The URL can be used to link to this page

2000-02-22PLEASE TURN OFF ALL PAGERS AND CELL PHONES IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS. A G E N D A ~f~ t MOUND CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2000 7:30 PM MOUND CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS *Consent Agenda: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the Council and will be enacted by a roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember or Citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence. 1. OPEN MEETING - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. PAGE *CONSENT AGENDA *~. MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 8, 2000, REGULAR MEETING ..... 642-660 CASH ADVANCE FROM THE GENERAL FUND TO THE NEW TIF FUND ................................... 661 CASE g00-02: MINOR SUBDIVISION; RENEWAL OF AN EXPIRED MINOR SUBDIVISION RESOLUTION FOR 2978/2988 PELICAN POINT CIRCLE, BLOCK 1, PELICAN POINT; PID //19-117-23 42 0038 & 0039; P & Z CASE//96-3 ..... 662-675 APPROVAL OF 2 YEAR UNION CONTRACT FOR PUBLIC WORKS, TEAMSTERS LOCAL 320 FOR 2000& 2001 ...... 676 APPROVAL OF 2 YEAR UNION CONTRACT FOR POLICE SERGEANTS, LELS LOCAL 35 FOR 2000 & 2001 ........ 677 APPROVAL OF 2 YEAR UNiON CONTRACT FOR POLICE PATROL, LELS LOCAL 266 FOR 2000 & 2001 .......... 678 APPROVAL FOR SPRING CLEAN-UP DAY IN MOUND, LOST LAKE SITE, DATE: SATURDAY, MAY 6 FROM 8:00 A.M. TO 3:00 P.M. 1. NO LEAVES, WOOD OR BRUSH. 2. ANYONE BRINGING THINGS WILL HAVE TO SHOW A VALID PICTURE DRIVER'S LICENSE. 3. WE WILL CHARGE MORE FOR NON MOUND RESIDENTS. GARBAGE LICENSE RENEWALS ....................... 679 Best Disposal 640 PLEASE TURN OFF ALL PAGERS AND CELL PHONES IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS. Randy's Samtation ,/f/~ BH of Minnesota (formerly Woodlak¢ Sanitation) ~'~ ;~'1 APPROVAL OF FARMERS MARKET FROM JUNE 17, 2000 THROUGH ~,~ OCTOBER 28, 2000 ............................. 680-683 PAYMENT OF BILLS -' 694 701'~ COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT ON ITF~MS NOT ON THE AGENDA (PLEASE LIMIT TO 3 MINUTES PER SUKIECT) PUBLIC HEARINGS: CASE 99-45: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW AN ADDITION TO MOUNT OLIVE LUTHERAN CHURCH; 5218 BARTLEIT BLVD., BLOCK 2, TRACT A & PART OF BLOCK 2 SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT D, 62050, PID # 24-117-24-21-0036 .................... 70.2-739 PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUATION: COMPREHENSIVE ?~o~-~0% PL~AN~,~,,, <.'<~, ,.: ~: ~. ~ ............................... 740-795 REQUF~T FROM NANCY AND CONRAD STARR TO RECONSIDER THE TEMPORARY VARIANCE APPROVED FOR TI-I~IR DETACHED G~.GE TO ALLOW IT TO REMAIN ...................... 796-818 CONSmERATION FOR REINSTATING TH~. ?OLIC~. CAN~ PROGRAM. ~/~ ~.'.~'.~% ............................... 819-823 CONSIDER APPROVAL OF METRICOM RIGHT-OF-WAY ACCESS PROPOSAL .......... ; .<,' ...... ., ..... ~; ............. 824-840 CONSIDER MOUND REDEVELOPMENT COMMUNICATIONS PLAN. 841-849 RESOLUTION APPROVING SUBMITTAL OF AN APPLICATION FOR USE OF 2000 URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM CONSOLIDATED POOL FUNDING AND AUTHORIZING SIGNATURE OF SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY AND ANY THIRD PARTY AGREEMENTS FOR 2020 COMMERCE BLVD., INDIAN KNOLL MANOR .................................... 850-852 641 PLEASE TURN OFF ALL PAGERS AND CELL PHONES IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS. ADD ON TO CONSENT AGENDA: *~. APPOINTMENT OF ASSISTANT WEED INSPECTOR ............ 853-854 3F/. APPOINT SUZANIC~ CLAYVv'ELL TO ~ EDC. (BOB BROVv'N INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS WlLL~ A. Draft financial statement for the Liquor Fund ................... 855-856 B. Annual Report from Joel Krumm, Liquor Store Manager ............ 857-859 Letter from the DNR notifying Park Director, Jim Fackler that our application for the Minnesota ReLeaf Grant has been approved in the amount of $5,000 ........ 860 Interviews of candidates for City Manager will be held here at City Hall, on Friday, February 25, 2000 at 10:00 a.m., 1: 00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m. 642 MINUTES - CITY COUNCIL-FEBRUARY 8, 2000 The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, February 8, 2000, at 7:30 P.M., in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present were: Mayor Pat Meisel; Councilmembers: Andrea Ahrens, Bob Brown, Mark Hanus and leah Weycker. Also in attendance were City Attorney John Dean, Acting City Manager Fran Clark, Parks Director Jim Fackler, Assistant City Planner Loren Gordon, and Secretary Carla Wirth. The following interested citizens were also present: Richard Oliver, Nancy Clough, David Mongeon, Peter Meyer, Thomas Stokes, Steve Behuke, Steve Hewitt, Kristyn Schmitz, Vern Hanson, l_arissa Tadauarthy, and Lorrie Ham. *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 CounciImember 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. APPROVE AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA Councilmember Brown stated he would like Item D removed from the Consent Agenda. Councilmember Weycker stated she would like Items A and B removed from the Consent Agenda. The Acting City Manager added Item 3J, Resolution Consolidating Pool Selection Committee Recommending that CDBG Funding of Westonka Community Action Network (WECA~ be Continued. MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Hanus, to approve the agenda and consent agenda with the removal of Items A, B, and D and addition of Item J. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 5-0. CONSENT AGENDA COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MINUTES FROM JANUARY 18. 2000 This item was removed from the Consent Agenda. MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -FEBRUARY 8, 2000 MINUTES FROM JANUARY 25. 2000, REGULAR MEETING This item was removed from the Consent Agenda. *1.0 MINUTES FROM JANUARY 31. 2000, SPECIAL MEETING MOTION. Ahreus, Hanus, unanimously. CASE 99-47: RESOLUTION TO APPROVE FRONT YARD. SIDE YARD, LOT AREA AND HARDCOVER VARIANCES FOR REMODELING AND ADDITIONS TO AN EXISTING RESIDENCE FOR STEPHEN L. HEWITT, AT 4849 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, BLOCK 14. LOT 3. DEVON, 37870. PID # 25-117-24-11-0036 This item was removed from the Consent Agenda. *1.1 SET DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING CASE 99-45: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW AN ADDITION TO MOUNT OLIVE LUTHERAN CHURCH: 5218 BARTLETT BLVD.. BLOCK 2. TRACT A & PART OF BLK 2 SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT D. 62050. PID # 24-11%24-21-0036 MOTION. Ahrens, Hanus, unanimously. '1.2 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF 2000 GRANT APPLICATION FOR RECYCLING AND EXECUTION OF GRANT AGREEMENT RESOLUTION g00-17 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF 2000 GRANT APPLICATION FOR RECYCLING AND EXECUTION OF GRANT AGREEMENT. Ahreus, Hanus, unanimously. MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -FEBRUARY 8, 2000 '1.3 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CREATION OF PUBLICLY-TRADED COMPANY BY IVIEDIACOM LLC. PARENT OF MEDIACOM MINNESOTA LLC, CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISEE. RESOLUTION//00-18 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CREATION OF PUBLICLY-TRADED COMPANY BY MEDIACOM LLC, PARENT OF MEDIACOM MINNESOTA LLC, CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISEE. Ahrens, Hanus, unanimously. '1.4 RESOLUTION FROM THE CITY OF MOUND TO THE CONSOLIDATED POOL SELECTION COMMITTEE THAT CDBG FUNDING OF SENIOR COMMUNITY SERVICES' WESTONKA SENIOR CENTER BE CONTINUED RESOLUTION//00-19 RESOLUTION FROM THE CITY OF MOUND TO THE CONSOLIDATED POOL SELECTION COMMITTEE THAT CDBG FUNDING OF SENIOR COMMUNITY SERVICES' WESTONKA SENIOR CENTER BE CONTINUED. Ahrens, Hanus, unanimously. '1.5 PAYMENT OF BILLS MOTION. Ahrens, Hanus, unanimously. 1.6 MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 18, 2000. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING Councilmember Weycker requested the following correction to the January 18, 2000 Committee of the Whole meeting minutes: Page 9, 6th paragraph, last sentence: reword to indicate "Councilmember Weycker stated this is the responsibility of the Council Liaison." MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -FEBRUARY 8, 2000 Councilmember Hanus requested the following correction to the January 18, 2000 Committee of the Whole meeting minutes: Page 6, 3rd paragraph, reword to indicate "The consensus of the Council was that they would rather see park dedication on large new developments come in the form of land, rather than money." 1.7 MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 25. 2000, REGULAR MEETING Councilmember Weycker requested the following corrections to the January 25, 2000 Regular meeting minutes: Page 4, 2~ paragraph, first sentence: (make correction as previously indicated) "Councilmember Weycker stated Mr. Alwin had every intention of preserving the complete 27 acres in the City of Mound." Page 6, 2nd paragraph: reword to indicate "Councilmember Weycker stated in 1997 when the dock commission was first formed then Mayor Polston stated he could only support creating this commission because of the make up of its members. At that time. he was the Council rep to the dock commission. He was also not a current user of the dock program. Having Councilmember Hanus on the DCAC changes the makeup of the commission because he is also an abutting property owner." Page 6, 6'~ paragraph, delete entire paragraph. Councilmember Hanus requested the following corrections to the January 25, 2000 Regular meeting minutes: Page 14, 5th paragraph, reword to indicate "Councilmember Hanus stated the only new home in this area that has been built has been with a combination of two lots, making it conforming in size. He stated the other sites mentioned by Mr. Coddon were in R-1 and were larger lots to begin with. Therefore, they had more room to work with. Councilmember Hanus further stated this lot is a smaller lot to begin with. He stated the garage would have to be established on the site or rear of this lot.' MOTION by Weycker, seconded by Hanus, to approve the minutes of January 18, 2000, Committee of the Whole meeting (Item 1.6) and the minutes of January 25, 2000 Regular meeting (Iteem 1.7), as amended. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 5-0. 1.8 CASE 99-47: RESOLUTION TO APPROVE FRONT YARD. SIDE YARD. LOT AREA AND HARDCOVER VARIANCES FOR REMODELING AND ADDITIONS TO AN EXISTING RESIDENCE FOR STEPHEN L. HEWITT. MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -FEBRUARY 8, 2000 1.8 CASE 99-47: RESOLUTION TO APPROVE FRONT YARD. SIDE YARD. LOT AREA AND HARDCOVER VARIANCES FOR REMODELING AND ADDITIONS TO AN EXISTING RESIDENCE FOR STEPHEN L. HEWITT. AT 4849 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE. BLOCK 14, LOT 3. DEVON. 37870. PID # 25-117-24-11-0036 Councilmember Brown noted the conditions being imposed which includes that a private driveway easement must be secured for the proposed driveway and adjacent driveway on the property located at 4853 Island View Drive to allow cross access. He requested the following sentence be added to condition lb: "Also, prior to granting any permits, this easement must be secured." City Attorney LeFevere agreed that prior to granting any permits this private easement between the applicant and his neighbor should be secured and filed on the properties. He explained the Council wanted to make sure there is adequate access into both properties. Councilmember Hanus stated that is true of conditions la and lb since they may not want to spend money on their grading and drainage plans until it is approved. Councilmember Ahrens noted this is consistent with other situations where easements need to be negotiated to assure it is obtained and filed prior to building permit issuance. Brown moved and Hanus seconded the following resolution as amended above: RE~OLUTION #00-20 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE FRONT YARD, SIDE YARD, LOT AREA AND HARDCOVER VARIANCES FOR REMODELING AND ADDITIONS TO AN EXISTING RESIDENCE FOR STEPHEN L. HEWITT, AT 4849 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, BLOCK 14, LOT 3, DEVON, 37870, PID # 25-117-24-11-0036, P & Z CASE//99-47 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried 5-0. COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT (PLEASE LIMIT TO 3 MINUTES PER SUBJECT). Peter Meyer, 5748 Sunset Road, invited the Mayor and Council to enjoy the community skating rink for the last few weeks of the ice skating season. He stated he hopes the referendum passes and the City can work towards keeping that area park land. There were no other comments or suggestions from citizens present. MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -FEBRUARY 8, 21300 ZONING DISTRICT, BLOCK 7. LOTS 1, 2,3,15 & 16, PID #'S NOT YET ASSIGNED, SETON, P& Z CASE//99-41. The City Planner advised that this is a public hearing for the vacation request which is prompted by the desire of the property owner to have private lakeshore frontage and reduce LMCD variances to put in a dock. The area requested for vacation is located in the Seton development just south of its intersection with Longford Road. A survey shows the proposed area adjacent to Lots 14 and 15 of Block 7, Seton, measuring 89.09 feet in length. The right-of-way has a 30-foot width. If vacated, the adjacent properties, 2537 and 2541 Wexford Lane, would receive the full 30-foot width because property west of Waterford is City owned. The City Planner advised that the proposed dock would be a three-finger dock originating from the south lot of the twinhome parcel. The south parcel has about 42 feet of lake frontage and is afforded dock rights with LMCD approval. The applicant has submitted an application to the LMCD for variances to length (350 foot dock when 100 foot is the maximum), dock use area, and side setbacks (the convergence of the extended property lines restrict channel access). The Assistant City Planner noted if the road is vacated they are not looking for a private dock but a joint dock used by both owners of the property. The LMCD board has given conditional approval of the dock variance request based on the City's action regarding Waterford Lane. Based on LMCD regulations, if Waterford Lane is vacated the Board would not need to grant a sideyard setback variance. If that portion of Waterford Lane remains with the City, the Board would need to consider granting a variance for a sideyard setback. It appears that the dock will receive the necessary approvals to be built regardless of the action the City chooses to take. The City Planner explained that the issue at hand for the Council is a matter of shoreline policy and resulting public benefit. This particular right-of-way is like many others in channel areas where there are platted streets that are underwater. The reviews of the three City Commissions have taken place. The Planning Commission was the first group to review the application and recommends approval of the vacation request. The Park and Open Space Commission recommends denial of the vacation request, viewing it as not in the City's best interest since it would result in a loss of public shoreland which would reduce the City's total lineal frontage. The Docks and Commons Commission considered the value added to the property and the City's tax rolls and recommend approval of the vacation request. He stated these recommendations supported staff's recommendations. It was noted that the DNR Waters Division has no opposition to the vacation since most of Waterford Lane is below the 929.4 lake level and has no impact on their jurisdictional issues. MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -FEBRUARY 8, 2000 However, the DNR Trails and Waterways strongly recommended denial of the vacation request citing that standards for public use and access would be significantly compromised. The City Planner stated this case relates to the dock issue and if there is a benefit to the public with Waterford Road as it is today. If the Council finds no benefit in keeping Waterford Road as a public right-of-way then there is reason to vacate it. He noted that his recommendation today is different than he recommended before the Planning Commission last November. He stated that he found there does seem to be relationship with public good, not that Waterford Road will be a street or trail system in the future, but this portion of Waterford Road requesting to be vacated does serve to keep lineal footage in the docks program. The City Planner stated this may be different than the issues reviewed by the Planning Commission or the Dock and Commons Commission but it is an issue. He stated that if the Council wants to keep all of its options open in the docks program, it may be better to not consider vacating. The Acting City Manager noted the letter from Martha Reger, DNR Area Trails and Waterways Supervisor, was not available to the Planning Commission during their review. Councilmember Hanus noted the letter from Ms. Reger was viewed by the Planning Commission during their second review of this application. The Acting City Manager stated there was an impression that this roadway is under water but that is not the case, it is above the ordinary high water mark. Councilmember Brown stated that some of it is under water. He noted that one of the things that appears to be different now is that during the Planning Commission meetings it was stated that this property and the frontage was not included in the dock program and has never been included. He noted several references in their meeting minutes that verified that indication. Councilmember Brown stated that now it is being indicated that it is included in the dock program. The Parks Director explained that a few years ago they were looking to get a number on the totally owned footage in the program and investigated the possibility of doing a survey but the cost was quite expensive so, to his best knowledge, they determined what lands do exist that are dry above 929 without the benefit of a survey. He stated that the City now knows the property in question is above 929 and could be counted in the dock program. Councilmember Weycker noted all the numbers are estimates since a survey was not done so the issue is not whether it is or is not in the dock program but, rather, that it could be in the program. The Parks Director stated that is correct. Councilmember Brown stated the Planning Commission was looking at BSU and that it MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -FEBRUARY 8, 2000 would take away from the BSU units. But, then they realized it was not taking away anything according to the information they had before them which indicated it was not counted in the lineal footage. Councilmember Hanus stated the Dock and Commons Advisory Commission did talk about value but that was not the majority of the discussion which had to do with the 3/4 BSLI, the 38 feet, and its impact relative to the program. He asked about the statement on Page 510 indicating it appears the dock will receive the necessary approvals regardless of the actions the City takes. The City Planner stated he talked with Greg Nybeck of the LMCD and asked where the application stood. Mr. Nybeck said it is a conditional approval for dock length variance and dock use area, dependent on vacation. He stated it was Mr. Nybeck's opinion that they would approve it one way or the other. Councilmember Ahrens stated she also spoke to Greg Nybeck who is the Executive Director but does not vote. She noted there are 14 board members who vote and Mr. Nybeck does not have a "crystal ball." She stated she believes this is why the vacation is being requested of the City Council; strong concern about the LMCD giving a third variance. Councilmember Ahrens stated that this issue has been before the LMCD three times as well as before the Council. She stated she questions whether or not the LMCD would grant approval which is why this application is back before the Council again. Councilmember Weycker stated the LMCD had noted this could be a more conforming dock and requested it be moved over to get away from the side setback variance. However, that results in a longer length so she believes the LMCD is creating the need for that one variance. Councilmember Ahrens stated that is being caused by the dredging issue since the LMCD does not want to impact the ecosystem. Councilmember Brown stated the Planning Commission heard they do not want any dredging and would prefer a variance to dredging. Councilmember Ahrens stated that is what the DNR has advised the LMCD, they prefer a longer dock than dredging. Councilmember Hanus stated the only valid debate is the 3/4 BSU and nothing else. MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -FEBRUARY 8, 2000 Councilmember Brown asked if there is a way to vacate the road and keep it as commons to allow the dock. Councilmember Ahrens stated the lineal footage has to be under the City's control to be added to the count. Mayor Meisel opened the public hearing at 8:06 p.m. Steve Behuke, representing Steven Oliver, stated he wanted to make a number of corrections to the staff report. He stated they are not dealing with two land owners but, rather, three since the property owner to the south has asked to be included as well. Mr. Behuke pointed out the location of Jim Peterson's property, the twin home, and advised that all three parties have decided to participate in this 3-slip (not finger) dock. He stated two of the involved property owners had commons docks at the start of the process but would give up their common dock to use this private dock. The new party just moved into Mound and plans to get a slip on this private dock and not take a common dock. Mr. Behuke stated the issue of shoreline is valid but noted this is about 1.5 feet wide and 50 square feet of land. He stated the dock itself, per the LMCD approval, is not 350 feet but 348 feet is the maximum the LMCD approved and the applicant was strongly directed to stay under that. It is now about 280 feet. He stated two variances are conditionally approved. He noted the small triangular area that identified their dock use area, explaining it is to swing that area out into the lake. The second variance is for the length beyond 100 feet which they are allowed. The third setback variance has not been approved and will not be considered until this land is vacated. He stated there have been a number of times where the staff and LMCD have differing opinions. He stated he would not want to "test the waters" with another vote of the LMCD since it was not a unanimous vote to approve the variances. He advised the vote was a 1/3-2/3 vote to approve the request with two variances. Councilmember Hanus asked how that is effected by the vacation issue. Mr. Behuke stated it assumes the City will vacate and explained that at the 100-foot line there is not a setback issue. Councilmember Hanus stated if there is no vacation, the setback has to be taken from that piece of property or a variance is needed. Mr. Behuke stated he found the DNR letters as contradictory regarding access issues. He stated the BSUs issue was discussed a lot and his own observation is if the City vacates they may lose 3/4 of a BSU but would gain 2-3 common dock spaces for someone else to use which is a positive. Councilmember Brown stated that this is a 3-slip dock. Mr. Behuke stated that is correct. Councilmember Brown stated there have been cases where two additional boats tie up making it a five boat dock and asked if it will be written up for only three boats. Mr. Behuke stated MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -FEBRUARY 8, 2000 it would be and since there will be only minimal dredging, he does not think additional boats would be able to dock. Councilmember I-Ianus stated that is an LMCD issue so it does not matter to him how it is registered. Mr. Behuke stated the dock that was registered originally landed at Longford Road so the City requested it be moved to a spot off the City right-of-way. He suggested that the construction at that point brought it to the LMCD's attention. Mr. Behuke suggested that the dock would have been able to exist in its original form if not requested by the City to relocate it as part of the twinhome approval. Thomas Stokes, 5201 Waterbury Road, stated that Mr. Oliver has moved into one-half of the twinhome and his parents have moved into the other half. He stated that they would not be here if they did not believe Council approval was needed to get the dock. He stated that he hopes some consideration is given to Mr. Oliver who bought a problem property, tore down the old house, and constructed a very nice addition in this neighborhood. He stated that this was an economic risk and to not have a dock would be a detriment to that property. Mr. Stokes stated he would think Mound would want to encourage this type of investment and redevelopment. He restated they would not be before the Council if they thought the LMCD would consider another variance. Councilmember Weycker asked if the LMCD has ever denied dock rights to an abutting property owner. Mr. Stokes commented on another case where it was stated that a property owner has rights to use the lakeshore with a dock. Councilmember Weycker stated she would agree with that opinion and noted the variance is being created by the LMCD's desire to limit dredging. Mr. Stokes explained that was a compromise for a minimal dredge and minimal amount of dock, which determined the placement of the dock. Councilmember Ahrens stated what is at issue is whether to vacate the road and asked if there was a reason to vacate the road. She stated she does not think the Council should say where to place the dock but, as a Council of a lake community, they should be concerned about minimal destruction to the shoreline and ecosystem. Mr. Stokes stated some staff memos say the footing is in the dock program while others say it is not included but, as far as they can tell, it has not ever been counted and is not counted now so there should be no impact on the lineal footage. He stated that otherwise, the City would have to conduct a survey and make that determination of the exact footage. Councilmember Weycker stated that is correct but the survey is cost prohibitive and the City is not willing to spend the money for it. She stated it could effect the count since it is an estimate. Mr. Behuke stated it is only about one boat and in exchange three common docks would be available for others to use. 10 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -F]~BRUARY 8, 2000 Councilmember Ahrens stated a decision cannot be made on numbers that may come up next month or next year and asked that the Council address the vacation request and whether it is in the public good for the City to'keep this property. Peter Meyer, 5748 Sunset Road, agreed with the comment about sticking with the vacation issues. He stated it would result in the loss of 38 feet of shoreland which is included it the park land and nature count. He stated that even though the City's population has increased from 6,500 to about 10,000 today, the City does not have football or soccer fields or City- supported skating rink so he does not see where an increased tax base over the last 30 years has improved the City's parks for the kids. He stated he does not "buy' the tax base issue. Mr. Meyer stated he is against the vacation and asked how a vacation would benefit the community. Councilmember Hanus agreed the tax base comment is a non-issue. Councilmember Brown stated the tax base has gone up and noted the resulting improvements to the Fire Department which increases the quality of resident's life, including increased community services and Police protection. Mr. Behuke stated the public benefit is the three commons docks that would be opened for other Mound residents. Mayor Meisel closed the public hearing at 8:21 p.m. Councilmember Hanus noted the Reger letter mention of a court case involving a vacation in which the court said "not capable of serving any public purpose" but he found that to be ambiguous. He stated it boils down to a very subjective, almost personal, opinion. With regard to wildlife, he noted the area is only 50 square feet. He asked if the area is mowed or dirt. Mr. Stokes stated it is weeds and a few trees. Councilmember Weycker stated it is only 50 square feet and only one variance on paper as opposed to 38 feet which is a clear benefit to the dock program and the public. Councilmember Hanus stated there is also a benefit to the public who lives there, a cost benefit for a less expensive dock, and a benefit in that it is easier to get to. He stated that he is also looking at the loss to the public if it is vacated. Councilmember Hanus noted the applicants have a purpose for it and questioned what the loss is to the public if it is vacated. Mayor Meisel asked staff to justify why to not vacate. The Parks Director stated total lineal footage count is an issue and what is happening on Woodland Point is an issue since it will reduce the current 100 boat buffer. He stated there will be a point in time when the City will have to look at the 474 sites and make sure the 11 MOUND crrY COUNCIL MINUTES -FEBRUARY 8, 2000 boat count does not exceed the number allowed by the LMCD. He stated another thing helping is that approximately 49 dock sites did not list a boat so that was not counted. He agreed it is difficult to estimate what it will be next year but he believes it will go up with the current developments. Councilmember Ahrens stated at a COW meeting the idea was raised about counting all lineal footage or counting just useable lineal footage. Since that discussion has not yet been held, she does not know the philosophy of the Council as a whole but stated she would not consider this footage as useable. Mayor Meisel stated that is also her argument as well because it comes down to being 38 feet and she questions how useable it is. She stated she also does not want to hurt the dock program, which makes this decision difficult. The Parks Director stated it would be devastating to consider just the useable footage and explained that what allows the number of sites is the unusable areas. He explained that this is why Woodland Point has an impact, since all of the unusable lineal footage still counts towards the number allowed and provides the buffer. Councilmember Weycker stated that says to her that if it is vacated, it will hurt the dock program. Councilmember Ahrens noted there was a unanimous vote for a street vacation on Island View Drive where the City did not intend to use the easement as a road so it was vacated. Councilmember Brown stated that was Hanover Road. Councilmember Ahrens asked where the public good was in that vacation, except to the abutting property owner who got one-half of a lot. The City Attorney explained that it is a two-pronged test, the first being that there is a definite public benefit in leaving the street in its current unvacated condition. If it is a definite benefit then you don't vacate. However, if you conclude there is no public benefit, then the next question is if there is benefit in vacating the street. Clearly the courts have recognized that roads that go into navigable waters carry a higher standard when considering vacation than other roads that do not go into navigable waters having to do with access. He explained there are other suitable appropriate access nearby to this one and this particular street probably has never served as a useable access point to the lake. The City Attorney stated the typical challenge to vacation into navigable waters may not be present here but his question is if the Council believes the loss of 3/4 BSU is a significant factor to be considered. He stated there has been comment made that the lineal footage is not currently counted but could be counted. He explained that some cases dealing with access to streets abutting water addresses streets that could be used for that purpose but have not been used for a long period of time and the courts have held the important consideration MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -FEBRUARY 8, 2000 is that they could be used for that purpose. Councilmember Ahrcns noted that not vacating could benefit someone else to 3/4 BSU or vacation could benefit three residents. She stated the public benefit may not be to the benefit of all the public. Councilmember Weycker stated to deny does not prohibit the dock and she thinks LMCD has not ever denied a lakeshore owner the benefit of a dock. Councilmember Ahrens stated she does not know if they have ever denied anyone a dock but the LMCD is making rules so it will be more difficult to get a dock. Councilmember Hanus added that the LMCD does not like to grant variances. Councilmember Weycker asked if this is granted, what would prohibit someone else by a platted road under water from asking for the same thing. Councilmember Hanus stated it is on a case-by-cam basis consideration. Councilmember Weycker asked how another request could be denied and noted that the LMCD is creating the need for the variance since they prefer to dredge less, which she supports, but she does not believe it is a benefit to these three people since they will get the dock anyway. Councilmember Brown stated this property is not benefiting anyone at this time. Councilmember Weycker stated without a survey it is not known what the footage is so that can not be determined. Councilmember Brown stated that with what was shown at the Planning Commission meeting, this property benefits no one at this time. Councilmember Weycker stated if it is not in the program now, that does not mean it cannot be included in the future. Councilmember Brown stated that right now it is not included and that has been provided in writing before the Planning Commission. Councilmember Hanus stated the DCAC reviewed this and debated the 38 foot issue heavily which he believes is the only issue. He stated they weighed that against the dock program and their determination was that it was so insignificant to the program, they did not feel it was worth hanging onto. Ahrens moved and Hanus seconded the following resolution: MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -FEBRUARY 8, 2000 RESOLUTION//00..21 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE VACATION OF OF PORTION OF WATERFORD ROAD ADJACENT TO 2537 & 2541 WECXFORD ROAD, P & Z CASE//99-41 The vote was in 4 in favor, with Weycker voting nay. Motion carried. Councilmember Weycker stated she does not believe this vacation is in the public's interest. 1.10 PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUATION: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The City Planner noted that as requested by the Council at the November 23, 1999 meeting, this is a continuance of the Comprehensive Plan public hearing. He stated the Council is to consider the Comprehensive Plan and SWMP but that is still in committee before the Planning Commission. He stated the Council can consider approval of the Comprehensive Plan absent the SWMP. The Comprehensive Plan would then be sent to the Metropolitan Council which would take no formal review action until the SWMP is received. This approach would suggest to the Metropolitan Council the City is making a gesture of good faith in submitting the Plan which was due on December 31, 1999. After City approval of the SWMP, it would then be sent to the Metropolitan Council to complete the required submittal information. Only after a complete submittal is received, will the Metropolitan Council start the time clock on the 60-day window for formal review. He advised that a second approach would be to postpone action on the Comprehensive Plan until the SWMP is completed. In that case, a further continuance of the scheduled Public Hearing would be needed. The City Planner stated that a third approach the Council could consider is to take action on both Plans. The SWMP does not need a formal recommendation from the Planning Commission for Council consideration and formal motions of approval would secure approval of each plan. With this option, resolutions would be prepared for the February 22, 2000, meeting stating the City has approved the Plans and submitted them consistent with provisions provided in Minnesota State Statutes. Councilmember Brown reviewed the Planning Commission discussion and their concern with regard to the buffer zones and storm water management issues. He advised they have been reviewing it page by page. Councilmember Brown stated there has been serious discussion and estimated their recommendation will come before the Council on February 22, 2000. The Assistant City Planner agreed that the tough issues considered by the Planning Commission have been resolved. 14 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -FEBRUARY 8, 2000 Councilmember Weycker suggested acting on the Comprehensive Plan at this time. She noted the Planning Commission was given a deadline and could have scheduled additional meetings. Councilmember Weycker stated that because of this, she would not object to passing both Plans~ Councilmember Brown stated the Planning Commission knew about the deadline and could have pushed it through without a thorough review but he believed the SWMP should not be taken lightly. He stated all Commissioners have worked hard to assure this SWMP is a good one for the City and he supports action to table consideration. Mayor Meisel asked if the public hearing should be opened if the matter is tabled. City Attorney suggested the audience be asked if they would like to speak. He explained the public hearing would also be continued on the tabled item until that date since the SWMP is a component of the Comprehensive Plan. Councilmember Hanus stated that the draft ordinances reviewed by the Council usually contain underlines and redlines so it is easy to review. He stated he is not prepared to vote on this portion tonight so he would have to vote against it. Councilmember Brown agreed. The City Planner distributed an inventory list of changes being recommended. Councilmember Weycker asked if the Metropolitan Council has contacted him. The City Planner stated that he has talked to the Metropolitan Council representative and learned that about one-half of the cities are in the same situation. He explained that at first the Metropolitan Council indicated they would issue no extensions but now they have indicated they would issue extensions. Councilmember Brown advised of his interest in drafting a recommendation on companies that spray yards to possibly require use of phosphorous-free chemicals which would help the quality of the lake. The City Planner noted the Planning Commission's recommendations have been presented to the Council. He stated the Parks Commission approved the Parks and Recreation component early last summer and then followed up with their comments in letter form last November. MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -FEBRUARY 8, 2000 He stated the comments received at the Planning Commission and Council heatings are also included in the handout. The City Planner advised of the language that will be drafted for Council's consideration at the formal adoption. I-Ie stated he will prepare a similar handout for the comments on the SWMP. Councilmember Hanus asked for that information to be provided to the Council well before the meeting so it can be reviewed. The City Planner noted the closely scheduled meetings and stated staff will attempt to do so. Mayor Meisel opened the public hearing at 9:04 p.m. