
COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT
Mayor Meisel stated to the citizens present if they have comments on items not listed on the
Agenda to bring in front of the City Council, to please keep them to approximately three
minutes each in length.
Marshall Anderson, 5736 Lynwood Boulevard. Mr. Anderson stated he came before the
City Council two weeks ago and requested from the City Council and the City Attorney some
answers to four questions. Mr. Anderson received a letter from the City Attorney answering
some questions and thanked him for it. Mr. Anderson stated he is still awaiting for answers
to a couple more questions. Mr. Anderson would like to know the number of 0 voters in
the last municipal election. Mr. Anderson stated he would also appreciate information from
the City Attorney informing the citizens if the Petition they drafted was proper or not.
The Acting City Manager stated the required number of valid signatures on the Petition
would be 963.
The City Attorney stated he addressed this issue two weeks ago and stated the information he
could give to the citizens required by statute was already submitted. He also stated he is still
very cautious in giving out more information to the public because of legal issues.
The City Attorney mentioned if a petition does get turned in with an incorrect number of
valid signatures, then he would be obligated to inform the citizens of all ways the petition
was defective.
Bob Johnson, 2928 Westedge Boulevard. Mr. Johnson stated he would like to go on record
as being in favor of the petition. He would like to see the City Council exhaust all
possibilities to make this particular endeavor by the citizens, go forward and to be reassured
that the City Council should not be so concerned about another governing body but rather
concerned about those that have elected the Council.
Bill Gabby, 5764 Lynwood Boulevard. Mr. Gabby asked if there is anything the citizens of
Mound can do to save this green space that is in their City. He is aware the school board
has ownership of the land and can sell it to whomever they see fit, but he would appreciate
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
all attempts by the City of Mound to retain the green space. Mr. Gabby further stated he
does not want to lose the park.
Mayor Meisel stated the property is soldt as far as the City of Mound is concerned Until
the purchase agreement expires or is finalized on December 15, 1999, the City of Mound
cannot do anything. She further stated the City of Mound has not been contacted by the
developer and does not have any more information to pass on to the citizens, until December
15.
Don McCarbel, 3349 Warner Lane. He stated he had a number of arguments why the City
should not be buying property because the property is prime retail space that would generate
tax dollars. The issue still relevant is taking those tax dollars and turning them over to the
HRA. Mr. McCarbel stated since it was public property before, there were no tax dollars.
Basically, if it was turned over to the HRA, all the taxable income would be given up to the
TIF district and the school district would get nothing for 10 years. At the same time they
would be asking the citizens of Mound for a tax increase because of lack of tax dollars. Mr.
McCarbel stated the HRA should not benefit as a tax increment financing institution. The
HRA would get all the dollars and stated there would be no dollars going to the city, the
school district, or the county. Furthermore, he stated there is no need to give up those
dollars to induce the developer to come into the project because the developer has already
decided to do that.
Mayor Meisel stated from the information she has received, the developer is not asking for
tax increment financing at this time.
Jamie Demaris, 5272 Lynwood Boulevard. Mr. Demaris stated he had heard the parks were
lacking and was informed something might be happening to the football field. Mr. Demaris
asked what the area is currently zoned and could the City Council take the approach and state
that the area would not be zoned for retail, outlet malls or multiple housing?
Laurel Gabby, 5764 Lynwood Lane. Laurel stated she lives across from the football field
and would like to keep the park so she and her friends can continue to play games, soccer,
and stuff at the park.
Brianne Clark. Brianne stated she plays a lot at the park and comes and watches the games
at the park a lot. She stated it is fun to have a park to play at.
Peter C. Meyer, 5748 Sunset Road. Mr. Meyer disagreed strongly with the City Council
that is not the City of Mound's business at this point. Mr. Meyer stated the past referendum
did not get passed because there was a clause it in that was.going to take away this green
space. He stated the City just cannot let anyone take this property away from the people.
Mr. Meyer stated his calculation shows the City of Mound is currently lacking in green space
and if this property is taken away there will be nothing left.
Councilmember Hanus stated there may be an error in the figures Mr. Meyer is using to
come up with his calculations for park and open space. Mr. Meyer stated he would be
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
happy to go over his calculations and those of Councilmember Hanus' to review in detail
how much parkland is enough for the City of Mound.
Brian Johnson, 2928 Westedge Boulevard. Mr. Johnson is sixteen-years-old and truly enjoys
watching his friends play football at the property space in question. He stated he also enjoys
the soccer games that are played in Mound. Mr. Johnson stated it is not only about just
saving the green space, it is about activities for the kids of Mound. Mr. Johnson stated the
City just cannot take away the only space in town for small kids to come and play and enjoy
time with their family and friends. He stated the kids will have more opportunity to get into
trouble if the property is taken away. He stated that Mound's kids do not want the open
space to taken away. Mr. Johnson further stated that even though Mound may not have the
best teams, the kids love to play sports because it is just what kids do.
Kim Anderson, 5736 Lynwood Boulevard. Ms. Anderson stated if the sale goes through the
City of Mound could declare eminent domain if it wanted to. Ms. Anderson also stated the
developer is willing to sell the property back to the City if the City of Mound would like to
purchase it. Ms. Anderson wanted it clarified if the City of Mound would have a shot with
the developer if the school board declines the TIF financing. Ms. Anderson also wanted it
clarified that the City of Mound is trying to get this property into TIF.
Mayor Meisel stated we have a district set up and the school district does not want to sign a
redeveloper's agreement. Mayor Meisel stated the developer does not want to come
forward so the City cannot find out what the developer's plan is. She also stated the City of
Mound has options and an option may be to consider this property for TIF, but again this is
an option.
Councilmember Brown stated the school board has ownership of the property in the City of
Mound. The City did put in an offer for the property, but the school board did not take the
City of Mound's offer. Councilmember Brown stated again the City does not have any
authority regarding this property at this time.
Ms. Anderson stated as a citizen we are the taxpayers and we fund the school board and the
City. She stated the majority of time for people who live in Mound is spent with their
children by doing things that foster health. She stated having fields for her children to play
at and a place to take them to play is essential. Ms. Anderson asked what will the children
do if they no longer have this property to play on. She stated the community is desperate
and would very much like to keep this property. Ms. Anderson would like to know if there
is anything the community can do to assist in keeping this property. She also stated money
should not be the top priority.
Leo Uthuack, 6403 County 110. Mr. Uthuack has been a resident of Mound for 10 years.
He understands from the people of the community tonight they want to maintain the open
space since it is the only open space residents without cars can go to and the only area that
kids can get to. He asked why there was a $200,000 difference in the offers for the property?
He stated he really would like the support from the City Council so it appears the City is on
the community's side.
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES = SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Councilmember Hanus stated the difference in the offers was $500,000, not $200,000. Mr.
Uthuack appreciated the correction.
Councilmember Brown stated the City felt the bid they presented to the school board was
appropriate for the property.
Mr. Uthuack stated the City, as he sees it, may have some options. One option would be
buying the property back from the developer, which evidently the developer is willing to do.
The second option is to some how rezone the area so it will be kept as a open space and not
be developed into retail or condominiums. Mr. Uthuack stated he would like the City
Council to fight for the property.
Linda Skorseth, 5648 Alder Road. Ms. Skorseth stated the Park Commission has already
recommended we need the green space. The community, at this point, does not have a
concern about the development by the Pond Arena corner up to the corner of Lynwood and
Commerce, but the people of Mound need the open space. She stated the community
education department will not have the space for a sports program without this property.
Ms. Skorseth stated this debate is all about the future of the community.
Katie Flann, 5945 Sunset Road. Ms. Flann stated she has been heavily involved with the
Westonka Baseball Association. She stated if the City of Mound loses the property their
association will be heading to a new place to play baseball and this is not a good solution for
the community. She stated she would like to see the City of Mound purchase the property
and do its best to exhaust all possibilities to accomplish that goal.
Rocky Nelson, 1656 Finch Lane. Mr. Nelson stated all kids from Mound play baseball and
football at the park and have for the past 20 years. He stated there are several communities
in the Metro area that are fighting to get their open space back so the communities will not
be without their sport programs. Mr. Nelson stated there is a perception about Mound in
comparison to Orono. Even though the curriculum is the same for both schools, folks look
at living in Orono a better way of life and he stated it all had to do with their sports
programs.
Brian Johnson, 2928 Westedge Boulevard. Mr. Johnson stated he would like to see the
specified area developed in retail, but stated he would like to see the green space still
available so tournaments could be played in the City of Mound and the people could also eat
in town rather than have to go the distance to Ridgedale.
Wayne Ehlebracht, 4873 Shoreline Drive. Mr. Ehlebracht stated he has a petition signed by
eight people and he would like to submit it to City Attorney for his review (the petition was
handed to the City Attorney). Mr. Ehlebracht asked to the City Council what their plans are
for this property and if it is in their plans to save the green space?
Mayor Meisel stated a valid purchase agreement exists and until the developer comes forward
and discusses what his plans are for the property, the property is not ours to discuss.
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Mr. Ehlebracht asked again for advice on what the community can do to save the green
space. The City Attorney stated the people could contact the developer and have him present
at a City Council meeting to discuss his plans.
Councilmember Brown stated he is in strong support of green space in the City of Mound,
but there are conditions in this matter that are preventing him from stating anymore than
what has been said. This is a legal situation which is out of the control of the City at this
time.
Councilmember Weycker stated eminent domain is an area that may not be supported by the
City Council. Councilmember Weycker also stated she appreciates the attendance tonight by
the people of Mound and hearing their comments about the property.
Councilmember Hanus stated if the people get the required signatures for their petition it
would then show the City Council that there is community support for a referendum.
The City Attorney stated it is to the benefit of everyone here to have the citizens here tonight
impress upon the School Board their concerns about the property. He stated in normal
practice it is usually not this difficult to talk to the developer. The City Attorney stated he
spoke with a librarian who works in his office and lives in Mound near the fields. She felt
because there are poor soil conditions on this property this may work out in time.
The ideas stated by the City Council regarding how the residents of Mound could possibly
help this situation in their favor were appreciated. The citizens will be back in two weeks to
discuss this issue again. The City Attorney stated he will review the petition presented to him
tonight and will give his recommendations by the October 12, 1999, scheduled City Council
meeting.
Dean Ehlebracht, 4873 Shoreline Drive. Mr. Ehlebracht stated he is 16 years old and has
enjoyed attending games at the fields and does not want to see the fields disappear. He is
concerned about where the teams will play if they lose their field. Mr. Ehlebracht stated he
promised younger kids he would coach them in the summer and if they lose the green space,
there will be no place for him to help out these kids he has promised.
Mr. Uthuack asked Councilmember Weycker why she stated the City Council may not
support the idea of eminent domain. Councilmember Weycker stated eminent domain is a
harsh measure.
Councilmember Hanus stated he heard people tonight mention they are comfortable with
developing a new retail area. He stated if this retail area is developed, some of the green
space area would have to go into parking.
Mr. Uthuack stated maybe then there should not be anything developed there if it will not
remain open space. He stated there is only one area for kids under sixteen to play and this is
the area that is being considered to be redeveloped. Mr. Anderson was in agreement with
Mr. Uthuack.
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Aeron Thorp. Aeron is in fourth grade and attends school in the City of Mound. He stated
this area is the only open space in the community and stated if this is taken away what will
the kids do for entertainment and fun. Aeron stated building a new field is going to cost a
lot of money. Aeron would like to know if there would be plans to build a new field.
Councilmember Weycker stated this is a question for the school board.
Brian Johnson asked if having the whole football .team sign a petition to keep the open space
would be wise? Mayor Meisel stated she appreciated the effort but the names on the petition
need to be registered voters.
Sheila Murphy, 2044 Bellaire Lane. Ms. Murphy is affiliated with the soccer club. She
stated their club is desperate for places to play and it would hurt them a lot if Mound would
lose this field. She stated this soccer club is a traveling club and it does bring business into
the City of Mound because of the size of the club. Ms. Murphy stated she would like to
have the City Council and the School Board work together.
Eric Posnin, 3845 Hillcrest Road. Mr. Posnin noticed that some apartments in the
surrounding area have nearby parks and green space to play on. He stated if residential
areas lose their green space then the City of Mound may start losing its community and also
will not gain new citizens for this reason.
Councilmember Hanus suggested inviting the School Board to attend the City Council's
meeting on October 12, 1999. Councilmember Weycker stated she would encourage all the
citizens at tonight's meeting to attend the School Board's meeting on October 11, 1999.
Mayor Meisel directed staff to set up a one-hour block of time at the October 12, 1999,
meeting and invite the School Board to discuss the issue of the green space with the City
Council and the citizens of Mound.
1.5
PUBLIC HEARING: CASE # 99-33: UTILITY EASEMENT VACATION;
LOCATED WITHIN THE R-1 A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING
DISTRICT AT 4608 KILDARE ROAD; BLOCK 11, LOT 6, SETON; BILL
VOSS, 37950, PID # 19-117-23 21 0028.
The City Planner presented the case. The City Planner stated the applicant owns the
property where the easement exists. This incident happened over the years. When the
applicant received permission to build on the property the easement was suppose to be
vacated but evidently it never got vacated. The current driveway serves one house and all
utilities in the easement have been removed and everything is working fine today. The
applicant requested the public easement be taken off the books and he then would be
provided with a private easement for Lots 5 and 6. Staff recommended to the Council to
approve the easement vacation and the Planning Commission also supports this plan.
Mayor Meisel opened the public hearing opened at 9:20 p.m.
Mrs. Bill Voss stated she was in attendance on behalf of her husband, Bill Voss. She stated
she had copies of the Certificate of Title and other documents for the Council. It appeared
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Council had all the information they needed for their files. There were no questions asked of
Mrs. Voss.
Mayor Meisel closed the public hearing at 9:21 p.m.
Brown moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution:
MOTION by Brown, seconded by Ahrens, to accept the Resolution according to staffs
recommendations.
RESOLUTION # 99-86
RESOLUTION TO VACATE A UTILITY EASEMENT
LOCATED AT 4608 KILDARE ROAD, LOT 6, BLOC 11,
SETON, PID # 19-11%23 21 0028, P & Z CASE # 99-33, 91-
055
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 5-0.
1.6
CASE # 99-37: VARIANCE; LOT SIZE AND STREET FRONTAGE; TO
CREATE A BUILDABLE PARCEL AT 17XX WILDHURST LANE; BLOCK 13,
LOT 1, SHADYWOOD POINT; DAVID AND CAROL BABLER, 61980, PID#
13-11%24 14 0017.
The City Planner presented the case. He stated that a variance is being requested is on the
lot adjacent to the where the applicant lives. The applicant has owned this property for
approximately 30 years. During that time the lot has remained undeveloped and the
applicant would like this lot to be considered a buildable lot so they can sell it.
The applicants requested a street frontage variance of 57 feet and the lot area above the 931
OHW is just short of 7,000 square feet so it about a 3,000 square foot variance. There are
no building plans for the property but Brenchell Homes would like to possibly buy the
property and build. The City Planner stated the site plan of the property shows a
considerable drop from the front of the house to the street. The staff stated even if the
driveway would be feasible there is other issues that may come up outside what the code
shows caution too. For instance, Sunset Landing is an access for summer and winter and
currently is a gravel road, although it does provide a lot of room for vehicles. The City
Planner stated this driveway would have to access through the comer of the lot and problems
may occur with emergency vehicles, wet weather regarding gravel, and in the winter, who
would be responsible for plowing Sunset Landing.
The City Planner stated the pad does conform to all types {~f setback but we do not have
building plans which would show more detail. He stated because of unknowns regarding this
property, staff and the Planning Commission are recommending denial of this variance.
Councilmember Brown stated the developer would surface a driveway at the Sunset Landing
for emergency vehicle and other vehicles. He stated that the driveway where it is being
proposed would be feasible according to code. Councilmember Brown stated if a new
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
builder would come in and want to build on this property, he would have to build on the
footprint and meet all setbacks according to City code.
Mayor Meisel and the Acting City Manager expressed concern over who will maintain
Sunset l_anding with it partially surfaced and the other part not. The City Planner stated a
possible way would be to have the owner be responsible for maintaining it, although with it
being public property the City may state they will maintain it.
Councilmember Hanus stated this plan is not ideal on an unimproved area but there are
things that can be done to alleviate those problems. He stated with the driveway coming off
of Sunset Landing, it could be paved slightly beyond the driveway so it looks like it continue
and then have it squared off to Sunset Landing.
Mr. Babler stated he has been using Sunset Landing as a driveway for 25 years and has not
had a problem in the past. He stated he does not want to have a shared driveway with the
other lot. He also stated there is a footprint by the developer stating whoever buys this
property needs to stick to the footprint or he cannot build a house. Mr. Babler stated he
would like to sell the property for retirement purposes.
Dale Pixler with Remax stated the property has had assessments for sewer and water and
street improvements have been made. He stated the 931 law is a good law, but to not allow
building on this property for that reason when he has not had any water problems the past 30
years, is a waste of the property.
Mr. Pixler stated the Sunset Landing used as a driveway is not a problem as it exists.
Currently the City does allow access for a driveway on a landing in two other locations
within the City. Mr. Pixler stated the footprint itself was reviewed by the Building Inspector
to have it meet codes by the City of Mound. The Building Inspector and Mr. Pixler came up
with an envelope according to the City Codes and if somcone wants to build on this piece of
property, they need to stick to the envelope.
Councilmember Hanus asked if Mr. Pixler can create a building envelope that stays outside
of the 931.5 and still meets all of the setbacks. Mr. Pixler stated this is possible.
Councilmember Hanus also asked if this envelope can be at or less 40 percent hardcover of
the area above the 929.4. Mr. Pixler stated this is possible.
Councilmember Hanus asked a question if a variance is needed to access off of an
unimproved street. Staff stated a variance would not be required.
Councilmember Hanus directed staff to add in the ResolutiOn a specific design improvement
for the driveway so it would reduce the amount of erosion and give the driveway a squared
off appearance that would benefit the new owners.
Councilmember Hanus stated for the record he is not intentionally ignoring the Planning
Commission's recommendation. What happened tonight is just a little "tweaking" from what
the Planning Commission was suggesting.
10
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
MOTION by Brown, seconded by Hanus, to prepare a Resolution of approval
and then have it brought back to the City Council meeting of October 12, 1999,
for the Consent Agenda.
Discussion.
Mr. Pixler stated to keep the envelope as stated in the Councilmembers' packet. He stated if
a builder wants to come in and build within your area then they will have to go through the
Minnehaha watershed for approval, and the Minnehaha watershed will approve it as long as
the builder does certain things for them. Leaving the Resolution as already noted will give
the builder a little bit of option, but none that he has to deal with the City of Mound.
AMENDED MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Brown, to direct staff to prepare
an appropriate Resolution of approval to include the footprint as drawn on Page
3365 and then have it brought back to the City Council meeting of October 12,
1999, for the Consent Agenda. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion
carried. 5-0.
Mr. Pixler stated as a suggestion to the City Council to take a good look at all the lots that
fall into the same scenario as the above-mentioned case. This may alleviate variances the
City has to grant.
1.7
CASE # 99-34: VARIANCE; FRONT YARD SETBACK; TO CONSTRUCT A
NEW DECK AT 4640 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE; BLOCK 3, LOTS 16 AND 17,
DEVON; PAMELA WEATHERHEAD, 37870, PID # 30-117-23 22 0019.
The City Planner stated he pulled this item off of the Consent Agenda because of inquires
about what is happening regarding the driveway in front of the house and also the proposed
driveway. The garage was streamlined and the Planning Commission approved the deck
setback. The City Planner stated the area in front of the house is used as a parking area now
and it is graveled. He stated the survey showed it is not going to be calculated as hardcover
in the future. The City Planner stated the applicant said she would have this area seeded and
put into green space and will have a pathway up to her house. He stated the concerns
regarding rocks clogging up the storm drain are now irrelevant because the applicant will
now have a bituminous driveway.
Councilmember Hanus wanted to be assured the driveway is going to be paved and the
applicant stated it would be. Councilmember Hanus also stated in the Planning
Commission's minutes there was a notation that utility issues still exist according to staff and
the City Planner tonight stated there are no utility problems he is aware of and the applicant
agreed.
Councilmember Hanus asked about how grade is measured and according to conversations
Councilmember Ahrens had with staff it is measured on a case by case basis and there is
normally no concern if it is over 15 percent. This is a policy concern so a variance would
never be issued.
11
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
The City Planner recommends approval of the variance after the applicant stated the
driveway would be finished.
Councilmember Hanus stated that he would like to add the following provision in the
Resolution: 1.a. The Proposed new driveway will be finished with bituminous, concrete or
other surface accepted by the Building Inspector."
MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Ahrens, to accept the Resolution with the
above addition according to staff recommendations. The vote was unanimously
in favor. Motion carried. 5-0.
RESOLUTION # 99-87
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A FRONT
YARD SETBACK VARIANCE TO
CONSTRUCT A DECK AT 4640 ISLAND
VIEW DRIVE, BLOCK 3, LOTS 16 AND 17,
DEVON, PID # 30-117-23 22 0019.
P AND Z CASE # 99-34, 37870.
INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS.
1. L.M.C.D. mailings.
Notice from the State of Minnesota about a Local Government Officials' Regional
Forum to be held at Minnetonka City Hall, Thursday, October 7, 1999, from 7:00
P.M. to 9:00 P.M.
3. Planning Commission Minutes of September 13, 1999.
4. Letter to Marshall Anderson from Attorney Dean dated September 27, 1999.
5. Letter to L.M.C.D. from Ronald J. Morse dated September 23, 1999.
Letter to Mayor Meisel from Kennedy & Graven dated September 27, 1999,
regarding the Netka v. City of Mound litigation.
An order form for a training workbook entitled: Working Together: A Guide for
Elected and Appointed Officials.
Letter to City of Mound from Ric Hanson of Triax Cablevision dated September 22,
1999.
Letter to City of Mound from Tim Cruikshank of the City of Minnetrista dated
September 21, 1999.
Councilmember Brown would like to make a change suggestion to the lot area definition of
Minn. Stat. Sec. 350.310, Subd. 72. Councilmember Brown stated he would like the lot
12
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
area minimum to be changed to read "but not including any area below 929.4' in an average
flood plain. Councilmember Brown stated the City of Orono uses the figure as well as the
City of Wayzata.
Mayor Meisel directed staff to rewrite this statute and then have it sent through the proper
channels for approval.
Mayor Meisel stated the City Council needs to come to an agreement regarding its
recommendations to the school district regarding the green space. There will be an executive
session scheduled for October 12, 1999, during the regular session.
Mayor Meisel further stated there will be a Committee of the Whole meeting on October 5,
1999, and october 14, 1999.
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION by Brown, seconded by Ahrens, to adjourn the meeting at 10:26 p.m.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 5-0.
Manager
Francene C. Clark, Acting City
Attest: Council Secretary
13
September 28, 1999
PROPOSED RESOLUTION #99-87
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE
TO CONSTRUCT A DECK AT 4640 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE,
BLOCK 3, LOTS 16 & 17, DEVON,
PID# 30-117-23 22 0019,
P & Z CASE #99-34
37870
WHEREAS, the applicant, Pamela Weatherhead, has applied for a front yard setback
variance to construct a deck at 4640 Island View Drive; and,
WHEREAS, the following lists the requested setback:
Front yard
WHEREAS,
Existing/Proposed Required Variance
18ft 20ft 2ft
the subject property is located within the R-lA Single Family Residential
Zoning District which according to City Code requires a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet, 20
feet front yard setback, and other required setbacks as listed above for lot of record; and,
and,
WHEREAS, the deck would provide access from the front of the house to the garage; and,
WHEREAS, due to the slope of the property, a deck is a good alternative to a sidewalk;
WHEREAS, all but a corner of the deck meets setback requirements; and,
WHEREAS, Hardcover is under 40 percent; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommend approval
of the variance recommended by staff; and,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound,
Minnesota, as follows:
The City does hereby grant a front yard setback variance listed below as recommended by
the Planning Commission in order to construct a deck with the following condition:
Existing/Proposed Required Variance
Front yard 18 ft 20 ft 2 ft
,8,
The proposed new driveway will be finished with bituminous concrete or other surface
accepted by the Building Inspector.
The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420,
Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the
structures described in paragraph number one above remain as lawful, nonconforming
structures subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420.
It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the
authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the
owners reasonable use of their land:
Construction of a deck.
This variance is granted for the following legally described property as stated on Certified
Survey from Advance Surveying & Engineering Co:
LOTS 16 & 17, BLOCK 3, DEVON, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA.
This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in
Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1).
This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used.
The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin
County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject
construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk.
October 12, 1999
PROPOSED RESOLUTION # 99-
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE LOT SIZE AND STREET FRONTAGE
VARIANCES TO CREATE A BUILDABLE PARCEL AT
BLOCK 13, LOT 1, SHADYWOOD POINT,
PID # 13-117-24 14 0017
P & Z CASE# 99-37
61980
WHEREAS, the applicants, David and Carol Babler, have requested a variance
to lot area and width to receive status as a buildable lot for this lot of record parcel; and,
WHEREAS, the request requested variances are as follows:
Existing/Proposed
Required Variance
Street Frontage 57 ft 60 ft 3 ft
Lot Area 6,927 sf 10,000 sf 3,072 sf
; and,
WHEREAS, as platted the lot has 10,000 sf, all of which is above the 929.4
feet OHW and 6,927 sf are above the 931 feet contour used for determined lot area.
Improved street frontage along Resthaven Lane is 57 feet with additional unimproved
street frontage on Sunset Landing; and,
WHEREAS, Sunset landing is unimproved public land used as an access point
to Harrison's Bay. The applicant proposes to use it as an access point to the parcel;
and,
WHEREAS, the applicant has indicated a proposed building pad on the
property which meets City Code requirements including setbacks and hardcover; and,
WHEREAS, a portion of the building pad is below the 931.5 feet contour and
may be subject to review by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD). Building
outside of the 931.5 feet contour would not require review by the MCWD rules; and,
October 12, 1999
Block 13, Lot 1, SHADYWOOD POINT- Babler
Page 2
WHEREAS, the Staff and the Planning Commission have reviewed the request
and recommended that the Council deny the variance as requested by the applicant;
and,
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Mound, Minnesota, as follows:
1. The City does hereby approve the variance with the following conditions:
ao
The present blacktop on Sunset Landing be extended slightly south of
the proposed driveway location and built to City Standards. Curb and
gutter is not required with these improvements.
The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to
Section 350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and
express understanding that the structures described in paragraph number
one above remain as lawful, nonconforming structures subject to all of the
provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420.
°
It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved
by the authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the
property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land:
Create a buildable lot.
4. This variance is approved for the following legally described property as
stated in the Hennepin County Property Information System:
LOT 1, BLOCK 13, SHADYWOOD POINT, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA.
o
°
This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of
Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section
462.36, Subdivision (1)o This shall be considered a restriction on how this
property may be used.
The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with
Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit
for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has
been filed with the City Clerk.
CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING BY THE CITY ON
THE PROPOSED ADOPTION OF THE MODIFICATION TO THE
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 1,
AND THE PROPOSED ESTABLISHMENT OF TAX INCREMENT
FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-2 THEREIN AND THE PROPOSED TAX
INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN THEREFOR.
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the "Council") for the City of Mound, Minnesota (the "City"),
as follows:
Section 1. Public Heating. This Council shall meet on Tuesday, December 14, 1999, at
approximately 7:30 pm, to hold a public hearing on the proposed adoption of the Modification to the
Development Program for De'Celopment District No. 1, the proposed establishment of Tax Increment
Financing District No. 1-2, (a redevelopment district), and the proposed adoption of a Tax Increment
Financing Plan therefor, all pursuant to and accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001
through 469.047, inclusive, as amended, and Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 through 469.179,
inclusive, as amended, in an effort to encourage the development and redevelopment of certain designated
areas within the City; and
Section 2. Notice of Public Hearing. Filing of Program and Plan. City staff is authorized and
directed to work with Ehlers and Associates, Inc., to prepare the Modification to the Development
Program and the Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "Program and Plan") and to forward documents to
the appropriate taxing jurisdictions including Hennepin County and Independent School District No. 277.
The City Clerk is authorized and directed to cause notice of the heating, together with an appropriate map
as required by law, to be published at least once in the official newspaper of the City not later than 10, nor
more than 30, days prior to December 14, 1999, and to place a copy of the Program and Plan on file in the
City Clerk's office at City Hall and to make such copy available for inspection by the public.
Dated:
Adopted:
AWl'EST:
Mayor
City Clerk
Sample resolution authorizing a tax rate increase
RESOLUTION NO. 99-
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZIN~ A TAX RATE INCREASE FOR THE ~999 TAX
LEVY, COLLECTIBLE IN 2000
Be it resolved by the council of the City of Mound, County of
Hennepin, Minnesota, that the county auditor is authorized to fix
a property tax rate for taxes payable in tire year 2000 that is
higher than the tax rate calculated pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes § 204B.135 for the city for taxes levied in 1998,
collectible in 1999.
Adoption of this resolution does not prohibit the city from
certifying a final levy that will result in no tax rate increase
or a tax rate decrease.