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Ahrens, to table the Comprehensive Plan and the Storm Water Management Plan to February 22, 2000, Council meeting and continue the public hearing on both to the same date. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 5-0. 1.11 APPROVAL OF TWIN PARK MULTIPLE DOCK SLIP FOR 2000 The Parks Director advised that funding has been included in the budget as a line item for multiple dock slips. He advised that the Dock and Commons Advisory Commission (DCAC) recommends that a City multiple slip dock be installed at the Twin Park access. They have found by meeting with the current dock site holders and abutting property owners, that an "H" dock could be installed to accommodate four boats. The site has the size to allow two more slips and the DCAC will review this addition in the future. The site location has 99.8 linear feet of shoreline of which the dock would use 27.5 feet. The LMCD required a ten- foot setback to the private properties be allowed for so a boat with a ten-foot beam in slip 1 and 4 would leave 26.15 feet for the setback. The design will be for two 24 foot by ten foot slips (2 and 3) and two 27.5 foot by ten foot slips (1 and 4). Councilmember Hanus asked about the dollar estimate. The Parks Director estimated between $4,000 to $5,000 for each one. Councilmember Brown commented on a new type of dock material that was displayed at a boat show and asked if high impact plastic material has been researched. The Parks Director stated he has not seen that type of dock material. Councilmember Brown stated he will provide that information to staff. MOUND CITY COUNCIl, MINUTES -FEBRUARY 8, 2000 Councilmember Hanus commented on the need to address durability over winter weather conditions. Councilmember Weycker asked what the cost estimate includes. The Parks Director stated this is within the estimate for previous docks at about $200 to $250 per section plus in and out costs, etc. Councilmember Weycker noted she calculated the cost to be $1,050 per slip. Mayor Meisel asked if there was anyone present wishing to address the Council on the Twin Park multiple dock site. No comments were made. MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Brown, to approve the Twin Park multiple dock slip for 2000 which adds an additional slip at this site, from 3 to 4. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 5-0. 1.12 APPROVAL OF WATERBURY ACCESS MULTIPLE DOCK SLIP FOR 2000 The Parks Director advised that the Dock and Commons Advisory Commission (DCAC) recommends that a City multiple slip dock be installed at the Waterbury access. They have found by meeting with the current dock site holders and abutting property owners that an "H" shaped dock could be installed to accommodate four boats. The site location has 65.3 linear feet of shoreline of which 27.5 feet would be used for the dock. There would be five foot setbacks required by the LMCD to the private property while allowing for two 24 foot by eight foot slips, and two 24 foot by ten foot slips at a dock that extends 48 feet into the lake. Mayor Meisel asked if there was anyone present wishing to address the Council on the Twin Park multiple dock site. No comments were made. Councilmember Hanus advised that in discussion at the DCAC, both of these locations were well received with a little apprehension. Councilmember Weycker stated she is pleased they were told they would be limited to one boat. MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Hanus, to approve the multiple slip dock configuration for Waterbury Access which adds an additional slip at this site, from 3 to 4. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 5-0. MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -FEBRUARY 8, 2000 1.13 APPROVAL OF 2000 DOCK LOCATION MAP WITH CHANGES AS NOTED IN ITEM 6 & 7 ABOVE It was noted that the Dock Inspector recommended the following changes to the Dock Location map: Remove dock site 61130 at Ridgewood Park. This dock site came open and removing this site will allow the City to meet LMCD setback requirements. Add Waterbury multiple slip dock site location. Add Twin Park multiple slip dock site location. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Weycker, to approve the revisions to the Dock Location Map as recommended by staff and indicated above. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 5-0. The Parks Director noted the addendum listing all the multiple dock sites which now assigns a size to eliminate the problem with larger boats coming into a smaller slip. The Acting City Manager thanked staff for their work in preparing this report which is very useful. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS. A. Preliminary Financial Report for December 31, 1999, as prepared by Finance Director, Gino Businaro B. Communication from Standard & Poor's on Mound's bond rating that is an A C. Economic Development Commission Minutes from January 20, 2000 Councilmember Brown advised that the Economical Development Commission received three applications to fill the vacancy but, due to winter weather conditions, they extended the interviewing to their next meeting, February 17th. Co Do Results of Community Survey of Tobacco Attitudes Dock & Commons Commission Minutes from January 20, 2000 Draft Planning Commission Minutes of January 2, 2000 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINIYlES -FEBRUARY 8, 2000 G. LMCD mailings 1.14 ADD-ON ITEM - LETTER TO NORTHERN HOSPITALITIES The City Attorney read the letter he prepared for signature by Jim Prosser, Ehlers & Associates, Inc., to be sent to Perry Platisha, Northern Hospitalities, Inc., terminating the exclusive rights agreement between the City and Northern Hospitalities. He distributed a copy of this letter and requested permission to forward the letter. MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Ahreus, to authorize staff to send the letter from Jim Prosser, Ehlers & Associates, Inc., to Perry Piatisha, Northern Hospitalities, Inc., terminating the exclusive rights agreement. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 5-0. ADJOURNMENT. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Ahrens, to adjourn the meeting at 9:18 p.m. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 5-0. Manager Francene C. Clark, Acting City Attest: Mayor Meisel CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) -~72-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 To: From: Re: Date: Mayor and City Council Gino Businaro ~,/d~'. Cash Advance from the General Fund To the New TIF Fund February 2, 2000 In 1999 the Mound HRA Board and the City Council approved the establishment of the new Tax Increment District 1-2. Since then, expenditures were incurred and charged to this new fund, but no revenues will be realized until increments will take place. To offset the expenditures incurred so far, the Council needs to authorize a cash advance, which will be paid back when funds are available, with interest. It is my advice that the Council pass a motion to that effect, stating that the advance from the General Fund to the TIF 1-2 Fund be in the amount equal to the total expenditures as of December 31, 1999, effective as of the same date, and furthermore that the 1999 TIF 1-2 fund budget reflect $200,000 in consulting fees and other miscellaneous costs. The General Fund Balance will not be affected by this advance and the cash will be returned once the property increments generate property tax dollars. Our independent auditor concurs with this recommendation. Please call me at 472-0608 if you need more information on this matter. Thank you. printed on recycled paper RESOLUTION # 00- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A MINOR SUBDIVISION FOR 2978 AND 2988 PELICAN POINT CIRCLE, LOTS 13 AND 14, BLOCK 1, POLICAN POINT, PID # 19-117-23 42 0038 AND # 19-117-23-31-0139 P & Z CASE # 00-02 WHEREAS, Boyer Building Corporation, owner, has submitted a request for a minor subdivision to relocate a lot line in the same manner required by Mound City Code Section 320 and Minnesota State Statute Chapter 462, and all proceedings have been duly conducted there under, and; WHEREAS, Pelican Point is a development of double units with a common wall i ,g''~/~ that straddles a lot line. IN the case of the subject units the c~on wall was built in the wrong location and, therefore, the developer is proposing td~0_be~he lot line to the common alignment position. The amount of the shift in the lin~ very minor (less than 1 foot) and it will not impact lot size or other setback requirements, and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-1 Zoning District, and is a Planned Development Area, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommended approval of the minor subdivision as 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 minor subdivision of the property pursuant to Section 330:20, Subdivision I.B. This Minor Subdivision is granted for the following new legally described property: PROPOSED LOT 13: LOT 13 AND THAT PART OF LOT 14, PELICAN POINT, ACCORDING TO THE RECODED PLAT THEREOF, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA LYING NORTHEASTERLY OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE; COMMENCING AT THE MOST SOUTHERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 14; THENCE NORTH 44 DEGREES 14 MINIUTES 11 SECONDS EAST, ASSUMED BEARING, ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 14 A DISTANCE OF 64.30 FEET TO THE POINTOF BEGINNING OF THE LINE TO BE DESCRIBED; THENCE NORTH 59 DEGREES 21 MINUTES 18 SECONDS WEST A DISTANCE OF 139.82 FEET TO THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER Of SAID LOT 14 AND THERE TERMINATING. PROPOSED LOT 14: THAT PART OF LOT 14, PELICAN POINT, ACCORDING TO THE RECODED PLAT THEREOF, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA LYING SOUTHWESTERLY OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE; COMMENCING AT THE MOST SOUTHERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 14; THENCE NORTH 44 DEGREES 14 MINIUTES 1 1 SECONDS EAST, ASSUMED BEARING, ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 14 A DISTANCE OF 64.30 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE LINE TO BE DESCRIBED; THENCE NORTH 59 DEGREES 21 MINUTES 18 SECONDS WEST A DISTANCE OF 139.82 FEET TO THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 14 AND THERE TERMINATING. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: February 14, 2000 SUBJECT: Minor Subdivision OWNER: Boyer Building Corporation CASE NUMBER: 00-02 HKG FILE NUMBER: 00-5 LOCATION: Lots 13 and 14 of Block 1, Pelican Point ZONLNG: Residential District R-1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: This minor subdivision was approved by the Council through Resolution #96-66, but was never filed and is considered null and void. The applicant has 60 days to file the resolution after adoption with Hennepin County. At this time, the applicant would like to reinitiate the request with the City. The conditions of the site remain the same and staff is recommending approval consistent with the prior resolution. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approve the minor subdivision as requested. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 RESOLUTION %96-66 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A MINOR SUBDIVISION FOR 2978/2988 PELICAN POINT CIRCLE LOTS 13 & 14, BLOCK 1, PELICAN POINT PID 919-117-23 42 0038 & 31 0139 WHEREAS, Buyer Building Corporation, owner, has submitted a request for a Minor Subdivision to re!ocata a lot line in manner required by Mound City Code Section 320 and Minnesota State Statute Chapter 462, and all proceedings have been duly conducted thereunder, and; WHEREAS, Pelican Point is a development of doub!eunits with a common wall that straddles a lot line. In the case of the subject units the common wall was built in the wrong location and, therefore, the developer is proposing to move the lot line to the common a!igr~en~ position. The amount of the shift in the line is very minor (less than 1.foot) and it will not impact lot size or other setback.ra.~uirements, and; WHEREAS, the subject pr~pe~y is located within the R-1 Zoning District, and is a Planned Development Area, and; W1~EREAS, 'the. Planning Co~ission has reviewed the request and unanimously .recommended approval. NOW, THEP~EFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby approve the minor subdivision to make an adjustment to an existing lot line as shown on the attached "Exhibit A", and subject to the developer preparing new legal descriptions for the two lots and submitting said descriptions to the City Engineer for review and approval. It is determined that the foregoing subdivision will constitute a desirable and stable community development and it is in harmony with adjacent properties. The city Clerk is authorized to deliver a certified copy of ' this resolution to the applicant upon compliance with all conditions contained herein. The applicant shall have the responsib~!ity'of' f~ling this resolution in the office of the Register of Deeds or the Registrar of Titles of Hennepin County to show compliance with the subdivision regulations of the City The applicant shall also have the responsibility to pay all costs associated with such recording. Re~ohaion t196-66 Page 2 This lot subdivision is to be filed and recorded within 180 days of the adoption date of this resolution. The foregoing resolution was moved by Counci!me~foer Ahrens and seconded by Counci!member Jessen. The following Councilmembers voted in t~he affirmative: Ahrens, Hanus, Jensen, Jessen and Polston. The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: None Mayor ' Resolution adopted: June 25, 1996 RESOLUTION ~96- "EXHIBIT A" SURVEY FOR.' BOYER BUILDING CORPORATION PROPOSED LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PROPOSED LOT 13 Lot 1.3 and that port of Lot 14, PELICAN POINT, according to the recorded plat thereaf, Hennepin County, Minnesota lying northeosteHy of the following described line; Commencing at the most southerly comer of said Lot 14; thence North 4,4 degrees 14, minutes 11 seconds East. assumed bearing, along the southeasterly line of said Lot 14 a distance of 64.50 feet to the point of beginning of the llne to be described; thence North 59 degrees 21 minutes 18 seconds West a distance of 139.82 feet to the most northerly comer of said Lot 14 and there terminating. PROPOSED LOT 14. That port of Lot 14, PEUCAN POINT, according to the recorded plot thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota lying southwesterly of the following described line; Commencing at the most southeHy comer of said Lot 14; thence North 44 degrees 14 minutes 11 secands East, assumed bearing, along the southeasterly line of said Lot 14 o distance of 64..30 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence North 59 degrees 21 minutes 18 seconds West o distance of 139.82 feet to the most northeHy corner of said Lot 14 and there terminoUng. CERTIFICATION: NORTH I hereby certify that this mop was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Land Surve{~x~titfd~r//~,e laws of the State of Minnesota. Dated this 29th day of May 1996 IdiSnes~.to L~[cense; ~o. 2p281[ ~RV~OR8 2543-56 7415 Wo~eto Boule~rd M~n~p~ls, M~nesoto 55426 1 nnn ~we~'4R 14 MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - SEPTEM2BER 24, 1996 The following items were moved by Councilmember Ahrens, seconded by Councilmember Jensen, and by roll call vote, passed unanimously: *CONSENT AGENDA 1.7 RESOLUTION//96-97 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A MINOR SUBDIVISION FOR LOTS 13, 14, 15, BLOCK 15, PID'S 13-117-24 14 0046/0047/0039. P&Z g96-53. Ahrens moved, Jensen seconded, unanimous. MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - JUNE 25, 1996 1.8 CASE ~96-33: ME, OR SUBDIVISION. BOYER BUILDING CORP.. 2978 AND 2988 PELICAN POINT CIRCLE, LOTS 13 & 14. BLOCK 1. PELICAN POENT. P1D 19-117-23 42 0038 & 0039. Building Official Jon Sutherland stated the Boyer Building Corporation has applied for a minor subdivision to relocate a lot line in the manner required by Mound City Code Section 320. He stated the development consists of double units with a common wall that straddles the lot line. In the case of this unit, the commons wall was built in the wrong location and the developer is proposing to move the lot line to the common alignment position. The mount of the shift is less than one foot. Ahrens moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution as proposed: RESOLUTION #96-66 RESOLUTION FOR 2978/2988 14, BLOCK 1, AND 31-0139. TO APPROVE A MINOR SUBDIVISION PELICAN POINT CIRCLE, LOTS 13 & PELICAN POINT, PID #19-117-23 42 0038 PZ g~96-33. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 10, 1996 CASE 96-33: MINOR SUBDIVISION BOYER BUILDING CORP., 2978/2988 PELICAN POINT CIRCLE, LOTS 13 & 14, BLOCK 1, PELICAN POINT, PID #19-117-23 42 0038 & 31 0139 City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the Planning Report. Boyer Building Corporation is seeking approval of a minor subdivision to make an adjustment to an existing lot line. Pelican Point is a development of double units with a common wall that straddles a lot line. In the case of the subject units the common wall was built in the wrong location and, therefore, the developer is proposing to move the lot line to the common alignment position. The amount of the shift in the line is very minor (less than 1 foot) and it will not impact lot size or other setback requirements. Staff recommended approval of the minor subdivision as proposed subject to the developer preparing new legal descriptions for the two lots and submi~ing said descriptions to the City Engineer for review and approval. MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Mueller, to approve the subdivision as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously. Creative Solutions for Land Planning and Design Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. ]'lll I ln PLANNING REPORT TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: June 5, 1996 SUBJECT: Mino~: Subdivision APPLICANT: John Boyer - Boyer Building Corporation CASE NUMBER: 96-33 HKG FILE NUMBER: 96-5j LOCATION: 2978 Pelican Point Circle EXISTING ZONING: R- 1 (Planned Development Area) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: Boyer Building Corporation is seeking approval of a minor subdivision to make an adjustmem to an existing lot line. Pelican Point is a development of double units with a common .wall that straddles a lot line. In the case of the subject units, the common wall was built in the wrong location and, therefore, the developer is proposing to move the lot line to the common alignment position. The amount of the shift in the line is very minor (less than 1 foot) and it will not impact lot size or other setback requirements. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the minor subdivision as proposed subject to the developer preparing new legal descriptions for the two lots and submitting said descriptions to the City Engineer for review and approval. 7300 Metro Boulevard, Suite 525, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 (612) 835-9960 Fax (612) 835-3160 Commission Date: ity Council Date: Distribution: Application for MINOR SUBDIVISION OF LAND City of Mound, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, M2N Phone: 4?2-0600, Fax: 472-0620 City Planner DNR Public Works Other City Engineer No. Application F~: $50.00 Deficient Unit Charges? Delinquent Taxes? V~CE Pd~QU/R~D? Please type or print the following infonnaiiom PROPERTY Subject Address INFORMATION EXISTING Lot /7 '~' /, LEGAL DIST~I~T Circle: PID# APPLICANT The applicant is: _~wner other: OWNER {if other than applicant) Name Address SURVEYOR/ ENGINEER Phone (H) Name Address Phone (H) (W) (M) Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? { ) yes,~o. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. This app/icaticr~, must be signed by a__/l owners of the subject property, or an explanation given why this is not the case. ~~'s Signatur; / Da Owner's Signature Date C~ C) SURVEY r0R: BOYER BUILDING CORPORATION PROPERTY ADDRF.SS: ~ and ~ Pelican Point Circle, Mound, Minnesota. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: (Furnished by client) Lots 1,3 and 14, Block 1, PF'UCAN POINT, according to the recorded plo{ thereof and situate in Hennepin County, Winnesoto. NORTH I hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of the land above described a~,.oT'th~,lq/c, ation of all buildings, if any, thereon, and all visible encroachments ~if~aqy~.:fro_m .<~/{'~ said lend. Doted this 3rd day of April, 1996 .~. -. .............. .:':" ~ Revised this 15th day of April, 199~ ~ ~ Revised this 22th dey of April. 19g~' X'/RE~'~ ~ b %~.- NO~S: ,,. · 1. ~e orientation of this beonng s~tem ~s based on the n~theeste~y line of Lot 13, Block 1, PELICAN POINT which Is assumed to have a bearing of South 64 degrees, 39 minutes, 01 seconds East. 2. Ar~ of ~he property described hereon ia 14,569 ;quire feet or 0.334 3. Existing utilities, so.ices end underground st~ctures shown hereon, were located either ph~ic~lly, from existing records or by resident testimony, end are provided for informational purposes only. Other utilities and underground st~ctures may be p~esent. Exact toc~tions should be obtained from the owners of the respective utilities prior to any design, planning, or excavation. SCALE 1" = 30' g ':- Sl1"08'21"W ,,' 26.31 INDICATE:S PROPOSED ELEVATION PROPOSED ELEVATIONS: LOT 13 TOP OF BLOCK = 970,0 BASEMENT FLOOR = 960.0 GARAGE FLOOR = 969.0 LOT 14 TOP OF BLOCK = 970.0 BASEMENT FLOOR = 960.0 GARAGE FLOOR = 968.5 NOTE~ 2543-56 ~000 RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN FLOOR ELEVATIONS TO BE VERIFIED B.Y.~.J~UILDER..~;:' '; ':i..: ..: , ,.. ~. ~.,--- , ; ,-, '7, ,~','~ ~..,~',.~:" 'i : ~.-': ..,- ~- ] .... ,,,~;,,, ,, ,.-;.....;J . LEGEND H~DRANT TELE. BOX ELEC. BOX · STOP BOX CABLE BOX EGAN, FIELD & NOWAK INC. SURVEYORS 7415 Wayzata Boulevard Minneapolis, Minnesota 55426 . . 225041714 ~ ~6 .504L13 1~-11'7. Z "~ GOVT LOT 5 I L~T , ( I?- 14' (15o) (2-25) GOVT L~ · '~J),". ,10 '~' 'l.,l 15 ~ .~0 40 .,,to"" .4 40 40 40 40 $ 5 4 3 ~0 ~0 '~0 (2) ~) ~ ~ O(JTLOT C ,.-.. \ \ 167.? i63. 4 -, I February 22, 2000 RESOLUTION NO. 00- RESOLUTION APPROVING THE LABOR AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF MOUND AND TEAMSTERS LOCAL NO. 320, PUBLIC WORKS UNIT BEGINNING JANUARY 1, 2000 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2000 WHEREAS, the City of Mound and Teamsters Loc~ No. 320, Maintenance Persons and Unit Supervisor have gone through the collective bargaining process and negotiated a Labor Contract for January 1, 2000 through December 31, 2001, a two yeard period; and WHEREAS, both sides have worked a final agreement which is acceptable to both the City's negotiators and the Bargaining Unit's negotiators. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Mound and Teamsters Local No. 320 Maintenance Persons and Unit Supervisor have reached a settlement on the January 1, 2000 through December 31, 2001, contract attached hereto and made a part thereof. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember seconded by Councilmember and The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Mayor Attest: City Clerk February 22, 2000 RESOLUTION gOO- RESOLUTION APPROVING THE LABOR CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF MOUND AND LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES (LELS)LOCAL 35, POLICE SERGEANTS, FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2000, THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2001 WItEREAS, the City of Mound and w Enforcement Labor Services, (LELS) LOCAL 35, Police Sergeants, have gone through the collective bargaining process and negotiated a Labor Contract for January 1, 2000 through December 31, 2001; and WltEREAS, both sides have worked a final agreement which is acceptable to both the City's negotiators and the Bargaining Unit's negotiators, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Mound and Law Enforcement Labor Services (LELS) Local 35, Police Sergeants, have reached a settlement on the Janu 1 , 2000 through December 31, 2001 contract attached hereto and made a part thereof. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Councilmember , and seconded by The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Mayor Attest: City Clerk February 22, 2000 RESOLUTION NO. 00- RESOLUTION APPROVING THE LABOR CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF MOUND AND LELS LOCAL 266 POLICE PATROL OFFICERS JANUARY 1, 2000 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2001. WHEREAS, the City of Mound and LEIS Local No. 266, Police Officers have gone through the collective bargaining process and negotiated a Labor Contract for January 1, 2000 through December 31, 2001 period; and WHEREAS, both sides have worked a final agreement which is acceptable to both the City's negotiators and the Bargaining Unit's negotiators. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Mound and LELS Local No. 266 Police Patrol Officers have reached a settlement on the January 1, 2000 through December 31, 2001, contract attached hereto and made a part thereof. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember seconded by Councilmember and The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Mayor Attest: City Clerk February 18, 2000 TO: FROM: SUBEJCT: CITY OF MOUND MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL FRAN CLARK, CITY CLERK LICENSE RENEWALS 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUN D, MINNESOTA 55364-1667 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 The following licenses are up for renewal. The license period is March 1, 2000 through February 28, 2001. Approval is contingent upon all required forms, insurance, etc. being submitted. Garbage Best Disposal Blackowiak & Son Randy's Sanitation BFI of Minnesota (formerly Woodlake Sanitation) printed on recycled paper Partncr f'or Lif'clong Lcarnins FebruarvlO, 2000 Dear Farmers' Market Applicant: Thank you for your interest in the Westonka Farmers' Market. Even though it may seem quite early, our plans for a successful season are well under way. Enclosed vou will find information regarding the 2000 program. Contents in this packet include: 1. Westonka Farmers Market, 2000 Information 2. Westonka Farmers Market, Rules and Regulations 3. Westonka Farmers Market, 2000 Permit Application Permits are limited and available on a first-come, first-serve, priority basis as explained on the information sheet. Please read the enclosed information carefully, noting the application fees and due dates, to assist you in completing the application process. If you have any questions, please contact me at 491-8045. Sincerely, Sarah Heyer, Education Coordinator Westonka Community Education and Services Westonka Public Scl'tools Enclosures independent School Diltrict t77 Com,~umt~ £d,~Lio, & $~vic¢~ · 2450 \Vi]shire Blvd.. Suite D · ~ound ~N ~5364 · p: 612/491-8040 · f: ~])/49]-8043 · ~vww.westonka.ki2.mn.u$ WESTONKA FARMERS' MARKET 2000 INFORMATION PLANNING TIME LINE: February 10 Permit applications mailed to previous season growers and to new applicants requestin9 information. March 30 First application deadline (to be considered for priority registration) for new growers within Independent School District 277 boundaries and returning growers from previous season. April 10 Final application deadline for all interested parties. Must include crop list and map at this time. April 25 Permit Authorization Certificates mailed SEASON DATES: Saturday, June 17, 2000 through Saturday, October 28, 2000 (Farmers' Market vendors who have produce ready prior to the start date may sell earlier, the "official" start of the Market will be June 17). , SELLING DAYS/TIMES: owntown Saturdays, 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 Noon Mondays and Wednesdays, Noon to 5:00 p.m. NOTE: No sales may begin until starting time and all sales must end at closing time. Mound near the corner of Hennepin County Roads 15 and 110 AUTHORIZED PRODUCTS: Only locally grown produce, bedding plants, berries, cut flowers, eggs, dress poultry, and honey may be sold. Residentially prepared foods (baked goods, pickles, preserves, vinegar, etc.) may be sold on a limited basis with pre-approval of the contract management at the time of application. Crafts and live animals/poultry may not be sold. AUTHORIZATION AGENCIES: The Westonka Farmers Market is authorized by the Westonka Public Schools and the City of Mound. The Market is intended to be only a produce market and therefore, the image of a farm market should be evident. ALL GROWERS MUST PROMINENTLY DISPLAY A VALID PERMIT AUTHORIZATION CERTIFICATE EACH DAY ON THE SITE. SITE VISITS: Site visits will be done for new vendors to the Westonka Farmers' Market. New vendors need to submit a crop list and map with their permit application. PERMIT PROCEDURE: Permits are available on a first-come, first serve, priority basis. The annual permit fee needs to accompany the completed application form. Permit Authorization Certificates will be returned to growers by mail. PERMIT FEE: $60.00 for the 2000 season QUESTIONS: Westonka Community Education and Services; Farmers Market Contract Management 2450 Wilshire Blvd. Suite D Mound, MN 55364 (612) 491-8045 WESTONKA FARMERS MARKET RULES AND REGULATION$ ~e Westonka Farmers Market is a cooperatively sponsored program of the Westonka Public Schools District 277 d the City of Mound. The Community Education and Services Department of the school district serves as the contract management. Representatives of participating growers serve in an advisory capacity and assist with portions of the market operation as directed by the contract management. Selling privileges at the market are extended only to those growers who qualify by meeting the conditions as stated below. 1. Each grower must produce items which are to be sold on land which is either owned or rented by the applicant. Proof of ownership or land lease must be provided upon request of the contract management. All of the produce must be planted, maintained, harvested, and marketed by the applicant. Persons selling may be family ~,'nembers, paid employees of the grower,, or other approved market vendors. No brokers, agents, or others may represent the grower. The contract management reserves the right to inspect the growers operation throughout the season. Produce must be of good quality in the judgment of the contract management. Management reserves the right to have growers remove poor quality items from the market. This may include damaged produce not properly labeled. Authorized products include only locally grown produce, bedding plants, berries, cut flowers, eggs, dressed poultry, and honey. Growers may sell only their own fruits and vegetables. Crafts, live animals/poultry, and residentially prepared foods (baked goods, pickles, preserves, etc.) may not be sold. 5. Application forms must be filled out completely and returned to the contract management by the deadline date specified. Applications will not be considered complete without the annual permit fee enclosed. 6. Permit applications received by the deadline and meeting established criteria will be processed on a first come, first-served basis, using the following priority order: 1st- New applicants within District 277 boundaries and returning applicants from the previous season. 2nd- New applicants outside District 277 boundaries on a space available basis. The contract management reserves the right to lirnit the total numb6r of permits ;ssued as well as the number of permits issued for growers with the same product. 7. Growers are required to prominently display a valid permit authorization certificate each day on the site. Growers are also expected to clean up the parking lot area after each use. 8. Permits are non-transferable and annual permit fees are non-refundable. Growers shall not sell, subject, or assign stall space. 9. The contract management reserves the right to suspend or revoke a Permit Authorization Certificate at any time for cause. 10. Site visits will be done for all new vendors of the Westonka Farmers' Market. New vendors should submit a map and list of the produce they will sell at the Westonka Farmers' Market at the time of the application deadline. WESTONKA FARMERS MARKET 2000 PERMIT APPLICA T/ON Growers Name: Home Address: City: State: Address Where Produce Grown: City: State: Distance From Growing Site to Mound: How many markets do you participate in? Do you consider the Westonka Farmers Market your primary market? Items for Sale: (attach another sheet if necessary) Day phone: Zip: Zip: Selling Season: I additionally request to sell residentially prepared foods Yes No. List Items _...:.__ I have read and understand the rules and regulations and meet the criteria for growers. The application information I have provided is true and correct. I furthermore agree to follow the rules and regulations as established by the contract management in cooperation with the growers of the Westonka Farmers' Market. Growers Signature: Date: Mail completed application and $60.00 annual permit fee to: Westonka Community Education and Services Farmers Market Contract Management 2450 Wilshire Blvd. Suite D Mound, MN 55364 PAYMENT BILLS DATE: FEBRUARY 22, 2000 BILLS ACCOUNTS PAYABLE BATCH # #0013 AMOUNT 198,o19.96 TOTAL BILLS 198,019.96 ~ Z ,3,, · · · · · · ,-, Z = _t Z -7ol RESOLUTION # 00- RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCES TO ALLOW BUILDING EXPANSION AND SITE WORK TO MOUNT OLIVE LUTHERAN CHURCH LOCATED AT 5218 BARTLETT BOULEVARD, TRACT A & PART OF BLOCK 2, SHIRLEY HIU. S UNIT "D", PID # 24-117-24 21 0036 P&Z CASES # 99-45 AND 99-46 WHEREAS, Mount Olive Lutheran Church is requesting a conditional use permit and variances associated with building expansion, renovation and site work. The church is located at the comer of Bartlett and VVilshire Blvd. Zoning of the property is R-1 which allows the church as a conditional use; and, WHEREAS, the following are associated variances; Existing/Prcr~osed ReQuired Vadance Impervious surface Parking stall width (existing and proposed) Driveway entrance width (Bartlett entrance) Parking lot setback (west lot) Parking lot screening 53,300 sf 47,153 sf 6147 sf 9 feet 10 feet 1 foot 42 feet 24 feet 18 feet 0 feet 5 feet 5 feet and, WHEREAS the scope of the project involves renovation of existing intemal space and the addition of a new north and west entrances. The north education wing of the building, which currently has a second story walkway connection, will be provided with an enclosed first floor access. Existing lobby and narthex spaces on both levels will be increased. A number of intedor faceliff improvements will also occur. All building improvements would meet building setback requirements; and, WHEREAS, site improvements consist of a new parking and garden area at the front entrance as well as entrance improvements. In terms of code requirements for parking, the proposal is for 105 spaces, 5 of which encroach on the adjacent City property. The existing 86 stalls located in the north and west parking areas would remain unchanged at a 9 feet stall width. The 19 proposed spaces in the new Wilshire parking area are also requested at a 9 feet width. The code bases parking requirements for churches on sanctuary seating capacity. The plans show the church has a 316 seat capacity requiring 105 parking spaces; and, WHEREAS, access to the site is currently provided by 4 driveways, 2 on VVilshire and 2 on Bartlett. The proposal is to remove the existing loop ddve on Bartlett, leaving three access points; and, WHEREAS, total site hardcover will be reduced from approximately 59,946 sq. ft or 38.1% to 53,300 sq. ff. or 33.9%; and, WHEREAS, the project also incorporates a number of landscape plantings in and around the new front parking area and the south and west entrances. The proposal exceeds the 29 trees code requirements and also satisfies the minimum of 25% plantings of conifer and deciduous varieties; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommend approval of the Conditional Use permit and Variances as recommended by staff; and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The City does-hereby grant a conditional use permit and variances with the following conditions: a. Storm water plans be reviewed and approved by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed Distdct (MCVVD). b. New curbing and gutter in the circular drive and parking area be constructed of concrete and indicated as such on a revised plan with details and paving sections. c. Submit a revised grading plan to show the City's existing storm sewer system in Whilshire Boulevard. d. Erosion control measures such as a silt fence and silt buffer at the City's storm sewer inlet be added to the revised grading plans. e. Submit a revised utility plan to show all City water, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer utilities. f. Secure necessary permits from Hennepin County for right-of-way work. g. Prepare an easement for the parking area that encroaches on the adjacent City property for review and approval by the City Attomey. 2. The Conditional Use Permit and variances are granted forthe following new legally described property: Tract A & part of Block 2, Shirley Hills Unit "D", Hennepin County, Minnesota. 