The City Clerk id hereby instructed to transmit a certified copy
of this resolution to the County Auditor of Hennepin County,
Minnesota.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember
and seconded by Councilmember .
The following voted in the affirmative
Ahrens, Brown, Hanus, Meisel and Weycker.
The following voted in the negative:
none.
Councilmember was absent and excused.
Mayor
ATTEST: City Clerk
Hennepin County
An Equal Opportunity Emplo;er I ~}° ~° 0 9
September 29, 1999
City Clerk and/or Finance Director
City of Mound
To Whom It May Concern,
· The levy certified by the City of Mound (herein called the "DISTRICT"), for taxes payable in 1999, less the
amounts, known to our office, levied to pay general obligation bonds, is S 1,290,916.00.
· The DISTRICT's area-wide portion of the levy under Minnesota Statutes, section 276A.06, subdivision 3, or
section 473F.08, subdivision 3, for taxes payable in 2000, is $180,201.00.
The sum of the net tax capacity adjustment amount and the fiscal disparities adjustment amount under
Minnesota Statutes, section ') ~ ~
,%.1~98, subdivision 2, for aids payable to the DISTRICT in 2000, as reported to
this office by the MN Department of Revenue, is $10,980.00.
In accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 275.078 the Hennepin County Auditor certifies the following:
1. The "levy certification tax levy" of the DISTRICT for taxes payable in 1999 is $1,099,735.00.
2. The taxable net tax capacity used to determine the proposed tax rates of the DISTRICT for taxes payable
in 2000 is 6,934,481.
3. The "1999 levy certification tax rate" for the DISTRICT is 15.86%.
Based upon the proposed levy for taxes payable in 2000 certified by the DISTRICT on or before
September 15, 1999:
· The proposed leD' for taxes payable in 2000, less the amounts, known to our office, levied to pay general
obligation bonds and less the fiscal disparity area wide levy is $1,316,389.00.
· The taxable net tax capacity used to determine the proposed tax rates of the DISTRICT for taxes payable in
2000 is 6,934,481.
· The estimated "2000 leW certification tax rate" is 18.99%.
Taxpayer Services Department
A-600 Hennepin County Government Center
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487-0060
Recycled Paper
Page 2, LCTR Certification for Pay 2000, 09/29/99
In order for the County Auditor to fix a tax rate based upon the proposed tax levy certified by the DISTRICT, a /
resolution authorizing a higher levy certification tax rate must be filed with our office on or before
October 20, 1999.
Sincerely,
Gloria Roybal
Deputy County Auditor
Tax Accounting Supervisor
WlDMER INC.
P.O. Box 219
ST. BONIFACIUS, MINNESOTA 55375
(612) 446-1495
FAX (612) 446-1836
~ _~OSAL SUBMITI'ED TO PHONE
City of Mound 472-1251
5341 Maywood 1999-2000
CITY. STATE and ZIP CODE JOB LOCATION
Mound, MN . 55364
ARCHITECT [ DATE OF PLANS
We hereby submit specifications and estimates for:
DATE
9/Z8/99
Snowplowing
PER HOUR
JOB PHONE
980 Cat ---$130.00
950 Cat (3-3.5 Yd.) ...... $ 86.00
............................ T~c~s-----wCP+ow----&------S~-~n-----$enders ................................ $----64,-,-OO
[$45 S~±d ~oade~s w/ o~ ~/o ~oom ..... $ 67,00
............................. ~r~--ax,[e ......................................................................
We reserve the right to file a Mechanics Lien if bill is not paid within the length of time prescribed by law. You agree to pay all cost
incurred pertaining to lien. We will not be responsible for andy underl[round utilities that cannot be ocated by the ut ty companies
responsibility for water pipes, trees, tree roots, sprinkler systems, etc. unless notified to exact location prior to excavating. Frost
..... ri ppi ~ g-ext fa.. ~ ha r ge ,... lt..-is-, e x pre ssl y.. st ip u la ted.. a~ d.. a gte ed.. that..t h e.. u nd e fsi ine d.-.~a ti..a et--be .. h eJ d.-ti a b l e..tot.-, duma g es.. to.. gr a s s ~-t rea s .. ................................................
shrubs and any underground obstructions, including pipes, electrical wiring and etc. In bidding job we figure soil to be dry. If wet,
there will be extra charges based on time and material.
hereby to furnish material and labor -- complete in accordance with above specifications, for the sum of:
Payment to be made as follows:
Within 30 days upon billin~
dollars ($ ).
A finance charge of 1V~% per month (7,8% annual rate) will be charged on past due accounts.
All material is guaranteed to be as specified. All work to be completed in a workmanlike
manner according to standard practices. Any alteration or deviation from above specifications Authorized ~~
involving extra costs will be executed only upon written orders, and will become an extra Signature
charge over and above the estimate. Ail agreements contingent upon strikes, accidents
or delays beyond our control. Owner to carry fire, tornado and other necessary insurance. Note: This proposal may be
Our workers are fully covered by Workman's Compensation Insurance. withdrawn by us if not accepted within
Acrepta ce r p sal - The above prices, specifications
,nd conditions are satisfactory and are hereby accepted. You are authorized
do the work as specified. Payment will be made as outlined above.
Date of Acceptance:
Signature
Signature
CITY OF MOUND
MOUND, MINNESOTA
CONTRACTED SNOW REMOVAL SPECIFICATIONS
1999-2000
Remove snow from designated .parking lots and other specified
areas as soon as possible after snow fall. Deposit snow as
directed by Public Works. ~n_~ plowing to be done after March
1, 2000 call Public Works Superintendent a_t_ 472-0635~
2. Central Business District street and sidewalks as follows:
a. West side of Co. Rd. $110, from 2365 Commerce Blvd.
(Sherborne Bldg.) driveway north to Lynwood Blvd·
b. East side of Co. Rd. 110, from Southside of 2372
Commerce Blvd. (Masonic Lodge) north to Lynwood Blvd.
c. Northside of Co. Rd. $15, from Co. Rd. $110 east to
Belmont Lane.
d. Southside of Co. Rd. #15, from Co. Rd. $110 to
eastside of Post Office·
3. Parking lots and alleys:
a. 2365 Commerce Blvd. south and rear lots.
b. Swift Insurance rear of store.
c. 2345 Commerce Blvd. rear lot.
d. 2313 Commerce Blvd. (Nekta Bldg.) rear lot.
e. Parking lot south of railroad tracks, north of Co. Rd.
~15, from Norwest Bank east to Belmont Lane. (across
from Moy's)
f. South side of 2316 Commerce ~lvd.
g. Auditors Road all, Co. Rd. $110 to Co. Rd.
h. Both lots, east and west of Post Office.
i. Parking lot behind Dr. Lauers and Longpre's Bldg.
3. Road and parking area west of 2339 Commerce (old bank).
k. Masonic parking lot.
1. Lot in front of Coast to Coast, Scotty B's, and
Mainstreet Market west to Co. Rd. 110.
m. Marion Road, all.
n. MTC lot and around passenger loading station.
The City reserves the right to reject any and all bids, and waive
any informalities.
The Successful bidder will send the bill for above service to the City
on a monthly basis.
These bids are to be firm for the 1999 & 2000 winter snow removal
season.
EQUIPMENT & OPERATOR
A. Front End loaders : (4 TO 5 YD. BUCKET)
B. Trucks:
Per hour
Single Axle, 5 yd. box
Tandem Axle, 10 yd box
Llst all other equipment to be used for parklng lot snow removal
and hourly rate with operator.
2.
3.
4.
5.
In the past the City has provided a area for the dumping of the
snow. However, this year that area may not. be available. Please show
any additional cost if this site is unavailable with an alternate bid.
CONTRACTOR
Address
40% Pm-Conmm~m' Content · 10% Po~t-Consumm Comen~
~r~p~[ Page No.
of
WlDM£R INC.
P.O. Box 219
ST. BONIFAClUS, MINNESOTA 55375
PHONE 446-1495
FAX 446-1836
Pages
PROPOSAL SUBMITTED TO
City of Mound
STREET
5341 Maywood
CITY,STAT[ AND ZIP CODE
Mound, MN 55364
ARCHITECT I
We hereby submit specifications and estimates for:
DATE OF PLANS
PHONE
472-1251
JOB NAME
98-99 Snowplowing
JOB LOCATION
PER HOUR
DATE
9/21/98
IJOB PHONE
966E Cat (5 Yd.) ....................... $100.00
.................. TM~:~.~.--:-~....~:-~:....~....~z:~....~....~....~.~i~.~76~6 ..................................................................................................................
............... -300-'*Ko ma'-t'sw--'{-"3'"'--Yd-:-) ............................. $.--.-'86'-;-00 ...................................................................................
................. %.r_u_c....k......s._ ~_/_P._!_Q_~.__&_.S...~...~..n..._~_.a....n_d....e_r_s_~z_~_~.~..~z zz.z.~..~z..~..~.z..~.........6.....4....,...9_o.. .................................................................................................... ,
4x4 Pickups ......................... $ 55.00
1845 Skid Loaders W/ or W/O Broom ............ $ 67.00
.......... T-and.em.-Dumps-(-fo'r --hau"~±ng)- ............... $'"-5'4'";"00
~,.S_a_!_t../_S_a_n_d_...D....e._.l_i...v_ e_.r_.e_.d_.._(..s_.u..h.J..e.__c__t.__t_q__c_h__a_ng.~.)...,7. ................. _.$.__30. 0 0 p e r
ton
Incurred pertaining to lien. We will not be responsible for any underground utilities that cannot be located by the utility companies
..................... or"the *homeowner;'" Normat**clean,up' Is 'tncluded"tn 'thts"proposak-There Is 'no' sod .-flgured..in..thls--proposal:'-'We"wtll--not"assume'"the ...................................
responsibility for water pipes, trees, tree roots, sprinkler systems, etc. unless notified to exact location prior to excavating. Frost
rlpp ng extra charge It s exl~ressly stipulated and agreed that the undersigned shall not be' held liable for damages to grass, trees,
....................... ~fii;~'b's ~i;i~.~;.~;.~i;~;i~.~[~.~[;~i.~i...ii.i~.ii~;~i.~ii~.~.i.[.i~i.[~i~i~i.~.~ii~i;~i.f;i~i~.~.~..i~i~ii/~.~i.~i.~ii~E...iE.~.a~a.~.~.~.~.~.i~[i~i[[~ii..~.i~.~.[i..~.a.~:. 'ii"~;i'i; .......
there will be extra charges based on time and material.
hereby to furnish material and labor -- complete in accordance with above specifications, for the sum Of:
Payment to be made as follows:
W~th~n 30 d~ys upon b~ll~ng
A finance charge of 1%% per month 08% annual rate) will be charged on past due accounts.
All materiel is guaranteed to be es specified. All work to be completed in a workmanlike
manner according to standard practices. Any alteration or deviation from above specifica-
tions invOlving extra costs will be executed only upon written orders, and will become an
extra charge over and above the estimate. All agreements contin8ent upon strikes, accidents
· delay~ beyond our control. Owner to carry fire, tornado and other necessary insurance.
workers ere fully covered by Workmen's Compensation Insurance.
Arreptattre of Iroposal - The above prices, specifications
and conditions are satisfactory and are hereby accepted. You are authorized
to do the work as specified. Payment will be made as outlined above.
dollars ($ ).
Authorized
Signature
Note: This proposal may be
withdrawn by us if not accepted within
Signature
Signature
day.
WATER AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITIES OF MINNETRISTA AND MOUND
FOR THE INTERCONNECTION OF THEIR WATER SYSTEMS
This agreement made and entered into this day of October, 1999, by and
between the City of Minnetrista, a municipal corporation organized under the laws of
the State of Minnesota herein referred to as "Minnetrista', and the City of Mound, a
municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of Minnesota, herein
referred to as "Mound". Minnetrista and Mound have the authority to enter into such
an agreement under Minnesota Statutes 471.59.
Purpose. The purpose of this Agreement is to provide an interconnection of
the municipal water systems of Minnetrista and Mound in the general area of
Basswood Lane and County Road 110 West so that these cities and their water
utility users will have greater assurance of continued water service in times of
emergency.
Interconnections. Minnetrista and Mound agree to interconnect their
municipal water systems in the general area of Basswood Lane and County
Road 110 West as part of the Saunders Lake South development utility work,
This interconnection would be subject to review by the Mound City Engineer,
Construction. Minnetrista shall cause the interconnection to be constructed
and shall engage and compensate Minnetrista's consulting engineer and shall
be responsible for all expenses in engaging the contractor and in general shall
take such actions and incur such expenses as are reasonable and necessary to
complete the interconnection.
Project -Costs and Permits. Minnetrista shall be responsible for 10096 of the
total interconnection costs and for acquiring any and all permits from
applicable agencies.
o
Water Usage. The interconnection shall be used only in emergencies. In the
case of an emergency arising from fire or natural disaster, the valve may be
opened by order of the cities' Police Chiefs or the City of Mound's Fire
Chief, In case of an emergency due to loss of water pressure, the use of the
interconnection may be authorized by the joint approval of the City
Administrator of Minnetrista and the City Manager of Mound or by the joint
approval of the head of the cities' Public Works Departments.
If the water is needed for more than 24 continu6us hours, it can be supplied
only upon request of one City Council and approval of the other City COuncil.
City Council meetings will be held pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 471.705
Subd. lb(c).
e
Charges for water usages. The volume of any water used shall be calculated
according to the length of time the valve is open and the water pressure flow.
Charges for each volume unit of water used will be based on average of the
water rates charged by the two cities.
Maintenance. Each City will maintain the pipes,
equipment, and appurtenances that connect to their
respective water system,
Indemnification. Each city agrees to indemnify the
other, its officers and employees and to save and keep
them harmless from all losses and expenses incurred as a
result of any claim, demand, action or cause of action,
including any claims based on breach of warranty,
negligence or product liability, arising out of that
City's construction, operation, maintenance or ownership
of the water systems interconnection, unless such injury
or damage is the result of the negligence of the other
City or its elected officials, employees, officers or
agents.
Termination of aqreement. This agreement may be
terminated by the City Council of the City desiring
termination giving three (3) years written notice to the
City Council of the other City.
10. Disassembly. In the event of disassembly of the system,
the city terminating the agreement will bear the cost of
and be responsible for the street repair, removal of
pipes, valves, meters, and other equipment installed as
a part of this project.
IN WITNESS AND EXECUTION of this agreement, and pursuant to
authorization of their respective City Council's, the
cities of Minnetrista and Mound have entered into this
Agreement.
CITY OF MINNETRISTA
CITY OF MOUND
City Administrator
Acting City Manager
Mayor
Mayor
MEMORANDUM
To: Loren Gordon and John Cameron
From: John Dean
Date: October 6, 1999
Subject: Request for extension Mueller.
I understand that the applicant is intending to request that the Mound Council
extend the date for approval. An extension was previously granted in September
1998. The question has been posed as to whether the Mound subdivision
authorizes additional extensions. I conclude for the reasons set forth below that
the Council does have the authority to grant an additional extension, ......
The concept of an extension to the one year time limit to apply for final plat
approval following preliminary plat approval is found at two locations in Article
330 of the Mound Code. 1. Subdivision 7 to Section 330.30 provides that "the
Subdivider may request a one-year time extension at least 45 days prior to the
expiration of the preliminary plat as approved by the City Council .... "2.
Subdivision 1 to Section 330.35 provides that "the subdivider, within one year,
unless extensions are granted .... "
As a general rule, courts would construe this inconsistency against the City if the
City were to attempt to prohibit consideration of a further extension.
Although the City has the authority to grant an additional extension, it is not
required to do so. If the Council, in its reasonable judgment determines that an
extension is not appropriate, then it has the discretion to deny it.
The ordinance also provides that the request for an extension be made at least
45 days prior to the expiration of the preliminary plat. Although the extension
request clearly has not been made within that time limit, I do not believe that
should be viewed as a bar to consideration of the matter. The 45-day notice
period really serves as a buffer to the city to allow th(¢ extension request to be
properly considered and for the matter to be reviewed by the Planning
Commission. However, in the event that the matter can be given the necessary
scrutiny and Planning Commission review in less than 45 days, then it would be
in the power of the Council to waive any non-compliance.
JBD-169860
MU220-5
It might be a good idea to give some thought to an amendment to the subdivision
regulations that would remove the inconsistency between the two referenced
sections.
JBD-169860
MU220-5
PLANNING REPORT
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff
FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP
DATE: August 25, 1997
SUBJECT: Major Subdivision
APPLICANT: Michael Mueller, Mueller/Lansing Properties - Owner - 5910 Ridgewood Road
CASE NUMBER: 97-37
HKG FILE NUMBER: 97-5v
LOCATION: 2240 Commerce Blvd.
EXISTING ZONING: Central Business (B- i)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Business
BACKGROUND: The property owners have submitted an application to combine Lots 41 through
46 and a portion of 40 of "Koehler's Addition to Mound" and split them into two parcels. The
subdivision is a major subdivision because it involves more than three commercial lots. There are
no public improvements associated with this subdivision. The property is located at the corner of
Lynwood and Commerce Boulevard and is zoned B-1 Central Business district. As indicated in the
application, the subject property contains approximately 41,110 square feet (0.944 acres) which is
split into two parcels. Uses on the property include Brickley's, Scotty B's Restaurant, Willette's
Laundry, a jewelry manufacture which are located on the eastern parcel and a surface parking lot on
the western parcel. The parking area serves the described uses as well as other adjacent business such
as the Coast-to-Coast store to the south.
The intent of the owner's subdivision request is to anticipate the future County Road 15 relocation
which will cut through the northern portion of the two parcels. In conversations with the owners,
their intent to combine and subdivide is to preserve a portion of the eastern parcel for development
after the relocation is complete. At this time, the new County Road 15 alignment has not been
finalized although a preliminary alignment indicates the eastern parcel will probably be
undevelopable. The centerline of the new alignment will match Lynwood Boulevard west of
Commerce Boulevard, veering slightly to the south as it continues east through the two parcels.
Because of the timing of this request and the status of the roadway project, right-of-way dedication
was not applicable.
COMMENTS: During discussions with the applicant, a couple issues where identified which need
to be resolved. The first issue is parking requirements for the existing building. Currently, the area
in front of the building serves as the parking area. When the plat is recorded, the parking area and
7300 Metro Boulevard, Suite 525, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439
(612) 835-9960 Fax (612) 835-3160
P. 2
Mueller Major Subdivision
the building will be separated and identified with two tax identification numbers. According to code,
the parking requirements must be satisfied on site. The owner owns both of the proposed parcels
currently so parking requirements are satisfied. The parking area in front of the building will need
to continue to provide parking until the roadway project causes the building to be demolished. If the
western parcel ownership was transferred, parking requirements of the building could not be
satisfied.
The second issue involves the encroachment of the building onto the western parcel. This
encroachment was the result of the need to provide access to both parcels and to facilitate efficient
traffic movement with the driveway on the north side of Lynwood Boulevard. From a zoning
standpoint, both parcels comply with the yard area and setback requirements. The B-1 zoning
regulations allow building up to the property lines. Although the same building crosses the common
property line, the encroachment issue is not of concern to zoning or building codes unless the
property ownership of one of the parcels changes.
Keeping the parcels tied together will keep the development functioning as a single parcel until
redevelopment options can be addressed. This will depend on how the roadway alignment affects
the two parcels and what options are present to develop them as separate independent parcels.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval
of the subdivision as requested with the following conditions:
1. The western parcel remain in the ownership of the applicant until the building on the eastern
parcel is removed by the County Road 15 project or by the undertaking of the owners.
o
The western parcel remain undeveloped and used for parking as long as the building is
standing.
o
A parking and circulation easement be placed on the western parcel to ensure its function
will remain. When the building is removed, the easement can be removed from the property.
An encroachment easement be placed over that portion of the building encroaching onto the
western parcel. When the building is removed, the easement can be removed from the
property.
o
All required documentation be prepared by the applicant and reviewed by the City Attorney
for approval.
7300 Metro Boulevard, Suite 525, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439
(612) 835-9960 Fax (612) 835-3160
Planning Commission Minutes
September 8, 1997
MINUTES OF A MEETING
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 8, 1997
Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Commissioners Orr Burma, Frank Weiland, Bill
Voss, Michael Mueller, Gerald Reifschneider and Council liaison Mark Hanus. Absent
and excused: Becky Glister and Jerry Clapsaddle. Also present: Building Official Jori
Sutherland, Assistant City Planner Loren Gordon, and Secretary Kris Linquist.
Public Attendance: Mitch Knutson, Merritt Geyen, Peter Jacobson, Tom Kelly, Richard
& Connie Meyer, Bill Johnsen, Nancy Cambell, Eric Berglund, Ron DeVinney, Dorothy
Netka, William Netka, Paul Larson, Sid Levin.
MINUTES APPROVAL OF THE AUGUST 25, 1997 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING.
Reifschneider had one change, on page 1, change Burma to Reifschneider.
MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Burma to approve the Minutes of the August
25, 1997 Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 7-0.
BOARD OF APPEALS:
Chairman Michael stated procedures for the three public hearing cases.
Mueller excused himself from the commission panel.
#97-37: PUBLIC HEARING: MAJOR SUBDIVISION, 2240 COMMERCE BLVD, ME
MUELLER, LOTS 40-41 INCLUSIVE, KOEHLER'S ADDITION TO MOUND, PID 13-117-
24-33 0073 & 13-117-24 33 0041.
Assistant City Planner Loren Gordon reviewed the case.
Mueller/Lansing Properties have request to combine lots 41 through 46 and a portion
of 40 of "Koehler's Addition to Mound" and then split them into two parcels. The
property is located at the corner of Lynwood and Commerce Blvd and is in the B-1
Central Business District.
Planning Commission Minutes
September 8, 1997
Staff recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of the subdivision as requested with the following conditions:
The western parcel remain in the ownership of the applicant until the
building the eastern parcel is removed bye the County Road 1 5 project or by the
undertaking of the owners.
The western parcel remain undeveloped and used for parking as long as the
building is standing.
A parking and circulation easement be placed on the western parcel to ensure
its function will remain. When the building is removed, the easement can be
removed from the property.
4. An encroachment easement be placed over that portion of the building
encroaching onto the western parcel. When the building is removed, the
easement can be removed from the property.
All required documentation be prepared by the applicant and reviewed by the
City Attorney for approval.
Commissioners Comments/Questions:
Weiland questioned if the building would be taken down or just a portion of it if the
County Road 1 5 realignment went through. Mueller stated that the building would be
condemned and demolished if the project progressed.
There was discussion on where the proposed new road access would be if the
construction of County Road 15. There was also discussion on if a easement was
needed.
Hanus questioned the legality of item #1. Gordon explained that if the parcels were
divided, the parcel would not be able to meet the zoning requirements for parking
spaces.
Chairman Michael opened the public hearing.
Applicant to speak, Michael Mueller, 5910 Ridgewood'Road, lived in Mound all of his
life. Has been on the planning commission for 7 years. They want to be able to
maintain ownership of their property in the downtown area. They want to combine
the north 40 feet with the rest of parcel b then subdivide parcel a and b. In order to
maintain ownership of their land, the applicants need to do something before they lose
their ownership of the property. They feel that the redevelopment plan is inevitable
?lannin~ Comrni$$ion Minutes
September 8, 1957
and want to be a part of it. They don't knew where the access road is going to be.
They want to work with the city to make this project a successful one. Addressing
item #1, applicant stated they would be willing to agree not to sell the two parcels to
separate people. This could be done through a deed restriction. They feel they have
good tenants and don't want to keep it that way. They expressed concerns with
items 1, 2, 3, and 4. Item #1 could be dealt with by using the deed restriction. Item
#2, 3, 4 deals with the not allowing building on parcel A as long as parcel b has a
building on it. There would be a problem with that because there would be no place
to put their tenants if the current building would be condemned and demolished. The
business could not afford to be out of business that long. They would like to be able
to build a building on parcel A so they have someplace to move if the existing building
does get demolished. Item #2 could be left undeveloped until the County Road 15
project is decided and the access road is decided upon. ~tem #3 There are many
business in Mound that don't have adequate parking. They feel it is unjust to require
this building to have parking while other business in town don't. Item #4 They don't
have a problem with an easement. On parcel A there would be a building
encroachment.
Reifschneider asked applicant why they wanted to do all of this before they know
what is going to happen with the downtown development because it would mean that
parcel a would have a variance on it. Applicant stated that if the property was
condemned they could no longer subdivide their property and they want to maintain
ownership.
The applicant will be willing to work with different options of where an easement
should go. Gordon stated that B-1 doesn't have a lot setback requirement. There
would be no need for a variance at this time. Mueller explained what an
encroachment easement was. Sutherland and Gordon commented an easement would
be needed for building code compliance.
Mueller stated that the property meets all the requirements except for the
encroachment.
Chairman Michael closed the public hearing.
MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Voss to recommend staff recommendations
as stated.
Discussion:
Hanus discussed the conditions listed and would like some other options.
Planning Commission Minutes
September 8, 1997
Discussion was made to what would happen to the current business during the
transition period.
Gordon stated its a tough issue on the transition of old business going along with the
new business building going in. The planners intent was to maintain parking for the
area businesses.
There was concern that there would be a lag time where the current businesses would
not have a place for their businesses.
Burma suggested a rewording for item# 3. It should read, "A parking and circulation
easement be placed on the western parcel to ensure its function will remain. When
the rerouting of County Road 15 is determined indicating the removal of building on
parcel B, the easement can be removed from the property."
MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Voss to recommend staff recommendation
with the exception of removing item #2, revision of item #3 to read, "A
parking and circulation easement be placed on the western parcel to ensure its
function will remain. When the rerouting of County Road 15 is determined
indicating the removal of building on parcel B, the easement can be removed
from the property." The motion carried 6-0.
This case will go to City Council October 14, 1997.
Mound C'a~ ~mcil Min~ ~ Oc~b~r 14~ 1997
1.15
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDk'~S, TION OF A MAJOR SUBDIVISION OF
~t MUEI,LE'~dLAN$ING PROPERTIES,
LOCATED WITHTN ~ B-1 ZONING DISTRICT AT
2240 COMM'I~RCE BLVD/SHOR~I.INE DRIVE. PID
13-117-24-33 0073 & 13-11%24-33 0041. P & Z 97-37.
The Mayor opened the Public Hearing.
MICILAEI. MEUIJ.ER, 5910 Ridgewood Road, stated he is the applicant and son of one of
the owners of the property. Since he is the applicant and not the owner, he asked that some of
the language in the proposed resolution be changed as follows: 'Both parcels must remaia ia
the same ownership." That would not mean ia the same ownership as it is today, but that it
must remain ia the same ownership. He is proposing the followiag language for items 1 arm
2 of the proposed resolution:
The we. stem portion remain under the same ownership as the eastern portion until such
time as the realignment of County Road 15 occurs or a sable of the easterly property to
a governmental unit occurs or the building is removed.
e
A parking easement be placed on the we,stem parcel to ensure its current function is
maintained. An access easement 60 f~t in width extending from the front of the
building westerly from the north property line to the south property line to maintain
access to the balance of the parking lots and the building to the south. When Hennepia
County determiaes the rerouting of County Road 15 indicates the removal of the building
on the eastern parcel or the removal of the building by other means, the easements shall
be removed from the property.
The Mayor closed the Public Heating.
The Planner stated the suggested changes and intent are ia keeping with Items 1 and 2 under
the Planning Commission's recommendation.
The City Attorney suggested that Item 1 read as follows:
1. "The we. stem portion remain under the same ownership as the eastern portion until such
time as the building is removed as a result of the County Road 15 realignment or a sale
of the easterly property to a governmental unit occurs or the building is removed.'
Item b'2 to read as the Mr. Mueller has suggested.
The Council agreed to amending Items 1 and 2 in the proposed resolution.
Hanus moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution as amended.
RESOLUTION g9"/-106
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A MAJOR
SUBDIVISION FOR 2240 COMMERCE BLVD., LOTS
40-41 INCLUSIVE, KOEHI.ER'S ADDmON TO
MOUND, PID 13-117-24-33 0073 & 13-117-24-33 0041,
P&Z CASE/07-37
The vote was unanimously ia favor. Motion carried.
14, I~7
RESOLUTION #97 -- 106
REsoLuTION TO APPROVE A MAJOR SUBDMSION
FOR 2240 COMMERCE BLVD.,
LOTS 40-41 INCLUSIVE, KOEHLER'S ADDITION TO MOUND,
PID 13-117-24-33 0073 & 13-117-24-33 0041
P&Z CASE g97-37
WHEREAS, Mueller/Lansing Properties, owner of 2240 Commerce Blvd., have
submitted a request for a Major Subdivision in the manner required by Mound City
Code Section 330 and Minnesota State Statue Chapter 462, and all proceedings have
been duly conducted thereunder, and;
WHEREAS, the subject property/s located within a B-1 Central Business District
which according to City Code requires a minimum lot area of 7,500 square feet, a 35 feet
maximum building height, no minimum yard setbacks, and;
WHEREAS, after subdivision, the 41,110 square feet parcel will have two lots with
approximately equal areas. Both of these lots conform to the B-1 minimum lot size
requirements, and;
WHE~, the existing building on the eastern parcel will encroach into the
western parcel, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has renewed the request and unanimously
recommended approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Mound, Minnesota, as follows:
The western portion remain under the same ownership as the eastern portion
until such time as the realignment of County Road 15 occurs or a sale of the
easterly property to a governmental unit occurs or the building is removed.
A parking easement be placed on the western parcel to ensure its current function
is maintained. An access easement 60 feet in width extending from the front of
the building westerly from the north property line to the south property line to
maintain access to the balance of the parking lots and the building to the south.
When Hennepin County determines the rerouting of County Road 15 indicates
the removal of the building on the eastern parcel or the removal of the building
by other means, the easements shall be removed from the property.
198
O~tober 14, 1997
The western parcel remain in the ownership of the applicant until the building on
the eastern peril is removed by the County Road 15 project or by the
undertaking of the owners.
A parldng and circulation easement be placed on the western parcel to ensure its
function ~ remain. When the rerouting of County Road 15 is determined
indicating the removal of the building on parcel B, the easement can be removed
from the property.
The foregoing resolution was moved by CouncBmember Hanus and
seconded by Coun61member Ahrens.
The following Councflmembers voted in the affirmative:
Ahrens, Hanus, Polston and Weycker.
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
none.
Councilmember was Jensen absent and excused.
Mayor
Attest: City Cle~
199
September 22, 1998
RESOLUTION #98-101
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A ONE (1) YEAR EXTENSION OF A MAJOR SUBDIVISION
ORIGINALLY APPROVED BY RESOLUTION #97-106
FOR 2240 COMMERCE BLVD,
LOTS 40-41 INCLUSIVE, KOEHLER'S ADDITION TO MOUND,
PID# 13-117-24 33 0073 & 13-117-24 33 0041
P & Z CASE #98-51 & 97-37
WHEREAS, the applicants, MuelledLansing Properties, owners of 2240
Commerce Blvd have submitted a requested a one year extension of the major subdvision
granted by Resolution #97-106 on October 14, 1997; and,
WHEREAS, Resolution # 97-106 approved a major subdivision resulting in a
subdivision, which will have two lots with approximately equal areas; and,
WHEREAS, the applicants have experienced unforeseen circumstances that
have prevented them from filing the subdivision, and have requested an extension; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed to request for the
extension and unanimously recommended approval.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Mound, Minnesota, to hereby approve of a one (1) year extension of the major subdivision
originally granted by Resolution # 97-106 on October 14, 1997 with the following condition.
1. All conditions of Resolution # 97-106 shall remain the same.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Ahrens, and seconded
by Councilmember Hanus.
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
Ahrens, Hanus, Jensen, Polston and Weycker.
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
none.
Attest: City Clerk
SS/BOB POLSTON
Mayor
& Mo
Muelle¢
612 4724~96
P.O1
Muellcr/Lansing Properties
3880 County Road 44
Minnetrista, MN 55364
August 26, 1998
Momid Advisory Plannhlg Commission
Mound (;it)' Council
534t Maywood Road
Mound, :~ 55364
RE:
Subdivision of Land
Resolution # 97-106
Dated October 14, 1997
Please accept this l=tter as a request for a one-year extension on filing of the final plat for thc
above-referenced subdivision resolution. Unforeseen circumstances have prevented us from
completing this filing. We do not anticipate that we will require the full year's extension to
complete our filing.
Thank you for ),our consideration in this matter.
Michael J. Mueller
Agent far .MuellerfLansing Properties
{._Oren (_.'~occic,--, Ig-D~.-qg
PLANNING REPORT
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff
FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP
DATE: September 14, 1998
SUBJECT: Subdivision Variance request
OWNER: Mueller/Lansing Properties
CASE NUMBER: 98-51
HKG FILE NUMBER: 98-5ss
LOCATION: Commerce and Shoreline
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Commercial
BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting a one-year extension on filing of the final plat for
the Resolution #97-106 dated October 14, 1997. As stated in the letter, unforeseen circumstances
have prevented its filing.
COMMENTS: The zoning ordinance allows one variance extension after the first year has
expired. Further extensions require a new application as the code does not provide for a second
extension.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council
approval of an extension and all conditions of Resolution #97-106 remain as stated.
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
DRAFT
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
September 14, 1998
MINUTES
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 1998
Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Cklair Hasse, Becky Glister, Michael Mueller, Orv Burma,
and Council Liaison Mark Hanus. Staff present: Assistant City Planner Loren Gordon, Building
Official Jon Sutherland, and Secretary Kris Linquist. Absent and Excused: Jerry Clapsaddle,
Bill Voss, and Frank Weiland.
Public Present: Pat & Irene Harrington, Paul & Klm Stannard, Scot McKenzie, Doug & Ann
Jepson, Bud Stannard, Brian & Ted Meagher, Andrea Ahrens, Steve Behnke - Fine Line
Design, Thomas Stokes - Brenshell Homes.
Meeting was called to order at 7:32 p.m. by Chair Geoff Michael.
MINUTES - APPROVAL OF THE AUGUST 24, 1998 MINUTES OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.
No Corrections were made.
MOTION by Hasse, seconded by Burma to approve the Minutes of the
August 24, 1998 Planning Commission Meeting. Motion carried 6-0.
Chair Michael explained how a Public Hearing is heard.
BOARD OF APPEALS:
CASE # 98-51' MAJOR SUBDIVISION EXTENSION FOR 2240 COMMERCE BLVD,
LOTS 40-41 INCLUSIVE, KOEHLER'S ADDITION TO MOUND, PID'S# 13-117-24 33
0073 AND 13-117-24 33 0041
The applicant is requesting a one-year extension on filing of the final plat for the Resolution
#97-106 dated October 14, 1997. As stated in the letter, unforeseen circumstances have
prevented its filing.
The zoning ordinance allows one variance extension after the first year has expired. Further
extensions require a new application as the code does not provide for a second extension.
Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of an extension and
all conditions of Resolution #97-106 remain as stated.
DISCUSSION:
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
September 14, 1998
DRAFT
There was no discussion on this case.
MOTION by Burma, seconded by Hasse to recommend staff's recommendation of
approval for an extension and all conditions as stated in Resolution #97-106.
Motion carried 5-0.
This case will go to City Council on September 22, 1998
Michael Mueller rejoined the Commission.
MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - SEPTEMBER 22, 1998
The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session
on Tuesday, September 22, 1998, at 7:30 PM, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood
Road, in said City.
Those present were: Mayor Bob Polston, Councilmembers Andrea Ahrens, Mark Hanus, Liz
Jensen, and Leah Weycker. Also in attendance were: City Manager Edward J. Shukle, Ir.,
City Attorney John Dean, City Clerk Fran Clark, Building Official Jon Sutherland, Assistant
City Planner Loren Gordon and the following interested citizens: Garrett LySiak, Scot
McKenzie, Michael Mueller, Pat & Irene Harrington, Keith Randklev, Steve Mangold, Greg
Robbins, Craig Gallop, Jim Strommen, Ron DeVinney, Michele Berglund, Dennis I-Iildebrandt,
Marty Woods, Pam Myers, Merritt Geyen, Bob Abdo, and Jay Soule.
The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. The Pledge of
Allegiance was recited.
*Consent Agenda: All items listed under the Consem Agenda are considered to be routine by
the Council and will be enacted by a roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these
items unless a Councilmember or Citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed
from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence.
Councilmember Weycker asked that Item F (Street Light Request) on the Consent Agenda be
removed.
Councilmember Jensen asked that Item A ¢linutes of September 8, 1998) be removed.
The City Manager reported that there are two additions to the Consent Agenda as follows:
A Certificate of Recognition for Dr. Jim Byers.
Set Date for Public Hearings on Delinquent Utility Bills and the Central Business
District for Tuesday, October 13, 1998.
*CONSENT AGENDA
MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Hanus to approve the Consent Agenda as
amended above. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.0
CASE 98-51: MAJOR SUBDIVISION EXTENSION FOR 2240 COM3,IERCE
BLVD., LOTS 40 & 41 INCLUSIVE, KOEHLER'S ADDITION TO
MOUNI), PID #'S 13-117-24 33 0073 & 13-117-24 33 0041.
REsoLUTIoN//98-101
RESOLUTION TO 'APPROVE A ONE (1) YEAR
EXTENSION OF A MAJOR SUBDIVISION
ORIGINALLY APPROVED BY RESOLUTION//97-106
FOR 2240 COMMFRCE BLVD, LOTS 40-41
INCLUSIVE, KOEHLER'S ADDITION TO MOUND,
PID# 13-11%24 33 0073 & 13-11%24 33 0041, P & Z
CASE//98-51 & 9%37
Ahrens, Hanus, unanimously.
461
By:
Date:
Time:
McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc.
Telephone Conversation Report t~ .~OS[~)
Client: '~~ '~0~/*))~,..!.! i""
~.M. 1 / 7q ~ ' ~ "%.
Project
No.:
File:
Organization:
Title: "
TelephOne: '~ ~"- ~gS:~g5~)
FAX
To: Fran Clark
City of Mound
RE:
Date:
Bruce Chamberlain
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
123 North 3~ Su'eet, Suite 100
Minneapolis, MN 55401
voice: 612.338.0800
fax: 612.338.6838
Livable Conununitics grant
3 October, 1999
Fran,
This is the resolution that needs to be passed by the Council and in to the Metropolitan
Council by October 15. also enclosed is the application we sent in.
~:90 66,
839830>~ NOJ. BN I S I OH
8£898££-~9
A'n'AC HM ENT E
RESOLUTION NO.
CITY OF T'~~ , MINNESOTA
AUTHORIZING APPLICATION
FOR THE LIVABLE COMMUNmES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM
WHEREAS the City of ~'~.~11~[~) is a participant in the Livable Communities Act's Housing
Incentives Program for 1998 as determined by the Metropolitan Council, and is therefore eligible to make
application for funds under the Livable Communities Demonstration Account; and
WHEREAS the City has identified a proposed project within the City that meets the Demonstration
Account's purpose/s and criteria; and
WHEREAS the City has the institutional, managerial and financial capability to ensure adequate project
administration; and
WHEREAS The City certifies that it will comply with all applicable laws and regulations as stated in the
contract agreements; and
WHEREAS the City Council of ["~0~.1~i:~ , Minnesota agrees to act as legal sponsor for the
project contained in the Demonstration Account application submitted on IO/! ,199~'~
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is hereby authorized to apply to the Metropolitan
Council for this funding on behalf of the City of 1'~ea~D and to execute such agreements as
are necessary to implement the project on behalf of the applicant.
Mayor Clerk
T~:90 66, ~0
~Od 680 ~B]BBO~ NOIBNISIOH 8£898££-~T9
CITY OF MOUND
$341 MAYWOO0 ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 5,5364-168'7
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 478-0620
September 30, 1999
Ms. loanne Ban'on
Melropolitan Council
Meats Park Centre
230 East 5t~ Street
St. Paul, MN 55101-1634
Dear Ms. Bas,on:
The City of Motmd is pleased to submit the Mound Visions project for consideration of Livable
Communities Demonstration Account funds. Mound has come a long way since 1998. The new
Miin Street is built; the historic Lost Lake boat canal is dredged; there are developer agreements
in place for the redevelopment of most of the downtown core; financing tools are being put in
place; and construction of further public infrastructure and multi-use private development
projects are poised for a spring 2000 start.
Mound and/ts public/private partners are investing millions of dollars to create a downtown that
is urban, place-appropriate, compact, diverse and connected. Mound has learned that the s~se of
excitement built around an aggressive but realistic downtown vision opens doors to opportunities
not imagined at the outset. If there is a primary wisdom to be gained from the Mound Visions
process it is ~mt communities can do incredible things if they have a collective vision, the skill to
express it and the will to get it done.
Motmd is confident that the LCDA Advisory Committee will find the Mound Visions project
sensible, innovative and lasting. We look forward to your decision. If you have any questions,
please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Mayor, City of Mound
I~:90 66, ~0 ADO
£0d a80
~399BOM NOI~NISIOH
8£898££-P-T9
Livable Communities Demonstration Account
of the
Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund
APPLICATION FORMAT- 1999
Please compile application and attachments in order listed. Do not staple or bind the application
package. The application should total 15-18 pages, plus maps and supporting documents (see Sec. 21).
Applications that do not follow the specified format and length limitations may be returned for revision.
1. PROJECT NAME
Hound Visions
2. APPLICANT AND CITY
Applicant C±l;v of Mound
City(les) located in
Hennepin County
3. AMOUNT OF FUNDING REQUESTED
2.3 MilliOn
4. CATEGORY (Refer to handout describing categories with attached maps).
Category A - Compact Mixed-Use Transit-Oriented
Category B - Compact Mixed-Use
Category C - Mixed Residential
Category D - Cluster Development in the Urban Reserve
Category E - Proposal for Planning/Predevelopment Activities for a Project Fitting Any of the
Above Categories
5. PROJECT SUMMARY
In 150 words or less, summarize the project you are proposing.
See At~ached
~ :9B 66,
~0 130 ~Od £80
~r~-~o~ NOIBN I S I OH
6, PROJECT CONTACT PERSON
Name
Address
C~
Phone
Bruce Chamberlain - Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
123 Nn~th Third Street, Suite 100
Minne'aDolis Zip Code 55401-1659
612-338-0800 FAX 612-338-6838
?, SITE LOCATION
Describe the location and size of the project area. Include maps (as.attachments; see Sec. 21 .)
identifying the location and the adjacent land uses and development. Include relevant excerpts from
the city's comprehensive plan for the subject area.
8. THRESHOLD CRITERIA MEASUREMENT- CATGORIES A, B, C and D
HOUSING DENSITIES (Categories A, B and C)
Net units per acre
MIX OF USES (Categories A and B)
Check types of uses present in the project area or proposed:'
residential _X._. government/civic
office ~ arts/cultural
retail multipurpose/conference center
restaurant ...[__ open space
entertainment x._L public space
HOUSING MIX AND INTEGRATION (Categories A, B, and C)
Types or tenure combinations of housing present in the project area or proPosed -
attache, d, detached, different physical configurations of attached or detached,
ownership, rental.
Townhomes - Owner occuDied
Condominiums - Owner occupied
Apartments - Rental. (Above retail)'
66, ~0
cod 7,80
~BqBBON NOIBN I S I DH
8£898.c£-~9
Numbers of rental housing units (new or rehabilitated) to be affordable at up to 50
percent of median income ($3%800, $715 incl. utilities for a 4-person fam~y) List funding
sources such as Hollman units or tax credit units. (All tax credit units are counted as
affordable at 50 percent of median)
9 Unit - Hollman
a~ required rental '~tes.
Numbers of ownership housing units (new or rehabilitated) to be affordable at up to 80
percent of median income (551.000, sales price $134,250). List funding sources
30 Un~e - TTI:, ~end ~r~to-H-wn
EMPLOYMENT PROXIMITY (Categories A, B and C)
Estimated number of.jobs located within one mile of the proposed project, including
any jobs to be provided as part of the proposed project.
2,000
Data source Metropolitan Council
TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS (Category A only)
Check all that apply:
Existing transit hub or station
Proposed transit hub or station
Existing park and ride facility
Proposed park and ride facility
Proposed improvements to transit passenger facilities--can include'
shelters, waiting benches, crosswalks.
cp: 90
CLUSTER HOUSING IN THE URBAN RESERVE (Category D only)
local plans and ordinances in place or planned to require dusters to be
connected to central sewer and other city services when they become
available.
dusters designed and laid.out in accordance with local subdivision ordinances,
including dedication of future utility and infrastructure easements.
90d
~39BBO~ NOIBN I S I OH
8£898.c£-~9
Attachment to application
66,
5. Project Summary:
Mound Visions is a comprehensive revitalization and redevelopment effort for downtown
Mound, Since its inception in 1991 it has evolved (through continual public involvement)
from a planning and design strategy into an increasingly refined package of implementation
projects that span between the public and private realms. The Mound Visions plan was
develol~d and is continually ~fined to create a destination downtown district with urban form
- one that is "place appropriate", multifaceted, concentrated and inter-linl~d. The plan is to
reorient downtown toward its greatest nattnal assets - Lost Lake (with its connection to Lake
Mirmetonka) and Lake Langdon. The goal is to eonstm~ dense, multi-use private
development within a fabric of inter-linked public spaces with a focus on pedestrian and
transit integration,
Tiffs LCDA application is focused on a 20-acre portion of downtown that includes three
redevelopment sites and enhances l~destrian infrastructure and transit facilities that have
recently been constructed or will begin in the spring of 2000.
Z Sire Location:
Mound is located in the Urban Area of the Twin City metropolitan area. The projects
addressed in the application are within the 175 acre downtown area of Mound, which is at the
northwest comer of Lake Minnetonka at the intersection of Hennepin County Roads 15 and
110 (sec Exhibi0.
Mound is currently updating its comprehensive plan. Following are policy excerpts from the
approved draft, which are relevant to downtown.
Land Use: The Land Use Guide Plan identifies a new zoning classification for the
core of downtown. The Comprehensive Plan describes the district as follows:
Pedestrian District- The pedestrian district is a mixed-use area at the core of
downtown. It is an intense downtown area with buildings that accommodate
first story retail and second story office and residential. Other buildings with
a pedestrian orientation include public, multi-unit residential, entertainment,
retail commercial and office. The pedestrian district incorporates traditional
downtown planning mclmiques to encourage a higher standard for
developr~nt.
Policy
"Maintain a mix of downtov, xt businesses including retail, office,
entertainment and service businesses. Maintain the downtown and its
periphery as the focus of Mound's commercial activity."
Housing: The Comprehensive Plan identifies that Mound currently rn~cts or exceeds
its Livable Community housing goals in all areas except a slight deficiency in life-
cycle housing. The Plan identifies that 'q~Iound neexls to focus on two central housing
issues: quality and availability". The Plan goes on to say "the housing analysis
;0
~Od A80
Livable Communiti~ Demonstration Account - Application Attar. brecht
Mound Visions - 1999
Mound, Minnesota
elderly".
Poli~
"Support creative, multi-family housing that meets thc needs of ar~a r~sidents
such as the elderly, single parent families, etc."
Tranxportution; Metro Traash pt'ovides thc City of with rcgulai bus service flum
downtown Mound to Ridgedale and downtown Minneapolis via routes 51 and 75.
Policy
"Provide convenient a¢ccs~ to tho downtown ~roa including transit f~cilities
and emphasize pede~rlan movement in and around the central business
district."
"Promote incrcasexl development of bikeways and trail facilities to
accommodate non-motorized forms of transportation which eoncerve energy
mci reduc~ vehicular congestion."
Vt,: go
9. History:
Mound h~ a unique hitter. It came into being in the late 19n Ccntury because of thc Lake
Minnetonka resort economy. While other areas of the lake were being developed with
extravagant hotels, amusement par~ and estates for the wealthy, Mottnd quietly o.~i.~led a.~ a
modest vacation spot ~md cottage cuimtamity luiuwt, fur szvall, family resorts and the best
fishing on Lake Minnctonka. Sines the only way to r~aeh Mound by anything other than
horse or t'~t wa.~ by steamboat, the. village, c.e.mer originally ~prouted at Coo~ Bay where the
st~mboat lan&,4 (near the curt~nt Mound Bay Park). Aroma 1900. rail was extended to
Mound and tho downtown shiftcd to the location we k~ow today at the rail stop. About this
same., tLr~, the now-famous streetc~ boats were replacing the large steamboats on thc lake.
$inc~ thc fleet of streetcar boats could seldom navigate the shallow waters of Cooks Bay,
smaller sister stearr~rs were us'~! to at:tess Mound and other destinations on the "Upper
L~k~".
With ~hc new railroad extension to Mound came a dilemma - how to encourage lake re,on
rail travel from Minneapolis to MomM witch 'lake Milmetonka is !/z mile from the new
downtow~ depot. A scheme was devised to dredge a boat canal through a wetl~d flow called
Lost Lake from Cooks Bay to the he.art of downtown. The canal was started in 1906 itud
opened a few ye, ars later (sec Exhibk). Even though the cannl was never a resounding
I'~.cn.~ of poor engineering and thc fading of th= re. son era by the mid 1920s; it remained a
rich element of communffy lore.
The middle of this century saw thc ,'i~ of Mound's most famous company - Tonka Toys.
Tonlm Toys w~. fa-st maaufacmrexl in an old school in the heart or downtoxsan Mound. Tho
coup, any remained ia Mound and obviously grew to bexotr~ a major employer in town until
the early 1980s wh~u the company was sold and the plant movocl to Texas. The loss of Tonka
Toys which was such an icon and c~onomic engine for Monnd seemed to taka thc wind out of
the community's .~ils. goon aher Tonka lcR, r~tall ~usinesses be~ to close md the
community didn't quite know how lo rise. out of their slump.
Pa~e 2
Livablo OoimuuRides Demonstration A.ceount- App/ic~oa Auadunent
Mound Visiom. 1999
Mouud, Mlnl~ota
9Od L~
~qB~OM NO£BNISIOH
8£898C£-~Tg
In 199I the City of Mound started to reassemble the pieces and initiated a downtown
revitalization effort. The City mobilized extensive public involvement to create what todlty is
ealled "Mound Visions". The Mound Visions team of community volunteers and professional
staff have developed and continue to refine a number of strategies for revitalization which
include promotional material, ii design model, business recruitment strategies and a downtown
redevelopment concept plan. The focus of Mound's efforts (maybe ironically, maybe
predictably) is the rehabilitation of the Lost Lake canal area and the reorientation of
downtown tow,xrd Lost Lake as the center of community activity.
It was realized early in the Mound Visions planning process that downtown simply doesn't
work very well as a district. It is chopped-up by railroad and county roads with a ban on on-
street parking, Retail storefronts are disjointed. Lakes, Mound's ~eatest asset, surround
downtown but are completely hidden from the public realm. The building stock is marginal.
The downtown environment is not friendly to pedestrians. All of these factors in combination
with a very tricky retail market lead to a downtown most potential visitors and business people
have not bothered to notice until recently.
The decision wa.~ made that to create a downtown the community could be proud of and
investors would take interest in would require aggressive steps and significant redevelopment.
The enclosed downtown concept plan illustrates the proposed changes. To prepare for private
development and to prove the City is serious, the first series of projects recently completed or
currently under construction will rebuild and reorient much of the public infrastructure. This
includes the traditional items such as streets but also infrastructure for recreation, transit and
pedestrian movement. To this end the City is currently working on two ISTEA funded
projeet,q to be completed in 2000 to restore the Lost Lake canal, build public boat docks, create
a public gr~enway along the Lost Lake shore and build a transit park and ride facility. The
City recently completed construction of a new "main" street with on-street parking
overlooking Lost Lake where an ally formerly existed. The City is working with Hennepin
County to relocate CSAH 15 in conformance with the Mound Visions concept plan. The City
and County are sharing funding for this project, which is scheduled for construction in 2002.
Over the last three years, Mound has invested a great deal of planning and desitin effort in
refining a sophisticated vision for private development in downtown and the tools to
accomplish it. The key as Mound sees it is the interrelationship of downtown retail, office,
housing and the public realm. This work has led to a clear articulation of the community's
vision for private development.
The vision has also led to a great deal of developer interest. Mound currently has three
preliminary development agreements in place for redevelopment of various districts in the
downtown. Beard Group (Mound Mainstreet Inc.) for the Auditors Road and Langdon
Districts, Northern Hospitality for a hotel development on the Lost Lake site, and Mound
Family Hardware for redevelopment of the Coast to Coast District.
Since May, the City and developers have been working diligently to proceed with their
respective responsibilities a.s outlined in the development agreements. The City is establishing
a Tax Increment Financing District, conducting property acquisition and business relocation
appraisals, surveying the downtown and preparing cost estimates for public infrastructure.
The respective developers have studied the market, are seeking retail tenants, preparing use
~:90
66,
~0
60d £80
Livable Communities Demonstration Account - Application Attachment
Mound Visions - 1999
Mound. Minnesota
~B~B~O~ NOIBNIS I OH 8£898££-~9
concepts and architcctural plans and preparing development proforrnas. Thc first two
. development projects are expected to break ground spring 2000.
!0. Project Elements:
Goals: The ultimate goal of Mound Visions is to create a downtown the community can be
proud of, Mound has articulated a clear path toward accomplishing their goal over the course
of several years and the Livable Communities Fund seems to have a very similar focus,
Guiding Princ/ples and Directives of the Mound Visions Effort: (the highlighted items
indicate a direct relationship to this LCDA funding request) (See Exhibit for illustration of the
Guiding Principles)
Urban Form: The community, of Mound made a conscious decision early in the Mound
Visions process that the future of downtown Mound would have urban form as opposed to
suburban form. This decision is portrayed by:
* pedestrian-oriented streetscapes with connected retail storefronts
· continuous pedestrian loop along retail storefronts
, building facades on the street, not set back
· multi-level buildings
· re-introduction of on-street parking
* all off-street parking to the rear of buildings
Concentrated Development: Downtown Mound is nestled between several lakes and wan
originally devclopcd in the traditional small town pattern. As a result, Mound has
historically had a fairly concentrated downtown district. Mound Visions proposes higher
intensi~ redevelopment than currently exists within the bounds of the existing downtown
in the following ways:
· multi-level buildings
· · structured parking
· shared parking
· efficient use of space (eliminate development gaps)
Multi-use: It is well understood that a compatible diversi~ of uses result in a rich and
exciting place. Mound is striving to create this mix by taking several steps in its
downtown:
· integrate recreation with the downtown and out to the greater community; ail
leading to a central green at Lost Lake
· insist on continuous ground-level retail in its downtown core
· encourage upt~r story office use
· encourage higher density upper story and separate structure housing in the
downtown core
· better integrate the existing industrial district at the fringe of downtown
· pursue a permanent farmers market facility
· pursue development of a small hotel
4. Linkages: Linkages have been viewed as the essential first step in preparing for successful
downtown redevelopment. Creating linkages has been the focus of two successful ISTEA
c~:90 66,
P~¢ 4
O~d ~80
Livable Communities Demonstration Acoount- Application Attachment
Mound Visions - 1999
Mound. Minn~o)a
~39B30~ NOIBNISIDH
8£898££-~9
£unding applications and will continue to be the focus of significant local investment.
f:on.~lnl~on of .~ome ~jor JinkA~e.s is nnde. rway nnd will be e. omple, ted over the next two
year,s. These and other {mportant linkages include the foJlowlng:
· x~est~blish a boafin§ connoction between downtown a,ld L~kc Mim~ctuz,l~ ~i~
Lost Lake canal (ISTEA, completed
· buiW public bo~t doc. king facilities in downtown (ISTEA, construction
· build the Lost Lake gr~nway in downtown that will include a multi-use trail ,and
pcd~st~'i~,l ~u~ci,itic~ (ISTEA, construction 2000)
· build a tnmsit p~rk & ride lot includin~ commuter biko £acilitics (ISTEA,
construction 2000)
· build a pedesman-onented "main street" with on..~treet di~dnn~l
(cumpl~tr, d '99)
· relocate CSAII 15 to put heavier and hi§her sp~d trfffic where it can Im
accommodated as well as create the Auditors Road Distric~ as a hish. amenity
pedestrian dismct where the rbadway ~s today (Hennepin County CJI) - 200?)
· establish pedestrian ways through downtown and out to the greater community
· czcatc betcea ~cdc~ui~ a~d bike IWI~ between ~isting Iow and moderate income
housing and jo~. shopping, recreation and transit
· cor~truct · multi-use tmndt buil&ing
· communicate with other ~encms ~nd communities about the pos.dhility of
cstablishing a lccrcatiunal tndl slung thc cxistLug r, dl line between Mound,
Wayzata and Minneapolis
~3.~: Mound believes thc process of (lowntown redevelopment it has undertaken
holds oppo~fics to bund ~ broad b~c of p~crships ~d information exchange.
Mound ~ ~eo~omted out. ch in seve~ ~y~.
build p~rsMps with the loe~I sch~l dis~ct, congestion ~d watershed
agencies ~d non-profit goups to rehabilRat~ the ecolo~f the Lost L~e
wcd~d
use the ~m f~e~ merhe~ as · tool to ~uoduce vi~itor~ to Mound
create ~develop~m p~ne~h~ps ~ p~vete developers
· establish a c~culum ~ound ecolo~c~ rehabilitation ~d downtown
rcvit~i~fion in thc 1~1 ~ch~l district
~ thc project pro~ssca, ¢n~uragc m~l~ ~ia covcra~ ~d consider thc
possibiliW of pr~ucing a film d~umenta~ about ~e pr~s of ~ansfo~n$
Mound's do.town
Mound Visions Project Elements
Lost Lake Canal: A~ mention~ earlier, the Lost Lake canal connecting boating on Lake
Mirmetonka with downtown Mound is an important historical clement for thc community of'
Mound. The canal was mdredged in 1999 ',ffter more than 70 years of neglect. The project
includes dredging, shordine improvements, wetland restoration, municipal docks and a pier.