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. Mound Planning Commission Minutes, January 10, 2000 MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, JANUARY 10, 2000 Those present: Chair Geoff Michael; Commissioners: Orr Burma, Cklair Hasse, Bill Voss, Frank Weiland. Absent and excused: Commissioner Becky Glister, Commissioner Jerry Clapsaddle, Commissioner Michael Mueller, Council Liaison Bob Brown. Staff present: City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, and Secretary Sue McCulloch. The following public were present: John Beise, Steve Coddon, Stacy Goldberg, Stephen L. Hewitt, Dennis Kasin, Stephen Krause, Mick Mueller, Peter C. Meyer, Roberta Rice, Mike Schoephoerster, Scott Spanjers. CASE 99-45: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW AN ADDITION TO MOUNT OLIVE LUTHERAN CHURCH; 5218 BARTLETT BLVD., BLOCK 2, TRACT A & PART OF BLOCK 2 SHIIRLEY HILLS UNIT D, SHIRLEY HILLS 'D', 62050, PID # 24-117-24-21-0036. Mount Olive Lutheran Church requested a conditional use permit and variances associated with building expansion and renovation and site work. The church is located at the corner of Bartlett and Wilshire Blvd. Zoning of the property is R-1 which allows the church as a conditional use. The facility plans would require conditional use permit and variance approval from the City Council to proceed. The variance requests associated with the project are as follows: Existing/Proposed Required Variance Impervious surface Parking stall width (existing and proposed) Driveway entrance width (Bartlett entrance) Parking lot setback 0 feet Parking lot screening as noted in the report. 53,300 sf 9 feet 42 feet 47,153 sf 6147 sf 10 feet 1 foot/~ ~'P' 24 feet 18 feet 5 feet 5 feet Building Improvements. The scope of the project involves a large degree of remodeling and modernizing of existing internal space and the addition of a new north and west entrances. The north education wing of the building, which currently has a second story walkway connection, will be provided with an enclosed first floor access. This will remove the existing water drainage course. Existing lobby and narthex spaces on both levels will be increased. A number of interior facelift improvements will also occur. The sanctuary seating capacity will remain unchanged at 316 seats. All building improvements would meet district setback requirements. Mound Planning Commission Minutes, January 10, 2000 Parking. Site improvements consist of a new parking and garden area at the front entrance as well as entrance improvements. In terms of code requirements for parking, the proposal is for 105 spaces with the ability to remove 5 spaces which encroach on adjacent city wetland property to the west. The existing 86 stalls located in the north and west parking areas would remain unchanged at a 9 feet stall width. The 19 proposed spaces in the new Wilshire parking area are also requested at a 9 feet width. This would require a variance. The code bases parking requirements for churches on sanctuary seating capacity. The plans show the church has a 316 seat capacity requiring 105 parking spaces. As proposed 105 spaces are provided. Access. Access to the site is currently provided by 4 drives, 2 on Wilshire and 2 on Bartlett. Both roadways are under County's jurisdiction. The proposal is to remove the existing loop drive on Bartlett, leaving the existing three access points. Staff would expect a favorable review from the County regarding the Bartlett closing. Additional comments are provided in the Engineer's report. Impervious surface/Stormwater. Total site hardcover will be reduced from approximately 59,946 sq. ft or 38.1% to 53,300 sq. ft. or 33.9%. The reductions occur namely with the work to the front parking area and the removal of the loop drive at the south entrance. Storm water runoff issues need to be addressed to the MCWD for their review and approval. Landscaping. The project also incorporates a number of landscape plantings in and around the new front parking area and the south and west entrances. Code requirements for landscaping of institutional facilities are to provide the greater of 1 tree per 1,000 sq. ft. of building area or 1 per 50 feet of lineal site perimeter. The perimeter of the site is the determinant in this case with 1431 lineal feet. This equates to 29 trees which exceeds code requirements and also satisfies the minimum 25% conifer and deciduous varieties. Code also requires screening of the western parking area because it is within_30 feet of an adjacent residentially zoned property. As noted above, this parcel is a wetland owned by the City. The zoning is also residential north of the property but because the parking lot is further than 30 feet, no screening is required. Utilities. Utilities need to be addressed as discussed in the Engineer's report. DISCUSSION: Building improvements. Mound Planning Commission Minufes, January 10, 2000 As proposed, the building improvements meet zoning code requirements. Any additional building related concerns will be reviewed by the Building Official. Parking. The site meets the parking space requirements based on the sanctuary seating capacity if that portion of the western parking area is allowed to continue it encroachment on city property. If it were removed the parking requirements would be deficient by 5 spaces. Staff would recommend that if the City allows this existing situation to continue, an easement for parking and driveway access purposes be prepared by the applicant and submitted to the city for review and approval. Staff has no issues with the 9 feet stall width for existing proposed spaces. Access. The existing driveways to the parsonage and the west parking lot exceed 24 feet width requirements. Unless the parking lot encroachment is removed, a variance is acceptable with staff. If the parking encroachment is removed, then this drive should meet width requirements. Sod will need to be replaced as well. Impervious surface/Stormwater. The total site hardcover will be reduced by about 4 percent as proposed. This is an improvement and is acceptable to staff. Final review of the storm water plan will need approval from the MCWD. Landscaping Site landscaping will be greatly improved and satisfies code requirements based on the site perimeter. The western parking area is also required to have screening. Based on the dense vegetation surrounding the wetland and the City's ownership of it, staff finds no reason to provide additional screening in this location. Utilities The City Engineer's report provides a detail of utility concerns and recommendations which should be included in any approval. Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the Conditional Use Permit and variances as required with the following conditions: A determination be made regarding the encroaching parking area; Storm water plans be reviewed and approved by the MCWD; and Other comments as outlined in the City Engineer's report. Weiland asked if our present sewer pipes can handle this large runoff. Gordon stated the watershed district thought it would be appropriate. There may need to be some city improvements but it needs to be reviewed by the MCWD. Mound Planning Commission Minutes, January 10, 2000 Weiland commented regarding the sprinkler system in the City Engineer's report stating the eight-inch line would be much more appropriate than the six-inch line under consideration as well. Burma asked if the 105 parking stalls was based on a 9 foot or a 10 foot width. Gordon stated these parking stalls are based on a 9 foot width that the applicant is requesting. Gordon stated the parking lot would be picking up 8 more parking sites with smaller widths. Chair Michael stated he is opposed to the 9 feet width of the parking lots. Burma stated the City of Minneapolis is now reducing their parking ramp widths to 9 feet. Sutherland returns from his search for the notice. Sutherland stated the notice was not printed in the Laker, although the mailing of the agenda was received on Friday by residents the CUP would affect according to those residents and applicant in attendance at tonight's meeting. Gordon stated there has been an attempt to notify the property owners, but the full courtesy normally given was not completed, although a mailing notice is an appropriate notice and should not stop any procedure of tonight's meeting. Gordon suggested following normal procedure of a public hearing. Voss asked if the additional lighting would create a burden on the residents nearby. Gordon stated the lighting numbers would be below 0.4 foot-candles at the property lines and this would be an appropriate amount. Voss asked if the lighting on the west side of the church would interfere with the neighbors. Gordon stated the parking lot lighting is in the circular drive and the lighting would be appropriate and not bothersome to the neighbors. Voss suggested we move forward, and if it does require an additional notice to the public it can be brought back at a later date. Chair Michael agreed. Sutherland stated there is another Planning Commission meeting scheduled for January 24, 2000. If at that time the notice of public hearing needs to be resent or placed in the Laker, there would be enough time to hear the cases on the 24th before they are scheduled to be heard by the City Council on February 8, 2000. Weiland stated the history of this incident happening in the past is very Iow. Public hearing notices are given great priority in making sure the public is informed properly and thoroughly. Chair Michael opened the public hearing at 8:30 p.m. Mound Planning Commission Minutes, January 10, 2000 Scott Spanjers, 2540 Lakewood Lane. Mr. Spanjers is concerned with the lighting addition. He stated he lives on the second stoW of a house and there are no tress that could help block the light if the need arises. He is certain this would disturb his sleeping arrangements. Gordon stated again the lighting plan meets code requirements of 0.4 foot-candle maximum at property lines. He stated under a street light the lighting would be well above this amount, although if a resident is not directly under a street light, there will not be a concern. Gordon stated the light is focused in a downward fashion and should not spill onto the adjacent residential property. Chair Michael suggested having the architect address this problem when he speaks tonight. Sutherland stated a requirement for the architect would be to submit a plan that would get reviewed by the City Planner and the Building Official before a permit would be issued. Mike Schoephoerster, 2550 Lakewood Lane. Mr. Schoephoerster noted the parking is being repaved but keeping the same outside dimensions. He asked if the north and west legs of the pavement are going to stay the same. He asked if the lighting is going to be in the round area only. Gordon stated the lighting would be ultimately located in the round area only. Peter C. Meyer, Sunset Drive. Mr. Meyer stated Mount Olive has helped keep clean the wetland areas next to the church. He commends the church for their cleanup efforts with regard to the trash and brush that get deposited in the wetlands. Stephen Krause, Colonnade Design, Minneapolis, architect for Mount Olive. Mr. Krause stated the lighting has an impact on this project. He stated, as evidenced in the past, they will continue to be a good neighbor to the residents nearby and they will meet all the codes and requirements in the ordinances as presented by the City of Mound. Chair Michael closed the public hearing closed at 8:36 p.m. Voss suggested adding the following to be added to the staff recommendations: The applicant would be responsible for submitting a lighting plan that would be consistent with the city code requirements and that the planner would review and approve. MOTION by Voss, seconded by Weiland, to approve the variance and CUP according to staff recommendations noted above. Mound Planning Commission Minutes, January 10, 2000 Discussion. Gordon stated he would like the Planning Commission to make a motion regarding the encroachment parking area as well. He explained one option could be allowing it to exist as it is today which would allow the area run over onto the City property. With this thought, it would be preferable from Staff's view to incorporate a parking and access easement over the encroaching area to clean up this issue. Secondly, the City could go with the stall number variance along with the sizes. Voss questioned this theory. He stated if there is an encroachment now, and the future plan would continue the encroachment, then why would this have to change since nothing appears to be wrong at this point. Gordon suggested the easement could protect the City in a situation such as an accident. An easement would acknowledge that the Church is using the property for parking and access purposes. Voss stated this may be an unnecessary expense to the City. Weiland stated he would like the area cleaned up as well. He suggested having the City asphalt the area but do nothing in addition to the asphalt. Voss suggested adding the following to be added to the staff recommendations: Staff prepare an easement to the Mount Olive property on the corner of Bartlett Boulevard. AMENDED MOTION by Voss, seconded by Weiland, to approve the variance and conditional use permit according to staff recommendations noted above. MOTION CARRIED. 5-0. Chair Michael stated these two cases would be heard in front of the City Council on February 8, 2000. CASE 99-46: VARIANCE REQUEST TO ALLOW THE EXPANSION AND RENOVATION OF THE EXISTING MOUNT OLIVE LUTHERAN CHURCH FACILITY; 5218 BARTLETT BLVD., BLOCK 2, TRACT A AND PART OF BLOCK 2 SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT D, SHIRLEY HILLS 'D', 62050, PID # 24-117- 24-21-0036. , See Case #99-45 above. ~ '~CASE 99-47: VAI~ANCE_~QUEST~ ADDITIONS TO AN EXISTING STRU CT~~N~O.N~CON FO RMIN G 612-3386838 HOISINGTON KOEGLER 616 P03 JAN 05 '00 11:19 PLANNING REPORT Hoising~on Kocgler Group Inc. TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: January 10, 2000 SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit and Variances APPLICANT: Mount Olive Lutheran Ghurch - 5218 Bartlett Boulevard CASE NUMBER: 99-45 and 46 HKG ~ILE NUMBER: 99-5 LOCATION: 521g Bartlett Boulevard ZONING: Residential District R-I COMPREI-IENSIVE PLAN: Low Density Residential BACKGROUND: Mount Olive Lutheran Church is requesting a condkional use permit and variances associated with building expansion and renovation and site work. The church is located at the corner of Bartlett and Wilshire Blvd. Zoning of the property is K-I which allows the church as a conditional use. The facility plans would require conditional use permit and variance approval fi.om the City Council to proceed. The variance requests associated with the project are as follows: F.~ttstfng/Pror~osed Required Variance Impervious surface 53,300 sf 47,153 sf 6147 sf Parking stall width (existing and proposed) 9 feet I 0 feet 1 foot Driveway entrance width 42 feet 24 feet 18 feet (Banlet~ entrance) Parking lot setback 0 feet 5 feet 5 feet Parking lot screening as noted in the report Building improvements The scope of the project involves a large degree of remodeling and modernizing of existing internal space and the addition of a new north and west entrances. The north education wing of the building, which currently has a second story walkway connection, will be provided with an enclosed first floor access. This ,,rill remove the existing water drainage course. Existing lobby 123 North Third Street, Suit~ 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0500 Fax(612) 338-6838 G12-~8G838 HOISINGTON KOEGLER 616 PI~I ~AN 05 '00 11:19 ~.2 #99o4.~ nr~d 46 Mou~ Olive Z, utt~,=n Ch~o.ch C~P ~ vnrinnce rgquest J=nunry lO, 2000 and narthex spaces on both levels will be increased. A number of interior facel~ improvements will also occur. The sanctua~ seating capacity will remain uncaged at 316 seats. All building improvements would meet district setback requirements. Parking Site improvements consist of a new parking and garden area at thc front entrance as well as entrance improvements. In terms of code requirements for parking, the proposal is for 105 spaces with the ability to remove 5 spaces which enc?oach on adjacent city wetland prol:~Ty to the west. The existing g6 stalls located in the north and west parking areas would rcrnain unchanged at a 9 feet stall width, The 19 proposed spaces in the new Wilshirc parking area arc also requested at a 9 feet width. This would require a variance. The code bases parking requirements for churches on sanctuary seating capacity. The plans show thc church has a 316 scat capacity requiring 105 parking spaces. As proposed 105 spaces are provided. Access to the site is currently provided by 4 drives, 2 on Wilshire and 2 on Bartlett. Both roadways are under County's jurisdiction. The proposal is m remove the existing loop drive on Bartlett, leaving the existing three access points. Staff would expect a favorable review from the County r~garding the Bartlett closing. Additional comments are provided in the Engineer's report. Impervious surface/Stormwater Total site hardcover will be reduced from approximately 59,946 scl, ft or 38.1% to 53,300 sq. ft. or 33.9%. The reductions occur namely with the work to the front parking area and the removal of thc loop drive at the south entrance. Storm wa~ runoff issues need to be addressed to the MCWD for their review and approval, Landscaping The project also incorporat~ a number of landscape plantings in and around the new front parking area and the south and west entrances. Code requirements for landscaping of institutional facilities are to provide the greater of I tree per 1,000 sq. fi. of building are~ or 1 per 50 feet of lineal site per/meter. The perimeter of the site is the determinant in th/s case with 1431 lineal feet. This equates to 29 trees which exceeds code requirements and also satisfies the minimum 25% conifer and deciduous varieties. Code also requires screening of the western parking area bemuse it is within 30 feet of an adjacent residentially zoned property. As noted above, this parcel is a wetland owned by the City. The zoning is also residential north of the property but because the parking lot is further than 30 feet, no screening is required. Utilities Utilities need to be addzcssed as discussed in the Engin~r's report. 123 North Third Street., Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-o800 Fax (612) 338.6838 ~12-EE8~8E8 HOISINGTON KOEGLER 61~ P05 JAN 05 '00 11:28 p.$ #99-45 and 46 Mount Olive £ut~ran Churc~ CUP and variance request January I0. 2000 DISCUSSION: Building improvements As proposed, the building improvements me~t zoning code requirements. Any building related concerns will be reviewed by the Building Official. additional Parking The site meets the parking space requirements based on the sanctuary seating capacity if the that portion of thc western parking area is alJowed to continue it encroachment on City property. If it were removed the parking requirements would be deficiem by 5 spaces. Staff would recommend that if the City allows this existing situation to continue, an easement for parking and driveway access purposes bc prepared by the applicant and submitted to the City for review and approval. Staff has no issues with the 9 feet stall width for existing and proposed spaces. Access Thc existing driveways to the parsonage and the west parking lot exceed 24 feet width requirements. Unless the parking lot encroachment is removed, a variance is acceptable with staff. If the parking encroachment is removed, then this drive should meet width requirements. Sod will need to be r~placed as well. Impervious surface/Stormwater The total site hardcover will be reduced by about 4 percent as proposed. This is an improvement and is acceptable to staff. Final review of the storm water plan will need approval from thc MC'ND. Landscaping Site landscaping will be greatly improved and satisfies code requirements based on the site perimeter. The western parking area is also required to have screening. Based on the dense vegetation surrounding the wetland and the City's ownership of it, staff finds no reason to provide additional scr~ning in this location. Utilities The City Engineer's report provides a detail of utility concerns and recommendations which should be included in any approval. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the CUP and variances as requested with the following conditions: 1. A determination be made regarding thc encroaching parking area. 2. Storm water plans be reviewed and approved by the MCWD. 3. Other comments as outlined in the City Engineer's report. 123 North 'Ih[rd Street, Suit~ 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 "--7/& Engineering · Planning ' Surveying MEMORANDUM DATE: January 4. 2000 TO: Jon Sutherland, Planning and Zoning FROM: John Cameron, City Engineer SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit Mount Olive Lutheran Church 5218 Bartlett Boulevard MFRA #12733 As requested, we have reviewed the plans submitted with the application for a CUP on subject property and have the following comments and/or recommendations: Site Development Plan It appears that the new circular drive and parking area will be constructed with concrete curb and gutter, but it is not labeled as such. This needs to be clarified. The removal of one driveway from Bartlett Boulevard and narrowing of the/emaining entrance will improve the traffic movement to and from the County. Road. A permit form Hemnepin CounU' will be required for a~ny construction activiw on their fight-of-way. o The narrowing of the west driveway to Bartlett Boulevard and elimination of five parking stalls dramatically reduces the encroachment onto City property but it does not completely remove it. There still should be some type of easement or agreement between the City and the church concerning any encroachment. 15050 23rd Avenue North · Plymouth, Minnesota · 55447 phone 612,/476-6010 · fax 612,/476-8532 e-rnaiL' mfra¢mfra.com ""lt-& Jon Sutherland. Planning and Zoning January 4, 2000 Page 2 The revised plan needs to include a paving section and curb detail for the new circular drive and additional parking. Survey/Grading Plan Because the City has not adopted a Storm Water Management Plan, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) will need to issue a permit for the grading and drainage activity included in this redevelopment. o The grading plan does not show' the City's existing storm sewer system in Wilshire ~ .-1 --'~! Bomevar~,, 'to wi-Ach mos: of the new circular drive and ..... : x,m pm~ng drain to. This City storm sewer system must be added to the plan. The revisions to the grading plan must also include erosion control such as silt fence and some type of silt buffer at the City's storm sewer inlet. Utilities The only Ciu' utilities shown on the plan is the six-inch watermain located in Bartlett Boulevard. A revised plan will need to be submitted which shows all City utilities, including sanitary sewer, watermain and storm sewer. It is our understanding that a sprinkler system will be added during the renovation, which will require a new service line from the City watermain. It may be more practical to connect to the eight-inch line in Wilshire Boulevard then the six-inch main in Bartlett Boulevard which in addition to being a smaller line will require a utility permit from Hennepin County. CC: Greg Skinner. Mound Public Works Loren Gordon, HKG s :\main :\Mou l 2733 :',correspondence: ',memo 1-4 Application for CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Planning Commission Date: ,,)~ City Council Date: Distribution: City Planner: Public Works: City Engineer: Other: PAID CITY OF MOUND Case No. qq-~5 Conditional Use Permit Fee: $250.00 Fire Dept. Please type or print the following information: PROPERTY INFORMATION LEGAL DESCRIPTION Subject Address 5218 Bartlett Boulevard Name of Business Mt. Olive Lutheran Church Lot Tract A & part of BIk 2 Shirley Hills Unit D a~ock 2 Plat # 125 Subdivision Shirley Hills 'D' PID~ 24-117-24-21 0036 APPLICANT The applicant is: owner X other: Architect Name Stephen D. Krause - Colonnade Design Group, Inc. Address 486 Colonial Warehouse - 212 Third Ave No - Mpls, MN 55401 Phone(H) (VV) (612) 321-0232 (M) (612) 210-7533 Name OWNER (if other than Address applicant) Phone (H) Mt. Olive Lutheran Church 5218 Bartlett Boulevard (w) (612) 472-2756 (F) (612) 472-2783 Name ARCHITECT, SURVEYOR, OR Address ENGINEER Stephen D. Krause - Colonnade Design Group, Inc. 486 Colonial Warehouse - 212 Third Ave No - Mpls, MN 55401 ZONING DISTRICT Phone (H) Circle: ~ R-lA R-2 R-3 (W) (612) 321-0232 B-1 B-2 B-3 (M) (612) 210-7533 CHANGE OF USE FROM: TO: not applicable - no change proposed Revised 10-26-99 CondifJonal Use Permit App~cafJon Page 2 Description of Proposed Use: Mt. Olive Lutheran Church has occupied this site since the 1940's for the purpose of practicing ministry in accordance with their beliefs. This project serves to enhance this practice making better use of the physical plant and the surrounding property. Also, the proposal includes extensive new landscaping for the purpose of beautification and improvement of the site. EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED USE: List impacts the proposed use will have on property in the vicinity, including, but not limited to traffic, noise, light, smoke/odor, parking, and descdbe the steps taken to mitigate or eliminate the impacts. No negative impact is realized by this project in the following areas: traffic, noise, light, smoke / odor or parking. Traffic is improved by the proposed changes in access to Bartlett Blvd (42' width down to 24'). Lighting is also improved and does affect only the property (refer to attached lighting layout). Parking is adjusted to reflect a more typical stall width of 9' allowing a more efficient use of the existing and proposed paving areas. If applicable, a development schedule shall be attached to this application providing reasonable guarantees for the completion of the proposed development. Estimated Development Cost of the Project: $ 600,000 Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, (X) no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. This applicatfon must be signed by all owners of the subject property, or an explanalfon given why this is not the case. Stephen D. Krause Print Applicant's Name Date Print Owner's Name Print ~wner's Date Date Rev. 10-26-99 PROPERTY ADDESS: OWNER'S NAME: LOT AREA 157,178 LOT AREA 157,178 CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) 5218 Bartlett Boulevard Mount Olive Lutheran Church LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 30% = (for all lots) ....................................... I 47153 sf SQ. FT. X 40% = (for Lots of Record) ............................. I 52=7~ sf SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only) .................. I * 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 (All buildings) DETACHED BUILDINGS (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. LENGTH X X X WIDTH SQ FT 12180 TOTAL HOUSE .................................................... X = X = TOTAL DETACHED BUILDINGS ............................... X = 41120 X = X = TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC ........................................ X = X = X = TOTAL DECK ....................................................... X = X = TOTAL OTHER .................................................... TOTAL HARDCOVER I IMPERVIOUS SURFACE ................................................... UNDER / OVER (indicate difference) .................................................................... PREPARED BY Stephen D. Krause (Colonnade Desiqn Group. Inc.) 12180 sf 41120 sf DATE 53300 sf 9571 sf under 40% level Descriptive Narrative Conditional Use Permit Variance Mount Olive Lutheran Church Mound, Minnesota Table of Contents Project Summary · Introduction/Property History · Project Description · Project Schedule page 1 page 2 page 3 Conditional Use Permit Submittal · CUP Impact to.~ldjacent Property · Construction Cost / Schedule · CUP Criteria · AdditionalRequirements page 4 page 4 page 4 page 5 Vcrriance Submittal · Listing if Requested Variances · Hardship page 6 page 7 Appendix · Building Plans · Waterflow calculations Project Summary Introduction / Church History Mount Olive Lutheran Church has been a part of the Mound area for over 50 years, from its humble beginnings to the present day facility. Through this time, the people of Mount Olive have grown with the city, forming deep and lasting ties to this suburban community. It is home. It is where their children have been and continue to be raised. It is where some have grown old and choose to stay. Why bring this project to light at this time? What is so important about now? Why change anything? A brief explanation is in order. The original church structure was built in the 1940' s, a simple single story, basement with a flat roof overhead. In the late 50's, a building project expanded the basement and also built a new sanctuary above. In the mid 70's, an education wing was added. The initial design concept engaged this addition onto the northwest corner of the church, supporting itself on concrete pilings that extended through the soft soil down to bedrock. Cost overruns caused a need for re-design. The addition was ultimately built on spread footings, which were more susceptible to the soil fluctuations, and was also pulled away from the church structure allowing it to hinge and float. Why now'? The vision of Mount Olive Lutheran Church is multi-faceted: · Meet the needs of its members - spiritually and physically · Reach out to its neighbors more effectively · Make the facility more friendly and receptive to everyone This project will accomplish each one of the goals set by the church allowing them to move forward and grow. This proposal represents a "Master Plan" concept, containing solutions to the many needs identified during the programming phase of design. Implementation is the key to final scheduling, but we are convinced the time IS now! Mount Olive Lutheran CUP / Varmnce - page Project Description How is this vision implemented - how is it made real? How does it affect this submittal to the City of Mound? The following summary is a brief description of this proposed building project: Full handicapped access throughout this facility, including: · hospital / service type elevator (extra large platform and lifting capacity) · remodeled restrooms (both floors) · connection of the lower levels (Church and Education Wing - currently one must go outside use the stairs to move from one lower level to the other) Modernize / update the appearance of the facility: · unify the two segments (Church and Education Wing) into one entity · refurbish the sanctuary (finishes, sound system, lighting) · update the 70's "look" of the Education Wing Develop / expand the entry and lobby spaces: new entrances to the west and north · enlarge the narthex / lobby spaces (both levels) · relocate the administration offices and early child care spaces New landscaping scheme - remove the "eye-sore": · highlight the new entrances - reinforce the focal point · create a new garden / outdoor sitting space · remove old growth and replace with new vibrant plantings · re-direct on-site drainage in response to building elements The needs are many - the goals are lofty. The end result will be an attractive and stunning property, a pleasant improvement to the neighborhood and city alike. Mount Olive Lutheran CUP / l"ariance - page 2 Project Schedule Mount Olive is anxious to begin construction of this project and occupy their "new" church home. We anticipate the following: · Completion of Bidding Documents December 1999 · Release Bidding Documents to Contractors early - January 2000 · Bids Due late - January 2000 · Award Contracts late - January 2000 · Construction begins - Phase I (Sanctua~) February 2000 · Phase I complete late - March 2000 · Construction begins - Phase II April 2000 · Phase II complete (building expansion) November 2000 · Phase II complete (landscaping) Spring 2001 We respectfully request a certain amount of consideration with this schedule. It is the desire of Mount Olive to finish at this time (if not even sooner), but if construction costs exceed projected budget, we would submit our revised schedule to the building department for their review. The revised schedule would divide the project into smaller, more manageable segments, making it possible to complete the ~and scheme of the "Master Plan." Mount Olive Lutheran CUP / Variance - page 3 Conditional Use Permit CUP Issues Impacts to adjacent properties · Traffic - no adverse affect; improved traffic flow and control by bringing Bartlett Boulevard access up to city requirements · Noise - no adverse affect · Light - no adverse affect (refer to attached drawing for lighting layout) · Smoke / Odor - no adverse affect · Parking - layout improves traffic flow Estimated Construction Cost: $600,000 (approximately) We are unaware of any previous application to the City other than building permits. Conditional Use Permit Criteria · No injurious or restrictive use will result in the approval of this CUP · no other development will be impeded by this CUP · all site utilities, access and drainage will be properly engineered to meet City, State, Minnehaha Watershed District or other such agency having jurisdiction over this project · proper off-street parking will be a pan of this CUP · no odors are anticipated with this CUP; property is paved and significant landscaping will keep any dust from becoming a problem; site lighting will be directed and controlled such that no stray lighting would become a nuisance to the surrounding property owners; existing signage will be replaced with new signage of design and quality as to blend with the new building design · the existence of this church for these many years, the fact that a church is a permitted use within the R-1 district (via the CUP process) and that the child care service provided on-site all support the position that Mount Olive is an integral pan of Mound - serving the community in many positive ways Mount Olive Lutheran CUP / Variance - page 4 Conditional Use Permit Criteria (continued) the conclusion of this project will a significant improvement of this property - a positive influence to the neighboring properties and city in general · this CLrP is in compliance with City goals and plans · approval of this CUP will improve traffic flow and reduce congestion · approving this CUP will have a position affect on the neighborhood - vibrant landscaping and aesthetically pleasing building design · refer to Project Summary (page 3) for the project schedule · should construction costs exceed available funds, we anticipate a phasing of the project as follows: · Phase I - Sanctuary Renovation · Phase II - Northern Entry / "circle" landscaping design · Phase III - Westerly Entry / landscaping · Phase IV - Parsonage Remodeling Additional CUP Requirements · no increase of lot size or dimensions is not required nor anticipated · no building height limitation is necessary - new work remains below existing ridge lines · no additional curb cuts are required - proposal removes two (2) access points onto Bartlett Boulevard (proper permitting will be secured with the County) · no street width increase is needed · off-street parking stalls: EXISTING- 97 PROPOSED - 107 · new signage will replace the existing to improve and coordinate with the new building design (form, color, materials, etc) · additional landscaping is pan of this CUP; hard surface area is reduced by over 6600 square feet or 4.2%; 1998 re-roofing project re-directed the water runoff from the Education Wing to the west reducing the load on City storm sewer system; proper water flow / site drainage solution will be a part of this proposal (refer to the attached calculations in the Appendix) Mount Olive Lutheran CUP / [rariance - page 5 Variance Variance Requests Hard Surface Lot Coverage · zoning ordinance allows maximum 30% total hard surface coverage · existing hard surface coverage is 59,946 square feet or 38.1% · proposed hard surface coverage is 53,300 square feet or 33.9% Parking Stall Width · existing stall width is per ordinance or 10'-0" · proposed stall width is 9'-0" for existing and new conditions Driveway Entrances · existing access width at southwest comer onto Bartlett Boulevard is 42'-0" which exceeds the allowable width of 24'-0 per ordinance · proposed solution would change this width to the 24'-0" and keep the existing paving - allowing the five (5) parking stalls to remain · two (2) other access points onto Bartlett Boulevard would be vacated · two (2) existing access points onto Wilshire Boulevard will remain unchanged Encroachment to City Property · an existing encroachment exists at the southwest comer of this property, abutting City of Mound property · proposed solution is described under item #3 (above) Mount Olive Lutheran CUP / Variance - page 6 Variance Hardships Current facility conforms to all City zoning requirements with exceptions: · existing paving encroaches City property at southwest corner Bartlett Boulevard entrance width exceeds zoning requirements · the following current parking count is 97 - ordinance requires 120 based on an occupancy of 360 people in the Sanctuary Proposed design changes / improvements: · City agrees to an easement correcting a non-conforming paving setback at the southwest corner of the property · County approves re-design of the Bartlett Boulevard access and closing of two (2) other access points onto Bartlett boulevard · City approves request of 9'-0" wide parking stall - combined with new design and re-configuration of Sanctuary seating, an excess of ten (10) stalls is realized · landscaping exceeds City requirements as follows: total property perimeter governs in the number of trees required building floor area @ 12180 sf= 13; site perimeter ~ 1642 If= 33 conifers required (25%): 9 - proposed: 9 new 12' spruce plus existing deciduous required (25%): 9 - proposed: 23 shade & ornamentals a existing trees to remain on-site: 9 - 12 conifers and deciduous Mount Olive Lutheran CUP / Variance - page 7 (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: ~ Distribution: VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 City Planner City Engineer Public Works Application Fee: $100,00 Case No. g;ig'~ ~'~ DNR Other SUBJECT PROPERTY LEGAL DESC. PROPERTY OWNER Address Lot Subdivision Shirley Hills 'D' P ID~ 24-117-24-21~36 Name Mount Olive Lutheran Church Address 5218 Bartlett Boulevard 5218 Bartlett Boulevard Tract A & part of BIk 2 Shirley Hills Unit 'D' R-3 B-1 B-2 Block 2 Plat # 125 B-3 Phone (H) (W) (612) 472-2756 (F) (612) 472-2783 APPLICANT Name (IF OTHER Address THAN OWNER) Phone (H) Stephen D. Krause - Colonnade Design Group, Inc. 486 Colonial Warehouse - 212 Third Ave No - Mpls, MN 55401 (VV) (612) 321-0232 (M) (612) 210-7533 Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, (X) no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. 