The Lost L~c czmal will bc thc hcmtbeaa of file futu:c downtown Mound. It will provide
opportunity for a amtdl amount of boat commuting from residential neighborhoods in Mound
to the docks at the tranfit ~tation where people can go from boat to bus bound forjob~ in
Minneapolis. The project will be c0mplet~ in 2000. Thc project is funded through ISTEA
g~:90
~0
Llvablc Communities Demonstration ACCount- Application Atmchmem
Mmmrl ¥idnn~
Mound,
T~W Ll;~ ~l~qg~O~ hlO£gNI~IOH
G12-~38G838 HOISINGTON KOEGLER 88? P12 OCT 0~ '9g OG:4G
orientation to the Lake. Retail parking will at ground level to the rear of buildings and
housing parking is intended to be below grade. Construction is expected to begin spring 2000.
Coast To Coast Redevelopment District: This district will transform aa auto-oriented strip
center to a downtown, pedestrian-oriented retail district. It is approximately 2.5 acres in size
and is envisioned to include 22,000 SF of ground level retail and 8,000 SF of second story
office. This district is also envisioned to include a parking ramp for distric! and downtown-
wide parking.
Lost Lake District: This district will include the transit facility di~ussed earlier as well as a
small hotel replicating historic resort hotels and a farmers market. The district will be
integrally connected to the core of downtown via the greenway but the uses will be more
destination oriented. The farmers market is seen as a crucial element of the future downtown
Mound because of the community life it generates. It is also one more reason for visitors to
enjoy downtown Mound.
11. Special Features
I. Community Process: Teams of community volunteers worked at the beginning to
develop strategies later tested and solidified through community workshops and open
houses.
2. Broad base of partners: MN/DOT, Hetmepin County, Minnehaha Cre~k Watershed
District, Westonka School District, Citys of Minnclxista and Spring Park.
3, Open space as the framework for development: The open space has been protected by
the City before private redevelopment occurs in order to establish the natural and
pedestrian framework.
4. Integrated stormwater management: Stormwatcr management will be integrated into
the redevelopment and open space designs using rainwater gardens, buffer strips, NURP
ponds and native vegetation.
5. Multi-use: The cornerstone of Mound Visions is creating an integrated system of linkages
connecting multiple uses within a concentrated downtown area.
12 & 13. Linkages within the proposed development, to adjacent neighborhoods and Housing Employment
and Transportation Connections
The area surrounding the downtown is a mix of uses that were and still remain the center of
community acti~ities, Mound is regarded as an affordable place to live, which is duc in part to
historical platting of small lots. Henncpin County Assessed Value data shows that 1,787
homes or 54% of Homestead Properl/es were valued at $95,000 or less in 1996. Residcotial
neighborhoods are located primarily north of and west of the downtown provide a wide range
of housing types. Historically smaller platted lots are located north of the downtown that
provide affordable single family housing for young families. The residential neighborhoods
west of downtown provide move-up housing opportunities with their generally larger home
and lot sizes. Apartments and townhomes are located on Commerce Blvd. generally within a
V, mile from the downtown. The commun/ty's public services are located at th= edges of thc
downtown, conveniently located adjacent to residential neighborhoods. They include a
Hennepin County Library branch, Community Center, City Offices, and an elementary school.
Associated parks, playgrounds, and athletic fields compliment these public uses. A large
industrial building, formerly operated by the Tonka Corporation, is located along Shoreline
P~7
Livable Conmaunitics Demonstration Account - Application AI.tachmeal
Mound Vision.~ - 1999
Mound, Minnesota
~12-~8~8J8 HOISINGTON KOEGLER 08? P1J OCT 04 '99 0~:47
Blvd. This facility is home to a number of]i~t manufacturing and warehousing businesses
that ate replenishing the City's employment base.
Mound has experienced very little r~¢velopment over the last five years. The most common
recent redevelopment has been in residential neighborhoods, along Lake Minnetonka
lakeshore where multiple small lotq are combined, the home~s removed and one large borne
constructed.
Shoreline and Commerce Blvd. provide good pedestrian access to the downtown with
sidewalks and on-street bike lanes. This allows convenient access to the downtown for tho.~e
living within an ar~a ½ from downtown and other parts of the community,
Bus service will be further enhanced with a dedicated bus station and park and ride facility
along Shoreline Blvd. on the east side of Lost Lake. The proximity of this facility to bike
lanes, sidewalks, and future trail systems offers a unique commuter transportation options.
What the Mound Visiona project does which is so unique in the Midwest is to completely
weave the in~rmodal transportation system into the fabric of the downtown. There is an
environment created around the transportation futilities that make them pleasant, convenient
and fun. This int~rmodal environment makes the act of getting around integral to all kinds of
other community benefits. It subtly teaches people about the hi.story of Mound and Lake
Minnetonka. It makes it easy for people to shop on their way to and from work without their
car. It reduces pollution by promoting the use of alternative transportation. It allows people
to meet their neighbors. And, it creates a strong community focus.
As the downtown system takes hold, the focus is anticipated to broaden to adjacent
neighborhoods, Despite being on Lake Mitmetonka, Mound has a diverse mix of incomes and
housing types and values. As a result, there is a significant population that can benefit from
transit and links to transit. Mound has an on-call para-transit service that provides door .to
door service anywhere in Mound. It appears that the existing rail line will become available
for trail access, linking downtown to outlying neighborhoods. The concept of commuter
boating is also intriguing. At least half of the public docks on Lost Lake will be earmarked for
commuter boats during weekdays. Maybe transit boats will one day again link neighborhoods
on Lake Minnetonka with the transit center in downtown Mound.
14. Planning Process
Mound Visions has been a community-based planning effort since 1991. Over 50 volunteers
have b~n directly involved in &veloping planning directives and hundreds of eon~munity
members have attended workshops, open houses and meetings to provide input and feedback.
A project the magnitude of Mound Visions would not be possible without the broad-based
support of the community and there have been times when the whole effort could have died if
not for the fortitude and vision of the community at-large.
After several years of being more inward foeuseed, the planning process has again become
broad-based due to such things a~ TIF district establishment, marketing redevelopment
projects, etc.
Page
Livable CommurfitJe.~ Dcmo:~tration Account - Application Altad~!
Mound Visions- 1999
Mound, Minng~o~a
612-~868~8 HOISINGTON KOEGLER 88? P14 OCT 84 '99 86:4?
15. Project Team
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc,: Mound Visions Coordinator. City Planner, Project Manager
Bruce Chamberlain, Vice President: 11 years award winning experience in strategic and land
use planning, landscape architecture and urban design.
Kennedy & Graven, City Attorney
John Dean: Legal council for numerous communities including major redevelopment
communities such as Richfield
EhIers & Associates, Finance Advisors, Redevelopment Consultaa~ts
Sid Inman and Jim Prosser: Reputation for creative redevelopment financing solutions. Jim is
the former City Manager of Richfield
MFRA, Inc.: City Engineer
John Cameron: City Engineer for the City of Mound for over 15 years.
Beard Group Inc.: Lead Developer for Langdon and Auditors Road Districts
Bill Beard. President: Excellent track record in multi-use downtown redevelopment.
Currently completing Broadway Court in Robbinsdale.
Elness Swcnson Graham: Architect for Langdoa & Auditors Road Districts
Dennis $utliff: Creative solution for multi-use downtown redevelopment prqjects such as
Urban Village in Richfield.
Welsh Companies: Leasing agent for Langdon and Auditors Road Districu
16. Parmerships
The City of Mound understands that partnerships are essential for Mound Visions to be
successful, The City has formed the following partnerships:
Farriers Market: The City of Mound is working toward a partnership with the
Minneapolis Farmers Market to locate a satellite facility in Mound (see Exhibit).
· Transit facilities: The City of Mound has coordinated closely with Metro Transit
(see Exhibit).
· Hotel: Exclusive Development Agreement with Northern Hospitality Inc. of
Brainerd, MN (see Exhibit).
· Post Office: The City of Mound h~s worked very closely with the U.S. Postal
Service to build a new post office in downtown Mound.
° Langdon and Auditors Road Districts: Preliminary Development A~eement with
Beard Group (Mound Mainstreet Inc., LLC) (see Exhibit).
° Coast To Coast District: Preliminary Development Agreement with Mound
Family Hardware, Inc. (see Exhibit). '
1 7. Uses of Demonstration Account Fund~
a. Build underground/structured parking in the La. don and Auditors Road Districts to
allow for ~eater inte~.~itv of downtown development.
Livable Communities Demonstration Account- Application Atr~hmcnt
Mound Visions - 1999
Mound, Minnesota
612-~S868~8 HO~S~N6TONKOE6LE~ 08? Pi5 OCT 04 06:48
In order to ~ccomplish the intensity of development proposed for downtown, structured
parking will be required. The City proposes to use LCDA funds to construct structured or
underground parking to accommodate roughly 170 cars (the amount anticipated to be
needed £or the housing portions of the developments).
b. Coxtstmct a transit center that pulls the multi-modal system together.
The City proposes to use LCDA funds to help build a transit center on the Lost Lake site
that would be the gathering point for several forms of transportation. The building would
have a direct relationship to Lost Lake, the greenway and the park & fide lot. The
Community sees the building as a multi-use building similar to the Centrum Building at
Centennial Lakes in Edina. Uses would include a bus shelter; ticket sales for excursion
boating, public restrooms, concessions, a wanning room for winter skating, and
community meeting room.
18. Financial Summaries
Enclosed
19. Project Schedule
Enclosed
20, Ix~cal Government Support
To be sumbitted prior to October 15, 1999.
21, Additional Attachments
Enclosed
END OF APPLICATION
M:x340UND',LCDA99~C_APP99.DOC
Page 10
I/vable'Communides Demonstration Account - Appl/cation Attachm¢~ll
Mound Visions - 1999
Mound, Minnesota
HOISINGTON KOEGLER
88?
OCT 84 'gg 0G:48
HOUSING SUMMARY TABLE (ATTACHMENT A)
Note: "cost" in this table means cost to the renter or owner
New Sir~gle #
Ownership Family .,cost
1BR
New Rental
2BR
Townhouse #
cost
· Cond(; -- I#
....I Mst
Other l.mst
Single
Family J #
_ _ cost
L~.°wnh°use l~Ost
Aoartments
3BR
4BR or
more
I
35o~, 000+1
".'.'"" '~ ..... · ...... .""""t:~!' ..... "':~'"""""'""~::~:~""~'"
.....,....'./'.t:,;;~t ....... .,,
, ...~',".~.:" :i"" ': ..'..i'::':. ;~,.,' i.:' '. ' ' ':.:~
Rehab Single I #
Rental 'Family I cost
Townhouse t # '
I
cost
.... Co"dol# .........
I
cost
Nit-Units
Added
Oth--er # -
cost
· T.~uSe" "~.'. '
,&h~r.--~ ....~ ,-,.;
Apa~tmen[s ~t .I- 200: 4; ~1"?. 50.0'~.60~'
Single
Family
I I
cost
cost ..... __ .........
Total No.
172
12
612-]~868~8 HOISINGTON ~OEGLER 88? Pi? OCT 84 '99 86:49
Livable Communities Demonstration Account (LCDA)
Application 1999
ATTACHMENT B
SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
Total Project Cost
Total Soft Cost
Total Hard Cost
Public Private
19 Million 30 Million
0_8 Millqnn 1 ? Millqnn
iB~ Mill(nn 2R R Millinn
LCDA Amount
Requested
2.~ Million
~ ,q Millinn
2. Are you requesting a loan?
or grant? X
e
All T.~TFA ftJnded
MSA projects
Initial developer
What is the status of financial commitments for this project?
pmojects have full commitment
budgeted in City and County CIP
£inancial
commitments expected
January
2003
4. When willyou need Demonstration Accountfunds?
May 2000
61~-55868~8 HOISINGTON KOEGLER 08?
OCT 04 '99 06:49
_cE
0ct, 7, 1999 2:25PM MCCOMBS FRANK R00S"
No, 9926~P,
Eng~eering * Plann~g · Surveying
~ ~L~,soclates, Inc.
October 7, 1999
Ms. Fran Clark, Acting City Manager
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, Minnesota 55364
SUBJECT:
City ofMound
Audito~ Road S~e~Improvemen~
SAP145-10g-02
MF1~#9968
Dear Fram
Enclosed is Kusske Construction's Payment Request No. 4 for work completed through September
30, 1999 on the subject project. The amount of this payment request is $12,638.89.
We have reviewed the payment request, find it to be in order and recommend paymem in the above
mount to the Contractor.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact us.
Very truly yours,
McCOMBS FRANK ROOS ASSOCIATES, INC.
John Cameron, City Engineer
JC:pry
Enclosure
e:h'nainL~6 8~el ark'8 4
15050 23rd Avenue North · Plymouth, Minnesota · 55447
p#one 612/476-6010 . fax 612/476-8552
e-mail: mfra~mfra.com
Oct. ?. 1999
2'25PM MCCOMBS FRANK ROOS No. 9926 P. 3/6 ~,.
Oct,
2:25PM
MCCOM?S FRANK ROOS
No, 9926
o~oo~oo~oo~ooo==o
~0o~o00
.......... ~~' ' ~ ........
8888888~88oooooo88~o8858888~8-~
Oct, ?. 1999
2'26PM MCCOMBS FRANK ROOS
No. 9926
.... ~b~ ....... b~ ....
~ ~~''o ...... ~.~,~ .....
bb~bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb~bbbbbbbbbb
o ~$ ooo .... .~o oo~ ...........
P. 5/6
Oct, 7. 1999
2:26PM
MCCOMBS FRANK ROOS No. 9926 P, 6/6
........ Oct, ?. 1999'-10:46AM--"MCCOMB5 FRANK R00S ........ '~'~"~"'" ' ............ ' ..... No, 9887--P, 3/3
Engineering * Planning · Surveying
'FRA
October 7, 1999 '-'
Honorable Mayor and Members of the Mound City Council
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, Minnesota 55364-1627
SUBJECT:
Halste~est F_~ge Storm Sewer Improvement Project
MFRA #11379
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers:
Bids for the subject project were opened on October 6, 1999. Tlxree bids were received with the low bid
of $55,105 submitted by F.F. Jedlicld of Eden Prairie. The Engineer's estimate for ukis project was
$48,160. Enclosed is a copy of the bid tabulation.
We have reviewed the bids and discussed cost saving options with the contractor that could result in a
final cost closer to the Engineer's estimate. One change that can be made would realize a savings of
$2,500. This would get the cormmction cost to within $4,500 of our estimate.
As previously discussed, if these bids were rejected and the project rebid next spring, we would still
recommend replacing the one section of pipe and filling the sink holes this fall. This work will probably
cost much more then it would if done as part of the over all project. Also, there is no guarantee that
rebidding next spring would save enough money to cover the extra expense of the work neeessa.9' at this
time or the rebidding costs.
For the masons stated, we are recommending that a contract in the mount of $55,105 be awarded to
F.F. Jedlieki. Mr. Jedlicki has satisfactorily completed projects in the past for the City of Mound.
If you have any questions or need additional information,, please contact us.
Very truly yours,
McCOMBS FRANK ROOS ASSOCIATES, INC.
John Cameron, City Engineer
JC:pry
Enclosure
s:~n~in:\l [3?9~n~yorl 0-7
15050 23r# Avenue Noflh · Plymouth, Minnesota . 55447
phone 612,/476-6010 · fax 612/476-8532
e.mail: mfra@mfra, com
Oct, 7. 1999 lO:46AM MCCOMB$ FRANK ROOS No. 9887 P. 2/3
0ct. ?. 1999--10:46AM -MCCOMB$ FRANK ROOS
- "'"No, 9887-"P. 1/3'
Engineering " Planmng ' Survsying
.. McCombs Frank Roes
Associates. Inc,
PLEASE DELIVER TIlE FOLLOWING PAGE(S) TO:
FACSIMILE COVER SHEET
Company Name: t"~( ~
THIS FAX IS BEING SENT BY:
Name:
Date:
Client Name:
Project Name:
Subject:
ri: YOU Do NOT PJ:.CEIVE :~ PAGES, INCLUDING THIS COVER. SHEET,
PLEASE CONTACT AT
(612) 476-6010, EXT. ~
Hard Copy to Follow by Mail:
q '
Yes
No
15050 23r¢1 Avenue North · Plymouth, Minnesota * 55447
pllone ~12/476-~010 , hx 612/476-8532
e-mail: mfra@mfra, com
PAYMliNT BILLS
DATE:
October 12, 1999
BILLS
BATCII ~!
AMOUNT
9092
$95,778.36
TOTAL BILLS
$95,778.36
Z
0
-r
~Z
t o
I
Z
z
tlr t
U
Z
J
I I! iI
,
o~
z
n.-
,.j-
Z
t,~
_1
z
Z
,-4
0,.
o
C'
!os
O 0 0 ~ 0 0 O 0
Z
U
J
I II I I!l I ~1
rY
I
CITY OF MOUND
Mound, Minnesota
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS
UNPAID WATER AND SEWER BILLS;
UNPAID TREE REMOVEL BILL;
INPAID GARBAGE REMOVAL BILL.
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin
County, Minnesota will meet in the City Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30
P.M. on October 12, 1999, to hear, consider and pass on all written and oral objections, if any,
to the proposed assessments on the following parcels of land for:
UNPAID WATER AND SEWER BILLS: AMOUNT TO BE SPREAD OVER 1
YEAR
PROPERTY
IDENTIFICATION #
AMOUNT
13-117-24 21 0025 172.92
13-117-24 21 0092 405.23
13-117-24 12 0123 264.02
13-117-24 12 0052 422.57
13-117-24 12 0020 347.95
13-117-24 12 0042 227.31
12-117-24 43 0004 310.48
13-117-24 12 0189 353.38
13-117-24 12 0030 311.64
12-117-24 43 0001 417.22
13-117-24 12 0009 465.27
13-117-24 12 0014 269.77
13-117-24 12 0006 149.30
13-117-24 12 0202 427.92
13-117-24 11 0061 412.97
13-117-24 11 0055 171.381
13-117-24 12 0231 408.27
13-117-24 14 0002 377.35
13-117-24 11 0056 286.14
13-117-24 14 0029 521.64
13-117-24 12 0083 262.93
13-117-24 11-0077 358.52
18-117-23 23 0004 431.89
18-117-23 23 0012 428.77
13-117-24 11 0122
13-117-24 11 0120
13-117-24-12-0075
13-117-24-12-0072
13-117-24 22 0277
13-117-24 22 0276
14-117-24 42 0082
14-117-24 42 0010
14-117-24 42 0127
14-117-24 14 0043
14-117-24 14 0032
14-117-24 13 0004
14-117-24 42 0110
14-117-24-42 O117
14-117-24-42 0079
14-117-24 42 0077
14-117-24 42 0069
14-117-24 42 0016
14-117-24 42 0028
14-117-24 42 0035
14-117-24 42 0042
14-117-24 42 0041
14-117-24 31 0020
14-117-24 31 0031
14-117-24 31 0042
14-117-24 31 0043
14-117-24 32 0032
14-117-24 32 0015
14-117-24 34 0038
14-117-24 34 0015
14-117-24 44 0007
14-117-24 44 0032
14-117-24 44 0031
14-117-24 41 0015
14-117-24 42 0002
14-117-24 42 0023
13-117-24 32 0044
13-117-24 32 0057
13-117-24 32 0066
13-117-24 31 0077
13-117-24 31 0017
13-117-24 32 0115
13-117-24 31 0052
13-117-24-31 0044
13-117-24-31 0040
13-117-24-31-0068
13-117-24-31-0064
404.86
146.13
474.13
2113.65
214.05
239.91
560.65
140.09
417.89
235.90
202.27
213.85
675.36
527.78
217.99
520.14
236.42
559.52
602.27
244.21
812.15
357.98
1689.89
516.76
292.92
181.20
220.14
755.54
192.58
555.01
186.59
392.64
682.01
263.01
259.60
484.60
315.36
438.90
666.65
488.14
447.41
557.10
313.65
248.01
213.92
131.87
268.57
13-117-24-34-0014
13-117-24-34-0010
13-117-24 43 0063
13-117-24-43 0083
13-117-24 43 0086
13-117-24 43 0089
24-117-24 12 0055
13-117-24-43 0090
13-117-24 41 0053
13-117-24-41 0012
13-117-24-42-0014
13-117-24 42 0022
13-117-24 41 0030
13-117-24 41 0031
18-117-23 33 0030
18-117-23 33 0027
13-117-24 44 0095
13-117-24 44 0033
13-117-24 44 0007
24-117-24 12 0032
23-117-24 14 0013
23-117-24 13 0012
23-117-24 42 0002
23-117-24 42 0005
22-117-24 44 0030
22-117-24 43 0010
22-117-24 43 0007
23-117-24 41 0018
23-117-24 41 0021
23-117-24 44 0007
23-117-24 44 0008
23-117-24 42 0028
23-117-24 42 0020
23-117-24 42 0045
23-117-24 31 0012
23-117-24 43 0008
23-117-24 34 0086
23-117-24 34 0036
23-117-24 31 0037
23-117-24 34 0090
23-117-24 31 0059
23-117-24 34 0102
23-117-24 24 0013
23-117-24 23 0005
23-117-24 24 0062
23-117-24 24 0008
23-117-24 31 0054
222.52
234.05
260.68
436.01
559.45
362.97
727.68
249.27
172.81
630.86
1280.07
231.41
190.43
342.06
248.57
481.95
450.20
447.43
156.04
230.36
386.84
526.97
400.07
479.33
370.19
491.32
2495.70
270.36
359.79
315.36
178.72
349.99
421.94
460.69
297.35
586.45
396.24
386.35
411.59
318.08
895.19
492.82
316.05
330.94
127.75
355.07
464.74
23-117-24
23-117-24
23-117-24
23-117-24
23-117-24
23-117-24
23-117-24
22-117-24
22-117-24
22-117-24
23-117-24
23 - 117-24
23-117-24
23-117-24
23-117-24
23-117-24
23-117-24
23-117-24
13-117-24
23-117-24
24-117-24
24-117-24
24-117-24
24-117-24
13-117-24
13-117-24
13-117-24
13-117-24
13-117-24
13-117-24
13-117-24
13-117-24
13-117-24
13-117-24
24-117-24
24-117-24
13-117-24
13-117-24
19-117-23
19-117-23
19-117-24
19-117-23
19-117-23
19-117-23
19-117-23
19-117-23
19-117-23
34 0062
32 0025
32 0037
23 0095
32 0043
32 0050
32 0023
43 0007
44 0018
44 0021
31 0064
31 0066
32 0063
23 0109
23 0104
24 0058
13 0071
13 O046
24 0034
23 OOO4
32 0143
11 0006
11 0011
21 0005
34 0098
34 0098
43 0098
34 0098
34 0098
43 0022
43 0020
43 0025
44 0021
43 0032
13-0009
12 0020
43 0004
43 0006
23 0124
23 0124
14 0073
23 0135
23 0131
23 0082
24 0091
24 0022
24 0033
159.32
128.47
137.12
1489.94
352.95
1125.45
240.18
249.33
566.00
232.95
247.36
406.93
404.82
419.36
466.94
423.48
816.00
168.52
307.20
241.55
210.48
233.08
410.82
153.62
283.13
479.58
294.16
190.28
585.77
401.79
1095.21
392.59
397.84
182.27
1844.44
362.97
247.08
307.70
151.50
328.93
1224.89
304.01
570.33
321.39
532.82
357.02
692.63
4
19-117-23 32 0015
19-117-23 23 0064
19-117-23 23 0108
24-117-24 14 0061
19-117-23 23 0159
24-117-24 41 0198
19-117-23 24 0024
19-117-23 24 0031
19-117-23 24 0048
19-117-23 32 0033
19-117-23 32 0031
24-117-24 41 0192
24-117-24 41 0042
24-117-24 41 0176
24-117-24 41 0087
24-117-24 41 0032
19-117-23 32 0195
19-117-23 32 0204
19-117-23 31 0096
19-117-23 31 0101
19-117-23 32 0076
19-117-23 32 0077
19-117-23 32 0082
24-117-24 41 0162
19-117-23 31 0128
19-117-23 34 0100
19-117-23 34 0064
19-117-23 34 0099
25-117-24 21 0043
19-117-23 33 0172
19-117-23 33 0026
19-117-23 33 0051
25-117-24 11 0068
24-117-24 44 0051
24-117-24 43 0034
24-117-24 43 0079
24-117-24 43 0047
19-117-23 32 0210
24-117-24 44 0022
24-117-24 44 0021
19-117-23 34 0122
19-117-23 34 0044
19-117-23 34 0043
19-117-23 33 0010
19-117-23 33 0235
19-117-23 33 0232
19-117-23 33 0041
149.30
1565.95
1563.32
273.92
540.59
1454.74
1017.95
139.32
726.44
339.89
388.84
129.00
385.95
512.95
524.22
563.57
242.64
1652.95
601.07
342.26
461.32
548.82
372.56
324.17
531.32
171.41
2025.70
133.86
202.11
300.76
342.67
535.80
1559.19
242.54
397.09
291.23
364.63
347.30
323.42
367.39
323.11
405.76
515.82
302.39
496.07
228.30
315.98
5
19-117-23 33 0129
19-117-23 33 0179
24-117-24 44 0041
24-117-24 44 0187
24-117-24 44 0035
24-117-24 44 0061
24-117-24 44 O111
24-117-24 44 0182
24-117-24 44 0188
24-117-24 44 0028
24-117-24 44 0073
24-117-24 44 0027
24-117-24 41 0097
24-117-24 41 0182
24-117-24 41 0084
24-117-24 41 0102
24-117-24 42 0007
24-117-24 43 0019
24-117-24 44 0171
24-117-24 43 0017
24-117-24 41 0175
25-117-24 12 0125
25-117-24 21 0114
25-117-24 21 0029
25-117-24 21 0029
19-117-23 33 0033
30-117-23 22 0034
30-117-23 22 0036
25-117-24 12 0244
25-117-24 12 0200
25-117-24 11 0070
25-117-24 11 0023
30-117-23 21 0001
30-117-23 21 0007
30-117-23 22 0048
25-117-24 11 0035
25-117-24 11 0043
25-117-24 11 0116
25-117-24 11 0115
25-117-24 21 0011
25-117-24 21 O114
25-117-24 12 0134
25-117-24-21 0007
25-117-24 21 0077
25-117-24 21 0080
19-117-23 32 0142
13-117-24 32 0091
432.26
254.65
797.32
878.26
183.10
300.02
1593.07
310.51
227.89
248.03
350.67
364.67
236.79
187.58
205.98
294.89
1859.94
1555.20
432.36
552.26
227.04
165.21
360.71
493.81
468.81
324.03
333.26
226.39
235.51
243.90
1636.07
392.77
373.01
378.84
160.15
254.43
292.80
142.78
136.75
151.27
568.69
398.89
497.96
208.84
1556.58
163.28
985.93
13-117-24 33 0073 342.85
14-117-24 44 0038 155.53
14-117-24 44 0036 443.53
13-117-24 33 0047 337.60
13-117-24 33 0057 179.69
13-117-24 34 0044 406.49
13-117-24 33 0014 188.66
UNPAID TREE REMOVAL BILL: AMOUNT TO BE SPREAD OVER 1 YEAR
19-117-23 31 0138 718.88
UNPAID GARBAGE REMOVAL BILL: AMOUNT TO BE SPREAD OVER 1 YEAR
13-117-24 440041 98.63
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 429.011 to 429.110, all property lying within the above
described limits and benefiting therefrom is proposed to be assessed. The proposed assessment
is on file for public inspection at the City Clerk's office. Written or oral objections will be
considered at the hearing, but the Council may consider any objections to the amount of the
proposed individual assessments at an adjourned meeting upon such further notice to the affected
property owners as it deems advisable.
An owner may appeal an assessment to District Court pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section
429.081 by serving notice of the appeal upon the Mayor or City Clerk of the City within 30 days
after the adoption of the assessment and filing such notice with the District Court within ten days
after service upon the Mayor or City Clerk.
No such appeal as to the amount of an assessment as to a specific parcel of land may be made
unless the owner has either filed a signed written objection to that assessment with the City
Clerk prior to the hearing or has presented the written objection to the presiding officer at the
hearing.
The City Council has adopted, pursuant to the authority granted by Minnesota Statutes 435.193
to 435.195, a resolution (#89-77) containing standards and guidelines for deferring the
assessments for senior citizens for whom it would be a hardship to make the payments on
homestead property. The standards and guidelines are on file with the City Clerk for your
inspection.
Francene C. Clark,
Publish in The Laker Septembrer 25, 1999.
CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
PROPOSED ASSESSMENT:
CBD PARKING MAINTENANCE - 1999-2000
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin
County, Minnesota will meet in the City Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Rd., at 7:30 P.M.
on October 12, 1999, to hear, consider and pass on all written and oral objections, if any, to the
proposed assessment. The general nature of the improvements to be assessed are as follows:
CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT PARKING MAINTENANCE - 1999-2000 Area
within the following boundaries proposed to be assessed:
Belmont Lane on the East
Lynwood Boulevard to the North
700 feet West of Commerce Boulevard
700 feet South of Shoreline Drive
Total Cost to be Assessed
$2,522.75
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 429.011 to 429.110, all property lying within the above
described limits and benefiting therefrom is proposed to be assessed. The proposed assessment
is on file for public inspection at the City Clerk's office. Written or oral objections will be
considered at the heating, but the Council may consider any objections to the amount of the
proposed individual assessments at an adjourned meeting upon such further notice to the affected
property owners as it deems advisable.
An owner may appeal an assessment to District Court pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section
429.081 by serving notice of the appeal upon the Mayor or City Clerk of the City within 30 days
after the adoption of the assessment and filing such notice with the District Court within ten days
after service upon the Mayor or City Clerk.
No such appeal as to the amount of an assessment as to a specific parcel of land may be made
unless the owner has either filed a signed written objection to that assessment with the City
Clerk prior to the heating or has presented the written objection to the presiding officer at the
hearing.
The City Council has adopted, pursuant to the authority granted by Minnesota Statutes 435.193
to 435.195, a resolution (#89-77) containing standards and guidelines for deferring the
assessments for senior citizens for whom it would be a hardship to make the payments on
homestead property. The standards and guidelines are on file with the City Clerk for your
inspection.
Publish in The Laker September 25, 1999.
Fran Clark, CMC
City Clerk
CITY OF MOUND
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON
SUPPLEMENTAL ASSESSMENT
FOR TIdE NORWOOD LANE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
NOTICE, is hereby given that the City Council of the City of Mound will meet in the City
Hall Council Chambers, at 5341 Maywood Road at 7:30 P.M. on Tuesday, october 12,
1999, to consider a Supplemental Assessment for the Norwood Lane Improvement Project
Norwood Lane between Shoreline Drive (County Road 15) and Bartlett Blvd., pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes, Sections 429.01 ! to 429.111. The area proposed to be supplementally
assessed for such improvement is both sides of Norwood Lane between Shoreline Drive
(County Road 15) and Bartlett Blvd. The cost of this supplemental assessment is $7,000.
Such persons as desire to be heard with reference to the proposed improvement will be heard
at this meeting.
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 429.011 to 429.110, all property lying within the above
described limits and benefiting therefrom is proposed to be assessed. The proposed assessment
is on file for public inspection at the City Clerk's office. Written or oral objections will be
considered at the hearing, but the Council may consider any objections to the amount of the
proposed individual assessments at an adjourned meeting upon such further notice to'the affected
property owners as it deems advisable.
An owner may appeal an assessment to District Court pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section
429.081 by serving notice of the appeal upon the Mayor or City Clerk of the City within 30 days
after the adoption of the assessment and filing such notice with the District Court within ten days
after service upon the Mayor or City Clerk.
No such appeal as to the amount of an assessment as to a specific parcel of land may be made
unless the owner has either filed a signed written objection to that assessment with the City
Clerk prior to the hearing or has presented the written objection to the presiding officer at the
hearing.
The City Council has adopted, pursuant to the authority granted by Minnesota Statutes 435.193
to 435.195, a resolution (//89-77) containing standards and guidelines for deferring the
assessments for senior citizens for whom it would be a hardship to make the payments on
homestead property. The standards and guidelines are on file with the City Clerk for your
inspection.
Publish in The Laker - September 25, 1999
Mailed Notice on September 13, 1999
Fran Clark, CMC
City Clerk
October 12, 1999
PROPOSED RESOLUTION # 99-
RESOLUTION TO DENY A MINOR SUBDIVISION TO CREATE TWO (2) PARCELS
FROM THE EXISTING PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6033 CHERRYWOOD ROAD,
BLOCK 8, LOTS 8-20-21-22, THE HIGHLANDS,
PID # 23-117-24 34 0011
P & Z CASE# 99-35
61610
WHEREAS, the applicant, Richard Lillehei, has requested a Minor Subdivision
to create two (2) parcels from an existing lot of record at 6033 Cherrywood Road; and,
WHEREAS, an existing dwelling is located on lots 21 and 22 which is
accessed from Cherrywood Road; and,
WHEREAS, the south half of the lot is considered bluff, the top of which is
approximately at the 988 feet contour; and,
WHEREAS, as proposed, the property would be split into two lots. Lot 1 would
be the existing home and Lot 2 would be for the proposed home; and,
WHEREAS, both lots meet all lot area, width, and setback requirements for the
R-lA zoning district; and,
WHEREAS, driveway access is proposed from Cherrywood because the
Shoreline Management Ordinance does not allow a driveway on the south half of the lot;
and,
WHEREAS, the driveway would serve both homes would be shared and a
cross easement access would need to be secured to allow Parcel A access across
Parcel B; and,
WHEREAS, the Staff and the Planning Commission have reviewed the request
and recommended that the Council deny the variance as requested by the applicant;
and,
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Mound, Minnesota, as follows:
1. The City does hereby deny the variance as recommended by the Planning
Commission based on the following findings of fact:
The proposed Parcel A does not, have frontage on Cherrywood
Road resulting in the use of a shared driveway that presents
less than ideal access to the existing home because of the
proposed location of the new home.
October '~ 2, 1999
Minor Subdivision
6033 Cherrywood Rd- Lillehei
Page 2
b. The proposed home location does not allow for adequate
setback from the bluff top for a deck or patio.
c. The minor subdivision does not incorporate good planning
practice for the division of land.
This Minor Subdivision is denied for the following legally described property
as stated in the Hennepin County Property Information System:
LOTS 8, 20-22, BLOCK 8, THE HIGHLANDS, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA.
RECEIVED
MOUND ?LI NNtNG & INSP..
6776 100th Street, S.W.
Howard Lake, MN 55349
Mr. Loren Gordon,
Mr. Jon Sutherland, &
Related Staff
City of Mound
5341Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364-1687
Dear Mr. Gordon, Mr. Sutherland, & Related Staff:
I am writing on behalf of my proposed minor subdivision at
6033 Cherrywood Road, Mound, Minnesota.
At the September 13, 1999, Planning Commission Meeting, the Mound
City Staff recommended approval of this minor subdivision. At
that time, the Planning Commission chose to table the issue until
September 27, 1999. On September 27, 1999, Staff again recommended
approval and the Planning Commission recommended denial.
Subsequently, I am requesting the opportunity to present my case
at the City Council Meeting on October 12, 1999. I do not wish to
be placed on the Consent Agenda.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
MINUTES
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1999
Those present: Chair Geoff Michael. Commissioners: Orv Burma, Jerry Clapsaddle,
Cklair Hasse, Michael Mueller, Frank Weiland. Absent and excused: Commissioner
Becky Glister, Bill Voss, Council Liaison Bob Brown, and Building Official Jon
Sutherland. Staff present: City Planner Loren Gordon and Secretary Sue McCulloch.
The following public were present: Richard Lillehei, Todd Robinett, and Dan Parks from
McCombs, Frank, Roos Associates, Inc.
Chair Michael called the meeting to order at 7:31 p.m.
MINUTES - APPROVAL OF THE SEPTEMBER 13, 1999 MINUTES OF THE
PLANNING COMM'ISSION MEETING.
MOTION by Hasse, seconded by Weiland, to accept the September 13,
1999, Planning Commission meeting minutes as submitted. MOTION
CARRIED:
6-0.
Chair Michael welcomed the public to the meeting.
BOARD OF APPEALS:
CASE # 99-35: MINOR SUBDIVISION; TO CREATE TVVO (2) PARCELS FROM
EXISTING ONE; BLOCK 8, LOTS 8-20-21-22, THE HIGHLANDS; 6033
CHERRYVVOOD ROAD; RICHARD LILLEHEI, 61610. PID# 23-117-24 34 0011.
Gordon stated at the September 13th Planning Commission meeting there was some
uncertainty about the actual bluff line as it related to the existing home on Parcel A. The
questions asked were:
1. If the subdivision goes through, will it create a variance on Parcel A for the bluff
setback?
2. Can an owner on Parcel A, after a subdivision, build further into the bluff without
requiring a bluff variance?
3. If the new plan handed out tonight does show a bluff line for deliberation?
4. How will a driveway be added to Parcel A?
Gordon stated the bluff line runs through the property at the 988 feet contour. This
means the existing residence is in the bluff and is nonconforming according to
Mound Planning Commission Minutes - September 27, 1999
Shoreline Management. The subdivision does not create a nonconforming situation.
Any work proposed to the home today or after a subdivision would require a variance.
The driveway to serve both homes will be shared and a cross easement access will
need to be secured to allow Parcel A access across Parcel B. It does not appear there
are any other options to get access to Parcel A at this time. Staff would not allow a
driveway from Ridgewood for either parcel.
Weiland expressed concern about the width of the property where the driveway
currently exists and there is a width of approximately 45 feet on Cherrywood Road.
Weiland asked what the regulations are for the property at the road. Gordon stated 40
feet is the R-lA and the lot width is 45 feet so the property is wide enough. Gordon
stated there is no set standard. Gordon also stated the width of the driveway is
adequate for staff according to code.
Gordon stated to compensate for Parcel A having an access, the applicant has put
together an access easement to allow Parcel A cross the easement and provide for
perpetuity. Gordon stated if the applicant did not have this easement then Parcel B
could not have street access.
Mueller stated concern regarding the bluff line and how it is defined. There was
discussion by Gordon and Mueller regarding bluff zoning. Mueller stated it appeared
the bluff line is not stated accurately on the survey but according to Gordon the bluff is
at the 988 contour for most of Parcel A, maintaining a 30 percent average slope as
required by the code.
Weiland expressed concern for a driveway on Parcel A. Gordon stated at some point in
the future a driveway access may exist, but currently there is only access through
Parcel B for Parcel A.
Gordon stated with no access the address is the same for Parcel A and Parcel B when
the subdivision occurs. Gordon stated because this is a flag lot, this is acceptable
according to city code, which again according to Gordon, may be a deficiency in the
code.
Mueller stated again if each Parcel would get frontage on the driveway side by dividing
the current driveway down the center, this would allow a private access for both parcels
and a place for mailboxes for both Parcels.
Mueller stated concern that the only buildable site as it exists touches all the setbacks
causing no permit required for deck or patio additions on Parcel B and thus causing the
bluff to be impacted.
Mound Planning Commission Minutes - September 27, 1999
Mueller stated it would appear Parcel B may not be able to have a deck when the
subdivision occurs and he does not want to put this burden onto any new owner of the
property. Mueller also stated he does not want to permit building on the bluff zone.
Mr. Lillehei stated he is requesting a subdivision of the property tonight and not any
other permits that may be foreseeable along the way.
Mueller demonstrated on the overhead diagram the hardcover percentage and it
appeared to him Parcel B was over the required hardcover by the City of Mound.
Mueller has a concern the surveyor did not calculate hardcover properly.
Mr. Lillehei stated he is positive Parcel B complies with the hardcover requirement
according to the City of Mound because the surveyor he hired is very reliable and
professional and has performed in the City of Mound for 35 years.
Chair Michael stated a man with 35 years of experience should have depicted a more
accurate survey for the Planning Commission. Chair Michael also stated if the
surveyor's figures are not accurate on Parcel B, then how can there be any assurance
of accuracy on Parcel A. Furthermore, the surveyor is already off on the bluff so it
certainly would be possible the hardcover calculation could be in error.
Mr. Lillehei stressed that the parcel in question is not limiting in any way to a new owner
and it would make a nice place for building a smaller range home.
Clapsaddle stated the City has a duty to the residents of Mound to make sure when
property is divided it does not create a variance from the start.
Mueller stated precedence is being set tonight. He stated the lot was originally a flag
lot. He also stated it does not seem to be a wise choice to make a subdivision of this
type on a ridge top for future possibilities all throughout the island with flag lots in the
City of Mound. Although, Mueller stated there appears to be no legal reason why the
applicant cannot do this subdivision.
Mueller stated another concern with having a shared access driveway. Mueller has
taken note of other shared driveways which are placed so close to the building itself
and over time, there are falling basements because residents are driving so close to the
house.
Gordon stated if the subdivision is approved, the followi[~g conditions should become a
part of the approval according to him and staff:
A final grading and drainage plan to be approved by the City Engineer at time of
building permit application.
3
Mound Planning Commission Minutes - September 27. 1999
Provide drainage and utility easements along all new lot lines, five feet wide on
side lot lines and ten feet in width along both street sides.
Provide access easements over the driveway area of Parcel B running in favor of
Parcel A.
The water service for Parcel B either be installed or some type of financial
guarantee provided, such as cash escrows or performance bond.
Accurately indicate the bluff line on the survey of record and the granting of a
variance to the required bluff setback.
Gordon stated for a minor subdivision there would be a 10-foot setback on Parcel B.
Gordon then stated for a major subdivision there would be a 30-foot setback. Mueller
expressed concern over the setbacks noted by Gordon.
MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Chair Michael, to recommend denial of
the minor subdivision as submitted.
Discussion
Mueller stated the driveway hardcover calculations need to be taken into consideration
with regard to this motion. He stated a strong concern the hardcover is figured
incorrectly for Parcel B for the proposed driveway and dwelling.
Clapsaddle stated the hardcover is about 3,300 square feet of hardcover, which would
be under the 4,100 square feet that would allow it to be more than one-third. The
hardcover according to Clapsaddle appears to be under the 30 percent mark, but he did
not instill much confidence in the plan to date.
The vote was 4-2 with Mueller and Clapsaddle voting against. Motion
carried.
Chair Michael stated this matter will be heard by City Council on October 12, 1999, and
recommended to Mr. Lillehei to be in attendance.
Mueller stated he voted against this subdivision because it does not look like a good
subdivision from a planning perspective even though the code does not make the City
deny it legally. Mueller would prefer a conservation easement over the bluff area
including a 10 foot setback so structures would not be built when a permit is not
required. The survey showed the proposed expansion and the proposed dwelling, and
if Council accepts this subdivision they cannot deny a new owner the building of a
house having no decks and patios. He recommends the Council review fully the
terminology with proposed dwelling on the survey and determine if it does not have a
deck as laid out.
Mound Planning Commission Minutes - September 27. 1999
Clapsaddle stated it is not a good plan, it does not serve the land well, but he does not
see anything in the City's code that says the City cannot deny this subdivision.
Mr. Lillehei stated he is not breaking the rules of the City of Mound and stated there are
many shared driveways all through the City of Mound.
Memorandum
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
gin
TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff
FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP
DATE: September 21, 1999
SUBJECT: Lillehei Minor Subdivision - 6033 Cherrywood Road
At the September 13~ Planning Commission meeting there was some uncertainty about the actual
bluff line as it related to the existing home on parcel A. The questions that were asked were:
1. If the subdivision goes through, will it create a variance on Parcel A for the bluff setback?
2. Can an owner on Parcel A after a subdivision build further into the bluff without
requiring a bluff variance?
3. If the new plan handed out tonight does show a bluff line for deliberation?
4. How will a driveway be added to Parcel A?
Staff has determined that the bluff line runs through the property at the 988 feet contour. This
would mean that the existing residence is in the bluff and is nonconforming according to
Shoreland Management. The subdivision does not create a nonconforming situation. Any work
proposed to the home today or after subdivision would require a variance. The driveway to serve
both homes will be shared and a cross easement access will need to be secured to allow parcel A
access across parcel B. It doesn't appear there are any other options to get access to parcel A at
this time. Staff would not allow a driveway from Ridgewood for either parcel.
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax(612) 338-6838
KELLY LAW OFFICES
Established 1948
MARK W. KELLY
WILLIAM F. KELLY (1922-1995)
October 8, 1999
351 SECOND STREET
EXCELSIOR, MINNESOTA 55331
(612) 474-5977
FAX 474-9575
Mayor and Council Members
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
Re:
Application of Richard Lillehei for Minor Residential Subdivision
Pursuant to Mound City Code, Section 330:20, Sub~L 1
Real Property Locrrted at 6033 Che,-,-~wood Road, Mound, MN
~Legally Described as Block 8, Lot 8-20-21, the Highlands
Prol~erty Tax ID No. 23-117-24-34-0011
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
I represent Richard Lillehei. Mr. Lillehei has submitted an Application for
Minor Residential Subdivision of the above described property. The Planning
Commission has had an opportunity to review the matter. That process
allowed the City to clarify issues regarding bluff line, implied variances, and
available building pads for the lot to be created.
For the record, my client submits this summary of facts and law. We believe
that on review of the facts and law surrounding this application will verify that
approval of the residential minor subdivision will not constitute the grant of a
variance, the application meets the City Code, and Mr. Lillehei is entitled to
approval of the subdivision as a matter of law. Reasonable conditions on the
common driveway easement agreement, dedicated drainage and utility
easements, and perhaps a restrictive covenant against expansion of the
existing home into the bluff setback are anticipated.
Facts:
Land Description - The existing lot is comprised of 36,001 square feet. It has
an existing home with a 1,633 square foot print and ancillary hard surfacing of
2,373 square feet - total hard cover is 11.1%. The property has frontage on
both Cherrywood Road and Ridgewood Road, however, Shoreland Management
regulations bar access from Ridgewood Road and protect encroachment into
KELLY LAW OFFICES
-2-
the Bluff area (the southerly 40% of the entire parcel).
As proposed, the easterly third of the lot, including all of the frontage on
Cherrywood Road would be severed from the existing lot to create an additional
parcel. The existing home would continue to be served by the existing driveway
subject to a shared access easement.
As proposed, this Residential Minor Subdivision will create two conforming lots
under the R-lA zoning district.
In particular, the proposed lots meet or exceed the R1-A zoning district code
minimums. In particular, lot area for the new parcel will be 13,817 square feet
with 22,194 square feet left in the remnant with the existing home. This
compares with a 6,000 square foot Code minimum. The 40-foot minimum lot
width is met with a 46-foot lot width at the setback line; 45 feet at the street.
The existing dwelling will have 15.1 and 23.7-foot side yards respectively and
the new home will conform to or exceed the 10-foot side yard requirement.
The existing and proposed buildings will have, at a minimum, 110-foot rear
yard setbacks, substantially greater than the 15-foot minimum.
The proposed building pad for the new lot will be outside the 10-foot bluff
impact zone. No variance to the bluff impact zone is requested or necessary
(this assumes top of bluff at the 988 contour and not an earlier supposition
that top of bluff was at 973.5 ASL).
When divided, both lots will exceed minimum lot depth of 80 feet and the
structures thereon either as presently built or planned will exceed the 840
square foot area minimums.
When the new lot is built upon, total hard cover is expected to be
approximately 25%, 5% less than code permits.
Purpose of lq-lA Zone - The City Code advises that the R1-A District of Mound
is an area where the historical platting practice of small lots calls for relaxation
of development standards for remodeling and construction of infill residential
(Section 350:625, Subd. 1). Thus the City Code acknowledge that this
developed area will see extensive remodeling in the future, and more
importantly, open space will be used for infill residential construction such as
presently under consideration.
Essential Character of the Locality - Examination of the area will show that
existing dwellings either side of the proposed building pad on the new lot will
KELLY LAW OFFICES
-3-
not be adversely affected by construction of a new home. In fact, the proposed
building pad coincides with the existing building setback lines of neighboring
properties. The use will complement and conform with present uses in the
neighborhood. The essential character of the locality will, therefore, not be
altered.
Minor Residential Subdivision Standards - Under the City subdivision
ordinance, a minor residential subdivision must conform to the following:
1. Have frontage on existing public road;
2. Not require construction of new public facilities or public improvements;
3. Have no adverse affect on remaining or adjoining property; and
Have no conflict with Comprehensive Plans, Zoning Ordinance, or official
map. (No need for variances.)
City Staff Recommended Approval - The City staff has reviewed this application
and September 13, 1999, did recommend to the Planning Commission their
approval of the minor subdivision as requested. The staff has commented that
the driveway to serve the homes would be shared and a cross easement access
agreement would be needed. They did not object to the use of such an
easement in fact the definition of "private streets" in your platting and
subdivision regulations anticipate use of easements. Certainly, a driveway to
accommodate these two homes would not be overburdened by traffic generated
from the homes. It should be recognized that there is not a request to create a
new curb cut or add a driveway, rather, the existing driveway will be shared.
No Comprehensive Plan/Zoning Ordinance Conflicts - The approval of this
subdivision will not result in conflicts with the City Comprehensive Plan,
Zoning Ordinance, or official map. The City staff has not identified any
conflicts with the City codes. The applicant, however, wishes to acknowledge
that the Planning Commission did inquire regarding the non-conforming
location of the existing residence. In particular, that residence encroaches on
the bluff setback. It is an existing non-conforming structure. It is not,
however, an existing non-conforming use. The use of the property for
residential purposes is entirely code compliant. The City would have every
reason to prohibit further expansion of the existing home into the bluff impact
zone.
KELLY LAW OFFICES
-4-
To answer these concerns the applicant recommends that there be a covenant
recorded against the property placing future owners of the existing house on
notice that it may not be expanded bluff ward and that the property is
otherwise subject to the regulations of the City code and Shoreland
Management Regulation. A similar covenant could be imposed on the new
Parcel. It should be observed, however, that the proposed building pad of the
new site does not, and will not, encroach on top of bluff setback and that City
staff is already empowered to impose building precautions to insure that the
bluff is not disturbed, erosion is controlled, and cut and fill is contained to the
permitted areas.
Grant of Platting will not Create a Variance to Existing Property - Because the
existing house is a non-conforming structure under the Shoreland
Management Ordinance, it having existed prior to the adoption of that
ordinance and having been built into the now-defined bluff impact zone, it is
an existing non-conforming use. The subdivision of the lot will not create a
new non-conformity. In fact, the remnant lot for the existing house will meet
all of the requirements of the City code in terms of use, area and setback with
the exception of the top of bluff encroachment which is beyond remedy at this
time. Therefore it is not legally necessary for the applicant to make application
for a variance for the existing house position. It is also not a reasonable or
legally justifiable condition of plat approval.
A future owner of the existing home is not at liberty to expand the structure
into the bluff impact zone. Building codes and Shoreland Management
regulations will prohibit such encroachment.
Summary:
The applicant requests that the City Council acknowledge the plat application
is Code compliant. Moreover, that the plat is 'residential infill'; a type of
development anticipated and welcome in the R-lA District under City Code.
The plat meets the requirements of Mound City Code, Section 330:20, Subd. iA
insofar as it has adequate existing frontage on a public road, will not require
construction of new public facilities, will have no adverse affect on remaining or
adjoining property, and there is no conflict with the City Comprehensive Plan,
Zoning Ordinance, or Official map.
-5-
The applicant stands ready to prepare and record a common access driveway
easement meeting City approval as well as restrictive covenants placing future
owners on notice that they may not expand or disturb the bluff impact zone if
so directed.
The applicant looks fol~vard to your approval of the plat application.
Respectfully submitted,
Mark W. Kelly
Attorney for Richard LilIehei, Applicant
MWK/tas
MINUTES
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 1999
Those present: Chair Geoff Michael. Commissioners: Orv Burma, Becky Glister, Cklair
Hasse, Bill Voss, Frank Weiland. Council Liaison: Bob Brown. Absent and excused:
Commissioners Jerry Clapsaddle and Michael Mueller. Staff present: City Planner
Loren Gordon, Building Official Jori Suthedand and Secretary Sue McCulloch.
The following public were present: David Babler, Michele R. Berglund, Cathy Boyland,
Danny C. Hill, John Hughes, Richard Lillehei, Jim Olson, Dale Pixler, Tom Stokes, and
Pam Weatherhead.
Chair Michael called the meeting to order at 7:34 p.m.
BOARD OF APPEALS:
CASE # 99-35: MINOR SUBDIVISION; TO CREATE TWO (2) PARCELS FROM
EXISTING ONE; BLOCK 8, LOTS 8-20-21-22, THE HIGHLANDS; 6033
CHERRYWOOD ROAD; RICHARD LILLEHEI, 61610. PID# 23-117-24 34 0011.
Gordon presented the case. The applicant submitted a request for a minor subdivision
to create one additional lot from an existing lot of record. The property consists of Lots
20, 21 and 22, Block 8 of the Highlands with a total lot area of over 22,000 square feet.
An existing dwelling is located on Lots 21 and 22 which is accessed from Cherrywood
Road. The south half of the lot is considered bluff, the top of which is approximately at
the 988 feet contour.
As proposed, the property would be split into two lots. Lot 1 would be the existing home
and Lot 2 would be for the proposed home. Because of the bluff on the south half of the
property, access must occur from Cherrywood. The applicant proposed a cross access
easement to secure access to Lot 1. Both Lots would meet all lot area, width, and
setback requirements for the R-lA District.
Although the proposal meets bulk requirements, it is essentially a flag lot. The lot
configuration and home placement does maintain a good relationship with existing
setbacks along Ridgewood Road. Driveway access needs to occur from Cherrywood
because the Shoreline Management ordinance will not allow a driveway on the south
half of the lot.
The applicant revised his plans to address the City's Engineer concern regarding the
bluff setback. The City Engineer did have a concern with the applicant's bluff
Mound Planning Commission Minutes - September 13, 1999
delineation and therefore the applicant revised his plan to be consistent with the
engineer's interpretation of the location of the bluff.
Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the minor
subdivision as requested.
Gordon stated if it could be recognized up front the work that needs to be done that is
going to impact the bluff, it seems very similar to trying to keep the setback. The house
is built back already into the slope.
Burma stated it would have to be stated somewhere if this 10 foot setback exists on
parcel A and if a house was built, it would have to include the setback.
Voss stated if the property does not get subdivided, Parcel B is conforming and Parcel
A is nonconforming according to the bluff line. Voss stated that the City has never
allowed a variance to be created and in this case the variance is already there for
Parcel B.
Gordon stated anything can be built on the property to date. If it gets subdivided then a
variance would be needed for Parcel A.
Sutherland stated a person could not build anything on the bluff setback according to
Shoreline Management.
Gordon stated the setbacks apply to the subdividing property.
Sutherland stated if an individual came to build on the south side, the new addition
would have to be conforming to the current code including the bluff setback.
Gordon stated again that a house can be built on the bluff side, if subdivided.
Brown stated that if we let the applicant put a house on Parcel B, this now would make
Parcel A nonconforming. Thus, anything further done on this property would have to
be approved by the City because it is already a nonconforming parcel.
Burma stated that again we have never recommended approval if it created a
nonconforming situation. Burma is wondering how we can recommend approval of this
situation because of code. Burma stated that the city should deal with what is at issue
now and not make problems in the future for the owners of the future Parcel A.
Sutherland stated that the bluff line on Parcel A is really an existing nonconforming
situation and generally intersects the house. Basically this will not change anything on
Parcel A and he does not want to create any nonconformities.
Mound Planning Commission Minutes - September 13. 1999
Burma had legal concerns regarding the building of the property further down the road.
He would like the following questions answered before he feels he can adequately
make a decision regarding this case:
If the subdivision goes through, will it create a variance on Parcel A for the bluff
setback?
Can an owner on Parcel A after a subdivision build further into the bluff without
requiring a bluff variance?
If the new plan handed out tonight does show a bluff line for deliberation?
4. How will a driveway be added to Parcel A?
MOTION by Burma, seconded by Voss, to table this case until September
27, 1999, so the above questions can be properly addressed by staff.
MOTION CARRIED: 7-0.
Gordon stated after hearing these questions he can answer the above questions
tonight.
Burma stated since there were inconsistencies with Gordon and Sutherland, he does
not want to pass the above case.
Brown stated the house is going about 988 for the bluff line on the plans that were
handed out tonight. The first drawing which was the original before tonight showed the
bluff line 979 and then it goes down to 973.5. Brown would like to know which is the
correct bluff line. Brown stated that if the configurations above are correct then Parcel
A should be the conforming one and Parcel B should be nonconforming.
Mr. Lillehei, the applicant, stated that the bluff line was decided by figuring from any
slope at the top that was 30 percent or greater. He stated there is an average slope of
30 percent. The City Engineer stated that this was an average slope according to the
applicant and it was figured this way according to Mr. Parker, the applicant's attorney,
and the City Engineer because of the 30 percent average guidelines they followed.
Brown stated he would like staff to investigate the possibility of having Parcel A to be
nonconforming and have it stated in the resolution. Gordon stated this thought may be
possible.
Voss at this point in the discussion felt this matter had been tabled and further
discussion should be considered at a later date.
Burma again stated the three questions he addressed above have not been answered
in the best way possible and he also feels there is lacking agreement amongst the staff
to have an agreement.
Mound Planning Commission Minutes - September 13, 1999
Sutherland stated to Burma that he expressed his opinion but that Gordon's opinion
carries more weight.
Chair Michael stated to the applicant that if there was not a motion to table, he would
have voted to turn this case down. The City does not want to create a variance.
Weiland stated to Suthedand a concern about the possibility of putting in a driveway on
Parcel A. He stated if this is an R-1 zone and it is 60 feet, how many driveways can the
owner have off from the property.
Gordon stated both lots are conforming even though there is only one driveway.
Gordon restated that you cannot put a driveway in the bluff.
Weiland stated if there is anything in the code that allows Parcel B to become a legal
piece of property thus then leaving Parcel A without code for a driveway. At this point,
could Parcel B gets its driveway from Parcel A. Gordon stated that this is a good
thought and a good suggestion for planning.