2. Detailed description of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stodes, type of use, etc.): Proposed addition involves expansion and renovation of existing facility. New space totals 2,839 square feet (all floors) matching up with the three levels which currently exist. Majority of new space is entry / lobby at the lower and main levels. Lower levels are now connected (church to education wing). Extensive landscaping as well. Variance ApplicalJon, P. 2 Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (X), No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): SETBACKS: REQUIRED REQUESTED VARIANCE (or existing) Front Yard: (NSEW) 30 ft 71 ft 0 ft Front Yard: (NSEW) 30 ft 66 ft 0 ff Side Yard: (NSEW) 10 ft 84 ff 0 ft Rear Yard: (NSEW) 15 ft 207 ff 0 ft Lakeside: ( N S E W ) nla ft nla ft nla ft : (NSEW) ft ff ff Street Frontage: 60 ff 831 ft 0 ft Lot Size: 10,000 sq ft 157,178 sq ft 0 sq ft Hardcover: 47,153 sq ff 53,300 sq ft +6147 sq ft (30% figure) Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning distdct in which it is located? Yes (X), No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use: Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil ( ) too small ( ) drainage (X) existing situation ( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify Please describe The Owner views the 10'-0" parking stall width requirement as excessive as compared with many other surrounding communities. The 9'-0" width requested is a very common stall size, one that works very well and makes good use of required paving surfaces. This proposal reduces the overall hard surface coverage, its best attempt to meet the 30% requirement. It is the Owner's opinion the property can best be utilized through an efficient use of this paving surface and makes good sense to use the 9'-0" width. Adding the rwe (5) stalls near the southwest comer of the site into the overall mix of off-street parking stalls would satisfy the parking requirements. The encroachment request would merely document the condition, which currently exists. Two (2) access points am being vacated through this submittal, again viewed by the Owner as an improvement to traffic flow. Variance Application, P. 3 Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No (X). If yes, explain: Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No (X). If yes, explain: Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a vadance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (), No (X). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? Nearly every commercial property has requested and has been granted a variance for parking stall width. We believe that this request is a benefit - not a detriment to the neighborhood. 9. Comments: Please refer to the attached descriptive narrative for additional information conceming this submittal. I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Owner's Signature Owner's Signature (~-~--~, C'~ C' ~. ~..J~_~.~" / Date / >-- ~-/~ ~/~ Date Date [ 2.' J_~.~ !i o qaJnqD ue.~oq~n~'l ~.qO Jl ' i "? R-~ iii.', iII, { .'i!lilh, Ii,, I- { {H:iilli ;l~l."d { : ' . { · '' I {II ': "lq ~{' 'l l , ,h, ,,11' ,. Ii.id.l! ,l,I,,, 1. 'l ,',,,'",, l{,li:{h,i ,lhhl[ ti //'- ? L- "73] qa.~nqD ug.laq;n"l ;}A.[JO ';l/~ /2 -/~'- ?? ~ ~ - / C~ ~,~o = 5' ~ / ~ / CF.,r ~z,4~,wx'G 6' ,4/t¢,4 .p_ (,e¢,~-m,e6 /Z/x/ PI'F "' c ~, - ~ ov ~ / - 2 CFI ~,oo = ? CFr coffin & Gro~, 482 Tamarack Ave. Long Lake, Mhl 553,~ MEMORANDUM Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. ll To: City of Mound Honorable Mayor and Council From: Loren Gordon, City Planner Date: February 18, 2000 Subject: Old High School site planning issues BACKGROUND The public heating for the Mound Comprehensive Plan is on the Council's February 22 agenda. There are two components of the Comp Plan discussion: 1) the stormwater management plan which is still in Planning Commission review and 2) the remainder of the Comprehensive Plan. The Council decided at their last meeting to continue the public hearing on this issue, giving the Planning Commission more review time on the stormwater plan. Since the Planning Commission has not quit finished their review, the Council could continue the hearing once again or could address approval of the two components separately; considering approval of the Comprehensive Plan at this meeting and continuing the public hearing for the stormwater plan until March. Adoption of the Comprehensive Plan has a critical timing issue because of downtown redevelopment and more specifically, redevelopment of the old high school site/relocation of the post office. MetroPlains Development, who has a purchase agreement on the old high school site, presented a concept plan to the Council at this week's Committee of the Whole meeting. The Concept suggested a retail development including the post office on the commercially-zoned portion of the site and a medium density residential development on the low-density zoned portion of the site. The Council expressed some valid concerns over the concept plan - concerns we believe can be worked out through a community workshop discussed later in this memo. The most immediate issue is the land-use designation of the athletic field portion of the site. Early in the Comprehensive Planning process the athletic field area was guided as medium density residential. The Planning Commission later decided to change that designation to public because of uncertainty about whether the site could be developed at all due to poor soils. The current land use recommendation from the Planning Commission suggests guiding the land as "public". The soil tests are now back indicating poor soils but also indicating a developable parcel as long as the density is high enough to support the additional cost. MetroPlains believes that medium density residential development will support the needed soil correction. The other and more important component of the land-use designation is whether it would be appropriate for this area to be zoned medium density residential. We believe it would. There is an opportunity with medium 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 OM High School site issues February 18, 2000 density development of this site to have a very unique, compact, downtown-oriented residential neighborhood that will help strengthen downtown retail. There is an opportunity with a medium density designation that would not likely be economically viable with low density, to duster the housing in order to preserve a greater amount of green space on the site. There is also an opportunity to work with the developer (and a TIF incentive for the developer to work with the City) to sensitively design the development in a way to be a high-quality neighbor to the surrounding neighborhood. For these reasons, it is Staff recommendation that the site be guided in the Comprehensive Plan as medium density residential. Now, to address the issue of timing. The ISTEA grant on the Lost Lake Greenway expires next year and the Post Office must be relocated before the greenway project can begin. In other words, the Post Office needs to be moved by next spring or the City is in jeopardy of loosing the grant. In order to meet that schedule, a purchase option for the new post office site must be executed by the City and transferred to the Postal Service in the next 60 days. So, in order to complete the Lost Lake Greenway project with federal funding the City needs to get the post office moved by next spring. In order to meet that schedule, we need to keep MetroPlains moving on their development project and the next step in that process is a land-use Guide Plan that supports the City's goals and MetroPlain's development concept. ISSUES WITH SITE Land Use and Zoning The Balifield site is currently zoned R-l, which allows single family development on 10,000 square feet lots, parks, and other public uses. · The old high school site is zoned B-1 which allows for a variety of business uses. · The land use recommendation in the Comprehensive Plan from the Planning Commission to the Council is for a Public/Institutional use of the existing ballfields area and commercial for the old high school site. Planning Commission had identified the ballfields as medium density in earlier Comprehensive Plan discussions, but because of unknown soils conditions and park related issues, has recommended the property stay as a Public/Institutional. · Portions of the property are within Shoreland Management zones of Lake Minnetonka, Lake Langdon, and Dutch Lake. Some of the property is not regulated by Shoreland standards. Various standards will apply to the site depending on being in/out of a Shoreland zone. Residential development within Shoreland areas would be limited to 30 percent hardcover. Commercial development, at~er adoption of the Surface Water Management Plan and Stormwater ordinance, would be limited to 75 percent. Prior to adoption, a 30 percent limit is applicable. For those areas outside Shoreland zones, there is not an impervious surface limit. · A medium density residential land use designation would allow up to 12 units per acre. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 OM High School site issues February 18, 2000 Soils · The developer has indicated that the south 1/3a of the ballfield site will require soil corrections if developed. STRATEGIES TO MOVE FORWARD Workshop In order to "untwine" the intermingled and complex site issues, we would suggest having a consensus-building workshop with the Council, Planning Commission, Parks Commission and EDC. The purpose of the workshop would be to express the City's unified vision and development framework for the developer to carry forward. In terms of meeting structure, each workshop participant would have an equal voice in the exercise. HKGi could act as facilitators and direct the meeting. A COW meeting may be the best time to hold this workshop. Again, the intent is to work toward a concept that accommodates everyone's goals for the site. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -FEBRUARY 8, 2000 1.10 PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUATION: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The City Planner noted that as requested by the Council at the November 23, 1999 meeting, this is a continuance of the Comprehensive Plan public hearing. He stated the Council is to consider the Comprehensive Plan and SWMP but that is still in committee before the Planning Commission. He stated the Council can consider approval of the Comprehensive Plan absent the SWMP. The Comprehensive Plan would then be sent to the Metropolitan Council which would take no formal review action until the SWMP is received. This approach would suggest to the Metropolitan Council the City is making a gesture of good faith in submitting the Plan which was due on December 31, 1999. After City approval of the SWMP, it would then be sent to the Metropolitan Council to complete the required submittal information. Only after a complete submittal is received, will the Metropolitan Council start the time clock on the 60-day window for formal review. He advised that a second approach would be to postpone action on the Comprehensive Plan until the SWMP is completed. In that case, a further continuance of the scheduled Public Hearing. would be needed. The City Planner stated that a third approach the Council could consider is to take action on both Plans. The SWMP does not need a formal recommendation from the Planning Commission for Council consideration and formal motions of approval would secure approval of each plan. With this option, resolutions would be prepared for the February 22, 2000, meeting stating the City has approved the Plans and submitted them consistent with provisions provided in Minnesota State Statutes. Councilmember Brown reviewed the Planning Commission discussion and their concern with regard to the buffer zones and storm water management issues. He advised they have been reviewing it page by page. Councilmember Brown stated there has been serious discussion and estimated their recommendation will come before the Council on February 22, 2000. 14 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -FEBRUARY 8, 2000 The Assistant City Planner agreed that the tough issues considered by the Planning Commission have been resolved. Councilmember Weycker suggested acting on the Comprehensive Plan at this time. She noted the Planning Commission was given a deadline and could have scheduled additional meetings. Councilmember Weycker stated that because of this, she would not object to passing both Plans. Councilmember Brown stated the Planning Commission knew about the deadline and could have pushed it through without a thorough review but he believed the SWMP should not be taken lightly. He stated all Commissioners have worked hard to assure this SWMP is a good one for the City and he supports action to table consideration. Mayor Meisel asked if the public hearing should be opened if the matter is tabled. City Attorney suggested the audience be asked if they would like to speak. He explained the public hearing would also be continued on the tabled item until that date since the SWMP is a component of the Comprehensive Plan. Councilmember Hanus stated that the draft ordinances reviewed by the Council usually contain underlines and redlines so it is easy to review. He stated he is not prepared to vote on this portion tonight so he would have to vote against it. Councilmember Brown agreed. The City Planner distributed an inventory list of changes being recommended. Councilmember Weycker asked if the Metropolitan Council has contacted him. The City Planner stated that he has talked to the Metropolitan Council representative and learned that about one-half of the cities are in the same situation. He explained that at first the Metropolitan Council indicated they would issue no extensions but now they have indicated they would issue extensions. Councilmember Brown advised of his interest in drafting a recommendation on companies that spray yards to possibly require use of phosphorous-free chemicals which would help the quality of the lake. MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINLrFES -FEBRUARY 8, 2000 The City Planner noted the Planning Commission's recommendations have been presented to the Council. He stated the Parks Commission approved the Parks and Recreation component early last summer and then followed up with their comments in letter form last November. He stated the comments received at the Planning Commission and Council hearings are also included in the handout. The City Planner advised of the language that will be drafted for Council's consideration at the formal adoption. He stated he will prepare a similar handout for the comments on the SWM?. Councilmember Hanus asked for that information to be provided to the Council well before the meeting so it can be reviewed. The City Planner noted the closely scheduled meetings and stated staff will attempt to do so. Mayor Meisel opened the public heating at 9:04 p.m. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Ahrens, to table the Comprehensive Plan and the Storm Water Management Plan to February 22, 2000, Council meeting and continue the public hearing on both to the same date. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 5-0. MEMORANDUM Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. To: Mound Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Loren Gordon, AICP Date: February 2, 2000 Subject: Comprehensive Plan Public Heating continuation As requested by the Council at the November 23, 1999 m~eting, this is a continuance of the Comprehensive Plan pubic hearing. The purpose of continuing to this meeting was to allow the Planning Commission time to provide the Council with a recommendation on the Surface Water Management Plan. (The Planning Commission has recommended Council approval of the Comprehensive Plan with revisions at the November 22, 1999 meeting.) At this time, the Planning Commission does not have a formal recommendation for the Council on the SWMP. The SWMP was on both meeting agendas in January and at the last meeting, the Commission asked that the Council grant an additional 30 days to complete their review. The Commission is proceeding with the review but had some concerns regarding buffering of lakes and wetlands. This issue appears to be resolved and the remainder of the review will probably take less time. In terms of the impact on Comprehensive Plan adoption, there are a couple ways the Council could proceed. The first is to approve the Comprehensive Plan absent a SWMP. The Comprehensive Plan would then be sent to the Metropolitan Council which would take no formal review action until the SWIvI? was received. This approach would suggest to the Met Council the City is making a gesture of good faith in submitting the Plan which was due on December 31, 1999. After City approval of the SWMP, it would be sent to the Met Council to complete the required submittal information. Only after a complete submittal is received will the Met Council start the time clock on the 60 day window for formal review. The second approach is to postpone action on the Comprehensive Plan until the SWMP is completed. A further continuance of the scheduled Public Hearing would be needed. A third approach the Council could consider is to take action on both Plans. The SWMP does not need a formal recommendation from the Planning Commission for Council consideration and formal motions of approval would secure approval of each plan. Resolutions would be prepared for the February 22~a meeting stating the City has approved the Plans and is submitting them consistent with provisions provided in Minnesota State Statute. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 3384)800 Fax (612) 338-6838 Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission December 9, 1999 = UPDATE: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Motion by Casey, seconded by Meyer requesting that the Capital Improvement Plan proposal come first to the POSC for review prior to submission to the Met Council. Motion carried unanimously. 10:00 p.m. Chair Meyer tabled the discussion. Motion by Casey, seconded by Cooper to continue the meeting for 30 minutes. Motion carried unanimously. 2 Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission December 9, 1999 ~., .~ ~i ~ 8. REVIEW: TAX INCREMENT FINANCING Commissioner Casey summarized the draft of the Resolution he had distributed for this meeting. Commissioner Beise raised concerns about taking this land out of the TIF district, then having the bond referendum fail. Beise questioned what is entailed in returning the land to the TIF district, and would this incur additional cost to the City. Councilmember Weycker answered it would cost additional funds, but a TIF district is a very confusing plan, and consulting the City Attorney would be the best way to get answers. Motion made by Casey to accept the Resolution as drafted. Motion died due to lack of a second. Motion by Meyer, seconded by Domholt to narrow down the Resolution to include the greenspace only. Motion passed 4/1/1. Weycker voting nay due to the fact that it will cost the City to add the land back to the TIF District. Cooper abstained because she felt she was not knowledgeable enough about a TIF District to make an informed decision. 4 MIN SPECIAL MOUND ADVISORY P t NING COMMISSION MONDAY, DECE 6, 1999 Those present: Chair Geoff Mi~l~'C~ioners: Orr Burma, Jerry Clapsaddle, Becky Glister, Ck~ir~l~s~ '"~ichael Mueller, Bill Voss (arrived 7:31 p.m.), Frank Weiland. Absen~ar~excused: Council Liaison Bob Brown. Staff present: City Planner Loren (:~n, Building Official Jon Sutherland, and Secretary Sue McCulloch. The following public were present: Marshall Anderson, Tom Casey, Wayne E. Ehlebracht, Peter C. Meyer, James D. Prosser, Bruce Chamberlain. Chair Michael welcomed the public and called the meeting to order at 6:40 p.m. DISCUSSION: CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION FINDING THAT THE MODIFICATION TO THE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 1 AND THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-2 CONFORM TO THE GENERAL PLANS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY. REPORT PRESENTED BY JAMES PROSSER OF EHLERS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Jim Prosser stated he is the Financial Advisor retained by the City of Mound to assist with the project coordination of the redevelopment of Mound. Mr. Prosser stated his previous experience as the City Manager of Richfield would assist him greatly with this project. Mr. Prosser stated the City Council and the Housing and Redevelopment Authority have proposed adoption of a plan for.the redevelopment of downtown Mound. He stated in order to finance a portion of the cost to redevelop, the City would benefit by using tax increment financing. He stated the use of tax increment would require the adoption of a development program and a tax increment financing plan. Mr. Prosser informed those present the program describes what is going to be redeveloped and the plan describes how the redevelopment will occur. He stated the Planning Commission is responsible to review the program and plan to determine it conforms to the current City of Mound's Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Mr. Prosser stated this is just one of several actions that will be presented to the Planning Commission. He stated a major responsibility by the Planning Commission would include making decisions regarding the request of development within each area of the redevelopment, i.e., condition use permits. Mound Planning Commission Minutes- December 6. 1999 The City Planner stated he prepared a compari~: report using the 1990 version and the 1999 revised version of the Comprehe~s.i~ Plan and showed essentially the goals and policies section of both docume..,~'~ere very similar. The City Planner recommends thePlanning~ Comm. i~src~ rr,,i)~ve for approval to the City Council stating the Tax Incremen~ Finan~:-'in~ F~n'.~esented by Mr. Prosser does c°mply with the g°als and p°licie~ ~~~1~ t~ (~ity °f M°und's C°mprehensivePlan. ~ Mueller asked Mr. Prosser ~w~rr~____ .... nt to have an assurance of funding when referring to acquisitions in the.~:~: Mr. Prosser clarified this statement means to make sure there is enoughl~inds available, either from proceeds from the development or from other public funds. Mueller asked Mr. Prosser if interest is considered outside of the district cost included in the 10 percent. Mr. Prosser stated if there is interest accruing to expenses outside of the district than "no", interest would not be considered outside. Mueller confirmed that any interest on funds borrowed by the city for the project, then the interest on the money would be included as administrative of the 10 percent and not included in the 90 percent. Mr. Prosser stated only monies that had been borrowed initially for expenses within the district would this statement apply. Mueller stated any monies through bonding and interest paid on the bonds by the City may not be considered an outside fund but would come out of the 90 percent. Mr. Prosser agreed with Mr. Mueller. Mr. Prosser stated this situation is used mostly in cases when tax increment funding is being utilized to write down the land cost of the market value. He stated you have to fund develop before redevelop. In use of funds, the interest portion is not considered an outside cost for the district. Mueller asked if relocation cost is considered outside of the district. Mr. Prosser stated it is not considered an administrative cost but it is considered a district cost. Mueller asked how the financing was going to be issued for substandard housing. The Building Official stated the City of Richfield was involved with this same type of scenario, so he felt confident in Mr. Prosser's ability to handle this question. Mr. Prosser stated it is possible to finance but it also is complicated. He stated the City of Mound will probably require some upfront funding just like the City of Richfield. Mueller asked if $5 million dollars would be enough funds for the project. Mr. Prosser stated this statement means they will not bond in excess of $5 million dollars and maybe the City of Mound will not need to bond at all. Mound Planning Commission Minutes - December 6. 1999 Mueller wanted an example of a tangible proce moment one did not come to mind but Mr. Pro Mr. Prosser and at that examine this further. Chair Michael asked if the local listed under the use of funds. Mr contribution. of each one of the items an aggregate local Mueller was concerned about be invested if they were not used immediately. Mr. Prosser of a plan is hardly utilized but if there is no mention of this in it cannot be instilled. He stated the City of Mound has an investment that is cleady identified and would need City Council and HRA direction before activated. Mueller was concerned about a statement concerning estimated impact on other taxing jurisdictions. Mueller referred to a statement that seems to imply there could be no construction in a certain district for the next 25 years if there was no establishment of tax increment funding. Mr. Prosser stated this is a false statement. Mr. Prosser stated each time there is a proposal, a review will occur to examine the development and the economics in that area. Mueller asked why this Plan would have to be modified to capitalize interest on debt. Mr. Prosser stated if the City would be in a position to issue bonds and there was interest occurring on the bonds prior to the actual proceeds being available to repay the debt. This will just provide for the situation, but not necessarily go through with it. Mueller asked if the administrative expenses, such as the City Planner, could be paid out of the 10 percent of the tax increment funding, as well as funds expended by staff for upcoming meetings, etc. Mr. Prosser stated this was a true statement. There was discussion regarding a statute. It was explained the county may require the 1999 expenses to be paid by 2/15/00 to qualify under the tax increment financing program. Mueller noted the Plan states the bonds must be issued by the City and the City mUst acquire the property by December 2002. Mueller would like to know if this limits the City in any way. He would like it to possibly have the year 2003 rather. Mr. Prosser stated this does not limit the City but this may need to be modified in the future. He stated the State does not want this to be left wide open. Mueller asked how many bonds are we going to need, how long will the process take, and do we have an adequate timeframe for bonds to be issued. Mr. Prosser stated he does not know for sure. He stated once the Plan is approved they will work on different sections of redevelopment. After 2002 if the 3 Mound Planning Commission Minutes - December 6. 1999 redevelopment of the entire area is still not do.n?~?en the City of Mound may have to issue bonds and the plan will have to I~ ~ffdified. Right now, this is the maximum the State will issue. Mueller would I,~'"~p know if the City of Mound should bond early because of the above s~u~i['~bn~Mr. Prosser recommends not to bond eady for redevelopmentt ,~# ~ L/1t¥ Mr Prosser wanted to remind t -~"c .~.~~s that the regulations are from i~. whole He stated State Legislature which is try , ~icremanage the process, if this Plan makes sense to the~o~sioners,~ _they are doing well because most financial advisors find it chall~ff~a~g. ~,~, · There was discussion regarding the "knock down" provision. Mueller asked if the City knows of partials that are not going to be involved in the plan, should they be removed. Mr. Prosser stated removing partials at this point would not be a wise decision. That can be modified at a later date and time. Mueller asked about use of tax increment funding regarding paying principle and interest on any loans or advances made to the city by the developer. Mr. Prosser stated this is an example where the developer may provide funds to acquire property. He stated the HRA would acquire the property at that time. Mueller asked a question about requirements for a developer. He stated the Plan says no more than 25 percent of property shall be owned by the City or HRA without the City having concluded an agreement for the property which is acquired. Mr. Prosser stated this would be a case to use bond proceeds to acquire property more than 25 percent of the property in the district and without the agreement, this would not be possible. Mueller asked what would be considered incompatible land use stated in the Plan. Mr. Prosser stated a residential use next to a commercial area or a lower intensity commercial use. The incompatibility would be determined by the Planning Commission guidelines and practical use guidelines. Mueller mentioned a clerical error that the plan was not reviewed on the 22nd. Mueller asked the City Planner what portion of the land use map got adopted by the City Council on November 23, 1999. The City Planner stated there was no action taken and the hearing was continued to February 9, 2000. He stated the plan will come back to the City Council on that date. Mueller was frustrated to hear there was a special meeting planned tonight to discuss information pertaining to the tax increment funding plan and how it relates to the Comprehensive Plan which did not get adopted on November 23, 1999, by the City Council. Mound Planning Commission Minutes- December 6. ]999 The City Planner stated the Planning Commissi~'js_changes~,_,,~ were largely in agreement with the City Council, although the ~it~ouncil would like to see the Surface Water Management Plan and the iss~_~'~garding' '~"'-- parks completely reviewed before the Comprehensive Plan~'. ~kd. The City Planner stated the goals and policies portions ol :he corn1 a'~P~'e~n~ e Plan will not change and tonight.this is the portion that is being c(~ ~p.~~by~he/;~1 Tax Increment Financing Plan Chair Michael asked the City,'-,~lala ,n~-~'Why~did the Planning Commission need to meet tonight if everything wil~ )e do'" - ne by the end of the year as presumed eadier. The City Planner did'~l~'sure the Commissioners the final decision regarding the Comprehensive Plan will occur in February. Mr. Prosser stated the findings in the Plan and that of the Planning Commission can be made simultaneously with the changes to the Comprehensive Plan. He stated the actions are not dependent on whether or not the city approved the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Prosser stated the plan could state to have the Comprehensive Plan changed in some fashion which would be consistent to what the Planning Commission would desire. Chair Michael asked when the deadline of this Tax Increment Plan was and Mr. Prosser stated next Tuesday. Chair Michael asked why the deadline was then and Mr. Prosser stated the Tax Increment Plan will permit us to negotiate development agreements with a developer and also allow for qualified costs incurred as part of this redevelopment to be included in part of this plan. Mr. Prosser stated the Plan would allow expenses to be recaptured as part of this development. Mueller asked how can the Planning Commission adopt a Tax Increment Financing Plan which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan where there is no approved Comprehensive Plan at this time. Mr. Prosser stated the City Attorney would say as long as this was approved and consistent with plans forwarded on to the City Council, this will meet the requirements. Mr. Prosser stated he would ask the City Attomey to answer this concern by next Tuesday. Mueller stated any funding that is coming from the tax increment funding can be used for purchase of a park. Mr. Prosser agreed with this statement. Mueller asked to have the statement which says the allocated expenses of the City may be included in the qualifying costs to be located elsewhere in the Plan. Mr. Prosser thought this was doable. There was discussions regarding administrative costs of whether they are considered inside or outside of the district. Mr. Prosser stated the expenses and can be considered either way. Mueller then asked when administrative Mound Planning Commission Minutes- December 6, 1999 expenses would not be considered within the d~ct. Mr. Prosser stated expenses related to the housing program wou~i~,l:~onsidered outside expenses. ~r'~ Mueller would like a statement w~in tb~n ~a~ates only a portion of the administrative expenses could g~.~ou~'~e ~strict. h h ft,.~ L_ ~,~:..l t t t Mueller asked ow muc o ,~,~,,~l,,i~r~,,,v'"" e cos s are spen inside the district. Mr. Prosser stated the entire~O I~r~nt could be spent inside the district. Mr. Prosser will consult with the ~ttomey regarding spending up to 25 percent outside the district regarding a~fministrative expenses. Mueller asked how much does the City have to spend out of other funds. Mr. Prosser stated it is five percent of the actual project costs, and that could be donated land or terms of improvements made through utility funds. Mueller stated if improvements were made that would be considered a contribution. Chair Michael stated the City Council has a meeting tonight at 7:30 p.m. so the Planning Commission meeting would have to adjourn shortly. Mueller asked since we modified what was sent to include the land use portion to the City Council including that of the school district property to be in the park color, should that be included in the tax increment financing district. Secondly, Mueller questioned the whole area considered for tax increment funding. The City Planner stated if we evaluate the tax increment plan on the 1990 Comprehensive Plan rather than the revised 1999 Comprehensive Plan, the goals and policies are largely the same and have not changed. He stated there are now six goals rather than five. He stated the recreation goals do not address redevelopment. He stated there is great consistency between the two plans. Mueller stated in order to better understand the tax increment financing, if the Planning Commission decides to pass this portion as parks, this should not be included with the plan. Bruce Chamberlain commented regarding the district boundary analysis. Mr. Chamberlain stated there is a great deal to qualify this overall space as a district. He stated in order to maintain flexibility and provide the greatest return on tax increment district, he would move forward with the boundaries suggested today. He stated this does not mean a certain area will qualify or not, but it does provide flexibility for redevelopment. Mueller asked what the impact would if the boundaries to the district were changed and Mr. Chamberlain stated there is no impact. He stated right now the City does not know if this is going to be redeveloped or not. He stated there Mound Planning Commission Minutes - December 6. 1999 could be a district that does qualify now, but it redevelopment arises. He stated we can sper the flexibility if dollars within the district. Clapsaddle stated if the development feasible that it would be park gro in for the area, it is quite into infrastructures. Mr. Prosser stated the just the appropriate land use already decided a specific be removed as district not approving all of the plans, ;ller stated the Planning Commission be considered park, therefore, it should Sutherland stated the Planning Commission is not being cut short and was presented a good introduction of the tax increment funding tonight. He stated if the Commissioners wish to continue the meeting, they can do so in another room or table this discussion until December 13th for further discussions. MOTION by Burma, seconded by Clapsaddle to table consideration to the meeting of December 13, 1999, at 7:30 p.m. MOTION CARRIED. 7-1, Glister voting nay. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Clapsaddle to adjourn the meeting. MOTION CARRIED. 8-0. Chair Michael adjourned the meeting at 7:40 p.m. MOUND CITY COUNCI~ MINUTES - NOVEMBER 23, 1999 1.4 PUBLIC HEARING: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. Councilmember Hanus stated he would appreciate an update from staff regarding the Comprehensive Plan. He also stated the Councilmembers received a copy of the minutes from the Planning Commission meeting of November 22, 1999, and would appreciate staff's comments regarding that item also. Councilmember Hanus questioned whether the Surface Water Management Plan was a part of the Comprehensive Plan or a separate document. The City Planner stated it is a component of the Comprehensive Plan but can be dealth with separately. Councilmember Hanus noted the Planning Commission tabled the Surface Water Management Plan. He agreed with this direction. He stated the Comprehensive Plan is a Plan that involves more policy decisions, but the Surface Water Management Plan is looked at as a type of zoning document which presently does not read well at all according to the Planning Commission and Councilmember Hanus. Councilmember Hanus asked if the City Council will be reviewing only the Comprehensive Plan tonight and at a later date, the Surface Water Management Plan will be discussed. Gordon stated the Planning Commission would appreciate more time to review the Surface Water Management Plan, although the City Council could approve it without further review by the Planning Commission. MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - NOVEMBER 23, 1999 Councilmember Hanus stated if we allow more time, the Surface Water Management Plan will not be approved with the Comprehensive Plan. The City Planner stated it is acceptable to have the Surface Water Management Plan come in at a later date than projected by the Metropolitan Council. He stated there are no ramifications if the plan is not presented with the Comprehensive Plan. The City Planner stated there are a number of cities that are still scrambling to get their Comprehensive Plan and Surface Water Management Plan completed. Councilmember Weycker asked if a Capital Improvements Plan has been included in the Comprehensive Plan and the City Planner stated there was a section in the Comprehensive Plan. Councilmember Brown stated the huge problem the Planning Commission has already dealt with in the Surface Water Management Plan is the buffer zone. The Planning Commission is totally against buffers. Councilmember Brown stated there might be other ways to supplement the effect buffers give. The City Planner presented the Comprehensive Plan to the City Council and the public. He started in the I_and Use section. He noted changes would be occurring with the Mound visions plan project. He stated the downtown by will show more density for some sort of apartments/townhomes. There will also be redevelopment near Commerce and Shoreline. The City Planner stated in the Housing section there is a summary showing Mound has a large inventory of single-family housing and the plan suggests that be complimented with other housing mixes. The City Planner explained there were no changes in the Transportation section of the Plan, except the rerouting of County Road 15 for the downtown project. The City Planner stated the Cultural and Natural Resources section would be a protection of the wetland areas and parks and school district property. The City Planner stated the Park and Recreation section showed existing parks and major conservation areas for the City of Mound. He stated the School District ballfields are a part of the this. He stated there are bikeways and trails planned, including the possibility of the Dakota railway having some sort of regional trail connection. The City Planner mentioned the loop trail around Lost l.ake and noted the existing parks are staying. The Plan does show if there is a need for additional park facilities they will be examined as they arise. The City Planner stated the Public Facility and Resources section showed no anticipated improvements to the buildings at this time. He stated there is a Capital Improvements Plan noted in the Plan that does show storm sewer pipe and road maintenance issues that will be dealt with in an appropriate timeframe. The City Planner stated this is a policy document and a decision-making tool. He stated the City Council could revise sections over time. He stated it should be kept updated regularly, 4 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - NOVEMBER 23, 1999 but will not have to be officially reviewed for another 10 years. The City Planner reviewed the motions the Planning Commission made regarding the Comprehensive Plan on November 22, 1999. They are listed as follows: Mueller recommended the following changes to the Goals and Polices section of the Comprehensive Plan. Mueller stated under Land Use on page 8, number 9 at the top of page should read: "City Council, Planning Commission and Park and Open Space Commission shall review and analyze publicly owned land to ensure that it is needed for public purposes. '' MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Burma, to approve the amendment to the Land Use section noted above. MOTION CARRIED. 