Weiland stated that the City would be landlocking Parcel A. Gordon stated that the
code does allow this to occur.
Richard Lillehei, the applicant, stated he has been friends with the interested property
owners for several years. He assured everyone that Parcel B will not lose any trees
and he is very conscientious of this. The reason for the bluff line at a 30 percent
average is because of the trees. From the beginning, he has tried to conform to all of
the City's codes. He does want to get this conformed with as little impact on the
property as possible. He stated he would also consider granting the subdivision to put
the slope into a conversation easement. Therefore the owners could not add
construction of hard service to the property. He restated this is a very nice location with
very nice property.
PLANNING REPORT
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff
FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP
DATE: September 13, 1999
SUBJECT: Minor Subdivision
OWNER: Richard Lillehei
CASE NUMBER: 99-35
HKG FILE NUMBER: 99-5
LOCATION: 6033 Cherrywood Lane
ZONING: Residential District R- 1A
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential
BACKGROUND: The applicant has submitted a request for a minor subdivision to create one
additional lot from an existing lot of record. The property consists of lots 20, 21 and 22, Block 8
of the Highlands with a total lot area of over 22,000 square feet. An existing dwelling is located
on lots 21 and 22 which is accessed from Cherrywood Road. The south half of the lot is
considered bluff, the top of which is approximately at the 988 feet contour.
As proposed, the property would be split into two lots. Lot 1 would be the existing home and Lot
2 would be for the proposed home. Because of the bluff on the south half of the property, access
must occur from Cherrywood. The applicant is proposing a cross access easement to secure
access to lot 1. Both lots would meet all lot area, width, and setback requirements for the R-lA
District.
Although the proposal meets bulk requirements, it is essentially a flag lot. The lot configuration
and home placement does maintain a good relationship with existing setbacks along Ridgewood
Road. Driveway access needs to occur from Cherrywood because the Shoreland Management
ordinance will not allow a driveway on the south half of the lat.
The delineated bluff line appears to be incorrect. Staff has estimated the top of the bluff to extend
to the 988 feet contour. As shown, the bluff line does not meet the 25 feet elevation requirement.
This new bluff line and a 10 feet setback from the top, substantially impacts the proposed home
location. The existing home would also be in the bluff impact zone. It would appear that given
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
p. 2
#99 - 35 Lillehei Variance Request
September 13, 1999
this lot configuration a variance is needed to allow the request. Without a variance, the lot may
be difficult to subdivide without other variances.
Prior to the adoption of Shoreland Management, this subdivision request would probably be
acceptable. Many of the homes along Ridgewood are built in the bluff. With the enactment of the
Shoreland ordinance, sites like this become almost impossible to develop without variances. The
applicant has proceeded to this point, believing the surveyed bluff line was correct. Because staff
has determined it to be much higher, the applicant will be requesting a bluff setback variance.
The Commission has two choices.
1. Approve a bluff setback variance to allow the proposed home location. Condition the
approval on the conditions contained in the City Engineer's report.
2. Deny the bluff setback variance. This action probably makes the proposed lot configuration
unbuildable.
Staff would recommend not approving a bluff setback variance for this proposal.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council
deny the minor subdivision as requested based on the need for a bluff setback variance.
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
1
Engineering · Planning · Surveying
FRA
RECEIVED
SFP -7 1999
MOUND PLANNING & INSP.
ME M 0 R A ND UM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
September 3, 1999
Jon Sutherland, Planning and Zoning
John Cameron, City Engineer
City of Mound
The Highlands
Minor Subdivision - Lots 8, 20, 21, and 22, Block 8
Case No. 99-35
MFRA//12614
Comments
The survey submitted with the application shows a proposed dwelling for Parcel B, but
does not include any proposed elevations; therefore a final grading and drainage plan will
be required when application is made for a building permit.
This is one of the older plats in the City, which typically did not provide drainage
easements along the lot lines. Drainage easements should be required as part of the minor
subdivision.
3. The plan calls for a common driveway to serve both parcels. An easement will need to be
provided on Parcel B for access to Parcel A.
It appears from City utility records that a sanitary sewer service is in-place for Parcel B
from the main in Ridgewood Road; however there is no existing water service. A new
water service will need to be installed from the watermain in Ridgewood Road.
15050 23rd Avenue North · Plymouth, Minnesota · 55447
phone 612/476-6010 · fax 612/476-8532
e-mai/: mfra@mfra, corn
Jon Sutherland, Planning and Zoning
September 3, 1999
Page 2
o
I do not agree with the location shown for the top of bluff. Using the definition from the
City Code, it appears the bluff line should not be lower than the 988 contour. A second
opinion should be obtained from the Planner. If the 988 contour is the correct location of
the bluff line, the proposed house will not meet the required ten foot setback from the top
of bluff. The proposed dwelling could be shifted north somewhat without interfering with
the driveway to Parcel A, but not far enough to gain the distance needed to meet the ten
foot setback. It appears the only option other then denial of the minor subdivision is a
variance to the required setback.
We recommend the following conditions become a part of the subdivision approval:
1. Final grading and drainage plan to be approved by the City Engineer at time of building
permit application.
2. Provide drainage and utility easements along all new lot lines, five feet wide on side lot
lines and ten feet in width along both street sides.
3. Provide access easements over the driveway area of Parcel B running in favor of Parcel
A.
4. The water service for Parcel B either be installed or some type of financial guarantee
provided, such as cash escrow or performance bond.
5. Accurately indicate the bluff line on the survey of record and the granting of a variance to
the required bluff setback.
cc: Loren Gordon, Hoisington Koegler Group
sgxnain:'~12614\sutherlandg-3
Rev. 12-30-98
qanning Commission Date:
City Council Date: q
Application for
MINOR SUBDIVISION OF LAND
City of Mound, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620
Case No.
- ("~ ~-,} '(~ Application Fee:
Distribution:
~:~/-~ ~ City Planner DNR
~ ~-] ~ Public Works Other
/C~- ~L] -(~ City Engineer 8-~,"]-c~ ~ /~¢--~t
Escrow Deposit:
Deficient Unit Charges?
Delinquent Taxes?
VARIANCE REQUIRED?
$1,000
Please type or print the following information:
PROPERTY Subject Address
ZONING
DISTRICT Circle: R-1 R-2 R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3
APPLICANT
\/
The applicant is: ,~. owner other:
Address
Phone (H) (W)
(M)
OWNER Name
(if other than
applicant) Address
Phone (H) (W) (M)
Name ~ //''~ ,~ ~+ ~ / ~1 t, .~ ~ /
ENGINEER Address '~/ ~ ~ ~ > / "'~ '/ ~ /~'~' /~'~ ' '~'/~'' ~ /
/~ / .'~ ,~ ,,
Phone (H) (W) '(M)
Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this prope~? ( ) yes, ( )
no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions·
This appfication must be signed bi( all owners of the subject property, or an explanation given why this is not the case.
Owner's Signature Date
Owner's Signature Date
CITY OF MOUND
HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS
(IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE)
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
OWNER'S NAME:
LOT AREA ") "bi ;-~ "~ "-'-'
:.- .. ~ SQ. Fr. X 30% = (for all lots) .............. I /-~/-~'~ [
LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 40% = (for Lots of Record*) ....... I I
LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only)
*Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques-are utilized, as
outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted
and approved by the Building Official.
HOUSE
DETACHED BLDGS
(GARAGE/SHED)
DRIVEWAY, PARKING
AREAS, SIDEWALKS,
ETC.
DECKS Open decks {1/4" min.
opening between boards) with a
pervious surface under are
not counted as hardcover
OTHER
LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT
TOTAL HOUSE .........................
TOTAL D~ACHED BLDGS .................
TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC ..................
X =
X
X =
TOTAL DECK ..........................
X =
X =
TOTAL OTHER .........................
TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
UNDER / OVER (indicate difference) ...............................
PREPARED BY ~.C, ',J £:". ''" ~ ' ' ;' ')" '~
.',, :...,,_~.. ,~,... ? ~,/ x./,, ; ~ DATE
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
OWNER'S NAME:
LOT AREA ~ . ~ ,'
LOT AREA
LOT AREA
CITY OF MOUND
HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS
{IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE)
~~,) , , , ,,
SQ. FT. X :30% =
SQ. FT. X 40%
SQ. FT. X 15%
{for all lots) ..............
= (for Lots of Record*) .......
= (for detached buildings only)
*Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as
outtined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted
and approved by the Building Official.
HOUSE
DETACHED BLDGS
GARAGE/SHED)
DRIVEWAY, PARKING
AREAS, SIDEWALKS,
ETC.
LENGTH WIDTH
DECKS Open decks (1/4" min.
opening between boards) with a
pervious surface under ara
not counted as hardcover
OTHER
SQFT
TOTAL HOUSE .........................
X =
X
TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS .................
X
X
X
TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC ..................
X =
X =
X =
TOTAL DECK ..........................
X =
X =
TOTAL OTHER .........................
TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
UNDER / OVER (indicate difference) ...............................
" ' ' '~/ ' '~/' "~ i~' ' ~ '"~' \' ' Y' "'
PREPARED BY -~'"" :./ .. .... _~ r- ~.. V'"~:, ~., ~ DATE
R~v. 12-30-98
Planning Commission Date:
City Council Date: q
Application for
/)
MINOR SUBDIVISION OF LAND t~.-~ ~,_/-/-~
City of Mound, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 . ~'" ~,~
Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 4~c I (~ V~
- ' Case No. ~x,~
- ~"~ P~) '(~ Application Fee: $75.00
Distribution:
Escrow Deposit: $1,000
.~._.~,~-~ City Planner
/'i, Public Works
o~.-I-Ci~ City Engineer
Deficient Unit Charges?
Delinquent Taxes?
VARIANCE REQUIRED?
Please type or print the following information:
DESCRIPTION Subdivision
ZONING ~
DISTRICT Circie: R-1 . R-2 R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3
APPLICANT
The applicant is: ,,~.owner . other:
' '
Name ~-',--i ~,' !/~ "~ ~ ~ ,~
Phone (H)
OWNER Name
(if other than
applicant) Address
Phone (H) (W) (M)
..-r-', ,..~ /' " ', ,4
~ ' ,;~,,.:,.~...,;,!,~,,,, ;..., , /
SURVEYOR]..-.
ENGINEER Address '-/
Phone (H) (W) t / '(M)
Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, ( }
no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions.
This application must be signed b~ all owners of the subject property, or an explanation given why this is not the case.
- ..A:. ,
/Owner's Signature Date
Owner's Signature Date
· ~ (lTl
'5~' o~
'~.-~ E' .~ ~=~:
~.~ ~ o=~_ .~ -=~ o = ~,'~
--
978,5
972.2
LO~ T:LOOR ~
BENCHMARK:
lOP OF HYDRAN!
945.84
NLW CRUSH[O ROOK
95O
GRAPHIC SCALE
CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFOPJ~ATION SHEET
R3
YARD~ I DIRECTION I
ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH:
REQUTRED
10,000/60 Bi ?,500/0
6,000/4"~"~2 20,000/80
6,00U/aU B3 10,000/60
14,000/BO
SEE ORD. I1 30,000/100
EX]STING/PROPOSED
llOUSE .........
FRONT E w /'
SIDE
SIDE N S E(~.~
LAKE N S E W ,~'~
TOP OF BLUFF /10'OR 30'
EXISTING LOT SIZE:
LOI WIDTH:
LOT DEPTH:
VARIANCE
GARAGE, SIIED ..... OR OTHER DETACHED BUILDINOS
SIDE
s,oE
REAR ~/ E w 4'
TOP OF BLUFF ~ ~ ~10' R 30'
HARDCOVER
This Zoning' Infurmation Sheet only summarizns a portion of the requiremen't~outlined in the
City of Mound Zoning Ordinance. For further information, contact the City of Mound
TO:
FROM:
RE:
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
GINO BUSINARO, FINANCE DIRECTOR
SEPTEMBER FINANCE DEPARTMENT
REPORT
Investment Activity
Balance:
· September 1, 1999· '~, ' ~' '~ . ~ ~.i ~ .... *' $4,016,702
Bought:
Money Market
Money Market
CP
CP
CP
4M Plus 82,278
USBank 333,541
USBank 5.895% 549,005
USBank 5.376.% 430,686
USBank 5.894.% 431,431
Matured:
Money Market
Money Market
CP
CP
CP
4M Plus
USBank (336,122)
USBank 5.23.% (519,050)
USBank 4.217.% (300,339)
USBank 5.176.% (849,044)
Balance:
$3,839,088
Employees Health Insurance Benefits
Collette Roberts, our payroll clerk, and I have attended the Logis Heath Care
Group annual meeting on Employees Health Insurance Benefits.
Some major changes will be made in 2000 and the overall cost will increase considerably.
Meetings will be held on October 18, 1999 in Mound City Hall to explain the new options
and the financial impact of any change.
Government Finance Officer Association Annual Conference
The Government Finance Officer Association Annual Conference was held in
Alexandria on September 21- 24. As usual it was well attended, the presentations
were excellent, and it offered an ideal opportunity to share information with fellow
Finance Directors. Thanks to all of you for allowing me to attqnd.
Accounts PayablelAccountinq Clerk
Sue Schwalbe was selected to fill the full time position of Accounts Payable/Accounting
Clerk. She comes to us with many years of experience in accounts payable,
some governmental experience, and two years of training with the Hennepin County
Technology School in Brooklyn Park.
'DRAFT
MINUTES
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1999
Those present: Chair Geoff Michael. Commissioners: Orv Burma, Jerry Clapsaddle,
Cklair Hasse, Michael Mueller, Frank Weiland. Absent and excused: Commissioner
Becky Glister, Bill Voss, Council Liaison Bob Brown, and Building Official Jon
Sutherland. Staff present: City Planner Loren Gordon and Secretary Sue McCulloch.
The following public were present: Richard Lillehei, Todd Robinett, and Dan Parks from
McCombs, Frank, Roos Associates, Inc.
Chair Michael called the meeting to order at 7:31 p.m.
MINUTES -APPROVAL OF THE SEPTEMBER 13, 1999 MINUTES OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.
MOTION by Hasse, seconded by Weiland, to accept the September 13,
1999, Planning Commission meeting minutes as submitted. MOTION
CARRIED:
6-0.
Chair Michael welcomed the public to the meeting.
BOARD OF APPEALS:
CASE # 99-35: MINOR SUBDIVISION; TO CREATE TWO (2) PARCELS FROM
EXISTING ONE; BLOCK 8, LOTS 8-20-21-22, THE HIGHLANDS; 6033
CHERRYVVOOD ROAD; RICHARD LILLEHEI, 61610. PID# 23-117-24 34 0011.
Gordon stated at the September 13th Planning Commission meeting there was some
uncertainty about the actual bluff line as it related to the existing home on Parcel A. The
questions asked were:
1. If the subdivision goes through, will it create a variance on Parcel A for the bluff
setback?
2. Can an owner on Parcel A, after a subdivision, build further into the bluff without
requiring a bluff variance?
3. If the new plan handed out tonight does show a bluff line for deliberation?
4. How will a driveway be added to Parcel A?
Gordon stated the bluff line runs through the property at the 988 feet contour. This
means the existing residence is in the bluff and is nonconforming according to
Mound Planning Commission Minutes - September 27. 1999
Shoreline Management. The subdivision does not create a nonconforming situation.
Any work proposed to the home today or after a subdivision would require a variance.
The driveway to serve both homes will be shared and a cross easement access will
need to be secured to allow Parcel A access across Parcel B. It does not appear there
are any other options to get access to Parcel A at this time. Staff would not allow a
driveway from Ridgewood for either parcel.
Weiland expressed concern about the width of the property where the driveway
currently exists and there is a width of approximately 45 feet on Cherrywood Road.
Weiland asked what the regulations are for the property at the road. Gordon stated 40
feet is the R-lA and the lot width is 45 feet so the property is wide enough. Gordon
stated there is no set standard. Gordon also stated the width of the driveway is
adequate for staff according to code.
Gordon stated to compensate for Parcel A having an access, the applicant has put
together an access easement to allow Parcel A cross the easement and provide for
perpetuity. Gordon stated if the applicant did not have this easement then Parcel B
could not have street access.
Mueller stated concern regarding the bluff line and how it is defined. There was
discussion by Gordon and Mueller regarding bluff zoning. Mueller stated it appeared
the bluff line is not stated accurately on the survey but according to Gordon the bluff is
at the 988 contour for most of Parcel A, maintaining a 30 percent average slope as
required by the code.
Weiland expressed concern for a driveway on Parcel A. Gordon stated at some point in
the future a driveway access may exist, but currently there is only access through
Parcel B for Parcel A.
Gordon stated with no access the address is the same for Parcel A and Parcel B when
the subdivision occurs. Gordon stated because this is a flag lot, this is acceptable
according to city code, which again according to Gordon, may be a deficiency in the
code.
Mueller stated again if each Parcel would get frontage on the driveway side by dividing
the current driveway down the center, this would allow a private access for both parcels
and a place for mailboxes for both Parcels.
Mueller stated concern that the only buildable site as it exists touches all the setbacks
causing no permit required for deck or patio additions on Parcel B and thus causing the
bluff to be impacted.
2
Mound Planning Commission Minutes - September 27, 1999
Mueller stated it would appear Parcel B may not be able to have a deck when the
subdivision occurs and he does not want to put this burden onto any new owner of the
property. Mueller also stated he does not want to permit building on the bluff zone.
Mr. Lillehei stated he is requesting a subdivision of the property tonight and not any
other permits that may be foreseeable along the way.
Mueller demonstrated on the overhead diagram the hardcover percentage and it
appeared to him Parcel B was over the required hardcover by the City of Mound.
Mueller has a concern the surveyor did not calculate hardcover properly.
Mr. Lillehei stated he is positive Parcel B complies with the hardcover requirement
according to the City of Mound because the surveyor he hired is very reliable and
professional and has performed in the City of Mound for 35 years.
Chair Michael stated a man with 35 years of experience should have depicted a more
accurate survey for the Planning Commission. Chair Michael also stated if the
surveyor's figures are not accurate on Parcel B, then how can there be any assurance
of accuracy on Parcel A. Furthermore, the surveyor is already off on the bluff so it
certainly would be possible the hardcover calculation could be in error.
Mr. Lillehei stressed that the parcel in question is not limiting in any way to a new owner
and it would make a nice place for building a smaller range home.
Clapsaddle stated the City has a duty to the residents of Mound to make sure when
property is divided it does not create a variance from the start.
Mueller stated precedence is being set tonight. He stated the lot was originally a flag
lot. He also stated it does not seem to be a wise choice to make a subdivision of this
type on a ridge top for future possibilities all throughout the island with flag lots in the
City of Mound. Although, Mueller stated there appears to be no legal reason why the
applicant cannot do this subdivision.
Mueller stated another concern with having a shared access driveway. Mueller has
taken note of other shared driveways which are placed so close to the building itself
and over time, there are falling basements because residents are driving so close to the
house.
Gordon stated if the subdivision is approved, the followi[~g conditions should become a
part of the approval according to him and staff:
A final grading and drainage plan to be approved by the City Engineer at time of
building permit application.
3
Mound Planning Commission Minutes - September 27. 1999
Provide drainage and utility easements along all new lot lines, five feet wide on
side lot lines and ten feet in width along both street sides.
Provide access easements over the driveway area of Parcel B running in favor of
Parcel A.
4. The water service for Parcel B either be installed or some type of financial
guarantee provided, such as cash escrows or performance bond.
5. Accurately indicate the bluff line on the survey of record and the granting of a
variance to the required bluff setback.
Gordon stated for a minor subdivision there would be a 10-foot setback on Parcel B.
Gordon then stated for a major subdivision there would be a 30-foot setback. Mueller
expressed concern over the setbacks noted by Gordon.
MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Chair Michael, to recommend denial of
the minor subdivision as submitted.
Discussion
Mueller stated the driveway hardcover calculations need to be taken into consideration
with regard to this motion. He stated a strong concern the hardcover is figured
incorrectly for Parcel B for the proposed driveway and dwelling.
Clapsaddle stated the hardcover is about 3,300 square feet of hardcover, which would
be under the 4,100 square feet that would allow it to be more than one-third. The
hardcover according to Clapsaddle appears to be under the 30 percent mark, but he did
not instill much confidence in the plan to date.
The vote was 4-2 with Mueller and Clapsaddle voting against. Motion
carried.
Chair Michael stated this matter will be heard by City Council on October 12, 1999, and
recommended to Mr. Lillehei to be in attendance.
Mueller stated he voted against this subdivision because it does not look like a good
subdivision from a planning perspective even though the code does not make the City
deny it legally. Mueller would prefer a conservation easement over the bluff area
including a 10 foot setback so structures would not be b~ilt when a permit is not
required. The survey showed the proposed expansion and the proposed dwelling, and
if Council accepts this subdivision they cannot deny a new owner the building of a
house having no decks and patios. He recommends the Council review fully the
terminology with proposed dwelling on the survey and determine if it does not have a
deck as laid out.
4
Mound Planning Commission Minutes - September 27, 1999
Clapsaddle stated it is not a good plan, it does not serve the land well, but he does not
see anything in the City's code that says the City cannot deny this subdivision.
Mr. Lillehei stated he is not breaking the rules of the City of Mound and stated there are
many shared driveways all through the City of Mound.
DISCUSSION
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT. DAN PARKS FROM
MCCOMBS, FRANK, ROOS ASSOCIATES, INC. TO PRESENT.
Gordon introduced Dan Parks. Dan Parks thanked the Planning Commission for
inviting him to speak tonight. Mr. Parks handed out an outline of tonight's discussion
and the Minnesota Rules of Chapter 8410.
Mr. Parks stated he started the Surface Water Management Plan last fall. He stated as
the project proceeds, he would meet the needs of the City of Mound. Mr. Parks then
demonstrated his knowledge by stating his years of education and credentials.
Mr. Parks stated the purpose of the Surface Water Management Plan and discussed its
relationship to the Comprehensive Plan. He stated 1982 the state required all
watersheds to have a plan and the 1982 law stated the basis for all first generation
water district plans.
Mr. Parks stated the Chapter 8410 Rules are specific requirements to what the City of
Mound needs in their plan and what the watershed district requires. He stated a
second-generation plan is now being put together for approval and adaptation on a
state level. At this point, all cities will need a plan at the local level. By in large, most
cities are not in compliance with the law to date. Mr. Parks stated the Surface Water
Management Plan has been set out for the City of Mound and will be a Plan that allows
the City of Mound to be in compliance with the state.
Mr. Parks stated when plan is complete; it will be submitted to the watershed district.
After about 60 days of reviewing, the district will go through negotiations and will decide
whether to approve the plan.
Mr. Parks stated cities in general have a Plan of this type because it gives permitting
privileges to the cities. So many cities want to control their own destiny of how the
water is controlled by the city and, thus, this control will ~ffect the land usage issues
that arise. In the past most cities want to get as much authority back from the
watershed district as possible.
Mound Planning Commission Minutes - September 27. 1999
Mr. Parks stated the City of Mound needs to establish goals and policies they want
implemented into the Plan. He is aware of the wetlands in the City of Mound and stated
there should be a section in the Plan that addresses this area specifically.
Mr. Parks stated the City of Mound would also need to search out the problems within
the City and set up corrective action for the problems.
Mr. Parks stated after the above items have been accomplished the ideas will start
being implemented into a program and there will then have to be decisions by the City
regarding how the Plan will be financed.
Mr. Parks then stated when the Plan has been agreed upon there may be amendments
to the Plan and then the final draft could be put into the Comprehensive Plan for
adoption.
Mr. Parks did address some issues and challenges for the City of Mound which may
need considering. These would include current stormwater discharges into
waterbodies, wetland identification and protection by the City, wetland buffers and
setbacks, downtown development and surface water impacts, capital improvements
and funding, and maintaining who wants the greater responsibility for implementing this
Plan.
Mr. Parks stated the stormwater discharges may be challenging for the City of Mound
because the City of Mound is already developed and no more ponds can be
established.
Mr. Parks briefly mentioned the Chapter 8410 rules and at a later date and time these
may be gone through more thoroughly if there is a need.
Mr. Parks stated his goal is to put together a Plan that will improve the water resources
now available in the City of Mound.
Mueller stated he we would like to refer to this document as the Water Management
Plan (WMP) for future reference.
Mueller asked if this Plan is mandated by a higher government authority than we are to
implement this Plan or does the City of Mound just need a Plan made available to them.
Mueller stated if the City of Mound had some time before the Plan was to be finished, it
could be gone through carefully and correctly to guaranty the City of Mound does not
rush into anything with future ramifications.
Mr. Parks stated currently there are only about four or fives cities that have done a
Plan. The Met Council is not stopping any city from doing its normal business and if
there is a project in the works, that will buy the City some grace. Mr. Parks stated the
Mound Planning Commission Minutes - September 27, 1999
Plan probably needs to come sooner than later but having a proposed Plan in place will
be beneficial to the City of Mound.
Mr. Parks stated there are additional responsibilities the City of Mound could take over
from developers, such as ponding issues, but in order to follow through with this idea,
there will need to be standards implemented by the City of Mound and approved by the
watershed district.
Mr. Parks stated the WMP will give authority to the City of Mound to accomplish more
tasks on their own, but there will also be consequences if the City does not do what is
stated in the Plan.
Mueller stated he would like a section in the Plan to address the flood plain and to have
the calculations for the City of Mound to be formulated specifically for the City of
Mound. Mr. Parks stated there is now a scientific method of recording flood plain.
Mr. Parks stated if the City of Mound's WMP has such a contrast to what the watershed
district is looking for, then the watershed district may choose not to put the City of
Mound's Plan into action. Mr. Parks also stated there will be issues of watershed,
prosperous, and flood plain that will cause friction with the watershed district. He stated
the City of Mound does need a Plan that is overly restrictive.
Clapsaddle stated if the City of Mound is not looking at the WMP correctly, then the City
would appreciate being corrected and shown the direction they should be going. Mr.
Parks stated he would like the City to start making things better for itself and he hopes
to aid in this process.
Chair Michael asked if this WMP has been discussed with the Open Space Department
of the City of Mound and Mr. Parks stated he has not discussed it with them at this
time.
Weiland asked to be excused at 8:50 p.m.
Mueller stated that the Planning Commission has good knowledge of the City of Mound
and wants to be assured Mr. Parks will have the Planning Commission's help in any
way possible during this procedure. With all the knowledge available on the
Commission, it should be utilized to the best of its ability.
Mr. Parks stated he will appreciate the assistance from the Planning Commission and
he is certain he will need assistance with what lives at tl~e wetlands and other questions
of that nature regarding the wetlands. Mr. Parks also stated the City can assist by
establishing the goals and policies of the City of Mound. He stated the City of Mound
should make certain these policies make sense and if they do not, the policies should
be changed. Mr. Parks will need information from the City of Mound regarding their
Mound Planning Commission Minutes - September 27, 1999
water quality and quantity. He will need assistance concerning problems that currently
exist and he will be searching for this information from the staff and the city engineer.
Mueller stated he appreciates the gutters from other cities stating the direction they flow
and into what body of water they flow into.
Mueller stated he would like to know what the City of Mound can do to assist him in the
WMP.
Mr. Parks stated he appreciates the method the City of Mound is using by first getting
together a good watershed plan and then implementing it into its Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Parks stated he would like the goals and policies section to be reviewed with each
section and also find out if there are problems in the City and what the
recommendations would be.
Burma asked if state law mandates the City of Mound to get a Plan together, but does
not necessarily need approval of it. Burma did suggest that the Met Council may
require the Plan to be approved if the state does not and Mr. Parks stated this may be a
possibility. Mr. Parks stated again that he believes the above comment may be true but
is not sure at this time because can anybody "make you have a plan."
Clapsaddle asked if implementing the WMP into the Comprehensive Plan would cause
the Comprehensive Plan a need to be reviewed again even though it has been finalized
previous to the WMP. Mr. Parks stated if there is discussion that resulted from the
WMP being implemented into the Comprehensive Plan, then the City will deal with that
when it happens. Mr. Parks stated there are already hardcover issues near Lake
Langdon that may need addressing.
Gordon stated if the WMP was completed after the rest of the Comprehensive Plan was
finished, then Met Council could hold off its final approval of the Plan until the WMP
was finalized. Gordon stated some communities do not have a Plan and probably
would hold off until the Comprehensive Plan is done or, in the alternative, some cities
approve the Comprehensive Plan and then approve it again after the WMP has been
implemented.
Gordon stated the City Council wanted the Planning Commission's review of the WMP
to be completed by the second week of October.
Mr. Parks stated that the WMP is about 70 percent completed. He stated the
framework for meeting the requirements of the 8410 rul~s is complete. The section that
is not complete is the implementation section.
Mueller stated he understands the best way the Planning Commission can now assist in
the WMP is by understanding and discussing the goals and policies section of each
report in the WMP. After discussions have been made by the Planning Commission
8
Mound Planning Commission Minutes - September 27, 1999
members, Mr. Parks could assist by implementing the changes into the WMP. Mr.
Parks stated he would attend a portion of these round table meetings if the Planning
Commission saw a need.
Mueller, Clapsaddle and Hasse stated they would like to be on a subcommittee to
discuss the WMP in more detail. Mueller stated he would call those commissioners not
present tonight to see if they are interested in being on the subcommittee also. Mr.
Parks agreed a subcommittee at this time would be appropriate.
Gordon stated the first meeting in October the final draft of the Comprehensive Plan will
be reviewed, probably absent a WMP section.
INFORMATION
There was no information distributed tonight.
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Burma, to adjourn the meeting. MOTION
CARRIED: 5-0.
Chair Michael adjourned the meeting at 9:43 p.m.
9
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 9, 1999
Present were: Commissioners Peter Meyer, Norman Domholt, Tom Casey, John Beise,
Christina Cooper; and City Council Representative Leah Weycker. Also present were Park
Director Jim Fackler, and Secretary Kristine Kitzman.
1. APPROVAL OF THE AUGUST 12, 1999 POSC MINUTES
Motion made by Casey, seconded by Beise to approve the minutes of the
August 12, 1999 Park and Open Space Commission (POSC) meeting, as
presented. Motion carried unanimously.
2. AGENDA CHANGES
The agenda was approved with the following amendments:
1. Add 2A: Public Comments: Community Center Playfields
2. Discuss item 5. Review: Registry Program in October
3. Discuss item 6. Review: Letter to organizations requesting donations in October
2A. PUBLIC COMMENTS: COMMUNITY CENTER PLAYFIELDS
Following is a list of citizens who signed in to speak, and wished their presence to be a
matter of record:
Ralph Bauer t774 Heron Ln.
Matt Wood 2745 Kelly Ave.
Kurt Krotzer 3153 Donald Dr.
Cart Cook 2038 Bellaire Ln.
Robert W. Jones 5858 Elm Rd.
Phyllis Evans 5920 Sunset Rd.
Cklair Hasse 6627 Bartlett Blvd.
Carol Perkhio 5748 Elm Rd.
Shirley Andersen 2210 Southview
Garrett Shroy 2943 Oaklawn Rd.
Sue Cathers 3008 Highview Ln.
Exra Bisson 5777 Sunset Rd.
Gregory Metz 5718 Elm Rd.
Josh Nelson 2923 Dickens Ln.
Carol Hammer 5972 Hillcrest Rd.
Gary Pettis 6200 Cr. Rd. 26
Linda Shamseth 5648 Alder Rd.
Ray Saydelavong 2913 Devon Ln.
Kyle Krotzer 3153 Donald Dr.
Bev Botko 2149 Cardinal Ln.
Becky & Aaron Thorpe 2132
Michelle Clark 2124
Jennifer & Tim Loberg 5818
Cathi & Joey Peterson 5732
Walter & Jane Carlsen 5782
Robert & Betty Gore 5789
Mark Hanus 4446
Bob & Madeline Strei 2056
Greg & Lynn Severson 5636
Jay Petersen 2667
Nancy & Heather Heilman 5824
Pat, Sheila & Tom Murphy 2044
Ronnie Henke 2333
Daniel McDonald 4695
Dean & Ed Ehlebracht 4873
Shayne Bosma 4428
Bill & Klm Gabby 5764
Fred & Jeanette Mertz 1601
Marshall Anderson
Peter Daasonen
Klm Anderson
Grandview Ct.
Grandview Ct.
Lynwood Blvd.
Elm Rd.
Elm Rd.
Elm Rd.
Denbigh Rd.
Bellaire Ln.
Alder Rd.
Halstead Ln.
Lynwood Blvd.
Bellaire Ln.
Fernside Ln.
Lagoon Dr.
Shoreline Dr.
Lamberton Rd.
Lynwood Blvd.
Bluebird Ln.
5736 Lynwood Blvd.
4825 Cumberland Rd.
5136 Lynwood Blvd.
Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission September 9, 1999
Discussion and comments: '~"'
....
Councilmember Weycker introduced herself and reiterated that the Park Commission is
only advisory, and any comments will be forwarded to the City Council. Weycker then gave
a brief history of the intended plans for the site, and how it came to be purchased by a
developer.
Chair Meyer opened the Public Hearing at 7:35 p.m.
Mr. Carl Cook, 2038 Bellaire Lane, expressed concern about losing this open area. He
stated he would like to keep the fields open, if possible. He then asked why the plans for
the area are being kept secret.
Councilmember Weycker stressed that the developer has stated he does not have plans
for the property as yet.
Commissioner Casey asked the general public to address the issue of whether they would
be in favor of a bond referendum to fund purchase of the land.
Phyllis Evans, 5920 Sunset Road, stated that area has always been used for sports, and
would expect the City to keep it as such. There are a lot of things that could be done on
that land, and it should be a place for the kids.
Dave Lobby, 6000 Aspen Road, stated he feels the City messed up in not obtaining the
land. The land should be kept for what it is used for now, at least the open space areas.
Nancy Heiiman, 5824 Lynwood, stated her family moved into their house because of the
view of this area, and would not like to see it changed.
Exra Bisson, 5777 Sunset Road, was upset that the City would allow a park land to be sold
with no idea what it will be used for. Mr. Reesen stated he would be strongly opposed to
any type of development there.
Councilmember Weycker pointed out that the City did not sell the land, the School Board
made that decision.
Bill Gabby, 5764 Lynwood, stated this is a good green space and a tremendous asset to
the community that cannot be gotten back once gone. He suggested that Eminent Domain
seems to be a fair idea to keep this green space.
Matt Wood, 2745 Kelly Avenue, stated he is extremely Li~aset that the football field will be
lost since the City of Mound needs to have a home field.
Kurt krotzer, 3153 Donald Drive, stated that the kids need a place to play. A lot of green
space has been lost in the last 9 years. Mr. Krotzer stated he believes the School District
erred in selling this land. He noted there wouldn't be a City or School District if citizens
2
Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission September 9, 1999
didn't stay and raise their kids here and both of these entities should work together for a
vision for the kids.
Walter Carlsen, 5782 Elm, stated the fields are always used, year around. The space is
needed for the kids.
Kristen Treptaw, 5792 Lynwood, stated concern about selling the property without knowing
what's coming in. She stated if it's commercial or retail, the streets around there can't
handle the additional congestion. She stated she would hope to keep the area as a park.
Rob Jones, 5758 Elm Road, stated he has really enjoyed having the sports there. He
commented that the School Board had to get rid of the space and building, but he feels the
City missed the opportunity to keep the open space. Mr. Jones stated all the kids in the
community need the area and any future tax dollars this space will bring in would not be
worth the loss.
Sheila Murphy, 2844 Bellaire Lane, stated that 218 kids have signed up for soccer, and to
play on those fields. Many other sports are there also. She suggested the City bid Iow,
and the School District insisted on taking the highest bid. Ms. Murphy commented that
both of these entities do not seem to be community oriented.
Bruce Jones, 5820 Glenwood Boulevard, questioned the use of property that is located
right in downtown Mound, but claims it is used very little. He stated the current use of the
property as playfields is a waste of property, as they are so little used.
Gary Pettis, 6200 Co. Rd. 26, Minnetrista, stated there is not another area in the
community for kids to go play, and they may end up on the street. This is not
advancement to the community. He stated he feels the City should declare Eminent
Domain, as the future of the kids is at stake. Mr. Pettis stated no matter how much of the
time it is used, it needs to be available in order for the kids to have a choice.
Bob Gobe, 5709 Elm Road, stated that he disagrees about the use; it is always used. All
the fields are used for more than one sport, and used year around. Mr. Gobe then
questioned what the land is now zoned.
Councilmember Weycker replied that there are now three separate zones. Some is zoned
commercial, some residential, and a third zone which she could not recall.
Sue Cathers, 3008 Highview Lane,
property as it is.
stated she would pay higher taxes to keep this
Carol Hammer, 5972 Hillcrest Road, stated she would like to see the space kept open
since there is not enough field space in Mound anyway. Also, it is a very safe place for
younger kids to watch sports, and spark interest in their future in sports. She noted the
fields are centrally located, so kids can get there. The current usage is exactly what it
should be, and once gone cannot be replaced.
3
Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission September 9, 1999
Greg Metz, 5718 Elm, stated that the fields are used very intensely, and grbat joy comes
out of the use of the fields. No development could provide that for the community. He
stated the playfields as they are now are a great asset to the community.
Bob Strei, 2056 Beliaire Lane, stated if a commercial development goes in there, all streets
and utilities would have to be redone. He stated that letting this green space go, and
selling land when there is no knowledge of it's ultimate use, does not fit with Mound
claiming they have a "vision" for the future.
Gary Shroy, 2943 Oaklawn, stated he had just moved here and is on the football team.
He stated he has noticed a lot of support is present, including people who already have
irreplaceable memories of the area, and people like himself, who are in the process of
making irreplaceable memories. He stated these are the people who care about the
property most, not the School Board. Also, the School Board is, with this action, actively
teaching the youth in the community that money is the most important thing...everything
is fine as long as you get the most money.
Dan McDonald, 4695 Lagoon Drive, stated that new lights just went up at the fields, the
football team got new uniforms, and now they have lost their field to play on. He stated this
does not seem like very sound thinking. The School Board has to decide what is more
important, the kids, or the checkbook.
Dean Ehlebracht, 4873 Shoreline, stated his whole life has been on that park. It is where
friends gather, young and old alike.
Ed Ehlebracht, 4873 Shoreline, stated he would like to see the field saved. He stated if the
developer comes to the City with commercial and residential plans, meeting all zoning
requirements, the City would have to approve the plans. He stated this has to be stopped
now, before it gets to that point. Mr. Ehlebracht then asked what can be done to save
these fields.
Jay Petersen, 2667 Halstead Lane, stated that the City Council could argue that the people
here could be representing a "not in my backyard" mentality. A survey needs to be done
with the City of Mound, and the whole School District as well.
Chair Meyer stated that the Park Commission is strongly behind preserving this green
space and the play fields.
Hearing no further public input, Chair Meyer closed the Public Hearing at 8:25
p.m.
Commissioner Casey asked for a show of hands from the public regarding who would be
opposed to the City using Eminent Domain to obtain the playfields. All present would be
in favor. Casey referendum to support acquisition of the playfields. All present would be
in favor. Casey then asked if any one present would not be willing to put in time to
campaign to keep the playfields. All present were in favor of doing this. Casey then stated
that it seems everyone is willing, and what is needed now is to organize.
4
Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission
September 9, 1999
Commissioner Domholt pointed out that if the developer has plans for large commercial
uses for the land, he may need the green space to fulfill the minimum required by
Ordinance, if the project had a lot of hardcover. In this case, he would not be willing to
separate the green space and playfields from the rest of the property.
General discussion followed between the public and the Commissioners on the process
of Eminent Domain, how to pay for the land, and how to organize to raise community
support. The purchase agreement was also discussed, and Commissioner Casey
suggested obtaining a copy to find out what contingencies are contained in it.
Councilmember Mark Hanus was in attendance and provided what information he could
on the subjects discussed..
Commissioner Casey questioned Mr. Petersen on how a survey could be done.
Mr. Petersen stated he has recently looked into independent survey companies and
believes it would cost approximately $1,000. He stated he will provide some company
names.
Councilmember Weycker suggested compiling all the information from this meeting and
present it to the City Council as soon as possible.
Discussion continued between the public and the Commissioners on how best to proceed.
The plan that emerged was, basically, to produce flyers which would detail the problem and
provide information. Two citizens volunteered to be co-chairs of a volunteer committee to
coordinate the effort to distribute flyers and gather signatures on petitions.
Motion made by Casey, seconded by Beise that the Park and Open Space
Commission recommend to the City Council allocation of funds for a
professional poll of citizen opinion on the purchase of the property in it's
entirety or partially. Motion carried unanimously.
3. REVIEW: DOWNTOWN CONCEPT OF GREENSPACE PLAN
Chair Meyer tabled the discussion at 10:00 p.m.
Motion made by Beise, seconded by Casey to continue the meeting for 30
minutes. Motion carried unanimously.
Thomas Whitlock RI_A, Hoisington Koegler Group Inc., pre. sented the project for downtown,
stating the conception drawings should be complete by the end of this month. Input from
the Park Commission is the goal at this meeting.
Commissioner Casey questioned the feasibility of having the medians serve as storm water
filtration.
Mr. Whitlock stated it is unlikely with the County regulations on road construction.
Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission September 9, 1999
Commissioner Casey expressed concern about the wide roadways, which m~y invite faster
traffic, and suggested narrowing roadways and planting trees in the median. "
Commissioner Beise pointed out that keeping curves in the roadway also helps to keep the
traffic slowed. ~
Commissioner Domholt suggested having electrical outlets along the area in case there
would be a fair or sidewalk sale of some kind. Also, the central green should be kept fairly
flat to be able to have a band or other entertainment there.
Mr. Whitlock stated he would like to come back to the next meeting to finalize all details.
Chair Meyer tabled the discussion at 10:30 p.m.
Motion made by Casey, seconded by Beise to continue the meeting for 30
minutes. Motion carried unanimously.
Park Director Fackler stated that the ideas are good, but funding needs to be in place for
maintenance, as the whole area is very high maintenance. He reminded the
Commissioners to remember the maintenance aspect when looking at the plans.
Counciimember Weycker asked what the walkways will be made of. If concrete,
skateboarders and in-line skaters will use it. She noted that accommodating them in a
specific area may keep them from using the whole area.. · -
Commissioner Casey pointed out that some wildlife issues also need to be discussed along
this area and some buffer area will be needed.
Mr. Whitlock explained the plan for these buffer areas, where native plants will be grown.
Commissioner Casey suggested moving the path closer to the parking lot, to lessen the
impact of the walking trail on the wetland's vegetation and wildlife, but not far enough to
lose the feel of being "in" the wetlands.
Consensus was reached that the plans were very good and Mr. Whitlock would note the
suggestions, bringing back the plans in more detail next month.
Chair Meyer tabled the discussion at 11:00 p.m.
Motion made by Beise, seconded by Meyer..to continue the meeting for 5
minutes. Motion carried unanimously.
4. REVIEW: ENCROACHMENT POLICY
Chair Meyer presented a letter from Building Official Sutherland stating that no additional
information is available at this time.
6
Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission September 9, 1999
Motion made by Casey, seconded by Weycker to request the BUilding Official
bring this information to the POSC next month, before going to the City
Council, in order to answer the questions put forth. Motion carried
unanimously.
REVIEW: REGISTRY PROGRAM
Agenda item moved to October.
6. REVIEW: LETTER TO ORGANIZATIONS REQUESTING DONATIONS
Agenda item moved to October.
7. POSC OCTOBER AGENDA
Some
items for the October POSC agenda are:
1. REVIEW: DOWNTOWN CONCEPT OF GREENSPACE PLAN
2. REVIEW: ENCROACHMENT POLICY
3. REVIEW: REGISTRY PROGRAM
4. REVIEW: LETTER TO ORGANIZATIONS REQUESTING DONATIONS
Item for the November POSC agenda:
1. DISCUSS: SWENSON PARK PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT
FOR YOUR INFORMATION:
a. DCAC Minutes
b. LMCD Information
c. Facets of Freshwater
9. REPORTS:
a. City Council Representative
Councilmember Weycker stated that the process of hiring a new City Manager has begun.
b. Park Director
Park Director Fackler stated that he is meeting with Mr. Whitlock on the 15th at 8:00 a.m,
regarding the plans, if any of the Commissioners would be able to join them.
Chair Meyer reported that some posts were installed at Crescent Park. He asked the
Commissioners if they would be in favor of planting trees, with the proceeds from March
for Parks, at Three Points Park this fall. All were in favor.
Motion made by Weycker, seconded by Beise to adjourn the meeting at 11:20
p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
7
CITY OF MOUND
DOCK AND COMMONS ADVISORY COMMISSION
September 16, 1999
Present were: Chair Jim Funk, Commissioners Frank Ahrens, Orvin Burma, Mark
Goldberg and Greg Eurich. Also present were Park Director Jim Fackler, Dock Inspector
Tom McCaffrey and Secretary Kristine Kitzman.
Absent and Excused: Council Representative Mark Hanus
Chair Funk called, the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
1. MINUTES
Motion was made by Burma, seconded by Ahrens, to approve the minutes of
the August 19, 1999 DCAC meeting as presented. Motion carried 5/0.
2. AGENDA CHANGES
Agenda approved as presented.
w
DISCUSS: MULTIPLE SLIP DOCK LOCATION AT WATERBURY, TWIN PARK
AND DEVON ACCESS
Chair Funk stated that the Commissioners had visited Waterbury and Twin Park sites
before this meeting.
Park Director Fackler reviewed the site information for the Waterbury access, including
a proposed "h" shaped dock, which would leave approximately 10 feet on either side,
which conforms to LMCD setbacks. Without this, there may be a setback problem,
Fackler would have to specifically measure to be sum.
Commissioner Goldberg stated that the next step would be to invite all involved parties
to discuss these sites.
Commissioner Burma stated he does not see the advantage to the proposed
configuration, which only accommodates the existing boats. There seems to be enough
room to add another boat to this dock, providing an additional dock site. Them am
other ways to configure this dock to that end.
Commissioner Ahrens stated that the 5 foot setback quoted by Fackler does not seem
right, as setbacks have always been much greater in the past.
Park Director Fackler stated that the 5 foot figure was quoted directly from the LMCD.
Also, an additional boat is possible, but that is a-decision of the Commission. He had
the configuration done to accommodate only the present number of boats at each site.
The problem may be that abutters may object to heightening the density in the area.
Commissioner Burma stated that is what setbacks are for. If an abutter wants a 15 foot
setback, and only 5 feet is required, they are certainly entitled to their feelings, but it
Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission August 19, 1999
must be considered also that there is a waiting list for people to get' into the dock
program so, in fairness, the City should use its available space to expand the program.
Commissioner Goldberg stated he is in favor of adding another space, and the abutters
may not object, as there would be only one dock, rather than three, and only a boat is
added.
Commissioner Burma supported making any density changes when the dock goes in,
so that the information presented is solid and non-changing.
Commissioner Ahrens requested the LMCD be contacted again, as he is very
uncomfortable with the 5 foot figure for a setback. Ahrens also stated he is not
comfortable adding more boats there, as he feels this is not the right area. He felt the
Twin Park access seems to be a better area for such an expansion.
Motion made by Burma, seconded by Funk, to direct staff to check into
configuring the docks at Waterbury and Twin Park access to accommodate
the maximum number of boats allowed, meeting all setbacks. Also to contact
the LMCD to double check on all setbacks for these areas. This information
to be discussed at the October DCAC Meeting. Motion carried unanimously.
4. DISCUSS: LOTTERY SYSTEM FOR DOCKS FOR THE YEAR 2000
Chair Funk summarized the draft he submitted for a dock lottery system.
Park Director Fackler suggested adding "submit fees" at the time the application is filled
out ....
Chair Funk brought up the question of how the drawings would be conducted to insure
there is no suspicion of unfair practices.
Park Director Fackler replied that the drawings could take place right at the scheduled
DCAC meeting.
General consensus was that this draft is very well done, and very well thought out. Staff
had some changes, and Chair Funk directed staff to modify the draft to incorporate these
changes and present the new draft at the October meeting.
DISCUSS: DCAC RESTATEMENT OF PRINCIPALS RELATING TO DOCK AND
COMMONS
Commissioner Goldberg presented the Mound DCAC Review of Principals and
suggested if any other Commissioners felt they needed updating, to revisit the basic
principals to make sure recent decisions are still in line with them.
2
Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission
August 19, 1999
Commissioner Ahrens stated these principals, as relating to multiple docks, have been
in front of the Commission very regularly, and have been adhered to well throughout the
year.
Commissioner Goldberg stated the principal he is more concerned with is the "degree
of voluntary transition." He suggested the issue of how hard to "push" in any given area
should probably be discussed before the Commission is in the middle of a Public
Hearing.
Commissioner Ahrens stated he believes at some times in the past, the DCAC has given
in too much.
Commissioner Goldberg stated that the issue needs discussion and suggested adding
it to an agenda soon..
Commissioner Ahrens brought up the issues of boat lifts, and boat sizes on multiple
docks, as issues which also need to be discussed and some decisions made and
actions taken.
Commissioner Burma suggested charging fees by the size of the slip, rather than limiting
the boat size across the board. This issu~ definitely needs to be revisited. Burma will
draft a proposal on a process of assigning boat sizes by slip, to present at the October
meeting.
Commissioner Goldberg questioned how many BSU's are still available, and how "maxed
out" the system is.
Park Director Fackler stated that Woodland Point is still in litigation, and once a decision
is made, it would affect the answer to that question.
Consensus was to wait to find out what happens at Woodland Point so the correct
situation can be studied.
Park Director Fackler asked if the multiple dock objectives should be updated.
Consensus was it should be reviewed, as some items listed have been completed and
can be removed. They can be reviewed by the Commissioners, and notes given to
Fackler to re-draft. The format could also be changed to refer to each area under
discussion, a use plan, and status of the individual project, as well as a summary of the
seven completed sites.
6. REVIEW: SURVEY ON MULTIPLE SLIP DOCK
Chair Funk summarized that people were, in general, satisfied. However, the in/out dates
seemed to be the only point of contention.
3
Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission August 19, 1999
Commissioner Burma stated he had heard no negatives on the out date for this year
from his neighborhood.
Chair Funk asked if there is a way the date could be guaranteed to be after a specific
date, or before a specific date for install.
Park Director Fackler stated they do try to give guarantees such as that, however since
it is so dependant on the weather, some leniency is necessary.
Jim Ostman, 2945 Island View Drive, addressed the Commission regarding the 24 foot
boat length rule. He has a 28 1/2 foot boat which is used quite a bit for overnight trips.
This size is necessary for his family's use. Mr. Ostman expressed his hope that at least
Avalon is a different situation, but he would hope that the whole system would be looked
at for different sized boats.
Chair Funk thanked Mr. Ostman for his comments, and assured him that this would be
on the agenda at the next meeting.
7. DISCUSS: OCTOBER DCAC AGENDA
To be
included on the October agenda are:
1. DISCUSS: MULTIPLE SLIP DOCK LOCATION AT WATERBURY, TWIN
PARK AND DEVON ACCESS
2. DISCUSS: LOTTERY SYSTEM FOR DOCKS FOR THE YEAR 2000
3. DISCUSS: MULTIPLE DOCK OBJECTIVES
"DEGREE OF VOLUNTARY TRANSITION"
BOAT SIZE LIMITATIONS
USE OF BOAT LIFTS
PERSONAL WATERCRAFT AT MULTIPLE DOCKS
4. DISCUSS: DEVON ACCESS
5. DISCUSS: DOCK FORMS
6. DISCUSS: 2000 DOCK LOCATION MAP CHANGES
8. PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT
FYI
A)
B)
C)
D)
LMCD INFORMATION
POSC MINUTES
MONTHLY EVENTS CALENDAR
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
KENMORE COMMON MEMO
9. REPORTS
A) .CITY COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE
4
Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission August 19, 1999
No report at this time.
B) PARK DIRECTOR
No report at this time.
C) DOCK INSPECTOR
No report at this time.
ADJOURN
Motion made by Ahrens, seconded by Goldberg, to adjourn the meeting at
9:45 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
10.
5
LEN HARRELL
Chief of Police
MOUND POLICE
5341 MaYwood Road
Mound, MN 55364
Telephone 472-0621
Dispatch 525-6210
Fax 472-0656
EMERGENCY 911
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Fran Clark
Chief Len Harrell
Monthly Report for September, 1999
STATISTICS
The police department responded to 1,270 calls for service during the
month of September. There were 28 Part I offenses reported. Those
offenses included 2 criminal sexual conduct, 5 burglary, 2 aggravated
assaults, and 19 larcenies.
There were 60 Part II offenses reported. Those offenses included 3 child
abuse/neglect, 12 criminal damage to property, 2 NSF checks, 4 narcotics,
4 liquor law violations, 3 DUI's, 7 simple assaults, 10 domestics (3 with
assaults), 1 harassment, and 14 other offenses.
The patrol division issued 71 hazardous and 54 non-hazardous citations.
Parking violations accounted for an additional 19 tickets. Warnings were
issued to 93 individuals for a variety of violations.
There was 2 juvenile arrested for felonies. There were 18 adults and 7
juveniles arrested for misdemeanors. There were 5 felony warrant arrests.
The department assisted in 7 vehicle accidents, 1 with injuries. There
were 35 medical emergencies and 71 animal complaints. Mound assisted
other agencies on 14 occasions in September and requested assistance 10
times.
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
MONTHLY REPORT - September, 1999
II.
III.
INVESTIGATIONS
The investigators worked on 5 child protection issues in September
accounting for 38 hours. Other cases included burglary, assault, narcotics,
damage to property, forgery, theft, NSF checks, absenting, counterfeiting,
and domestic abuse.
Formal complaints were issued for underage consumption, driving after
cancellation, derelict auto, exterior storage, fireworks, stagnant water, and
gross misdemeanor DWI cases.
Personnel/Staffing
The department used approximately 56 hours of overtime during the
month of September. Officers used 49 hours of comp-time, 102 hours of
vacation, and 10 holidays. Officers earned 45 hours of comp time.
Officer Donahue was hired by St. Paul Police and left in September.
Officers Bruckner and Burke were sworn in to fill the vacant police
positions. We are currently in the process of replacing a secretary position
and new Community Service Officer.
Two officers attended mandatory training through PTAC, one attended
EMT refresher, two attended Crime Scene Investigation, one attended an
Internal Investigation Refresher, one attended the Criminal Justice
Information Conference, and I attended the Emergency Managers Annual
Conference and Minnesota Chiefs Fall Conference.
V. COMMUNITY SERVICES OFFICERS
CSO Burke handled 318 contacts consisting of 38 animal complaints, 26
ordinance violations, and 250 miscellaneous calls for service; 4 citations
were issued.
VI. RESERVES
The reserves donated 163 hours of community service in the month of
September. The unit currently has eight members.
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
SEPTEMBER 1999
O~-~-~s~4SES CLEARED EXCEPT- (;:LF2%RF_.D BY AI~.E S TED
REPORTED UNFOUNDED CLEARED AP.D. EST ADULT JUV
PART I CRIMES
Homicide 0 0 0 0 0
Criminal Sexual Conduct Z 0 0 0 0
Robbery 0 0 0 0 0
Aggravated Assault 2 0 0 0 0
Burglary 5 0 0 0 0
Larceny 19 0 1 2 0
Vehicle Theft 0 0 0 0 0
Arson 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 28'
PART II CRIMES
0 I 2 0
Child Abuse/Neglect 3 1 0 1
Forgery/NSF Checks 2 0 2 1
Criminal Damage to Property 12 0 3 1
Weapons 0 0 0 0
Narcotic Laws 4 0 0 4
Liquor Laws 4 0 0 4
DWI 3 0 0 3
Simple Assault 7 0 0 0
Domestic Assault 3 0 0 1
Domestic (No Assault) 7 0 0 0
Harassment 1 0 1 0
Juvenile Status Offenses 5 0 0 4
Public Peace 4 0 3 1
Trespassing 0 0 0 0
All Other Offenses 5 0 0 4
0 1
1 0
1 0
0 0
4 0
3 1
3 0
0 0
1 0
0 0
0 0
0 4
i 0
0 0
4 1
TOTAL 60 I 9 24
18 7
PART II & PART IV
Property Damage Accidents 6
Personal Injury Accidents 1
Fatal Accidents 0
Medicals 35
Animal Complaints 71
Mutual Aid 14
Other General Investigations 1,025
TOTAL 1,152
HCCP 4
Inspections 26
TOTAL 1,270 1 10 26 18 9
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
CRIME ACTIVITY REPORT SEPTEMBER 1999
GENERAL ACTIVITY SUMMARY
THIS YEAR TO LAST YEAR
MONTH DATE TO DATE
Hazardous Citations 71
Non-Hazardous Citations 54
Hazardous Warnings 4
Non-Hazardous Warnings 46
Verbal Warnings 64
Parking Citations 19
DWI 3
Over .10 3
Property Damage Accidents 6
Personal Injury Accidents 1
Fatal Accidents 0
Adult Felony Arrests 5
Adult Misdemeanor Arrests 18
Juvenile Felony Arrests 2
Juvenile Misdemeanor Arrests 7
Part I Offenses 28
Part II Offenses 61
Medicals 35
Animal Complaints 71
Ordinance Violations 26
Other Public Contacts 1,025
657
392
150
481
711
261
34
31
60
22
0
19
200
18
69
170
404
268
539
246
7,514
482
402
143
371
714
280
54
35
66
27
0
19
306
51
158
285
585
264
513
335
7,395
TOTAL 1,549 12,246 12,485
Assists 68 494 483
Follow-Ups 36 347 634
HCCP 4 32 59
Mutual Aid Given 14 146 147
Mutal Aid Requested 10 57 54
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
SEPTEMBER 1999
WARNINGS
Insurance
Traffic
Equipment
Crosswalk
Animals
Trash/Derelict Autos
Seat Belt
Trespassing
Window Tint
Miscellaneous
TOTAL
WARRANT ARRESTS
Felony
Misdemeanor
Adult
23
19
12
0
0
11
0
0
0
17
82
Juveniles
6
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
11
Stolen Property Value Report
Type of Property
B
Bicycle
TOTAL: B
Office Equipment
Cellular Phone
TOTAL: Office Equipment
Y
TOTAL: Y
Mound Police
Incident. DateReported Between 08/26/99 09/25/99
~em$
3
3
1
1
Wednesday, October 06, 1999
DollarValue
435.00
435.00
100.00
100.00
270.00
270.00
OVERALL TOTAL...