7-0. Mueller stated under Recreation on page 10, number 6 should read: "Promote a balanced park system which includes neighborhood parks, community parks, nature conservation areas, special use facilities, schools and private developments.'' MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Voss, to approve the amendment to the Recreation section noted above. MOTION CARRIED. 7-0. Mueller stated under Public Communication/Information Access section the words "continue to" where noted in two locations should be removed. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Voss, to approve the amendment to the Public Communication/Information Access section noted above. MOTION CARRIED. 7-0. Mueller stated under Public Communications/Information Access number 3 should read as follows: "Ensure that elected and appointed officials are provided timely and accurate information to assist with decision making through adequate staff and resources." MOTION by Muelier, seconded by Glister, to approve the amendment to the Public Communications/Information Access section amended above. MOTION CARRIED. 7-0. Voss noted that concludes the Goals and Policies Section of the Comprehensive Plan. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Clapsaddle, to move for approval or disapproval by the City Council the Goals and Policies Section of the Comprehensive Plan with the amended changes above. MOTION CARRIED. 6-1, Voss voting nay. Voss reiterated the reason for him voting nay is he does not believe there is sufficient information of the financial impact on the city this Plan will have, it does not show 5 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - NOVEMBER 23, 1999 how this Plan will effect property rights, and does not demonstrate the impact to local government. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Clapsaddle, to move for approval or disapproval by the City Council the Natural and Cultural Resources section of the Comprehensive Plan. MOTION CARRIED. 7-0. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Clapsaddle to move for approval or disapproval by the City Council the Socio-Economic Section of the Comprehensive Plan. MOTION CARRIED. 7-0. Mueller stated the Land Use section be changed to read: "Land by deed restrictions or plat dedications is identified for use principally by owners of specific subdivisions." MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Hasse, to approve the amendment to the Land Use section as amended above. MOTION CARRIED. 7-0. Mueller stated the Land use section under pedestrian district should read as follows: "It is an intense downtown area with a mix of retail office and attached residential housing., Clapsaddle is concerned the whole downtown area will become totally multi-family residential construction because of the financial gain with the above noted change in the Land Use section. Gordon stated this may be a valid concern. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Chair Michael, to approve the amendment to the Pedestrian District of the Land Use section as amended above. MOTION CARRIED. 5-2, Hasse and Clapsaddle voting nay. Mueller stated changing the Land Use Map coloration on page 37. Mueller stated the green area regarding the Lost Lake area should be recolored and the south 90 percent of it be white and the top portion be green. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Chair Michael, to approve the amendment to the Land Use Map at amended above. Gordon suggested stating the Lost Lake area be noted as a conservation area on the I. and Use Map. Mueller suggested to have the map show green and white checkered for the Lost Lake area, except the area above the ordinary high water mark which should be green. AMENDED MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Clapsaddle, to approve the amendment to the Land Use Map stated above. MOTION CARRIED. 7- 0. i MOUND C1TY COUNCIL MINUTES - NOVEMBER 23, 1999 Mueller suggested on the Land Use Map for the property located on the comer of Lynwood and Commerce which is a public institution to have the comer two pieces remain red and the remainder change to blue. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Clapsaddle, to approve the amendment to the Land Use Map involving the property located at Lynwood and Commerce as stated above. MOTION CARRIED. 7-0. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Chair Michael, to move for approval or disapproval by the City Council the Land Use Section of the Comprehensive Plan. MOTION CARRIED. 6-1, Clapsaddle voting nay. Clapsaddle voted nay because of the change noted to the pedestrian district section of Land Use. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Voss, to move for approval or disapproval by the City Council the Housing Section of the Comprehensive Plan. MOTION CARRIED. 7-0. Mueller stated to make no changes to the Park and Recreation Section, but allow the Park and Open Space Commission to make recommended changes to the Park and Recreation Section at the City Council meeting on November 23, 1999. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Hasse, to move for approval or disapproval by the City Council the Park and Recreation Section with additions noted above on the Comprehensive Plan. MOTION CARRIED. 7-0. MOTION by Clapsaddle, seconded by Mueiler, to change Contents of the Park and Recreation Section of the Comprehensive Plan as noted above. MOTION CARRIED. 7-0. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Voss, to move for approval or disapproval by the City Council the Public Facilities and Services Section of the Comprehensive Plan. MOTION CARRIED. 7-0. MOTION by Voss, seconded by Hasse, to move for approval or disapproval by the City Council the Transportation Section of the Comprehensive Plan. MOTION CARRIED. 6-1, Mueiler voting nay. Voss made the motion to pass the Transportation Section because he was not concerned about the impact of the comments suggested in the Goals and Policies Section of the Comprehensive Plan. Mueller opposed this motion because neighborhood roadways should not be considered "municipal state aid streets." He stated this would increase traffic flow at a higher speed and a requirement by another governmental body. MOUND crrY COUNCIL MINUTES - NOVEMBER 23, 1999 MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Voss, to move for approval or disapproval by the City Council the Implementation Section of the Comprehensive Plan. MOTION CARRIED. 7-0. Mueller stated the Planning Commission should recommend to the City Council the Parks and Recreation portion of the Comprehensive Plan should include input from the Park and Open Space Committee regarding an immediate potential loss of activity type-park areas and the immediate potential acquisition of property to replace the loss. MOTION by Mueiler, seconded by Clapsaddle, to approve the amendment to the Park and Recreation section as noted above. MOTION CARRIED. 6-1, Voss voting nay. Councilmember Hanus stated the Land Use Map does not reflect the zoning properly, specifically the Maple Manors. The City Planner stated the change can be included in the final draft of the Land Use Map. Councilmember Hanus stated Tyrone Park does not appear to be on the Land Use Map. Gordon stated this park will be added back in the final draft of the Land Use Map. Councilmember Ahrens asked the City Planner if the City Council finds mistakes in the Comprehensive Plan after it is turned into Metropolitan Council, can it be changed. The City Planner stated changes could be made that are minor. Any major change may not be as easy to change. The City Planner also stated the Land Use section of the Comprehensive Plan should be kept updated to accommodate zoning changes as they occur. Councilmember Weycker stated the Transportation section specifically needed some changes made. She stated Dial-a-Ride is a transportation service for all individuals and not just the elderly or disabled. Also, it should be noted in the Comprehensive Plan the bus routes are only available for citizens of Mound at rush hour times and not on an all day basis as mentioned. Councilmember Weycker stated there are some discrepancies with the Lost Lake area. She stated the map should indicate it as an NCA or a lake marsh. Councilmember Weycker mentioned in the Parks and Recreation section under the Specialized Areas the fourth paragraph should exclude part of the first sentence up until the Commerce part. Councilmember Weycker was concerned how the park and recreation space for the citizens of Mound was calculated. She questioned including Lost Lake as usable land. Gordon stated this section would need to be recalculated if the school district property is changed from its current park listing. Councilmember Brown stated he recommends changes to the Comprehensive Plan according to what the Planning Commission recommended at its November 22, 1999, meeting. MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - NOVEMBER 23, 1999 Mayor Meisel opened the public hearing at 9:05 p.m. Tom Stokes, 4636 Wilshire Boulevard. He is a part of the Brenshell Company. Mr. Stokes would like to know why the sea green color from the original Land Use Map has changed to yellow in the proposed Land Use Map. The City Planner stated this yellow area will be considered vacant and could be subdivided some day. Tom Casey, 2845 Cambridge Lane. Mr. Casey submitted for the record a memo with recommended changes to the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Casey would like to see the final Comprehensive Plan at a public hearing when it has been completed. Mr. Casey restated a statute which cites specific property which could be included in a Comprehensive Plan, such as the Rex Alwin property and the school district property if it seems appropriate. Mr. Casey stated it would make good sense to include this property in the Comprehensive Plan. The City Attorney sated it is possible to point out specific property in the Comprehensive Plan, but he does not recommend it. Mr. Casey restated he would recommend having strong language in Comprehensive Plan that includes a friendly acquisition of the Rex Alwin property and the school district property. Mr. Casey stated the Surface Water Management Plan is a required Plan and commends the City and Mr. Parks for taking the appropriate time to create a well-written Plan. Mr. Casey submitted his recommended changes of the Surface Water Management Plan to the City Engineer. Mr. Casey sated the buffer zones should be included in the Surface Water Management Plan because it is a good code to have for a city like Mound and also it is mandated by the watershed district. Mr. Casey mentioned the two resolutions submitted to the Planning Commission which include the Rex Alwin property and the School District property. He stated the Parks Commission only approved the two resolutions and the memorandum he submitted was his thoughts only. Mr. Casey stated the big woods is an "echo system" and Mr. Alwin's property is one of those remnant parcels. Tom Stokes stated he has an interest in Rex Alwin property. He stated he would like to have this property put into a park and other development. Mr. Stokes would like to know the impact it would be on him, a developer, if the city would put this property into its Comprehensive Plan as parkland. The City Attorney stated the property would stay zoned as it currently is zoned. He stated if was a proposal to develop the property by a developer, it would need a conditional use permit from the City of Mound. Mr. Casey clarified by no means is he trying to impede Mr. Alwin's plans in anyway. MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - NOVEMBER 23, 1999 Peter Meyer, 5848 Sunset Road. Mr. Meyer is the Chairman of the Park & Open Space Commission. He is in favor of keeping the ballfields. Mr. Meyer did a comparison of other cities regarding ballfields available to the public. The five cities he cited, with various populations, of having more ballfields than Mound include Chanhassen, Chaska, Shorewood, Watertown, and Saint Bonnifacius. Mr. Meyer wants the City of Mound visions project to include an appropriate number of ballfields. Councilmember Brown stated the five cities Mr. Meyer mentioned are ail cities that are growing and have a large amount of land yet to be developed. Councilmember Brown corrected Mr. Meyer and stated the City of Mound has three little league fields and three softball fields. He also stated Mr. Meyer failed to mention the Swenson Park and the Shirley Hills Park as community fields currently being utilized by the public. Councilmember Hanus asked if all of the fields listed from each of the five cities were all city maintained property and Mr. Meyer stated they were. Councilmember Hanus stated these cities are blossoming and have large tax revenue to help support these fields and Mound does not. Councilmember Hanus suggested to Mr. Meyer he would support a generic listing of certain types of parks to be included in the Comprehensive Plan and to have the City work towards achieving those standards for the community; but to be include site specific parcels would be inappropriate. Councilmember Brown mentioned another correction in the Comprehensive Plan. He stated in the Goals and Polices section under Recreation the first sentence should read as follows: "Promote recreational opportunities to meet the needs of the Mound residents." Councilmember Weycker stated it would be inappropriate to be site specific in any area of the Comprehensive Plan, with the exception to the parks and the school district property. Mr. Stokes questioned what will prevent the school district from selling off more of its property, or ballfields, to other developers as the years go by. Mr. Stokes stated the City may need to put some kind of stop in preventing this from happening again. Councilmember Weycker agreed and would like to see the City purchase more fields in the future. Mr. Meyer suggested having a joint powers agreement between the school district and the City where it would state if the school district decides to sell off any of its property, the City would have the first right of refusal to purchase the site. Councilmember Hanus stated there is room for discussion regarding this suggestion by Mr. Meyer but rezoning each acquired piece of property obtained by the City would not be appropriate. Kim Anderson, 5736 Lynwood. Ms. Anderson supported Mr. Meyer's calculations of other cities regarding percentages of green space for ballfields that surrounding cities provide for the citizens. She would like the City of Mound to be more aggressive about this matter. 10 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - NOVEMBER 23, 1999 Mr. Casey suggested a possible better way to accomplish completing a project like the Comprehensive Plan and the Surface Water Management Plan would include having all interested citizens, all commission members and all consultants at one big round table discussion and meet a common understanding and a common ground by all. He would recommend this planning process as a vision for Mound. Mayor Meisel closed the public hearing at 10:00 p.m. Councilmember Hanus stated he would recommend the Comprehensive Plan be brought back for discussion by the City Council at the next available date in December, 1999, so the City of Mound could still meet the deadline of December, 1999. He stated the Surface Water Management Plan would not be included in the Comprehensive Plan presented to the Metropolitan Council, but instead it would go back to the Planning Commission for more discussion and then forwarded back to the City Council at the end of January, 2000. He stated he would encourage special Planning Commission Meetings to accomplish this goal. The Acting City Manager stated the next Council meeting would be December 14'~ , and already on the agenda is the public hearing on tax increment financing district. There was discussion about having a special meeting, along with the HRA, at the end of November which has already been scheduled. There was discussion abbout any ramifications of not having the Comprehensive Plan or the Surface Water Management Plan turned into to the Metropolitan Council by the end of the year. The City Planner stated the Metropolitan Council would probably be swamped with other Comprehensive Plans. The City Planner stated he would notify the Metropolitan Council that the City of Mound is actively working on its Comprehensive Plan and Surface Water Management Plan and they are making progress, but it will not be turned in by the end of 1999 as expected. Mayor Meisel stated the Planning Commission would require at least two meetings to complete the Comprehensive Plan and the Surface Water Management Plan and get its recommendations to the City Council. A consensus noted the Planning Commission should be able to have its finished product to the City Council by January 24, 2000. The City Planner did remind the City Council that the Planning Commission will be reviewing the downtown visions project and this will consume quite a bit time. Councilmember Ahrens suggested strongly the City should not have been put in this type of rush position to get such an important Plan done in such a short amount of time. Mayor Meisel suggested a joint meeting at a Committee of the Whole Meeting where many issues can be addressed in an unofficial way. She stated the biggest issue would be the green space and how it should be included in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Casey commended the City Council if they have a Committee of the Whole meeting to include discussions of the Comprehensive Plan in an informal environment. 11 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - NOVEMBER 23, 1999 John Parker, real estate agent with Rex Alwin, stated to identify every place in Mound that could be park property would be designating every single lot in Mound. Mayor Meisel stated there will be a Committee of the Whole meeting on scheduled for January 18, 2000. Councilmember Hanus recommended that staff to invite the Park Commission to attend the Committee of the Whole meeting on January 18, 2000. MOTION by ttanus, seconded by Weycker to continue discussions of the Comprehensive Plan and to allow the Planning Commi~ion a deadline of January 24, 2000, to complete the Comprehensive Plan and the Surface Water Management Plan and have it submitted to the City Council in its entirety. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 5-0. MOTION by tlanus, seconded by Brown, to continue the public hearing of the Comprehensive Plan until February 8, 2000. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 5-0. The City Planner agreed to prepare an appropriate ad notifying the public of the confinuaton of the hearing until February 8, 2000. 12 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION November 10, 1999 Present were: Commissioners Peter Meyer, Tom Casey, Christina Cooper and City Council Representative Leah Weycker. Also present were Park Director Jim Fackler, and Secretary Nancy Czajkowski. Absent were: Commissioners Norman Domholt and John Beise. 1. APPROVAL OF THE OCTOBER 14, 1999 POSC MINUTES Motion made by Casey, seconded by Cooper, to approve the minutes of the October 14, 1999 Park and Open Space Commission (POSC) meeting, as presented. Motion carried unanimously (Abstain -Weycker). 2. APPROVAL OF THE SPECIAL OCTOBER 28, 1999 POSC MINUTES Motion made by Cooper, seconded by Casey, to approve the minutes of the Special October 28, 1999 Park and Open Space Commission (POSC) meeting, as presented. Motion carried unanimously. 3. AGENDA CHANGES The agenda was approved with the following amendments: 1. Add item 7A: DISCUSS: REX ALWIN PROPERTY 2. Add item 7B: DISCUSS: COMMUNITY CENTER GREENSPACE 4. DISCUSS: PROPOSED PLAY STRUCTURE AT SWENSON PARK Park Director Fackler presented the proposed play structure for Swenson Park, noting the final decisions regarding color, style, and size would be made at a later time. He indicated the estimated cost of the project would be from $30,000 to $35,000. Discussion followed on possible colors and styles. Commissioner Casey expressed his concern that the public be able to be part of the process in making decisions. Commissioner Cooper stated her concerns regarding safety. Mr. Fackler responded that any structure to be purchased would meet the existing safety requirements and meet ADA requirements for access. City Council Representative Weycker stated her concern regarding the ability to obtain the funds for this project in this year's budget process. Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission November 10, 1999 5. REVIEW: REVIEW 1999 SUMMER PLAYGROUND AND BEACH PROGRAM Mr. Tim Piepkorn reviewed the 1999 Summer Playground and Beach Program and advised that he is concerned with retaining staff. Mr. Piepkorn stated organization of the staff and staff salaries need to be reviewed prior to next season. In addition, Mr. Piepkorn stated his concerns regarding the storm drain located in the middle of Highland Park. Discussion followed on how the Commission could be of assistance. 6. REVIEW: REGISTRY PROGRAM Agenda item tabled until December POSC meeting. 7. REVIEW: DRAFT OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Park Director Fackler presented the most recent draft of the Comprehensive Plan for informational purposes. Discussion followed on the response by the Planning Commission to the Resolution to Amend the City of Mound Comprehensive Plan suggested by the Commission. Commissioner Casey expressed his concern that no specific comments were provided by the Planning Commission as to their reasons for rejecting the amendment. He further stated the concern that the Commission delayed the public hearing and was reluctant to take public comment on this issue. Discussion followed on what would be the best way to proceed. Consensus was reached that each person would consider alternative language to the amendment. 7A. DISCUSS: REX ALWIN PROPERTY Commissioner Casey presented material on Minnesota Land Trusts. Discussion followed on how best to proceed. Consensus was reached that although the Commission would continue to discuss the status of the issue, no further action would be taken at this time. Individual Commissioners interested in this issue will continue to seek information that may be helpful to the Commission. 7B. UPDATE: COMMUNITY CENTER GREENSPACE Agenda item was discussed in conjunction with agenda item 7A. Motion made by Weycker, seconded by Casey to continue the meeting for ten more minutes. Motion carried unanimously. 2 Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission November 10, 1999 8. POSC DECEMBER AGENDA Some items for the December POSC agenda are: 2. 3. 4. Update on Budget Review: Registry Program Update on Rex Alvin's Property Review: Final Draft of Comp Plan Sa FOR YOUR INFORMATION: City Council Minutes DCAC Minutes Planning Commission Minutes Encroachment Policy Recommendation Update of the 1999 Capital Outlay Purchases City of Shorewood Eueka Open Space Preserve 10. REPORTS: a. City Council Representative City Council Representative Weycker stated the City Council is working to obtain prices for storm water management. She added the Council is working diligently on a flier to be used in the search for a city manager. She noted the Council will also review the Comprehensive Plan. b. Park Director No report at this time. Motion made by Weycker, seconded by Casey, to adjourn the meeting at 10:12 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. 3 Mound Plannino Commission Minutes - November 8. 1999 requirements with privately owned property but having joint ownership of commons. Mueller recommended to the applicant removal of hardcover on tract B to get it into the 40 percent conforming amount. The applicant agreed he would make this tract hardcover conforming. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Voss, to approve the minor subdivision according to staff recommendations and with the removal of hardcover to make the property conforming. Discussion: Mueller stated, and Voss agreed, there should also be a lot line rearrangement with the minor subdivision. AMENDED MOTION by Brown, seconded by Voss, to approve the minor subdivision according to staff recommendations, including a lot line rearrangement not changing the lot of record status for either property and with the removal of hardcover to make the property conforming. MOTION CARRIED. 7-0. Chair Michael stated to the applicant his case will be presented to City Council on December 14, 1999. PUBLIC HEARING: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. Gordon stated the purpose of the public hearing is to present the Comprehensive Plan to public, receive input, have Commission discussion, and ultimately forward a recommendation to the City Council. Gordon pointed out the Surface Water Management Plan is part of the Comprehensive Plan but that will be discussed at a later point in time tonight. Gordon stated the Metropolitan Council is requiring all jurisdictions to update their plans every 10 years. The City of Mound's Comprehensive Plan is due December 31, 1999. Gordon presented key elements of the Comprehensive Plan including Goals and Policies, Demographic trends, Land Use Housing, Redevelopment, Transportation, Parks and Recreation, and Public Facilities. Gordon stated the purpose of the Comprehensive Plan is to provide a framework for all the staff, Commissions, Boards, and Council to use when carrying out short-term decisions. Mueller asked Gordon and Gordon clarified the Surface Water Management Plan would be handled later in the evening. The Comprehensive Plan is what the public should address now. 6 Mound Planninq Commission Minutes - November 8, 1999 Brown asked about the pedestrian district in the Land Use section. He stated this section is too specific and it should be stated more general. Gordon suggested the notation regarding a three-story building could read "with intense downtown area with a mix of uses that would include retail, office and attached residential." There was discussion amongst the commissioners regarding the direction of the public hearing. Chair Michael restated the direction of the public hearing was to discuss the Comprehensive Plan in its entirety so that would include discussing the Surface Water Management Plan. With that thought in mind, Chair Michael stated Mr. Dan Parks should present the Surface Water Management Plan. Mr. Casey requested a copy of the Surface Water Management Plan as Mr. Parks discussed it with the commissioners and he was accommodated with a copy for his review. Mr. Dan Parks asked the commissioners if there were any questions or concerns they had regarding the Surface Water Management Plan as presented to them tonight. Mr. Parks stated the final Plan would have colored maps. Mr. Parks stated the Plan is about 97 percent complete. Mueller asked if changes need to be made to the Surface Water Management Plan on a case-by-case basis, is this possible with the Plan presented tonight and how would the City of Mound go about making such changes to the Plan. Mr. Parks stated there currently exists an amendment section in the Surface Water Management Plan. He stated if the changes are minor, then this would be an easy task to accomplish, although, he stated if the change was major this would require a policy change and it would have to be reviewed again by the Watershed District. He stated buffers would be considered a major change. Mueller wanted a clarification in the Surface Water Management Plan regarding buffers. He stated he understood the Plan to state if a new development was brought on to Lake Minnetonka, there shall be uncut native grasses 20 feet adjacent to the body of water according to what the Watershed District requires. Mr. Parks stated this is a true statement. Mueller asked if the Watershed District had jurisdiction over the City of Mound regarding the buffers and Mr. Parks stated it does. Mr. Parks stated having this buffering section in the Surface Water Management Plan would help eliminate geese walking up on owner's property and reduce bad water entering Lake Minnetonka. 7 Mound Planninq Commission Minutes - November 8. 1999 Brown is concerned about taking 20 foot of prime lakeshore property away from taxpayers who are paying major taxes and will not be able to use as their lakeshore. Mr. Parks stated aquacultural landscaping to the lake would benefit a owner of lakeshore property if there is a buffer concern. Brown stated having a 20-foot buffer would also increase mosquitoes. Mueller stated on page 48 of the Plan there is discussion regarding the buffer requirements. It states in the Plan that anyone coming in a lakeshore lot, the city will require natural and unmaintained buffers around the lakeshore. Mueller stated this is unacceptable to have this grass that is unmaintained. Mueller stated he would like more information regarding aquacultural. Mr. Parks stated the intent is to not take the people's property away from them; the intent it to preserve the property by having a buffer zone. Mueller stated he would not recommend approval of the Surface Water Management Plan tonight without further information. Glister stated the buffers only affect new development. She stated she does not see this to be very effective because Mound is not expanding with much new development. Glister is concerned about the benefit of buffering. Mr. Parks agreed with Glister, but the benefit would be starting a possible "new trend" for lakeshore property owners. Brown stated having a prosperous-free fertilizer would be a greater contributor in keeping the lake more clear than setting up any type of buffer zone. Mr. Parks agreed that a prosperous-free fertilizer plan for the City of Mound would be beneficial if it is done properly and at a proper rate. A problem may come in when the public is puffing their own fertilizer down on their lawns. Brown stated if the people are educated they will then understand the importance of prosperous-free fertilizer and will abide by the policy. Gordon stated having a buffer plan in the Surface Water Management Plan does not impose a problem in his eyes. Mueller suggested having a buffer zone would cause less parks to be maintained along the lakeshore. He also stated having a buffer zone near the downtown area where the Mound vision project has been proposed would not be beneficial to the City of Mound. 8 Mound Planning Commission Minutes - November 8, 1999 Finally, Mueller stated when a minor subdivision occurs, there would have to be included a buffer on the properties in question. Chair Michael suggested using the word "encourage" instead of "require" in the wording of the Surface Water Management Plan when discussing buffers and the prosperous- free fertilizer plans. Mueller stated the Surface Water Management Plan does not include all of the appendixes and the appropriate wetland maps and he cannot recommend approval without the Plan being complete. Cameron stated the maps that are missing in the Plan are located at City Hall and they need to be inputted. Mueller is concerned about the fairly large and old sewer pipes that drain into Lake Minnetonka. He stated these pipes lack baffles that prevent sanitation. Mr. Parks stated these pipes could be repaired and have baffles on them, but the most effective way to prevent bad sanitation going into Lake Minnetonka is by ponding. Chair Michael opened the public hearing at 9:45 p.m. Peter Meyer, 5748 Sunset Road. Mr. Meyer is the Chairman of the Park and Open Space. Mr. Meyer questioned why the resolution involving the ball fields in town was denied by the Planning Commission at the October 25, 1999 meeting. He would like a clarification of what false information was presented in the resolution and the Planning Commission was going to meet with Mr, Meyer at a different time to discuss this issue. Mueller stated that a Comprehensive Plan does not list specific property that the City would like to keep in its town. Itmay list a plan of how to keep park property in town, but it should not list specific property. Brown stated the ballfields referred to by Mr. Meyer have been sold to the school district and this does not involve the park at this time. Tom Casey, 2854 Cambridge. Mr. Casey stated the 1990 Comprehensive Plan listed the ballfields or the school district property as parts of its inventory and its needs. Mr. Casey stated he would like the Comprehensive Plan to have a vision if they lose public park to have it replaced. Mr. Casey recommended the following changes to the 1990 Comprehensive Plan that he had brought with him tonight: Page 2, the City Attorney should review the statute. Page 8, the top paragraph should include "shall also review and acquire privately owned land and acquire when necessary for public purposes." 9 Mound Planning Commission Minutes - November 8. 1999 Page 38, having the Land Use Maps amended back to showing school district property as a public institution. Page 35, there should be a notation stating "deed restrictions or plat dedications." Page 36, compliments the pedestrian district to have mixed uses. Page 71, there is discussion regarding right-of-way widths for streets. Could the downtown vision streets be more pedestrian friendly by getting variances. Brown stated with the downtown vision, the movement of Highway 15 over should cause less dodging of cars. There will also be on-street parking and a single lane street for downtown. These solutions will make the downtown more pedestrian friendly. Page 73 and 74 which refers to parks should remain as the existing 1990 Comprehensive Plan. Include the Rex Alwin property in the Comprehensive Plan in a form of a resolution and have this property for park space. Mueller stated the resolution just says that the City of Mound should buy the Rex Alwin property no matter what the price of the property it. Mueller stated that taxpayers will have to buy this property. Clapsaddle recommended having the resolution worded in such a way that would state the City of Mound may dedicate effort to obtain the property. Clapsaddle strongly recommends that the Planning Commission and the public not dwell on this topic the whole evening. Mueller strongly stated did not appreciate the park commission approaching Mr. Alwin about his land without approval from the City of Mound. Mr. Casey stated this was accomplished to keep Mr. Alwin interest in selling to the City. Mr. Casey also stated Mr. Alwin may be interested in having a double sale on.the property. Chair Michael stated to the public the Planning Commission does not meet after the hours of 11:00 p.m. without a motion. Brown stated the City Council would like the Planning Commission's recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan tonight. Mueller stated he will not recommend approval of the Surface Water Management Plan tonight for lack of information that is not included to make it complete. Mr. Casey was given a copy of the current Comprehensive Plan for his review. Bill Gabby, 5764 Lynwood Boulevard. Mr. Gabby stated he is a landowner next to the ballfield in question. Mr. Gabby would like to have the park space developed into commercial and park space if possible. 10 Mound Planning Commission Minutes - November 8. 1999 Brown stated any time something new is developed there has to be a portion of park dedication. This portion is normally about 10 percent. Gordon stated this is a city ordinance and does not need to be put into the Comprehensive Plan. Laurel Gabby, 5764 Lynwood Boulevard. Ms. Gabby drew two pictures of the ballfields and presented the pictures to the Planning Commission. Mueller stated that Ms. Gabby should present these pictures to the City Council tomorrow night. There was discussions of whether the public hearing would be continued because of the late hour approaching. Gordon stated the public hearing could be continued until November 22nu. Brown stated he recommends a special meeting by the Planning Commission to review the Comprehensive Plan in its entirety so there would be ample time for the City Council to see the Planning Commission's recommendations before the public hearing with the City Council on November 23rd. Christina Cooper, 4731 Manchester Road. Ms. Cooper asked if the park commission is an advisory committee to the Planning Commission or the City Council and Brown stated they are an advisory committee to the City Council. Ms. Cooper is now concerned why the Planning Commission took out the resolution in the Comprehensive Plan. To clarify the situation, Brown stated the Planning Commission recommended the resolution be denied. Brown stated, and Mueller agreed, if the people want to have an election regarding the park space then they should keep focused on this and accomplish this goal. Right now the property is sold. Mueller also stated it is very appropriate for the City Council to be concerned about the cost of the park space because taxpayers will pay for the park space. Clapsaddle strongly stated the public is asking the City to put inappropriate statements into the City's Comprehensive Plan. He stated the City does realize the loss of the park space and there maybe should be a replacement of it. Clapsaddle expressed that the Comprehensive Plan can not have specific information in it and the public needs to remember this is a Plan for 10 years and it is a more general plan. He stated the public needs to understand the purpose of the Comprehensive Plan. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Mueller, to extend the Planning Commission meeting until 11:10 p.m. MOTION CARRIED. 6-1, Hasse voting nay. 11 Mound Planninq Commission Minutes - November 8. 1999 Kim Anderson, 5737 Lynwood Boulevard. Ms. Anderson stated she would like the Comprehensive Plan to include an allowance for the park space. Ms. Anderson would also like the Land Use map to have a different color than green used to demonstrate the Lost Lake area. Gordon stated the Lost Lake area was considered park area because in the future there is reason to believe there will be a trail system put in around the lake causing it to be more of a park than just a wetland area. Gordon also stated a different color could be used to demonstrate the Lost Lake area, rather than the green which was chosen. Clapsaddle stated the City of Mound could have a program in the Comprehensive Plan to replace lost park space, but you cannot specifically put the exact area for purchase in a Comprehensive Plan. MOTION by Clapsaddle, seconded by Hasse, to adjourn the meeting. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Brown, to extend the meeting until 11:20 p.m. to close the public hearing and move on the Comprehensive Plan. MOTION CARRIED. 7-0. Wayne E. Echlebracht, 4873 Shoreline Drive. Mr. Echlebracht stated the Comprehensive Plan currently states the City of Mound needs to service park space within one mile with a football field and a baseball field. Mueller stated, and Brown agreed, the Comprehensive Plan does currently offer this service and will in the future as well according to what the code is requiring. Clapsaddle stated the trail system should be restated in the Comprehensive Plan. Geoff Michael stated when the public return at the continuation of tonight's public hearing regarding the Comprehensive Plan, he would like to hear new information and ideas. Chair Michael closed the public hearing at 11:20 p.m. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Hasse, to extend the public hearing regarding the Comprehensive Plan to November 22, 1999, at 7:30 p.m. Discussion: Gordon stated the Planning Commission could legally extend the public hearing to a special meeting or to the 22"d of November. Mueller expressed his concern again regarding buffering and would like the City Council to review this issue with caution. 12 Mound Planning Commission Minutes - November 8. 1999 Clapsaddle recommended the Planning Commission's meeting of November 22, 1999, include on the agenda only the Comprehensive Plan. MOTION CARRIED. 6-'1, Brown voting nay. Brown stated he opposed this motion because the City Council deserves more time to review the Planning Commission's recommendations to the Comprehensive Plan before November 23, 1999. He further stated there should be a special meeting. He stated there will not be sufficient time to get the input from the citizens to City Council in a timely manner. Mueller stated there was not adequate time for the Planning Commission and the City Council to review the Comprehensive Plan. Chair Michael stated the public hearing will be open from 7:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. on November 22, 1999, so the Planning Commission will have appropriate time to review the Comprehensive Plan in its entirety after that time. Voss stated there are real issues that need addressing in the Comprehensive Plan. In addition, he wondered why the public did not approach the school board regarding the park space. He further stated why did the school board not accept the City of Mound's bid which was a fair offer for the property. He stated if the City of Mound can break a contract, the school board could break it also. INFORMATION: 1. Monthly report from October. 2. City Council minutes from October 11, 1999. 3. Dock and Commons minutes from October 21, 1999. 4. Park and Open Space minutes from October 14, 1999. 5. Park and Open Space minutes from October 28, 1999. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Clapsaddle, seconded by Voss, to adjourn the meeting. MOTION CARRIED: 7-0. Chair Michael adjourned the meeting at 11:25 p.m. 13 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND PARK AND OPEN SPACE ADVISORY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING OCTOBER 28, 1999 Present were: Commissioners Peter Meyer, Norman Domholt, Tom Casey, John Beise, Christina Cooper. Also present was Park Director Jim Fackler. Absent and excused was Leah Weycker. Peter Meyer opened the special meeting at 7:30 pm. 1. Acquisition of the Rex Alwin Property Peter Meyer reviewed the letter received from Leah Weycker and stated that Commissioner Casey wrote up a draft resolution regarding the Rex Alwin Property. Commissioner Casey stated he would like to move the resolution for discussion. Motion made by Casey, seconded by Beise to discuss the proposed resolution to amend the City of Mound Comprehensive Plan. Motion carried unanimously. Commissioner Casey stated that Mound is 91% developed and that there is a need to require parks and open space. He stated that not much has been done since 1990. Commissioner Domholt questioned if that includes undeveloped wetlands like Lost Lake and if that is part of the 9% or is it 9% that can be developed that is not. He stated he would like to know what is develop able. Commissioner Casey explained that there is not much open space left in Mound and would like a inventory of the properties in Mound that are undeveloped. Park Director Fackler stated that information might be available from City Planner, Loren Gordon. Chair Peter Meyer asked how is was determined that the City of Mound is presently 91% developed. Commissioner Casey stated that the comprehensive plan from 1990 stated Mound is presently 91% developed and ten years have passed. Casey stated that percentage must have gone up due to the loss of Pelican Point and Teal Point. Casey asked if an updated percentage of developed land could be determined. Commissioner Casey addressed to the Commission stating that the house on the property of Rex Alwin is patterned after a Slickly home and the architecture is outlined in a book written in 1912. Casey then showed the Commissioners a copy of the subdivision map received from Rex Alwin. There was discussion about the quality of the 27 acre property. Commissioner Casey addressed Rex Alwin concerns with the lack of trust his has with government and the property to be private and stated he feels the City of Mound has not done a good job in the past with the city projects and he does not have great confidence that the city can pull this off but stated the city is well meaning and sincere 'and would like to see this property be preserved. Commissioner Casey addressed the abstract title showing the history of land. The first conveance can from the United States and sold lots off of government land in 1856. Chair Peter Meyer pointed out that Leah Weycker in her absents is very supported in trying to find a way for the city to acquire the property. The following is a memo from Leah Weycker and a draft resolution to amend the City of Mound Comprehensive Plan. To: Parks and Open Space Commission Jim Fackler From: Leah Weycker Re: Rex Alwin Property Oct. 27, 1999 I am sorry that I can not attend the POSC special meeting on Oct. 28. I wanted my feelings on the acquisition of the Rex Alwin property to be in the record. I have been on the POSC for almost 3 years and I have heard about this property since then. This is the last substantial piece of property left in our city which is 9 1% developed. The fact that we are Iow on overall park land makes this a significant parcel. The POSC has always looked for ways to offer Mr. Alwin information on land conservation easements or other ways for him to retain his land without being taxed out of it. Well, the time has come that he put the untouched land on the market and we must act now or loose the opportunity to acquire this land forever. The historical value of this property has not been researched but is clearly a property of immense historical value. The "big woods" and architectural significance is worth immediate research on the part of the city planners. That is my first recommendation. My second recommendation - I believe that we need to talk to Mr. Alwin and the realtor, as soon as possible, to let them know that the city is interested in the property and wants more information. I understand that Mr. Alwin, himself, is a wealth of historical information. Who built the house? Why has this old woods been preserved for as long as it has? How did he acquire the property? There are many questions about what he is willing to do by way of protecting the land. City planners, Loren or Bruce, would have a better understanding of what we could offer him if we couldn't afford to purchase the land now. Thirdly, there needs to be a discussion about what this property is and can be used for. If the historical value indicates that we should purchase the land, what other agencies might be willing to contribute to the purchase of the property? Does this old woods and architecture tie in with the old Lost Lake channel we dredged? (They are around the same time in history-1911/19067) Is there a tourist "destination" right here in Mound? Could the Westonka Historical Society be operating out of the house there? Could the Senior Center conduct tours of the land from the house or a new meeting center/wedding hall on these beautiful, acres of nature? I visit friends that live in Deer River, Minnesota and have been told of the "Big Woods" north of their home. It is a tourist- attraction that draws many people. Some day, I too will visit the 'Big Woods". Will it be so close to my home? These are my recommendations and suggestions. This property is worth the immediate attention of our community. RESOLUTION TO AMEND THE CITY OF MOUND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WHEREAS, the City of Mound is presently 91% developed, retaining only small remnants of its original ecosystems; WHEREAS, the Parks and Recreation Section of the 1990 Comprehensive Plan states: "... Mound is presently 91% developed." (Page 71) "Natural park-like areas" are the number i priority for recreational facilities. (Page 82) . "... more natural open space areas are needed." (Page 83). "Mound should expand its existing ownership of nature areas and open space." (Page 85) WHEREAS, the City of Mound Park and Open Space Commission is concerned about the loss of native habitat throughout the world and recognizes that ethical consistency requires local efforts to protect and restore native habitat; WHEREAS, on January 22 1990 the Mound City Council proclaimed the 1990 s to be the "Decade of the Environment"; WHEREAS, the 27-acreproperty owned by Mr. Rex Alwin contains an excellent example of the rare "Bi.g Woods" (maple-- basswood) ecosystem, of which less than 1% remains in M~nnesota; WHEREAS, the Rex Alwin property contains historical buildings and landscapes which provided inspiration for two paintings by Terry Redlin, one of America's most popular painters; and WHEREAS, the Rex Alwin property is presently listed with a real estate broker for immediate sale; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the City of Mound Park and Open Space Advisory Commission recommends that the Parks and Recreation Section of the 1999 City of Mound Comprehensive Plan contain the following language: he C~tyof Mound should ~mmed~ately use ~ts best efforts to acquire the 27-acre Rex Alwin property for: (1) preservation of its natural features as an exemplary Nature Conservation Area; and (2) preservation and- restoration of its historical buildings." That a copy of this resolution be forwarded immediately to City Planner and the City of Mound Planning Commission for inclusion in the 1999 Comprehensive Plan, 3 Motion matte by Casey, seconde~t by Beise that the Park an~l Open Space Advisory Commission approved the proposed resolution to amend the City of Mound Comprehensive Plan. Motion carried unanimously. Discussion continued between Advisory Commissioners in regards to what use the open space could be used for. Chair Peter Meyer asked Parks Director, Jim Fackler to check with the City Planners on what we could offer Mr. Alwin if the city could not afford to purchase the land at this time. Commissioner Casey suggested writing a draft letter to Mr. Alwin stating the Park & Open Space Advisory Commission thoughts on what could be done with the property also inclose a copy of the minutes. Motion made by Meyer, seconded by Cooper to adjourn the meeting at 8:20 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. 4 Memorandum Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Loren Gordon, Assistant City Planner October 26, 1999 Comprehensive Plan - Goals and Policies revisions Mound Planning Commission The revised Goals and Policies section reflects the revisions made at the October 25~ PC workshop. Please remove the existing section with this new one which is indicated by the revision highlighting and the footer (v.2). Prior to the Public Hearing on November 8~, please have any comments ready by page so we can be as efficient with review time as possible. This will also assist with the meeting minutes and providing a complete plan to the City Council. The SWM2P subcommittee will be meeting over the next week to review the final plan. Staffwill then meet with the subcommittee before the heating to finalize the plan. We would anticipate a recommendation will be made at the Nov. 8e public hearing. If anyone has questions, comments, concerns, as you review the Comprehensive Plan please call me 338.0800. Thanks! ! 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 3384)800 Fax (612) 3384838 The Planning Commission has recommended City Council of approval of the Comprehensive Plan with the following revisions: Goals and Policies Section Land Use Policies: Page 8, number 9 should read "City Council, Planning Commission and Park and Open Space Commission sha, II review and analyze publicly owned land to ensure that it is needed for public purposes." Recreation Policies: Page 10, number 6 should read: "Promote a balanced park system which includes neighborhood parks, community parks, nature conservation areas, special use facilities, schools and private developments." Public Communication/Information Access Policies: · Page 11, words "continue to" where noted in two locations should be removed. Page 11, number 3 should read as follows: "Ensure that elected and appointed officials are provided timely and accurate information to assist with decision making through adequate staff and resources." Land Use Section Page 35, item 2 should be changed to read: "Land by deed restrictions or plat dedications is identified for use principally by owners of specific subdivisions." Page 36, pedestrian district, second sentence should read as follows: "It is an intense downtown area with a mix of retail, office and attached residential housing." Land Use Plan Map - Show Lost Lake as Conservation with a Park edge for Trail purposes. _ Land Use Plan Map - Show the Community Center Ballfield area as Public/Institutional. Park and Recreation Section · No changes recommended but allow the Park and Open Space Commission to provide input to City Council. The City Council has noted the following as suggested revisions to the Comprehensive Plan: Transportation Page 65, Transit Service, 3~d paragraph, dial-a-ride..."operated for use to all citizens." Park and Recreation Section · Park and Recreation Plan Map - Identify Lost Lake as Conservation Page 77, paragraph 3, 3~ sentence, removed first part of sentence, "Aside from the Mound Bay Park area..." · Comment on page 78 regarding tables- Park numbers will change if Community Center site changes status. · Comment on page 81 regarding references to Community Center site. Comments received from Parks Commission: The Parks Commission has submitted a letter dated 11/17/99 with considerations which, are outlined. a number of Comments received from citizens at both Planning Commission and City Council public hearings: - General Summary of Issues Stated · Keep Haddorff site as Public/Institutional for continued use as ballfields. · Need to keep the realigned County Road 15 as narrow as possible and pedestrian friendly. · City needs more parks. · Would like a park site on the Alwin property. · Address buffering between commercial and residential properties. Mound Planning Commission Minutes - October 25, 1999 Voss stated on page 30, numbers I and 2 appear to be "moot" in his eyes. Gordon agreed number 2 could be deleted, but number 1 maybe needs only some rewording. Voss stated on page 30, number 4, the word "not" should be deleted within the sentence. Mueller stated his biggest concerns and questions involved policies. Voss asked if the City of Mound could financially afford all of these changes. Gordon stated all of this planning does require more work by the Commissioners, the boards, staff and people who do work within the City. The City Manager will need to monitor efforts made by staff and also regulate the best policies that should be implemented. Mueller ended discussions of the Surface Water Management Plan by restating again his three concerns: (1) phosphorous-free fertilizer; (2) unmaintained buffer strips and buffer zones; and (3) stenciling on concrete curbs by drains. Mueller stated the Surface Water Management Plan subcommittee would meet with Mr. Parks to discuss their revisions. 2. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. Gordon started his presentation on the Comprehensive Plan. He stated the Culture Resource Section now includes the burial sites in Mound. The Social Economics Section's projections by Metropolitan Council were off so Gordon created a comparison chart that showed what projections he felt would be more realistic. Gordon stated the goals and policies within each section still need to be implemented. Brown stated he had been informed there are more parks per capita in the City of Mound than any other city in the seven county metro area. Chair Michael strongly suggested improvements in the Housing Section. He questioned the wording of having the City of Mound "encourage maintenance." Sutherland stated currently maintenance is encouraged if another citizen has made a complaint. Mueller questioned the deadline of this project and stated strongly the Comprehensive Plan currently does not suit the City of Mound. Mueller stated the Planning Commission does not want to put this Plan into effect with the language it currently has in the Plan so he is encouraging a page-by-page review of the Comprehensive Plan tonight. Mound Planning Commission Minutes - October 25. 1999 Brown stated there is information about the community center that is stated incorrectly and out of context in the Comprehensive Plan. Brown also strongly stated the Comprehensive Plan will not be passed on November 8, 1999, as it reads to date. He is aware, although, of the end-of-the-year deadline for the Plan. Sutherland agreed with Mueller that the Comprehensive Plan should be reviewed page- by-page. Weiland strongly stated there is information in the Comprehensive Plan that should be deleted and reinserted when the need arises. Gordon reiterated that this Draft contains all sections that have been reviewed by the Planning Commission over the last 9 months with some sections two and three times. Based on those review sessions, this draft represents the direction of the Planning Commission. Gordon asked who had read the Draft and what specific concerns exist as the draft reads. He stated the public hearing is scheduled for November 8, 1999 and those issues remaining need to be identified and addressed by the Commission so a recommendation can be forwarded to Council. Chair Michael agreed to a page-by-page review tonight of the Goals and Policies on pages 6-11. Mueller agreed with Chair Michael. Community Development The word "Goal" should be deleted following the subtitle. Natural Resources There was some disagreement regarding number 2, although, Gordon and Sutherland agree this item needs to be included in the Plan for situations that are forthcoming. Mueller stated some disagreement regarding number 4 because it is more extensive than what the City of Mound currently does. Gordon stated, and Sutherland agreed, this number needs to stay in the Plan to have something to fall back on when there is an incident of discussion by a citizen which could occur. The Planning Commission and staff agreed to restate number 6. They would like it to read as follows: Promote shoreland management practices consistent with the Mound Comprehensive Plan, providing they recognize LMCD and the DNR development guidelines and Mound's existing land use pattern. 4 Mound Planning Commission Minutes - October 25. 1999 Land Use Mueller and Voss suggested number 2 to read as follows: Create suitable dwelling densities to accommodate changing development patterns, housing types and aesthetic values. Mueller suggested number 7 should eliminate the word "maintain" and insert the word "encourage." Sutherland stated we can maintain a mix of downtown by using SAC credits. Mueller suggested number 9 should eliminate the word "should" and replace it with the word "shall." Housing There was lengthy discussions of numbers 4 and 5. Staff stated an example of Maple Manor in support of number 4. Number 5 relates to truth and housing and the Commissioners, as well as staff, would like to see this enforced where applicable. The Commissioners, and staff agreed, to restate number 7 in the goal area of this section. Transportation It was agreed by the Commissioners and staff to restate number 5 to read as follows: Encourage the upgrading of all municipal, county and state roadways, full urban sections, i.e., curb gutter blacktop streets, with controlled driveways cuts, curbing, sidewalks, etc. Sutherland stated, and Gordon agreed, number 7 should be restated with the goal area of this section to read as follows: Promote increased development and interconnection with adjacent communities of the bikeways. Recreation In the goal section, the word "the" mentioned before "all Mound residents" should be deleted. There was agreement by those present to change number 6 to read as follows: Promote a balanced park system which includes neighborhood parks, community parks, nature conservation areas, special use facilities, schools and private developments. Gordon stated he will add a number 10 that will include appropriate language regarding a trail system for the City of Mound to be included in the Comprehensive Plan. Mound Planning Commission Minutes - October 25. 1999 Public Communication/Information Access The Commissioners and staff agreed to remove the word "continue" at the beginning of the sentence in number 1. It was agreed that number 2 should be restated to read as follows: Continue to encourage and provide public participation at Council and Commission meetings. Number 3 should be restated to read: Ensure that elected and appointed officials are provided timely and accurate information to assist with decision making by having adequate staff. 3. RESOLUTION TO AMEND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. This resolution will be on the Agenda for the Park and Open Space Advisory Commission Special Meeting on October 28, 1999. There was discussion by the Commissioners regarding the resolution that indicated the resolution contained false information. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Brown, to deny the Resolution as provided. MOTION CARRIED by a resounding aye. 7-0. INFORMATION 1. City Council Minutes from October 12, 1999. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Voss, seconded by Weiland, to adjourn the meeting. MOTION CARRIED: 9-0. Chair Michael adjourned the meeting at 10:15 p.m. Mound Plannina Commission Minutes - September 13. 1999 Gordon presented this issue. Gordon stated that this plan is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommended it could be considered by designating this plan as Iow density. Gordon recommends approval of the minor subdivision with some provisions as stated in his original report of recommendations dated May 10, 1999. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Voss to accept staff recommendations of the minor subdivision. MOTION CARRIED. 6-1. (Burma, Glister, Michael, Hasse, Voss, Brown - aye and Weiland - nay.) DISCUSSION 1. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: COMMUNITY CENTER SITE Gordon presented the building plan for the Community Center site by showing detailed colored maps of the downtown area. Gordon stated there would be a mix of auto destination district and pedestrian district for the center. There would be shopping available, but on a middle-size scale such as the Coast to Coast site. There would be large tenants and smaller shops that would consist of grocery stores, clothing stores, etc. The terms of setbacks are consistent with the residential setbacks along Glenwood. The look of the area would be a more suburban view. INFORMATION Monthly report from August, 1999. City Council minutes from August 24, 1999. Dock and Commons minutes from August 18, 1999. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Glister, seconded by Burma, to adjourn the meeting. MOTION CARRIED: 7-0. Chair Michael adjourned the meeting at 11:15 p.m. 167 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION OCTOBER 14, 1999 Present were: Commissioners Peter Meyer, Norman Domholt, Tom Casey, John Beise, Christina Cooper. Also present were Park Director Jim Fackler, and Secretary Kristine Kitzman. 1. APPROVAL OF THE SEPTEMBER 9, 1999 POSC MINUTES Motion made by Beise, seconded by Domholt to approve the minutes of the September 9, 1999 Park and Open Space Commission (POSC) meeting, as amended. Motion carried unanimously. Page 4, Last paragraph, Sentence 3: "Casey asked for a show of hands if any citizens would support a referendum to support..." 2. AGENDA CHANGES The agenda was approved with the following amendments: 1. Add 3A: DISCUSS: COMMUNITY CENTER GREENSPACE 2. Table Item #4 due to plan changes, move to November 3. PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT Applicant: Property: Lane Hansen Park adjacent to applicant's property at 2057 Arbor Lane Park Director Fackler summarized Lane Hensen's request to plant trees in the park. Staff recommends approval with a condition that the location be subject to the interdepartmental review process (similar to a building permit). In addition, the location must be in conformance with the corner lot provisions of the attached zoning ordinance section 350:750. Commissioner Casey suggested planting a native species, rather than something that is not indigenous to the area. Motion made by Casey, seconded by Beise to recommend approval of a Public Lands Permit for Lane Hansen, with the conditions put forth by staff, and the added condition that native species be planted. Motion carried unanimously. 3A. DISCUSS: COMMUNITY CENTER GREENSPACE Mr. and Mrs. McCharles were present, and stated to the City Council at their last meeting that they were willing to sell up to 10 acres of the greenspace to the City at their cost. An answer is needed quickly, however, and Mrs. McCharles stated the general feel from the Council is they do not want the land. Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission October 14, 1999 Linda Skorseth, 5648 Alder Road, questioned if the buyer would consider the offer from other than the City. Mrs. McCharles stated if it was going to be kept for parks, they would consider the offer from other than the City. Ms. Skorseth requested a letter from the new owner stating he would consider their offer before any other offer. General discussion followed regarding several different suggestions on how to go about obtaining this land. Mrs. Skorseth took note of any ideas she has not explored as yet, and will continue her efforts to find a way. Ed Ehlebracht, 4873 Shoreline Drive, also stated he will continue to work towards keeping this park land. 4. REVIEW: DOWNTOWN CONCEPT OF GREENSPACE PLAN Agenda item tabled until November POSC meeting. 5. REVIEW: REGISTRY PROGRAM Commissioner Casey presented information about registry programs from The Nature Conservancy and Friends of the Minnesota Valley, to be used as baseline information in possibly setting up a similar registry program in Mound. Discussion followed on what would be the best way to proceed. Consensus was reached that desire and direction from the Council would now be needed. A resolution and background information should accompany the POSC recommendation to adopt a registry program, as well as the specific information on what, who, why, and the benefits of, for Council information. Motion made by Casey, seconded by Cooper to support a Registry Program for the City of Mound to provide, to the extent possible, management assistance to the landowner and shall remove the property from the program if the landowner fails to protect the property. Except by express consent of the landowner, enrollment in this program implies no right of public access and shall not be publicized. Motion carried unanimously. Commissioner Casey will produce final copies for the next City Council meeting for approval. DISCUSS: PROPOSED RESOLUTION FOR AMENDING THE CITY OF MOUND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Casey presented the copy of the amended resolution, and briefly summarized the changes. Draft changes were made as follows: 2 Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission October 14, 1999. 1. Item #1; "...recommends that the City Council amc, nd thc 1990 2000 Comprehensive Plan..." 2. Item #2; "...forwarded immediately to the City Planner and the City of Mound Planning Commission for..." These changes will be forwarded to the City Planner. Casey moved, Domholt seconded to amend the "Resolution to Amend the City of Mound Comprehensive Plan." Motion carried unanimously. 7. REVIEW: LETTER TO NON PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS REQUESTING DONATIONS Consensus was positive to accept this letter as written. 8. POSC NOVEMBER AGENDA Some items for the November POSC agenda are: 1. Review: Registry Program 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Review: Downtown Concept of Greenspace Plan Update on Community Center Greenspace Issue Copy of Final Draft of Comp Plan (in FYI) Review: Capital Outlay Improvements & Expenditures for Current Year Review: 1990 Parks/Beach Program Review: Swenson Playground Equipment FOR YOUR INFORMATION: a. City Council Minutes b. DCAC Minutes c. Planning Commission Minutes d. Metropolitan Council Information 10. REPORTS: a. City Council Representative No report at this time. b. Park Director Park Director Fackler reported that Veterans Park was redone, and there are 2 new benches, as well as some general cleanup and repair. Also, trees have been planted at Three Points Park. Motion made by Beise, seconded by Meyer to adjourn the meeting at 9:48 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. 3 Mound Planning Commission Minutes - August 23, 1999 Gordon stated that he is not aware of an allotted time for Mr. Parks to finish his Plan. Evidently, there is a large budget plan, so Mr. Parks does understand the amount of detail that needs to be brought by him and presented to the City. Clapsaddle directed Staff to see if Mound can get on the list for the Hennepin County soil study. Sutherland stated he wanted to add a comment to Gordon's statement regarding funding. He stated on Page 1, Items 3 and 4 of the Plan are not funded but are mandate. Acting Chair Mueller stated that it appears Mr. Parks is stating what the storm water should do but not necessarily what Metropolitan Council has agreed. Gordon stated this Plan needs to be submitted to the City Council by December 31, 1999. There is a recommendation by all members present that when Mr. Parks does attend a meeting, or possibly several meetings, of the Planning Commission, that this Plan be reviewed page by page, line by line, by him and all the members. After the Planning Commission accomplishes this task with Mr. Parks, their findings would be presented to the City Council. 2. Comprehensive Plan Brown stated he would like this matter tabled for another meeting after having reviewed the Plan. Gordon stated he would like to brief on each section tonight before the members of the Planning Commission take it home for review. Weiland and Brown were excused at 9:05 p.m. Gordon briefed the following sections as follows: Introduction. Gordon stated this section basically states why the City has to have a Plan of this type and notes in this section also that the Plan will have to be kept updated and each member needs to be aware of what is comprised in this Plan. It also states why the City is going to conform to this Comprehensive Plan. Regional Setting. Gordon stated this section states where the City of Mound is located. Gordon stated that the map in this section is a smaller version of 11 x 17 map that is enclosed in the packet. 145 Mound Plannino Commission Minutes - August 23. 1999 Goals and policies. Gordon stated that the City's goal are to preserve and protect existing natural resources and to preserve and enhance the residential, commercial, industrial and recreational components of the community. Gordon briefed on Page 5 of the Plan on land use, natural resources, housing, recreation and public communication. Glister stated the City wanted more information on the internet and have it available to all persons interested. Gordon stated the Goals and Policies section is its own section but that it could and maybe should be broken out into each section of the Plan by doubling up the information where deemed appropriate throughout the Plan. Socio-economic. Gordon stated this is a 1990's census data chart. Gordon stated on Page 3 of the Plan there is a table by the Metropolitan Council showing projections in population, households and employment. Gordon stated the household projection seems to be off and will be higher than what the Metropolitan Council suggests. The population projection, although, is going to be correct. Sutherland suggested the possibility of having two charts in this Plan; one chart of projections by the Metropolitan Council and one chart of projections by the City of Mound. Sutherland is certain that the population will probably break 10,000. Gordon stated that employment numbers are projected high by the Metropolitan Council and possibly too high. He stated that reality is that Tonka Toys is not ongoing. Gordon stated on Page 4 of this section, there is information regarding employment distribution which he found interesting. It appears the white-collar positions are up and the blue-collar positions are at a Iow. Suthedand stated the number of white collar positions make up 74% of positions in the City of Mound, which is a correct analysis. This analysis is among persons that live and work in the City. Natural and Cultural Resources. Gordon stated he inventoried the wetlands and took the layman's approach at looking at this information. Gordon stated that the terminology description for wetlands has been more detailed stated in this area. Gordon stated this section defines the flood plains and slopes noted in the City of Mound. Acting Chair Mueller asked what makes the distance of a bluff. Gordon stated it has to be 25 feet in height and has to maintain a 30 percent slope. 146 Mound Planning Commission Minutes - August 23, 1999 Gordon stated he added the section of cultural resources and Indian burial sites to the Plan. He stated there are two reported artifacts--one at Pelican Point and one at St. John's Lutheran Church. To get this information Gordon called the archeology office. Acting Chair Mueller stated there is book in the Edina library called Indian Artifacts and Indian Sites Located Within the State of Minnesota. There are only two of these books in the state of Minnesota. This book gives a very technical version of Indian sites and does designate two are at Bartlett Boulevard. Acting Chair Mueller stated that Piper Road should technically also be included in this burial site. Glister stated that these specific parts of the book should be put into the City's Comprehensive Plan. Sutherland asked if the maps would be larger at some point. Gordon stated that the maps would be larger when they are in final draft and they will also be colored. Land Use. Gordon questioned Page 8 of the Plan regarding density patterns. Glister stated that the density does seem appropriate. Acting Chair Mueller stated he has questions about what the school district property is going to be categorized as. There is the possibility of it being auto destination or should it be pedestrian district. Since it is part of downtown, he asked if it would be more conducive to have it be pedestrian district and, thus, balancing the neighborhood. Burma stated that if this is pedestrian district would there be a problem with the high volume of traffic. A solution could be an overhead walkway. Burma stated that ultimately this area will be a pedestrian district area but the question is at what point in the future it would be decided as pedestrian. Acting Chair Mueller stated there are traffic lights located at this intersection so the possibility of having this downtown area considered pedestrian is feasible. Glister reassured those present that it is manageable to have a pedestrian district in a high volume of traffic at 50th and France in Edina which currently exists and it is controlled well with traffic lights. Gordon drew a map of the Langdon and Coast to Coast on Commerce and County Road 15. He demonstrated how the buildings currently are situated. He demonstrated how the downtown area could be laid out. He showed the area having a 30 foot setback on one side with the other side of the building edge lined up to its neighboring buildings. Acting Chair Mueller stated that the contractors may not allow this type of diagram, but there is a possibility if a drive-through situation would exist. Gordon drew a map 147 Mound Planning Commission Minutes - Auoust 23. 1999 showing shared driveways which would minimize the traffic flow and have the appearance of the building being lined up appropriately. Clapsaddle stated that there may be more housing in the plans. He stated currently that they have a situation of a new downtown mall or a high density housing project. Clapsaddle reiterated that if this property becomes auto density, then the City may be doing harm to itself in the long run. Acting Chair Mueller suggested keeping Gordon's map for future reference. The Planning Commission and Staff ended their review at the Housing section of the Comprehensive Plan. INFORMATION 1. City Council minutes from August 10, 1999. 2. POSC minutes from August 12, 1999. ' ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Hasse, seconded by Glister to adjourn the meeting. MOTION CARRIED. 5-0. Acting Chair Mueller adjourned the meeting at 9:45 p.m. Chair G,~ Michael 148 PLANNING REPORT Hoislngton Koegler Group Inc. Ill[] TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: February 14, 2000 SUBJECT: Detached Garage Temporary Variance OWNER: Nancy and Conrad Starr CASE NUMBER: 00-03 (97-06) [tKG FILE NUMBER: 00-5 LOCATION: 3152 .alexander Lane ZONING: Residemial District R-1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residemial BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The owner's have requested the City reconsider the temporary variance approved for their detached garage to allow it to remain. The terms of the variance are spelled out in Resolution #97-24 and the accompanying agreemem. This will be going to the Council for reconsideration and we would like to get input from the Commission on this matter. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 ,~000 AGREEMENT ~ea7 THIS AGREEMENT is made this ~ '"" day of ~]2) 7 , 1997 by and between / ! CONRAI) STARR AND NANCY STARR, husband and wife ("Starrs') and the City. of Mound, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("Mound"). WltERE.a~S, the Starrs are the owners of a parcel of land lying within the corporate limits of Mound which has the street address of 3152 Alexander Lane and whic'n is legally described as follows, to vdt: Lots 17, 18 and 19, Block 6, Arden, Hemuepin County. Mip~lesom ("Prope~:"') and; WltEREAS, the City Council of Mound did on February. 25, 1997 adopt a resolution entitled: "Resolution to Approve a Temporary Variance for Three Years to Reco_maize an Existing Nonconforming Detached Garage to Allow a Conforming Addition onto the Dwelling at 3152 Alexander Lan . and; WHEREAS, one of the conditions precedent imposed upon the granting of said temporary variance was the execution of an agreement "to guarantee the removal of the nonconforming detached garage within three years of the date of approval of this variance." NOW, THEREFORE, in fulfillment of the said requirement, the parties hereto stipulate and agree as follows: 1. Garage Removal. The Starts agree, for themselves and their successors and assig-ns to the Property that they will raze and remove the nonconforming de¢~hed garage located on the Property; and will have completed the same not later than February 25, 2000. ~he Starrs understand that it is their responsibility to obtain all necessary approvals and permits for such removal. 2. Failure to Remove. The Starts further understand that should they fail to remove the nonconforming garage structure by said date, Mound may enter on the Property and remove the structure and charge, as an assessment against the Property, all costs and expenses incurred in obtaining removal. The Starts for themselves and their successors and assig-ns in the Property hereby consent to the entry onto the Property by Mound and its agents, employees and representatives to accomplish such removal; and further, the Starts for themselves and their successors and assigns in the Property hereby consent and waive any claim which they may have to challenge the validity, of any assessment against the Propert2.¢ based upon such w'of~ performed by Mound. IN TESTIMOzNrY WHEREOF, the parties have set their hands as of the day and year first above written. Conrad Start Nancy Starr ~ CITY OF MOUND By ~ Its Mayor BY i~ts)~M~i~ STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENN'EP1N ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this fi~ day of 1997, by Conrad Starr and Nancy Starr, husband and wife. Notary Public STATE OF MIN~'-ESOTA ) )ss. COL~'TY OF HEN~"Ep.rN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowled=ed before me this ~ da,,' of , 1997, by {:K~9~v- ~c~,~---',-,~ ' ~' ' - " and ~'~,,.-.a.',.~ Q. Sga.~ {~ ~0,(.3'~; the Mayor a~d City Manager, respective, on behalf of the City of Mound, Minnesota, a Minnesota municipal corporation. "'J'".~~ o Notary Public February 25, 1997 ' ' RESOLUTION RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A TEMPORARY VARLMNCE FOR THll.EE YEARS TO RECOGN'IZE AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING DETACHED GARAGE TO ALLOW A CONFORMING ADDITION ONTO TI-IE DWELLING AT 3152 ALEXANDER LANE LOTS 17, 18, AND 19, BLOCK 6, ARDEN, PID 24-117-24 4~ 0048 P&Z CASE WEEREAS, the owners, Nancy and Conxad Start applied for a Minor Subdivision ia order to remove an encroachment of their existing detached garage. A variance was also requested to recognize the existing nonconforming front yard setback to the same detached garage of 15.13 feet to the required 30 foot setback, and; WHEREAS, the application was submitted to allow construction of a second story, addition on both the house and the garage, and; WI::[EREAS, the subject property is located within the R-! R~idential Zoning District which according to City Code requires for single family dwellings, a front yard setback of 30 feet. side yard setbacks of [0 r~et, and a rear yard setback of 15 feet. and: WHEREAS, the property is conforming to lot area with over 18.~0 square feet. and the prg, ncipal dwelling is conforming to all setback requirements, and: 'VVrrIEREAS, the existing detached garage encroaches into the neighboring property by .6 feet and is setback 15.13 feet from the front property line. If this garage is removed there is enough lot area and buildable footprint for a new garage ia a conformng location without the need for a subdivision, and; WI-IEREAS, the existing detached garage is dilapidated, it is constructed of mason~ and is ia need of structural repairs, and: WHEREAS, the owners are using the garage to store their possessions until they can finish the house. The garage has existed in that location for 56 years, and; WHEREAS, In addition, there is a shed in the rear yard that does not meet the minimum 4 foot setback to the rear lot line. The owners have stated they will remove the shed, and; WHEREAS, approval. the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby gr:.nt a temporary, three-year variance to recognize the existing nonconforming detached garage with a nonconforming side yard encroachment of .6 feet and a nonconforming front yard setback of 15.13 feet to allow construction ora conforming addition onto the conforming dwelling, subject to the following conditions: a. This variance will expire three-years from the date of City Council approval. bo Aa agreement shall be prepared by the applicant that is suitable to the City Attorney to guarantee removal of the nonconforming detached garage within three-years of date of approval of this vaxianee. This agreement must be executed prior to release of tiffs resolution and prior to building permit issuance for the house addition. February 25, 1997 - - The existing nonconforming shed muaa Be removed prior to building permit issuance for the house addition. do The three-year temporal, variance hereby granted is only intended to permit the continuation of the existing garage and is not intended to permit the proposed expansion of the existing garage which proposed expansion is hereby denied. 2. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lots 17, 18, and 19, Block 6, Arden. The City Council authorizes the alterations s~t forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, 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 '.heir land: Construction of various additions onto the dwelling which will expand ',he footprin: of ',he first floor and add a second floor. This variance shall be r~orded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hem,,,epin Count)' pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (I). 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 Hemaepin 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. 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 Mayor Attest: City Clerk Minutes - Mou~ut City Council - February 25, 1997 1,9 CASE g97--06: REQUEST FOR VARIANCE FOR ADDITION, CONRAD & NANCY STARR, 3152 & 3136 ALEXANDER LANE, LOTS 1%21 & 1/2 OF 22, BLOCK 6, ARDEN, PID /t24-117-24 44 0068 & 0069 (VARIANCE APPLICATION RELATES TO ALLOWING GARAGE TO REMAIN FOR 3 YEARS}. The Building Official explained the request. The existing garage encroaches into the neighboring property and it also is setback 15 feet to the front property line, where a 30 foot setback is required. The garage is in need of structural repairs. The Staff and the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of a temporary three year variance to recognize the detached, nonconforming garage in order to allow construction of a conforming addition onto the house. The applicant has now decided to also put an attached garage onto the house which would be conforming. They would like to keep the detached garage for a period of time to allow storage until the new garage is built. They have asked to withdraw their request for a subdivision since it will not be necessary with the removal of the detached garage. They are requesting a refund of their subdivision application fee. Staff has no objection to the subdivision application fee being refunded. The Council agreed to refund the fee. Ahrens moved and Hanus seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION g97-24 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A TEMPORARY VARIANCE FOR THREE YEARS TO RECOGNIZE AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING DETACItED GARAGE TO ALLOW A CONFORMING ADDITION ONTO TFIE DWELLING AT 3152 ALEXANDER LANE, LOTS 17, 18 AND 19, BLOCK 6, ARDF_aN, PID//24-117-24 44 0068, P & Z g97-06 Also included in this motion is the approval of a refund of the subdivision application fee. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. (ovlqtiu EUd--z',-r CASE 97-06: IvlINOR SUBDIVISION & VARIANCE FOR ADDITION CONRAD & NANCY STARR, 3152 & 3136 ALEXANDER LANE LOTS 17-21 & l/2 OF 22, BLOCK 6, ARDEN, 24-I17-24 44 0068 & 69 The applicant is seeking a Minor Subdivision in order to remove an encroachment of their existing detached garage. A variance is also requested to recognize an existing nonconforming front yard setback to the same detached garage of 15.13 feet to the required 30 foot setback. The proposal includes construction of a second story addition on both the house and the garage. Both parcels are conforming to lot area. The existing garage on Parcel A is constructed of masonry and is in need of structural repairs. The encroachment into the front yard is in excess of the minimum setback allowed by the recent streamlining provisions which would be 22.5 feet. In addition, there is a shed in the rear yard that does not meet the minimum 4 foot setback to the rear lot line. The owners have stated they will remove the shed. If the existing garage is removed there is enough lot area and buildable footprint for a new garage in a conforming location without the need for a subdivision. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend denial of the variance request due to lack of hardship and due to the fact that the nonconforming garage is dilapidated and could be removed and replaced with a conforming structure. Staff recommended approval of the subdivision based on the fact that all issues are conforming, however it is questionable if it is necessary without approval of the variance. The Planning Commission may wish to consider approval of a variance that would allow the applicant to construct the addition onto the dwelling subject to an agreement suitable to the city attorney to remove the encroachment of the garage within one year. Sutherland further commented on the condition of the garage. He does not know what type of foundation the garage has, it is constructed of masonry so it does not take very. well to shifting well, and it needs some structural repair. The applicant stated that the garage has a new roof, a new wall on one side, and new windows. They feel the garage is in better condition that the house. They are using the garage to store their possessions until they can finish the house. The garage has existed in that location for 56 years, and it will be nonconforming only to the street setback, and they would like to keep it. Weiland suggested that they could keep the garage for one year until they finish the house.. Sutherland commented that staff would be in favor of extending the amortization period to two years. Hanus explained to the applicant that the City could draft a temporary easement that will allow the City to access the property to remove the garage if the owner does not remove it, and then they will assess the charges to the property. Clapsaddle commented that the garage is not in good shape. MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Weiland to recommend approval of a variance to allow the garage to remain for three years. The subdivision is not part of this approval as removal of the garage makes it unnecessary. Motion carried unanimously. This case is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on February 25, 1997. CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAY'WOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364.1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: CASE NO. LOCATION: 0068 ZONING: Planning Commission Agenda of February 10, 1997 Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official -..~&;~ ~ Minor Subdivision and Variance reques; Conrad and Nancy Starr and Jerry F, raugtkremer 97-06 3152 Alexander Lane, Lots 17, 18, 19, Block 6, Arden, 24-117-2444 3136 Alexander Lane, Lots 20, 21 & 1/2of 22, Block 6, Arden, 24-117- 24 44 0069 R-1 Single Family Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking a Minor Subdivision in order to remove an encroachment of their existing detached garage and a variance to recognize the existing nonconforming front yard setback of 14.87 feet to the required'30 foot front yard setback for the same detached garage in order to allow construction of a second story addition on both the house and the garage. Minor Subdivision: Both of the proposed parcels as existing and proposed are conforming to the lot area provisions for the R-1 zone and staff would recommend approval of the request for a subdivision, however, we question the need for a subdivision in light of the recommendation for denial of the variance request Variance: The existing garage on Parcel A is constructed of masonry and is in need of structural repairs. The encroachment into the front yard is in excess of the minimum setback allowed by the recent streamlining provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. The minimum setback allowed by streamlining would be 22.5 feet, and the garage is located 1 5.1 3 feet from the front property line. Staff Report - Start February 10, 1997 Page 2 In addition, there is a shed in the rear yard that does not meet the minimum 4 foot setback to the rear lot line. The owners have stated they will remove the shed. These properties are located in the R-1 zoning district which for non-lots of record require for principal structures a front yard setback of 30 feet, side yard setbacks of 10 feet, and a rear yard setback of 15 feet. COMMENTS' If the existing garage is removed there is enough lot area and buildable footprint to locate a new garage in a conforming location on Parcel A without the need for a minor subdivision. This would eliminate the need for a variance for this property. STAF: RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend denial of the variance request due to lack of hardship and due Jo the fact that .'.he nonconforming garage is dilapidated and could be removed and re,laced with a conforming structure. Staff recommends approval of the subdivision request based on the fact that all issues are conforming, however it is questionable if it is necessary without approval of the variance. The Planning Commission may wish to consider approval of a variance that would allow the applicant to construct the addition onto the dwelling subject to an agreement suitable to the city attorney to remove the encroachment of the garage within one year. JS.'pj The abutting neighbors have been notified of this request. Council on February 25, 1997. This case is scheduled to be heard by the City ~lanMng Commission Dam: City Council Dat~: Application for MINOR SUBDIVISION OF LAND City of Mound, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, ,.M2N Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 5536,; Case No. C.. Application F~: ',i Distribution: Escrow Deposit: S1.000 {uQ') ~ J City. ela~mer DNR ,, Public Works Other .i, City Engineer .° - . ~e ~ or p~ ~e f~o~ ~o~om PROPERTY INFORMATION EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION ZONING DISTRICT APPLICANT OWNER (if other than applicant) SURVEYOR/ ENGINEER The applicant is: '~owner other: Name Address Phone (H) (W) 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 aflp/icat/on must be signed by a_.L/ owners of the subject property, or an ex$/anation given why this is not the case. Owner's Signature Owner's Signatu~/L· Date Date VARE&NCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 4~-0620 (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Distribution: St2BJECT PROPERTY LEGAL DESC. PROPERTY Address Lot ~ City Planner City En=~neer Public Works Subdivision ]3r-C<S~~ Ih 1'7- q nne ZONING DIS~CT ~ R-IA R-2 Addr~s ~1 ~ Phone ~) &/¢ - ~7¢'7 ~9 R-3 B-I / Case No. DN-R Block Pla: # B-2 APPLIC.~NT Name (IF OTHER Address THAN Phone (H) OWNER) (w) Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes,,l,~no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. 2. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): ~¢e Application, P. 2 Case No. 3. Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No ~k If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): ta~S~¢-~¢~' ~S .,~-c_P-.F_..~O~ .2. sv-o~. SETBACKS: REQUIRED REQUESTED (or existiag) VARIANCE :~.~-. (~aC Front Yard: ( N S E W ) Side Yard: ( N S E W ) Side Yard: ( N S E W ) Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) Lakeside: ( N S E W ) : (NSEW) Street Frontage: Lot Size: Hardcover: ft. ff. ft. ft. ft. ff. ft. ff. .-ff. tr. ft. ff. sqff iq GZb~ sqff sq ~ ,.~.,.%"2--~ sq ~ z4.87 ff. ff. ft. f. ft. ff. sq ff sq ff Does the present use of the prope~wy conform to all regulations for the zoning disuSct in which it is located? Yes (), No ~ If no, specify each non-conforming use: o Please Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning disu-ict? ( ) too nan'ow ( ) topography ( ) sol!. ( ) too small ( ) drainage ~ ex/sting situation ( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify describe: (R~. Variance Application, P. 3 CRSe NO. Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance wa~ adopted (1982)? Yes (), No ~. If yes, explain: Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No ~. If yes, explain: . desc.-1De,~ Are the conditions of hards,hip for which you request a var/ance peculiar on!v to the prope:'%C "~ in this petition? Yes,~; No (). If no, list some other prope~es which aze similarly afl. ted? 9. Comments: I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Signature ~~~o~_ ' Applicant's Signature (l~v. 10/21/96) Date PARCEL A EXISTING LEGAL DEBCRIPTION Lots t ?, 18, and 19. Block 6, Arden, Hennepin County, Minnesota, containing 18,71 g square feet. PARCEL B EXISTING Ltl. GAL DESCRIPTION Lot 20. 21, and the Soulherly Hall of Lot 22, Block 6, Arden, Hennepin County, Minnesota, containing 14,731 square feet. PARCEL A PROPOSED LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lots 17, t8, and 19, Bloc~ 6, Arden, Hennepin County, Minnesota, also the Southerly 6.60 teat Il Lot 20, Block 6, Arden, Hennepin County, Minnesota as measured at 90 degrees to the Southerly line of said Lol 20, containing tg,747 sciuare leer. PARCEL B PROPOSED LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lot 20, 21. and the Southerly Hall of Lot 22. Block 6. Arden. Hennepin County, Minnesota, except the Southerly 6.60 leer of Lol 20. Block 6, Arden, Hennepin County. Minnesota as measured at ~0 degrees to the Southerly llne of said Lot 20, containing 13.703 square leer. FEB - 5 SCHOBORG LAND SURVEYING INC. 8oe~ C~y. ~ ~3SE I hereby cattily Ihat Ihis plan. survey or report was prepared by ma or under my direct supervision and thlt I om duly Registered Land Surveyor under the laws Il tho Slate OI IJiflfles~. -- ~ ! #0. ~..33 ×? / / .I _$CHOBORG ND SURVEYING INC. I I~eretoy certify that this plan, survey, or report was. prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the laws of the State · of Minnesota~~ Date: ~ ~,- ~/~1,~ Registration No. 14700 JO8 # Bool( - Page Scale CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) PROPERTY ADDRESS: OWNER'S NAME: LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 30% LOT AREA / ~, ~ ~)--3 SQ. FT. X 40% / LOT AREA 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 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 .~...~X, LENGTH WIDTH SQ~ '~ x iO = ~% o OTAL HOUSE ......................... ~ x ~ = X = DETACHED BLDGS (GARAGE/SHED) DRIVEWAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ................. x = 3¢o '5' x 5'0' = I S'-O 17R'3 DECKS Open decks (I/4" min. opening between boards) with a TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC .................. ~' t O pe~ious surface under are X=_ not counted as hardcover OTHER X = TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE UNDER / OVER (indicate difference) ............................... CITY OF MOUND HARDCOV~R CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) PROPERTY ADDRESS: OWNER'S NAME: LOT AREA LOT AREA LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 3O% 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 outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submi~ed and approved by the Building Official. HCUSE DETACHED BLDGS (GARAGE/SHED) DRIVEWAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. LENGTH WIDTH SC ,--T z~ x ~ = i©°~ X = X = DECKS Open decks (1/4' min. opening between boards) with a pe~ious surface under are not counted as hardcover OTHER TOTAL HOUSE ......................... X = X = TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ................. x t¥ = X = TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC ..... - ............. ~ ~ "7 X = X X = TOTAL DECK .......................... X X = TOTAL OTHER ......................... TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE ..~ UNDER / OVER (indicate difference) ' . ..... c~¥ oF ~OU~D - ZO~mO ,~0~^~0~ S~ fiFT~- Old' ADDRESS: ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/~VIDTIt: R~A b,UUU/4U B2 20,000/80 ~URVEY ON FIL NO R2 6,000/40 a3 ~0,000/60 IIOII%F. ......... FRONT N S E FRONT ¢)S E W SIDE I S E W REAR N S~.~ LAKE N S E w TOP (')F BI,UFF (;AR~f;E. ,(;I I F.I) ..... FRONT FRONT SIDE SIDE REAR LAKE TOP OF BLUFF SO' I0' OR 30' 50' 10' OR 30' EXIST'lNG LOT SIZE: LO f WIDTH: LO'I' VARIANCE I .Plnnninl~ Department at 4724)600. I ~..,./ ~ ; L A.qA.ql r- ~ 0 ! 0 Oa ! LEN HARRELL Chief of Police MOUND POLICE 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Telephone 472-0621 Dispatch 525-6210 Fax 472-0656 EMERGENCY 911 Memo To= Mayor Meisel & Councilmembers From: Chief Len Harrell ~-~/, Date: 02/18/00 Re:. Re-implementation of Canine I! I have been requested to more thoroughly state my position regarding the canine unit and try to alleviate any confusion that exists for Tuesday night: Last March dudng our annual department reporting process I was asked about the turn over issue with our officers, The coundl stated that it was a major concem and that they recognized the negative impact of losing good officers. I explained the financial implications of surrounding departments and also indicated that I had learned that canine had been an issue for Officer Ringate who left for Minnetonka. i believe that I explained that ! would be re-evaluating canine as an issue for career enrichment opportunities; without opposition from the council. In September, the Mound Cdme Prevention Association, expressed a desire to help the department re-institute the program. The Executive Committee recently agreed to help with finances in the area of $3,000-$5,000 for training and acquisition of needed equipment. President Brand has continuously been encouraging the department to move forward with the program. We will need to convert a car for approximately $1,800 (including platform, temperature sensor, and automatic door release), $200 for a kennel at an officer's residence, and the $1,500 for the dog and school. Around the end of January a teletype was received from the Ramsey County Sheriff's Department offedng a 13 week program for receiving and training a police canine for $1,500. The course includes a canine and basic equipment. The course will be led by Training Officer Jim Long who is known as one of the top trainers in the Midwest. · Page 1 The department added a marked squad to the fleet in 1985 to accommodate the addition of canine at that time. A vehicle has either been used as a canine car or for the evening "power" car since that time. The "power" sh~ is an overlapping shift that works partially middle watch and partially dog watch and has had a squad assigned to that time slot. No additional car is needed because that is the same time slot that the canine would be assigned to work. The confusion has revolved around taking a squad with the least mileage in the fleet, currently, and converting that vehicle for use as the canine car so we don't incur additional conversion costs for 4-5 years. Officers may be reassigned to a different vehicle but there is not loss of availability of cars. The issue of needing a $1,200 "bite suit" was also discussed and recommended in conversations. We had the 1986 USPCA National Champion K-9 team and have never owned a "bite suit." We do still have a bite sleeve that has been used for the previous 3 canines. The issue of training time also bares explaining. The budget reflects dollars spent for tuition, spedalized training expenses, and college reimbursement. Training ~__~_.__----- hours have always been reported in the annual report and are part of an officer's normal pay and within their 2080 hours for a year. I have not mislead or kept anY information from the council. Each year, when officer time and travel ar~ included, we spend close to $40,000 for individualized training for our officers. An issue that has kept our officers competent and very desirable to other departments. Training time has always created a need for adjustment from our normal street compliment. If we did not adjust staffing and personnel we would not be able to send any officers to outside training opportunities. Overtime and mutual aid issues were raised. Nothing in the mutual aid agreement requires our City to call out resources for another community on a regular basis. If the canine team is working we would naturally be ready to help our neighbors as requested, but only in the most dire and critical situations would we call out our team at overtime. Nothing precludes from charging an agency that wishes to utilize our canine team on an overtime basis. The issue of having three officers in EMT school concurrently with a portion of the training time for the canine officer has been addressed. Investigator Niccum has agreed to come out and work dog watch for the time needed to cover some overlap (under two weeks). Do we really need a canine team? Officers of the department would say that we do, and for much more than a PR tool or career enrichment. Officers who approached me, and there were many, stated that the availability of a canine, within a reasonable time, is scarce at best. Officers also acknowledged that there were many open door issues and "in progress" calls where a canine could be utilized but has not been because of lack of availability. They cannot justify being "tied up" for long pedods waiting for a dog from outside the area and consequently do their jobs without making the request. The news of the council decision to stop the implementation of the program created great consternation on the part of the officers. It was unfortunate that I had not gotten more input from them before writing my previous memo. The ongoing costs of a canine are approximately $800-$1,200 per year for the feeding and veterinary check ups. Competition costs around $500/year for regional requirements and $100 for narcotics certification yearly. We have always sent the team to the national competition as a bonus if they score high enough at regional tdals. The cost of nationals is around $1,200 and has been paid from the City or cdme fund in the past. 10. The dog will be cross trained in both PD1 and narcotics. Police Dog I will be immediate and within 18 months the team will also be certified in narcotics. I assure that the team will be more than a PR tool. I hope that this has helped to answer questions that I have been asked to address. I know that it has been put back on the agenda for discussion and wanted to give some additional information for that discussion. · Page 3 LEN HARRELL Chief of Police MOUND POLICE 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Telephone 472-0621 Dispatch 525-6210 Fax 472-0656 EMERGENCY 911 Memo To: Mayor Meisel and Council From-'Len Harrell ~ Date: 02/15/00 Re: Re-implementing canine program Councilmember Brown has called and inquired with concern regarding the re- implementing of the canine program for the Mound Police Department and I have been requested to provide an explanation. Last spring, dudng my annual report, their was a discussion regarding issues of tum- over with the Mound Police Department and at that time I advised that Officer Ringate had mentioned that one of the really unique opportunities that had been lost to the department was the opportunity for canine. I advised that I would be exploring the feasibility of re-implementing the program if the opportunity presented itself. Each year there are comments surrounding Mound City Days and the lack of our canine program and the demonstration that we used to do at that event. In September, the Board of the Mound Cdme Prevention Association entertained the idea of assisting in the implementation of the canine program and President Brand took the responsibility to "poll' community members and raise the needed funds should the opportunity present itself. Recently, by teletype, we received notice that a training course would be offered by one of the leading trainers in the Midwest, Jim Long of Ramsey County. The course fee is only $1,500 including the dog and equipment! A spot has been reserved for an officer of our department. Brand has polled our Association executive committee and they will be covedng the cost of training and the conversion of an existing squad (we have maintained an extra vehicle in anticipation of re-implementing). · Page 1 Additional costs will include a kennel ($200) at the officer's residence, officer training time (12 weeks), and annual costs of between $800-1,200 in maintenance costs. The City would be responsible for the annual costs and the training time as in the past. Councilmember Brown sounded as though he feels that the program is not necessary and that the council is not supportive of to-implementing a canine program. If that is the case I will need to notify the training facility immediately of our withdrawal and I apologize for the misunderstanding. · Page 2 MEMORANDUM Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. gill To: City of Mound Honorable Mayor and Council From: Loren Gordon, City Planner Date: February 16, 2000 Subject: Metricom Right-of-Way Access Proposal Metricom is a wireless communications company that involved in internet, e-mail and local are network access seeking to secure its future in the Twin Cities. Unlike typical phone or cable companies that offer "wire" service, Metricom uses wireless technology to transmit data over its service area. They are an alternative to typical service providers and have been operating in major metropolitan areas on the east and west coasts for a number of years. Metricom uses small radio transmitters, about the size of a shoe box, to transmit signals throughout their coverage area. These transmitters are typically mounted to street lights or other utility poles to tap into existing power supplies. They estimate needing approximately one transmitter per square mile. The Suburban Rate Authority (SRA) has reviewed the Right-of-way Permit and Facility Use Agreement proposed to Twin City communities by Metricom. The SRA found no problems for Cities by allowing this use of the right-of-way. There is also some financial return to Cities for allowing the right-of-way use that are up and above what the City would normally expect. These are paid on a per pole and percentage of revenue which is paid directly to the City. Other benefits include 10 free subscriptions for the City. Council action on this item is to authorize execution of the Right-of-Way Permit and Facility Use Agreement. Max Thompson, local Metricom representative, will be present at the Council meeting to answer any questions. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 [NAME OF MUNICIPALITY.] Right-of-Way Permit and Facility Use Agreement THIS RIGHT-OF-WAY USE AGREEMENT (this "Use Agreement") is dated as of , [Year of Agreement Date] (the "Effective Date"), and entered into by and between the CITY OF [NAME OF MUNICIPALITY], a Minnesota local government unit (the "City"), and METRICOM, INC., a Delaware corporation ("Metricom"). Recitals A. Metricom owns, maintains, and operates, in accordance with regulations promulgated by the Federal Communications Commission, a mobile digital data communications radio network known as Ricochet®, utilizing Radios (as defined in § 1.10 below) and related equipment certified by the Federal Communications Commission. B. For purpose of operating Ricochet®, Metdcom wishes to locate, place, attach, install, operate, and maintain Radios in the Public Right of Way (as defined in § 1.9 below) on facilities owned by the City, as well as on facilities owned by third parties therein. Agreement Now, therefore, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree to the following covenants, terms, and conditions: 1 DEFINITIONS. The following definitions shall apply generally to the provisions of this Use Agreement: 1.1 Adjusted Gross Revenues~ "Adjusted Gross Revenues" means the gross dollar amount received by Metricom for its Services (as defined in § 1.11 below) provided to subscribers with billing addresses in the City, excluding (i) any utility users' tax, communications tax, or similar tax or fee; (ii) local, state, or federal taxes that have been billed to the subscribers and separately stated on subscribers' bills; and (iii) revenue uncollectible from subscribers (i.e., bad debts) with billing addresses in the City that was previously included in Adjusted Gross Revenues. 1.2 City. "City" means the City of [Name of Municipality]. 1.3 Fee. "Fee" means any assessment, license, charge, fee, imposition, tax, or levy of general application to entities doing business in the City lawfially imposed by any governmental body (but excluding any utility users' tax, franchise fees, communications tax, or similar tax or fee). 1.4 Installation Dat~ "Installation Date" shall mean the date that the first Radio is installed by Metricom pursuant to this Use Agreement. <96 1.5 La~s. "Laws" means any and all statutes, constitutions, ordinances, resolutions, regulations, judicial decisions, rules, tariffs, administrative orders, certificates, orders, or other requirements of the City or other governmental agency having joint or several jurisdiction over the parties to this Use Agreement. 1.6 Metricom. "Metricom" means Metricom, Inc., a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, and its lawful successors, assigns, and transferees. 1.7 MPUC. "MPUC" means the Minnesota Public Utility Commission. 1.8 Municipal Facilities, "Municipal Facilities" means City-owned street light poles, lighting fixtures, electroliers, or other City-owned structures located within the Public Right of Way and may 'refer to such facilities in the singular or plural, as appropriate to the context in which used. 1.9 Public Right of Way. "Public Right of Way" means the space in, upon, above, along, across, and over the public streets, roads, highways, lanes, cartways, courts, ways, alleys, boulevards, sidewalks, bicycle lanes, and places, including all public utility easements and public service easements as the same now or may hereafter exist, that are under the jurisdiction of the City. This term shall not include county, state, or federal rights of way or any property owned by any person or entity other than the City, except as provided by applicable Laws or pursuant to an agreement between the City and any such person or entity. If the City adjusts its boundaries pursuant to Minn. Stat., Chap. 414 through annexation, incorporation, combination, detachment, or other means, this Use Agreement shall be binding on the entire area within the City's boundaries after the adjustment. 1.10 Radio. "Radio" means the radio equipment, whether referred to singly or collectively, to be installed and operated by Metricom hereunder. 1.11 Service& "Services" means the mobile digital communications services provided through Ricochet® by Metricom. which services consist principally of wireless Internet. e-mail and local area network access and may include transmission of sound and video images: provided, however, that "Services" shall not be construed, interpreted or applied to authorize either real time telecommunications services (including telephone and voice) or video or cable television communications services except as may be considered standard Internet content. 