805.00
Page: 1
I. EN HARRELL
Chief of Police
MOUND POLIC
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
Telephone 472-0621
Dispatch 525-6210
Fax 472-0656
EMERGENCY 911
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Fran Clark
Chief Len Harrell
Monthly Report for August, 1999
STATISTICS ~ ._ .--'"' ......... '-~..,.
The police department responded to 1,479/6alls for servtce durmg the
month of August. There were 31 Part I off'ns/es reported. Those offenses
included 4 burglary, 1 vehicle theft, and ,2fila~cenie's.
There were 55 Part II offenses reporte& Those offenses included 3 child
; , . . i · / ~
abuse/neglect, 10 criminal damage to~roperty, 4NSF~ checks, 1 weapon, 2
narcotics, 3 liquor law violations, 1 DUI's, 4 simple assaults, 6 domestics
(3 with assaults), and 21 other offenses.
The patrol division issued 59 hazardous and 39 non-hazardous citations.
Parking violations accounted for an additional 13 tickets. Warnings were
issued to 106 individuals for a variety of violatiOns.
There was 2 juvenile arrested for felonies. There were 9 adults and 10
juveniles arrested for misdemeanors. There were 2 felony warrants and 7
misdemeanor warrant arrests.
The department assisted in 9 vehicle accidents, I with injuries. There
were 26 medical emergencies and 86 animal complaints. Mound assisted
other agencies on 31 occasions in August and requested assistance 5 times.
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
MONTHLY REPORT - August, 1999
II.
III.
INVESTIGATIONS
The investigators worked on 4 child protection issues in August. Other
cases included burglary, assault, narcotics, damage to property, forgery,
theft, NSF cheeks, threats, and harassment.
Formal complaints were issued for trespassing, underage consumption,
driving after cancellation, derelict auto, open bottle, disorderly conduct,
fireworks, dog at large, and gross misdemeanor DWI cases.
Personnel/Staffing
The department used approximately 34 hours of overtime during the
month of August. Officers used 54 hours of comp-time, 253 hours of
vacation, 16.5 hours of sick time, and 0 holidays. Officers earned 29
hours of comp time.
Investigator Niccum attended a course for school resource officers. Three
supervisors attended the retraining conference for the Southern Police
Institute and several employees attended computer training for
implementation of the new ENFORs PC system.
V. COMMUNITY SERVICES OFFICERS
CSO Burke handled 372 contacts consisting of 38 animal complaints, 25
ordinance violations, and 306 miscellaneous calls for service; 3 citations
were issued. Reserve Bmckner continues in a part time capacity and had
an additional 28 contacts.
VI. RESERVES
The reserves donated 156 hours of community service in the month of
August. The trait currently has nine members.
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
AUGUST 1999
OFFENSES CLEARED EXCEPT- ~ BY AP.R~STED
REPORTED ONFOUNDED CLEARED ARREST ADULT JUV
PART I CRIMES
Homicide
Criminal Sexual Conduct
Robbery
Aggravated Assault
Burglary
Larceny
Vehicle Theft
Arson
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
4 0 0 1 0 2
26 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 1 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 31
PART II CRIMES
Child Abuse/Neglect 3
Forgery/NSF Checks 4
Criminal Damage to Property 10
Weapons 1
Narcotic Laws 2
Liquor Laws 3
DWI 1
Simple Assault 4
Domestic Assault 3
Domestic (No Assault) 3
Harassment 0
Juvenile Status Offenses 8
Public Peace 2
Trespassing 0
All Other Offenses 11
0 0 I 0 2
t 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 1 1 0 1
0 0 2 2 0
0 0 3 2 1
0 0 1 1 0
0 1 0 0 0
0 3 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 2 6 0 6
0 0 2 2 0
0 0 1 0 2
1 1 1 2 0
TOTAL 55
2 9 17 9 10
PART II & PART IV
Property Damage Accidents 8
Personal Injury Accidents 1
Fatal Accidents 0
Medicals 26
Animal Complaints 86
Mutual Aid 31
Other General Investigations 1,205
TOTAL 1,357
HCCP 3
Inspections 33
TOTAL 1,479
2 9 18 9 12
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
CRIME ACTIVITY REPORT AUGUST 1999
GENERAL ACTIVITY SUMMARY
THIS YEAR TO LAST YEAR
MONTH DATE TO DATE
Hazardous Citations 59
Non-Hazardous Citations 39
Hazardous Warnings 20
Non-Hazardous Warnings 49
Verbal Warnings 91
Parking Citations 13
DWI 1
Over .10 1
Property Damage Accidents 8
Personal Injury Accidents 1
Fatal Accidents 0
Adult Felony Arrests 1
Adult Misdemeanor Arrests 18
Juvenile Felony Arrests 3
Juvenile Misdemeanor Arrests 11
Part I Offenses 31
Part II Offenses 55
Medicals 26
Animal Complaints 86
Ordinance Violations 33
Other Public Contacts 1,205
586
338
146
435
647
242
31
28
54
21
0
14
182
16
62
142
343
233
468
220
6,489
441
356
127
342
652
268
49
31
58
23
0
17
272
44
148
263
517
234
419
269
6,522
TOTAL 1,751 10,697 11,052
Assists 79 426 454
Follow-Ups 47 311 546
HCCP 3 28 55
Mutual Aid Given 31 132 133
Mutal Aid Requested 5 47 47
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
AUGUST 1999
WARNINGS
Insurance
Traffic
Equipment
Crosswalk
Animals
Trash/Derelict Autos
Seat Belt
Trespassing
Window Tint
Miscellaneous
TOTAL
WARRANT ARRESTS
Felony
Misdemeanor
Adult
34
11
15
0
4
14
0
0
0
22
100
Juveniles
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Stolen Property Value Report
Type of Property
Unknown
TOTAL: Unknown
Mound Police
IncidenLDateReported Between 07/26/99 08/25/99
~em$
15
15
Monday, Seotember 13, 1999
Dollar Value
2,949.00
2,949.00
OVERALL TOTAL...
15
2,949.00
Page: 1
Mound Police
Incident. DateReported Between 07/2699 08/25/99
Recovered Prooertv Value Report
.~oe of prooerty .... Items
Monday, geotember 13, 1999
Dollar Value
OVERALL TOTAL...
0.00
....... Pag$: 1
Stolen Property Report
Tyoe of Property
Unknown
Mound Police
Incident. DateReported Between 07~26/99 08/25/99
Monday, September 13, 1999
Case #:
Date:
PIN:
Make:
Desc:
Misc:
1999001230
Item No.: 01
Value:
Location:
Serial #:
Model: Breed:
0.00
Case #:
Date:
PIN:
Make:
Desc:
Misc:
1999001228
Value:
Location:
Serial #:
Model: Breed:
Item No.: 01
Brand: F PRICE
Additional Info: FISCHER PRICE PLAYHOUSE
Stolen Value: 100.
100.00
Case #:
Date:
PIN:
Make:
Desc:
Misc:
1999001323
Value:
Location:
Serial #:
Model: Breed:
20.00
Item No.: 03
Additional Info: 1 SARA MCLAUGHEN CD & 1 ARYTHMIES CD
Stolen Value: 20.
Case #:
Date:
PIN:
Make:
Desc:
Misc:
1999001301 Value: 0.00
Location:
Serial #:
Model: Breed:
Item No.: 01
Additional Remarks: MAlL TAMPERED WITH ONLY
Case #:
Date:
PIN:
Make:
Desc:
Mis¢:
1999001334
Ixx:ation:
Model:
Item No.: 01
Additional Info: LICENSE PLATE
Stolen Value: 50.
Value:
Serial #:
Breed:
50.00
Case #:
1999001323
Value:
50.00
Page: 1
Stolen Property Report
Mound Police
Incldent. DateReported Between 07/26/99 08/25199
Monday, September 13, 1999
Date:
PIN:
Make:
Desc:
Misc:
Location:
Serial #:
Model: Breed:
Item No.: 02
Additional Info: 1 PR MEN'S KHAKI DRESS PANTS FROM BANANA REPUBLIC
1 MEN'S BURGANDY KNIT SWEATER FROM BANANA REPUBLIC
Stolen Value: 50.
Case #:
Date:
PIN:
Make:
Desc:
Misc:
1999001310 Value: 5.00
Location!
Serial #:
Model: Breed:
Item No.: 02
Additional Info: CASH
Stolen Value: 5.
Case #:
Date:
PIN:
Make:
Desc:
Misc:
1999001310
Location:
Model:
Item No.: 01
Stolen Value: 100.
Value:
Serial #:
Breed:
100.00
Case #:
Date:
PIN:
Make:
Desc:
Misc:
1999001305
Location:
Model:
Item No.: 01
Additional Info: CASH
Stolen Value: 200.
Value:
Serial #:
Breed:
200.00
Case #:
Date:
PIN:
Make:
Desc:
Misc:
1999001303
Location:
Model:
Item No.: 03
Additional Info: CASH
Stolen Value: 8.
Value:
Serial #:
Breed:
8.00
Case #:
Date:
PIN:
Make:
1999001323
Location:
Model:
Value:
Serial #:
Breed:
120.00
15606486698
Page: 2
Stolen Property Reoort
Type of Prooerty
Desc:
Mound Police
Incident. DateReported Between 07/26/99 08/25/99
Item No.: 01
Brand: NOKIA
Additional Info: NOKIA CELL PHONE & BLK LEATHER CASE
Stolen Value: 120.
Monday, Seotember 13, 1999
Case #:
Date:
PIN:
Make:
Desc:
Misc:
1999001303
Value:
Location:
Serial #:
Model: Breed:
Item No.: 01
Brand: NOKIA
Make: 21601
Additional Info: NOKIA DIGITAL PHONE, MODEL 216OI
Stolen Value: 69.
69.00
Case #:
Date:
PIN:
Make:
Desc:
Misc:
1999001236
Location:
Model:
Item No.: 01
Additional Info: BLK PURSE - MISC ITEMS/PAGER
Stolen Value: 175.
Value:
Serial #:
Breed:
175.00
Case #:
Date:
PIN:
Make:
Desc:
Misc:
J1999001280
Location:
Model:
Item No.: 01
Additional Info: LUNKER BASS FISHING GAME
Stolen Value: 20.
Value:
Serial #:
Breed:
20.00
Case #:
Date:
PIN:
Make:
Desc:
1999001269
Location:
Model:
Item No.: 02
Additional Info: 30 MISC BEANIE BABIES
Stolen Value: 500.
Value:
Serial #:
Breed:
500.00
Case#:
Date:
PIN:
Make:
1999001269
Location:
Model:
Value:
Serial #:
Breed:
600.00
Page: 3
Stolen Pro~ertv Report
:,,m~ p,~,of Property
Desc:
Misc:
Mound Police
Incident. DateReported Between 07/26/99 08/25/99
Mondav, ~eotember 13, 1999
Item No.: 01
Additional Info: RING 2/GOLD BAND STONE OF TOPAZ W/2 DIAMONDS
Stolen Value: 600.
Case #:
Date:
PIN:
Make:
Desc:
Misc:
1999001254 Value: 401.00
Location:
Serial #:
Model: Breed:
Item No.: 01
Additional Info: COBRA BLACK LASER RADAR DETECTOR
COIL NAIL GUN
Stolen Value: 401.
Case #:
Date:
PIN:
Make:
Desc:
Misc:
1999001249
Value:
Location:
Serial #:
Model: Breed:
Item No.: 01
Additional Info: CHECKS
Stolen Value: 1.
Additional Remarks: 3 CHECKS FORGED IN EXCELSIOR
1.00
Case #:
Date:
PIN:
Make:
Desc:
Misc:
1999001247
Value:
Location:
Serial #:
Model: Breed:
Item No.: 01
Brand: STIHL
Additional Info: STIHL POLE SAW
Stolen Value: 700.
700.00
Case #:
Date:
PIN:
Make:
Desc:
Misc:
TOTAL: Unknown
1999001303
Location:
Model:
Item No.: 02
Additional Info: 10 HOME MADE CASSETTE TAPE
Stolen Value: 20.
ITEMS: 20
Value: 20.00
Serial #:
Breed:
~ALUE: 3,139.00
OVERALL TOTALS:
ITEMS: 20
VALUE: 3,139.00
LEN HARRELL
Chief of Police
MOUND POLICE
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
Telephone 472-0621
Dispatch 525-6210
Fax 472-0656
EMERGENCY 911
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Fran Clark
Chief Len Harrell
Monthly Report for July, 1999
STATISTICS
The police department responded to 1,148 calls for service during the
month of July. There were 21 Part I offenses reported. Those offenses
included 1 criminal sexual conduct, 3 burglary, 1 vehicle theft, and 16
larcenies.
There were 53 Part II offenses reported. Those offenses included 3 child
abuse/neglect, 4 criminal damage to property, 1 weapons, 9 liquor law
violations, 5 DUI's, 3 simple assaults, 6 domestics (3 with assaults), 4
harassment, and 18 other offenses.
The patrol division issued 150 adult and 7 juvenile citations. Parking
violations accounted for an additional 33 tickets. Warnings were issued to
105 individuals for a variety of violations.
There were 23 adults and 10 juvenile arrested for misdemeanors. There
was 1 felony and 4 misdemeanor adult warrant arrests.
The department assisted in 10 vehicle accidents, 4 with injuries. There
were 47 medical emergencies and 56 animal complaints. Mound assisted
other agencies on 13 occasions in July and requested assistance 3 times.
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
MONTHLY REPORT - July, 1999
II. INVESTIGATIONS
The investigators worked on 5 child protection and 2 adult protection
issues accounting for 51 hours of investigative time in July. Other cases
included burglary, assault, damage to property, theft, domestic assault,
absenting, disorderly conduct, hit & run accident, and harassment.
Investigator Swensen was transferred back to patrol to assist until a new
officer can be hired next month.
Formal complaints were issued for open bottle, assault, disorderly
conduct, underage consumption, domestic assault, false information to
police, driving after cancellation, exterior storage, and several gross
misdemeanor DWI cases.
III. Personnel/Staffing
The department used approximately 42 hours of overtime during the
month of July. Officers used 21 hours of comp-time, 95 hours of vacation,
54 hours of sick time, and 11 holidays. Officers earned 61 hours of comp
time.
IV. TRAINING
Officer Nelson attended the DARE national conference in Washington,
DC, Sgt. McKinley attended a two day emergency preparedness course,
all officers took part in our regular firearms training, and Harrell, Grand,
& McKinley attended the Southern Police Institute re-training conference.
V. COMMUNITY SERVICES OFFICERS
CSO Burke handled 196 contacts consisting of 23 animal complaints, 44
ordinance violations, and 125 miscellaneous calls for service; 4 citations
were issued. Reserve Bruckner continues in a part time capacity and had
an additional 25 contacts.
VI. RESERVES
The reserves donated 170hours of community service in the month of July.
The unit currently has ten members.
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
JULY 1999
PART I CRIMES
OFFENSES CLEARED EXCEPT- CLEARED BY ARRESTED
~EPORTED UNFOUNDED CLEARED ARREST ADULT JUV
Homicide 0 0 0 0
Criminal Sexual Conduct 1 0 0 0
Robbery 0 0 0 0
Aggravated Assault 0 0 0 0
Burglary 3 0 0 0
Larceny 16 0 1 0
Vehicle Theft 1 0 0 0
Arson 0 0 0 0
TOTAL
PART II CRIMES
21 0 I 0
Child Abuse/Neglect 3 1 0 1
Forgery/NSF Checks 0 0 0 0
Criminal Damage to Property 4 0 2 0
Weapons 1 0 0 1
Narcotic Laws 0 0 0 0
Liquor Laws 9 0 0 10
DWI 5 0 0 5
Simple Assault 3 1 1 0
Domestic Assault 3 0 1 1
Domestic (No Assault) 3 0 0 0
Harassment 4 0 0 0
Juvenile Status Offenses 7 0 1 5
Public Peace 7 0 0 4
Trespassing 0 0 0 0
All Other Offenses 4 1 0 1
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
1 0
0 0
0 0
2 0
0 0
8 4
5 0
1 0
1 0
0 0
0 0
0 5
4 0
0 0
1 1
TOTAL
53
28
23 10
PART II & PART IV
Property Damage Accidents
Personal Injury Accidents
Fatal Accidents
Medicals
Animal Complaints
Mutual Aid
Other General Investigations
TOTAL
6
4
0
47
56
13
906
1,032
HCCP
Inspections
TOTAL
6
36
1,148
28
23
10
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
CRIME ACTIVITY REPORT JULY 1999
GENERAL ACTIVITY SUMMARY
Hazardous Citations
Non-Hazardous Citations
Hazardous Warnings
Non-Hazardous Warnings
Verbal Warnings
Parking Citations
DWI
Over .10
Property Damage Accidents
Personal Injury Accidents
Fatal Accidents
Adult Felony Arrests
Adult Misdemeanor Arrests
Juvenile Felony Arrests
Juvenile Misdemeanor Arrests
Part I Offenses
Part II Offenses
Medicals
Animal Complaints
Ordinance Violations
Other Public Contacts
THIS YEAR TO LAST YEAR
MONTH DATE TO DATE
81 527 372
67 299 319
8 126 106
88 386 313
75 556 579
33 229 253
5 30 40
4 27 26
6 46 49
4 20 18
0 0 0
1 13 14
27 164 233
1 13 38
7 51 130
21 111 225
53 288 450
47 207 209
56 382 346
36 187 219
906 5,284 5,787
TOTAL
Assists
Follow-Ups
HCCP
Mutual Aid Given
Mutal Aid Requested
1,526 8,946 9,726
54 347 414
146 265 464
6 25 41
13 101 117
3 42 40
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
JULY 1999
CITATIONS
DWI
More Than .10% BAC
Careless/Reckless Driving
Driving After Susp. or Rev.
Open Bottle
Speeding
No DL or Expired DL
Restriction on DL
Improper, Expired or No Plates
Stop Arm Violations
Stop Sign Violations
Failure to Yield
Equipment Violations
H&R Leaving the Scene
No Insurance
Illegal or Unsafe Turn
Over the Centerline
Parking Violations
Crosswalk
Dog Ordinances
Code Enforcement
Seat Belt
Overweight Vehicles
Miscellaneous Tags
TOTAL
ADULT
5
4
0
0
2
63
4
0
42
0
5
1
4
0
4
0
2
33
0
1
1
0
0
183
JUVENII.~.
0
0
0
0
0
3
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
,R~LY 1999
WARNINGS
Insurance
Traffic
Equipment
Crosswalk
Animals
Trash/Derelict Autos
Seat Belt
Trespassing
Window Tint
Miscellaneous
TOTAL
WARRANT ARRESTS
Felony
Misdemeanor
Adult
24
23
8
0
2
28
0
0
0
13
98
Juveniles
2
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
Run: 27-Ju1~99 10:43 PRO03
Primary ISN's only: NO
Date Reported range: 06/26/99 - 07/25/99
Activity codes: All
Property Status: All
Property Types: All
Property Descs: All
Brands: All
Models: All
Officers/Badges: All
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
Enfors Property Report
STOLEN/RECOVERED BY DATE REPORTED
Page
Prop Prop Inc no ISN Pr Prop Date Rptd Stolen
Tp Desc SN Stat Stolen Value
Date Recov'd
Recov'd Value
Quantity Act Brand Model Off-1 Off-2
Code Assnd Assnd
B Prop type Totals: 560
D Prop type Totals: 70
E Prop type Totals: 70
P Prop type Totals: 5
R Prop type Totals: 5,300
S Prop type Totals: 1,334
T Prop type Totals: 946
X Prop type Totals: 55
Y Prop type Totals: 10
**** Report Totals: 8,350
0 3.000
0 1.000
0 1.000
0 1.000
0 4.000
0 4.000
525 4.000
0 2.000
0 2.000
525 22.000
September 29, 1999
Jim Fackler
city of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, M~ 55364-1687
RE: Park Commission Agenda - October 14, 1999
Dear Jim,
Enclosed please find a proposed resolution for amending the
City of Mound Comprehensive Plan. Yesterday, I spoke with
Pete Meyer~who agreed that this item should be placed on the
POSC agenda for October 14, 1999.
Also, could you update the POSC on where the city is on the
comp. plan schedule?
Thank you.
Very truly yours,
Tom Casey
2854 Cambridge Lane
Mound, MN 55364
472-1099
cc: Pete Meyer, Chair
Leah Weycker, Council Rep.
file
Enclosure
Draft #1
09/29/99
RESOLUTION TO AMEND THE
CITY OF MOUND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
WHEREAS, the Parks and Recreation Section of the
1990 City of Mound Comprehensive Plan describes the 15-acre
"community center" site as approximately 1/2 of the total
inventory of "community playfields" within the city of Mound;
WHEREAS, the Par~s and Recreation Section of the
1990 city of Mound Comprehensive Plan states in part, "The
goal of this plan is to provide recreational opportunities to
meet the needs of all Mound residents" (see page 71);
WHEREAS, the "community center" site is in the process
of being sold to a private developer;
WHEREAS, the citizens of Mound have adequately
demonstrated at several recent public meetings that the
"community center" site is an invaluable public asset; and
WHEREAS, the City of Mound is in the process of updating
the 1990 Comprehensive Plan to reflect the current needs of
our citizens; and
WHEREAS, the "community center" site and other
government-owned parcels have zoning classifications that are
inconsistent with their existing use;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
mo
That the City of Mound Park and Open Space Advisory
Commission recommends that the City Council amend the
1990 Comprehensive Plan to contain the following
language:
"The 15-acre "community center" site should be
retained as'public land for park and recreational
purposes. If necessary to protect the property
from being developed by a private owner, the City
of Mound should use all available legal tools,
including the power of eminent domain. In the
event that the City of Mound does not have adequate
funds to purchase this property, the City of Mound
should hold a bond referendum at the earliest
possible date."
"The Mound City Council should amend the
Zoning Code to establish a zoning classification
and land use controls for open spac~ areas owned by
government entities."
That a copy of this resolution should be forwarded
immediately to the City of Mound Planning Commission for
inclusion in the 1999 Comprehensive Plan recommendations.
MINUTES - EDC - SEPTEMBER 16, 1999 .~."
The meeting was called to order at approximately 7:00 a.m. by Paul
Meisel. Members present: Paul Meisel, Mark Brewer, Jerry
Pietrowski, Jerry Longpre, Stan Drahos, Bob Brown and Lonnie Weber.
Also present were Mayor Pat Meisel, Gino Businaro, Bruce
Chamberlain, Todd Warner, and Bill Beard. Sharon McMenamy-Cook
was absent and excused.
Approval of Minutes
A motion to approve the August 19, 1999, minutes was made by Jerry
Longpre and seconded by Mark Brewer. The motion was unanimously
approved.
Auditors Road Renaming
Five new names were accepted for the possible renaming of Auditors
Road. Boardwalk, Cobblestone Lane, Greenway Blvd. Main Street, and
Park Place were the new names.
Motion
Mark Brewer made a motion for each person to select one name and
submit it as their choice for Auditors Road. Lonnie Weber seconded
the motion. Stan Drahos requested it be changed to two names per
person. Mark Brewer amended his motion to be two names per person
as their selection for the renaming of Auditors Road. The motion
was seconded by Jerry Pietrowski. The motion carried unanimously.
DeveloDment Process UDdate
Paul stated they are looking at a time frame of the end of October
to go back with initial ideas and concepts for the development of
the Langdon District. He stated he was not sure if that would
include Auditors Road or not. Bill Beard stated they have received
the survey for the Langdon District. The concept work has already
been done by the City so they are simply going to refine the
existing plan. Elness Architects, specifically Dennis Sutlett, has
been hired to work with us in the initial planning stages and may
be the project architect for us as well. Welsh Co. has been
retained to work on a retail market study to advise us of the
maximum square feet we can absorb in a realistic period of time in
the market place. Their objective is to show this commission what
they believe they can deliver and find out if this is what the City
wants. They would like to begin with the Langdon Lake construction
next spring. This means they need to start with the land
acquisition over the winter months. They are also looking at
buildings they may be able to renovate. There was a discussion on
the feasibility of having a small movie theater so people could
come by boat, walk to a restaurant and then go to a show. It was
explained that small theaters are outdated and only large, i.e. 20
screens and more are currently being built. It is almost
impossible for smaller theaters to compete with this main stream
market.
into.
An art theater may be a possibility and will.~be looked
Auditors Road survey has not yet been started. This will include
property boundaries, building locations, etc. The survey for the
Langdon District and Coast to Coast is now completed and Auditors
Road will be surveyed next.
AUDITOR' S ROAD
There were six votes for the renaming of Auditors Road to Park
Place and two for Boardwalk. There were no other names with more
than one vote.
MOTION
Lonnie Weber made a motion to present to the City Council the
recommendation of the EDC Commission to consider a rename change
from Auditors Road to Park Place. The motion was seconded by Mark
Brewer. Discussion: Bob Brown suggested we try to get Milton
Bradley to allow the little guy with the hat next to the name. The
motion passed unanimously.
COUNTY RD 15 RELOCATION SCHEDULE
Bruce Chamberlain reported the county told him that if we wanted to
move up the timing of the relocation of County Rd. 15, the City
would have to pay for the preliminary design, the survey work, and
20% to 50% of the construction costs. Because we cannot afford
this large sum nor do we have a way to handle the traffic during
the construction of the Auditors Road Development District while
County Rd. 15 is being worked on, there will probably be a one
year set back on completing the construction. There was a
discussion of possible alternate traffic routes and what impact
they would have on current downtown businesses. As is, the County
Rd. 15 project will be done in 2002.
The businesses in the area of Coast to Coast will still be built on
schedule as this set back will not affect that area. Potentially,
some of the buildings on Auditors Road can still be built prior to
the start of the County Rd. 15 change.
There was a discussion of possible hazardous waste at the Clark
property. Currently we do not have any money set aside if there is
a problem.
POST OFFICE RELOCATION UPDATE
The Postal Service was given a concept plan two weeks ago of how
they could fit into the Community Center site. They were also open
to the possibility of a temporary modular being put in the parking
area across from the current post office. There are some easement
and utility issues that need to be addressed. If that does not
work the Lost Lake area site can be used as an alternative. That
site would be more expensive as it is not presently~.paved. The
major concern of the post office is making sure they would have a
loading dock, the modular building can withstand the heavy weight
put on the floors, and having to move twice. Bruce will be finding
a modular for the post office to tour. It looks positive at this
time that the post office will be able to eventually move
permanently to the Community Center site.
There was a discussion of what could possibly be put into THE LAKER
regarding some of the preliminary plans. This is difficult to do
due to time lines and still being in the planning stage with
nothing yet decided upon. It was decided that due to this project
having already been talked about for 25 years, waiting another
month or so would be wise.
Guest- Todd Warner
Todd is interested in purchasing the old Culture Marble/Powerchair
Building and moving his business, Bristol Plastics, Ltd. to Mound.
He deals with antique and classic watercraft. The business would
require a Conditional Use Permit. He would like to showcase one or
two classic boats under light for advertisement. He would not be
doing his restoration at this location, but wants a place to show
what his company does and be close to the lake.
Mound Bay Park Band Shell
The Rotary Club has agreed to do a matching fund for this project.
Mayor Meisel stated she has been approached by several clubs that
are willing to build the bandshell/gazebo. This has not yet been
approved by the City. It was suggested that if a club does help,
their insignia could be advertised on it. Mayor Meisel does not
have any actual plans to be submitted at this time. One main
concern seems to be the parking problem at Mound Bay Park and the
accessibility for the seniors.
There was a suggestion of building a large pier and having a
trolley to pick up people from that location to bring them to the
Auditors Road area or the bandshell.
EDC 2000 Budget
Gino stated that $15,000 was put into the budget to pay consultants
for their Mound Vision services. An escrow account has been used
in the past for such things as banners, etc. This money has been
solicited from businesses and clubs when needed. He suggested we
continue with this practice and not tap.into the Mound Vision
portion of the budget, if possible. The majority of the fees for
Bruce Chamberlain will be taken out of the TIF and the
redevelopment budget with some out of the EDC budget.
Mayor Meisel stated the Council passed a motion Tuesday to have a
coordinator for the HRA who will be doing timelines to make sure
everything is being done on time and that papers are filed properly
with the State.
Livable Communities Grant Application
Livable communities is a Met Council program for redevelopment.
Bruce Chamberlain will be submitting the grant application for
redevelopment by the end of the month.
Adjournment
A motion to close the meeting was made by Weber and seconded by
Brewer. The motion was unanimously carried. Mark Barewer will
bring rolls to the October 21, 1999, meeting.