2 TERM. This Use Agreement shall be effective as of the Effective Date and shall extend for a term of nine (9) years commencing on the Installation Date, unless it is earlier terminated by either party in accordance with the provisions herein. The term of this Use Agreement shall be renewed automatically for three (3) successive terms of five (5) years each on the same terms and conditions as set forth herein, unless either party notifies the other of its intention not to renew not less than one hundred eighty (180) calendar days prior to commencement of the relevant renewal term. 3 SCOPE OF USE AGREEMENT. Any and all rights expressly granted to Metricom under this Use Agreement, which shall be exercised at Metricom's sole cost and expense, shall be subject to the prior and continuing right of the City under applicable Laws to use any and all parts of the Public Right of Way exclusively or concurrently with any other person or entity and shall be further subject to all deeds, easements, dedications, conditions, covenants, restrictions, encumbrances, and claims of title of record which may affect the Public Right of Way. Nothing in this Use Agreement shall be deemed to grant, convey, create, or vest in Metricom a real property interest in land, including any fee, leasehold interest, or easement. Any work performed pursuant to the rights granted under this Use Agreement shall be subject to the reasonable prior review and approval of the City. 3.1 Attachment to Municipal Facilities. The City hereby authorizes and permits Metricom to enter upon the Pub. lie Right of Way and to locate, place, attach, install, operate, maintain, remove, reattach, reinstall, relocate, and replace Radios in or on Municipal Facilities for the purposes of operating Ricochet® and providing Services. In addition, subject to the provisions of § 4.3 below, Metricom shall have the right to draw electricity for the operation of the Radios from the power source associated with each such attachment to Municipal Facilities. 3.2 3.3 Attachment to Third-Party Property. Subject to obtaining the permission of the owner(s) of the affected property, the City hereby authorizes and permits Metricom to enter upon the Public Right of Way and to attach, install, operate, maintain, remove, reattach, reinstall, relocate, and replace such number of Radios in or on poles or other structures owned by public utility companies or other property owners located within the Public Right of Way as may be permitted by the public utility company or property owner, as the case may be for the purposes of operating Ricochet® and providing Services. Upon request, Metricom shall furnish to the City documentation of such permission from the individual utility or property owner responsible. City agrees to cooperate with Metricom, at no cost or expense to City, in obtaining where necessary the consents of third-party owners o£property located in the Public Right of'Way. No Interference. Metricom in the performance and exercise of its rights and obligations under this Use Agreement shall not interfere in any manner with the existence and operation of any and all public and private rights of way, sanitary sewers, water mains, storm drains, gas mains, poles, a~rial and underground electrical and telephone wires, electroliers, cable television, and other information or communications, utility, or municipal property, without the express written approval of the owner or owners of the affected property or properties, except as permitted by applicable Laws or this Use Agreement. City agrees to use reasonable efforts to require the inclusion of the same or a similar prohibition on interference as that stated above in all agreements and franchises City may enter into after the Effective Date with other information or communications providers and carriers. 3.3.1 Interference Resolution. Any actual or anticipated radio interference caused by either the presence of the Radios or the presence of any such other communications equipment or devices in the Public Right of Way shall be resolved by Metricom and any such other providers without cost to City on the basis of the applicable rules, regulations, practices, and procedures of the FCC. City agrees to assist Metricom in the resolution of any such interference dispute at Metricom's sole expense. 3.4 Compliance with Laws. Metricom shall comply with all applicable Laws in the exercise and performance of its rights and obligations under this Use Agreement. The Right-of-Way Management Reimbursement provided for in § 4.1 below shall be in lieu of all other City fees, with the exception of any City permits required for the initial installation of the Radios. City shall promptly respond to Metricom's filings and shall otherwise cooperate with Metricom in facilitating the deployment of Ricochet® in the Public Right of Way in a reasonable and timely manner. 3.5 Location and Installation of Radios. The proposed locations of Metricom's planned initial installation of Radios shall be determined, subject to the reasonable prior review and approval of the City, promptly after Metricom's review of available street light maps and prior to deployment of the Radios. Upon the completion of installation, Metricom promptly shall furnish to the City a pole list showing the exact location of the l~adios in the Public Right of Way. 4 COMPENSATION; UTILITY CHARGES. Metricom shall be solely responsible for the payment of all lawful Fees in connection with Metricom's performance under this Use Agreement, in accordance with the terms set forth below. 4.1 Right-of-Way Management Reimbursement. In order to reimburse City for any right-of-way management costs it may incur during the term of this Use Agreement following the initial deployment of the Radios in connection with Metricom's entry upon and deployment within the Public Right of Way, Metric, om shall pay to the City, on an annual basis, an amount equal to one percent (1%) of Adjusted Gross Revenues (the "Right-of-Way Management Reimbursement"), which amount may be collected from subscribers of the Services with billing addresses in the City and remitted to City as provided herein. The parties agree that such Right-of-Way Management Reimbursement represents a fair estimate of the costs of continuing management of the Public Right of Way utilized by Metricom and that such Right-of-Way Management Reimbursement is not a franchise fee or payment for use of the Public Right of Way. The Right-of-Way Management Reimbursement shall be payable for the period commencing upon the date that Services are offered to commercially paying subscribers within the City using Radios installed pursuant to this Use Agreement and ending on the date of termination of this Use Agreement, and shall be due on or before the 45a' day after the end of each calendar year or fraction thereof. Within forty-five (45) days after the termination of this Use Agreement, compensation shall be paid for the period elapsing since the end of the last calendar year for which compensation has been paid. Metricom shall furnish to the City with each payment of compensation required by this section a statement, executed by an authorized officer of Metricom or his or her designee, showing the amount of Adjusted Gross Revenues for the period covered by the payment. If Metricom discovers any error in the correct amount of compensation due, the City shall be paid within thirty (30) days of discovery of the error or determination of the correct amount. Any overpayment to the City through error or otherwise shall be refunded or offset against the next payment due. Acceptance by the City of any payment due under this section shall not be deemed to be a waiver by the City of any breach of this Use Agreement occurring prior thereto, nor shall the acceptance by the City of any such payments preclude the City from later establishing that a larger amount was actually due or from collecting any balance due to the City. City may, at any time, at City's sole option, upon ninety (90) days written notice, require Metricom to discontinue the Right-of-Way Management Reimbursement compensation. Upon receiving such notice Metricom shall, no later than ninety (90) days after receiving such notice, cease making all compensation payments that would have been payable after such ninety (90) day notice period. If City requires such a discontinuation of Right-of- Way Management Reimbursement compensation, the City may then charge, on an annual basis, its actual Right-of-Way Management costs (pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Sec. 237.162, Subd. 9 and Sec. 237.163, Subd. 2 (b)), that are incurred after the expiration of the ninety (90) day period described above. Metricom shall only be liable for such actual annual Right-of-Way management costs to the extent such costs exceed the annual retail value of the service subscriptions for which the City is eligible under Section 4.5 of this Agreement. 4.1.1 Reduction of Right-of-Way Management Reimbursement by Amount of Utility Users or Communications Tax. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Use Agreement, if the Services are subject to a utility users tax, communications tax, or other similar tax or fee which accrues to the City by operation of the City's Municipal Code or other applicable law, then the amount of the Right-of-Way Management Reimbursement shall be reduced by the amount of the applicable utility users tax, communications tax, or such other similar tax or fee. Accounting Matters. Metricom shall keep accurate books of account at its principal office in Los Gatos or such other location of its choosing for the purpose of determining the amounts due to the City under § 4.1 above. The City may inspect Metricom's books of account relative to the City at any time during regular business hours on thirty (30) days' prior written notice and may audit the books from time to time at the City's sole expense, but in each case only to the extent necessary to confirm the accuracy of payments due under § 4.1 above. Alternatively, Metricom will make available for inspection by the City at Metricom's office located closest to the City, upon thirty (30) days prior written notice, the relevant portions of its books and records as reasonably necessary to confirm the accuracy of any payments due the City under this Use Agreement. The City agrees to hold in confidence any non-public information it learns from Metricom to the fullest extent permitted by Law. 4.2 Annual Fee. As compensation for the use of Municipal Facilities, Metricom shall pay to the City an annual fee (the "Annual Fee") in the amount of Sixty Dollars ($60.00) for the use of each Municipal Facility, if any, upon which a Radio has been installed pursuant to this Use Agreement. Where light poles or other 4.3 4.4 4.5 facilities to be used by Metricom within the Public Right of Way are owned by a utility, such annual fee shall be paid to the appropriate utility and not to the City. The aggregate Annual Fee with respect to each year of the term shall be an amount equal to the number of Radios installed on Municipal Facilities during the preceding twelve (12) months multiplied by the Annual Fee, prorated as appropriate, and shall be due and payable not later than forty-five (45) days aRer each anniversary of the Installation Date. City represents and covenants that City owns all Municipal Facilities for the use of which it is collecting from Metricom the Annual Fee pursuant to this § 4.2. 4.2.1 CPI Adjustment. Effective commencing on the fifth (5th) anniversary of the Installation Date and continuing on each fifth (5th) anniversary thereafter during the term, the Annual Fee with respect to the ensuing five-year period shall be increased by a percentage amount equal to the percentage increase, if any, in the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index (All Items, All Consumers, 1982-1984=100) which occurred during the previous five-year period for the Midwest Urban Region Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area. Electricity Charges. Metricom shall be solely responsible for the payment of all electrical utility charges to the applicable utility company based upon the Radios' usage of electricity and applicable tariffs. Reimbursement of City's Project Review Expenses. Metricom shall reimburse the City at City's standard rates for reasonable attorney's fees and other project review expenses relating to the preparation and review of this Use Agreement, promptly upon receipt of itemized bills, paid invoices, and other such documentation as Metricom shall reasonably require, and in a total amount not to exceed One Thousand Dollars ($1,000). The reimbursement provided for in this § 4.4 shall not replace or excuse Metricom from the payment of any applicable permit fee for work undertaken pursuant to the initial installation of the Radios. Municipal Subscriber Program. City shall have the right throughout the term of this Use Agreement to receive up to the maximum number specified below (based upon the City's population) of free Ricochet® basic service subscriptions. The number of free subscriptions which the City may receive shall be determined in accordance with the City's official population, as shown on the latest available census data, as follows: (a)for municipalities with a population of less than 100,000, up to a maximum of ten (10) free subscriptions; (b)for municipalities with a population of between 100,000 and 249,000, up to a maximum of fifteen (15) free subscriptions; (c) for municipalities with a population of between 250,000 and 500,000, up to a maximum of twenty (20) free subscriptions; and (d) for municipalities of over 500,000, up to a maximum of twenty-five (25) free subscriptions. City shall designate one person who shall be responsible for ordering and receiving any subscriptions. To take advantage of this program, the designated individual should contact Metricom's Network Real Estate Department at the address stated in § 8 below City's right to use the subscriptions shall commence at the time that Ricochet® service is commercially available in the City and shall extend until the expiration of the term of this Use Agreement or through the length of time that Radios are deployed in the Municipal Right of Way, whichever is longer. City's use of the subscriptions shall be subject to the standard Ricochet® terms and conditions of use. City understands and agrees that modems and equipment required to utilize the subscriptions and any additional service subscriptions or service options the City may desire may be obtained from an authorized retailer at market rates current from time to time. City shall use all subscriptions provided pursuant to this section solely for its own use and shall not be entitled to resell, distribute, or otherwise permit the use of same by any other person, excepting a local public entity that provides public service within the corporate boundaries of the City (e.g., municipal schools, public safety, or fire departments, etc.). The level of benefits and service provided to City by Metricom as "basic service" shall not be diminished or reduced during the term of this Use Agreement or renewal thereof or prior to its cancellation or termination, as the case may be. 4.6 Most-Favored Municipality Clause. Should Metricom after the parties' execution and delivery of this Use Agreement enter into a right-of-way permit and facility use agreement with another municipality of the same size or smaller than the City as compared with cities in the Minnesota counties of Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey, Scott and Washington, which agreement contains either (a)a higher Right-of Way Management Reimbursement as described in § 4.1 above or (b) a higher Annual Fee as described in § 4.2 above or (c) a higher amount of Reimbursement of City's Project Review Expenses as described in § 4.4 above, City shall have the right to require that Metricom modify this Use Agreement to incorporate the same or substantially similar superior benefits and such other terms. 5 RELOCATION AND DISPLACEMENT OF RADIOS. Metricom understands and acknowledges that City may require Metricom to relocate one or more of its Radios, and Metricom shall at City's direction relocate such Radios at Metricom's sole cost and expense, whenever City reasonably determines that the relocation is needed for any of the following purposes: (a)if required for the construction, completion, repair, relocation, or maintenance of a City project; (b) because the Radio is interfering with or adversely affecting proper operation of City-owned light poles, traffic signals, or other Municipal Facilities; or (c) to protect or preserve the public health or safety. In any such case, City shall use reasonable efforts to afford Metricom a reasonably equivalent alternate location with no duty to incur any expenses or cost to City. If Metricom shall fail to relocate any Radios as requested by the City within a reasonable time under the circumstances in accordance with the foregoing provision, City shall be entitled to relocate the Radios at Metricom's sole cost and expense, without further notice to Metricom. To the extent the City has actual knowledge thereof, the City will attempt promptly to inform Metricom of the displacement or removal of any pole on which any Radio is located. Relocations at Metricom's Request. In the event Metricom desires to relocate any Radios from one Municipal Facility to another, Metricom shall so advise City. City will use reasonable efforts to accommodate Metricom by making another reasonably equivalent Municipal Facility available for use in accordance with and subject to the terms and conditions of this Use Agreement. 5.2 Damage to Public Right of Way. Whenever the removal or relocation of Radios is required or permitted under this Use Agreement, and such removal or relocation shall cause the Public Risht of Way to be damaged, Metricorr~ at its sole cost and expense, shall promptly repair and return the Public Right of Way in which the Radios are located to a safe and satisfactory condition in accordance with applicable Laws, normal wear and tear excepted. If Metricom does not repair the site as just described, then the City shall have the option, upon fifteen (15) days' prior written notice to Metficom, to perform or cause to be performed such reasonable and necessary work on behalf of Metricom and to charge Metricom for the proposed costs to be incurred or the actual costs incurred by the City at City's standard rates. Upon the receipt of a demand for payment by the City, Metricom shall promptly reimburse the City for such costs. 6 INDEMNIFICATION AND WAIVER. Metricom agrees to indemnify, defend, protect, and hold harmless the City, its council members, officers, and employees from and against any and all claims, demands, losses, damages, liabilities, fines, charges, penalties, administrative and judicial proceedings and orders, judgements, and all costs and expenses incurred in connection therewith, including reasonable attorney's fees and costs of defense (collectively, the "Losses") directly or proximately resulting from Metricom's activities undertaken pursuant to this Use Agreement, except to the extent arising from or caused by the negligence or willful misconduct of the City, its council members, officers, employees, agents, or contractors The foregoing notwithstanding, Metricom shall defend and indemnify the City, and its officers and employees, even in the case of negligence, unless the allegations allege (a) independent negligence on the part of the City, its officers and employees or (b) a wrongful act or omission on the pan of the City or its officers or employees. Metricom shall also defend and indemnify the City, its officers and employees, even in the case of negligence, if the allegations are based on the City's or its officers or employees' negligence or otherwise wrongful act or omission in issuing a permit to Metricom or approving this Use Agreement, or in failing to properly or adequately inspect or enforce compliance with the terms, conditions or purpose of any permit issued to Metricom. 6.1 Waiver of Claims. Metricom waives any and all claims, demands, causes of action, and rights it may assert against the City on account of any loss, damage, or injury to any Radio or any loss or degradation of the Services as a result of any event or occurrence which is beyond the reasonable control of the City or on account of City's exercise of its regulatory or police powers. 6.2 Limitation of City's Liability. The City shall be liable only for the cost of repair to damaged Radios arising from the negligence or willful misconduct of' City, its employees, agents, or contractors. 7 INSURANCE. Metricom shall obtain and maintain at all times during the term of this Use Agreement Commercial General Liability insurance and Commercial Automobile Liability insurance protecting Metricom in an amount not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence (combined single limit), including bodily injury and property damage, and in an amount not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) annual aggregate for each personal injury liability and products-completed operations. The Commercial General Liability insurance policy shall name the City, its council members, officers, and employees as additional insureds as respects any covered liability arising out of Metricom's performance of work under this Use Agreement. Coverage shall be in an occurrence form and in accordance with the limits and provisions specified herein. Claims-made policies are not acceptable. Such insurance shall not be canceled, nor shall the occurrence or aggregate limits set forth above be reduced, until the City has received at least thirty (30) days' advance written notice of such cancellation or change. Metricom shall be responsible for notifying the City of such change or cancellation. Prior to any five(5)-year renewal term, pursuant to Section 2 of this Use Agreement, the City may request and the parties shall bargain in good faith to increase the above minimum insurance amounts, if such an increase is warranted by industry standards or specific identified risk. Such increase, if any, shall not be effective until the commencement of such renewal term. 7.1 Filing of Certificates and Endorsements. Prior to the commencement of any work pursuant to this Use Agreement, Metricom shall file with the City the required original certificate(s) of insurance with endorsements, which shall state the following: (a) the policy number; name of insurance company; name and address of the agent or authorized representative; name and address of insured; project name; policy expiration date; and specific coverage amounts; (b) that the City shall receive thirty (30) days' prior notice of cancellation; (c) that Metricom's Commercial General Liability insurance policy is primary as respects any other valid or collectible insurance that the City may possess, including any self-insured retentions the City may have; and any other insurance the City does possess shall be considered excess insurance only and shall not be required to contribute with this insurance; and (d)that Metricom's Commercial General Liability insurance policy waives any right of recovery the insurance company may have against the City. The certificate(s) of insurance with endorsements and notices shall be mailed to the City at the address specified in § 8 below. 7.2 Workers' Compensation Insurance. Metricom shall obtain and maintain at all times during the term of this Use Agreement statutory workers' compensation and employer's liability insurance in an amount not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) and shall furnish the City with a certificate showing proof of such coverage. 7.3 Insurer Criteria. Any insurance provider of Metricom shall be admitted and authorized to do business in the State of Minnesota and shall carry a minimum rating assigned by A.M. Best & Company's Key Rating Guide of"A" Overall and a Financial Size Category of "X" (i.e., a size of $500,000,000 to $750,000,000 based on capital, surplus, and conditional reserves). Insurance policies and certificates issued by non-admitted insurance companies are not acceptable. 7.4 Severability of Interest. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be stated on the certificate(s) of insurance, which shall be sent to and approved by the City. "Severability of interest" or "separation of insureds" clauses shall be made a part of the Commercial General Liability and Commercial Automobile Liability policies. 8 NOTICES. All notices which shall or may be given pursuant to this Use Agreement shall be in writing and delivered personally or transmitted (a)through the United States mail, by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid; (b) by means of prepaid overnight delivery service; or (c)by facsimile or email transmission, if a hard copy of the same is followed by delivery through the U. S. mail or by overnight delivery service as just described, addressed as follows: if to the City: CITY OF [NAME OF MUNICmALITY] Attn: [NAME OF CONTACT] [Ar)Dm SS] [Name of Municipality], MN [ZIP] if to Metricom: MeTmCOM, INC. Attn: Network Real Estate 980 University Avenue Los Gatos, CA 95032 8.1 Date of Notices; Changing Notice Address. Notices shall be deemed given upon receipt in the case of personal delivery, three (3) days after deposit in the mail, or the next business day in the case of facsimile, email, or overnight delivery. Either party may from time to time designate any other address for this purpose by written notice to the other party delivered in the manner set forth above. 9 TERMINATION. This Use Agreement may be terminated by either party upon forty five (45) days' prior written notice to the other party upon a default of any material covenant or term hereof by the other party, which default is not cured within forty-five (45) days of receipt of written notice of default (or, if such default is not curable within forty-five (45) days, if the defaulting party fails to commence such cure within forty-five (45) days or fails thereafter diligently to prosecute such cure to completion), provided that the grace period for any monetary default shall be ten (10) days from receipt of notice. Except as expressly provided herein, the rights granted under this Use Agreement are irrevocable during the term. 10 ASSIGNMENT. This Use Agreement shall not be assigned by Metricom without the express written consent of the City, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned, or delayed. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the transfer of the rights and obligations of Metricom hereunder to a parent, subsidiary, , or financially viable affiliate of Metricom or to any successor-in-interest or entity acquiring all or substantially all of Metricom's outstanding voting stock or assets shall not be deemed an assignment for the purposes of this Use Agreement. 11 MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS. The provisions which follow shall apply generally to the obligations of the parties under this Use Agreement. 11.1 Nonexclusive Use. Metric, om understands that this Use Agreement does not provide Metricom with exclusive use of the Public Right of Way or any Municipal Facility and that City shall have the right to permit other providers of communications services to install equipment or devices in the Public Right of Way and on Municipal Facilities. City agrees promptly to notify Metricom of the receipt of a proposal for the installation of communications equipment or devices in the Public Right of Way or on Municipal Facilities. In addition, City agrees to advise other providers of communications services of the presence or planned deployment of the Radios in the Public Right of Way and/or on Municipal Facilities. 11.2 Waiver of Breach. The waiver by either party of any breach or violation of any provision of this Use Agreement shall not be deemed to be a waiver or a continuing waiver of any subsequent breach or violation of the same or any other provision of this Use Agreement. 11.3 Severability of Provisions. If any one or more of the provisions of this Use Agreement shall be held by court of competent jurisdiction in a final judicial action to be void, voidable, or unenforceable, such provision(s) shall be deemed severable from the remaining provisions of this Use Agreement and shall not affect the legality, validity, or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this Use Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the parties agree that if a court or administrative agency of competent jurisdiction should declare a provision(s) of Section 4 of this Use Agreement invalid, then the parties shall each be obligated to negotiate in good faith to amend Section 4 of this Use Agreement and if, after one hundred and eighty (180) days from the commencement of negotiations or such extension thereof that may be agreed by the parties, the parties are unable to reach agreement on amendments hereto, then this Use Agreement may be terminated by either party. Contacting Metricom. Metricom shall be available to the staff employees of any City department having jurisdiction over Metricom's activities twenty-four (24) hours a day, seven (7) days a week, regarding problems or complaints resulting from the attachment, installation, operation, maintenance, or removal of the Radios. The City may contact by telephone the network control center operator at telephone number (800) 873-3468 regarding such problems or complaints. 11.5 Governing Law; Jurisdiction. This Use Agreement shall be governed and construed by and in accordance with the laws of the State of [State of Municipal Entity], without reference to its conflicts of law principles. If suit is brought by a party to this Use Agreement, the parties agree that trial of such action shall be vested exclusively in the state courts of Minnesota, County of [Name of County], or in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. 11.6 11.7 11.8 11.9 11.10 Attorneys' Fees. Should any dispute arising out of this Use Agreement lead to litigation, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover its costs of suit up to an amount of Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00), including (without limitation) reasonable attorneys' fees. Consent Criteria. In any case where the approval or consent of one party hereto is required, requested or otherwise to be given under this Use Agreement, such party shall not unreasonably delay, condition, or withhold its approval or consent. Representations and Warranties. Each of the parties to this Agreement represents and warrants that it has the full right, power, legal capacity, and authority to enter into and perform the parties' respective obligations hereunder and that such obligations shall be binding upon such party without the requirement of the approval or consent of any other person or entity in connection herewith, except as provided in § 3.2 above. Amendment of Use Agreement. This Use Agreement may not be amended except pursuant to a written instrument signed by both parties. Entire Agreement. This Use Agreement contains the entire understanding between the parties with respect to the subject matter herein. There are no representations, agreements, or understandings (whether oral or written) between or among the parties relating to the subject matter of this Use Agreement which are not fully expressed herein. In witness whereof, and in order to bind themselves legally to the terms and conditions of this Use Agreement, the duly authorized representatives of the parties have executed this Use Agreement as of the Effective Date. City: CITY OF [NAME OF MUNICIPALITY], a Minnesota municipal corporation By: Date: [name typedJ , [Year of Agreement Date] By: Its~ Date: [name typed] , [Year of Agreement Date] Metricom: METRICOM, INC., a Delaware corporation By: Its~ Date: [name t),ped] · [Year of Agreement Date] JAMES M. STROMMEN A~ney a~ Law Direct Dial (612) 337-9233 ~ail: j ~omm~kemedy-grave~ corn MEMORANDUM TO: SRA City Managers/Administrators/Delegates/Alternates Desyl L. Peterson, City Attorney, City of Minnetonka FROM: Jim Strommen DATE: November 1, 1999 Comments on Proposed Metricom Agreement At the October 20, 1999 SRA meeting, the board authorized me to review and comment on a document prepared by Metricom and submitted to a number of cities. The proposed "Right-of- Way Permit and Facility Use Agreement" would be between a city and Metricom for placement of radios as defined by Metricom using a network known as Ricochet®. The following are my comments to this document. If you have not yet received the proposal from Metricom, these comments will be of only general value. If you would like us to fax you a copy please call or email my secretary Shannon Stang at sstang®kennedy-graven.com Because these are attorney-client comments, I would ask that you keep these confidential to the extent possible. General Metricom appears to be employing a strategy of avoiding conflict with a city by offering more rights and more fees than might otherwise be recoverable using a strict management cost recovery approach. Metricom has an argument that it is a telecommunications right-of-way user that would be entitled to use the right-of-way only at a strict city management cost and subject only to legitimate health, safety and welfare concerns. Metricom could further make the argument that the equipment to be installed on municipally owned and utility owned poles is a minimal cost to cities. This agreement does not take that approach. It uses a model employed by Metricom in many other states, most of them with franchise rights over Metricom's use of the ROW and thus greater fee requirements. Despite the numerous provisions preserving the rights of cities, there are some items that are important to change, as noted below. SRA Memo February 10, 2000 Page 2 1.1. Adjusted gross revenues. You should ask why Metric, om seeks to calculate the adjusted gross revenues by excluding the right-of-way management reimbursement, which is defined as one percent of gross revenues. There are a number of other exclusions. Metricom should demonstrate how it would calculate the fee so there is no misunderstanding. It would also be important to determine what Metricom thinks it will gross from city customers to match up fees to the city and cost. Two or three percent of gross revenues may be more appropriate if the projected gross amount is Iow or uncertain. 1.9. Public right-of-way. Metricom includes "places" in the definition of public right-of-way. This word should be deleted because it opens the door to placement rights on non-right-of-way property that may be owned in fee. To the extent Metricom seeks to place its radios on water towers or other land held by the city outside of the ROW, the city is in the position of a landlord who can rent property for a market rate. As a trustee of the ROW, cities are limited to police powers, not landlord rights, unless the legislature has granted franchise authority. That is an important distinction. The fact that Metricom's ROW definition does not include county or state highways does not appear to make a difference regarding fees. The percentage of adjusted gross revenues would be the same whether there existed limited or significant county, state or federal thoroughfares in a city. Note, however, that cities have more significant management rights in county or county- state aid highways, than they do regarding state trunk highways. 1.8. Municipal facilities. The broad definition of facilities goes with the inclusion of "places" above. Metricom is seeking a broader right-of-presence than cities are obligated to provide. State law grants a right to use a more narrowly defined public ROW. It does not require permission to use non-ROW public land. Even if a "city-owned" structure is within the ROW, it may not be the type of structure cities would want to be adorned with the radios. 2. Term. The length of this term with the automatic renewals is similar to the water tower lease provisions insisted on by wireless providers. Their interest is having the assurance of a presence over a long period of time. Cities have legitimate health, safety and welfare concerns that should allow the city to terminate such an agreement if appropriate, however. Further, the "market" may change dramatically within the nine years and cities may want the right to terminate and renegotiate. This is a difficult issue because of the lack of authority cities arguably have to negotiate a better deal (cities arguably cannot simply exclude Metricom). Perhaps, one could add at the end of the third line at~er "herein" the term "or under rights granted by law", to preserve termination rights for police power concerns. 3.3. No interference. A city needs to be careful of any agreement that requires it to include a non-interference of Metricom's rights in other agreements that may be presented to the city by competitors. The more competitors and non-interference agreements, the more tangled the web JMS-171017vl SU160-45 SRA Memo February 10, 2000 Page 2 the city weaves. I do not' think any interference promises can be made where the city ultimately has the managemem responsibility between and among all right-of-way users. 3.5. Location and installation of radios. The cities should retain the fight to consem to the location of the radios. This is an important power of cities that should not be waived. 4.4. Right-of-way management reimbursement. As you know, Metricom has entered imo these agreements in many other states. States with greater ROW franchise fights given to cities require five or six percent as the fee. Cities do not enjoy franchise fights over providers like Metricom in 5~anesota. Nevertheless, a higher percentage could be justified. Cities do not know what the actual gross revenues would be. If very small, the one percen JMS-171017vl SU1~45 CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 17, 20(0) TO: PLANNING COMMISSION PARK & OPEN SPACE COMMISSION DOCK & COMMONS COMMISSION FROM: FRAN CLARK, CITY CLERK/ACTING CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: MOUND REDEVELOPMENT COMMUNICATIONS PLAN At the COW (Committee of the Whole) Meeting on February 1 5, 2000, the City Council reviewed a draft copy of the Mound Redevelopment Communications Plan. They asked that each advisory commission be given a copy to critique and offer their input and suggestions. Please review this at your next meeting and provide your comments to me and they will be given to the City Council. Thank you. att. 3 printed on recycled paper Mound Redevelopment Communications Plan DRAFT February 2000 JMS Communications & Research 484A 267th Street Osceola, WI 54020 (715) 755-3331 Mound Redevelopment Communications Plan Table of Contents Page Background 3 ...................................... 3 2. Purpose for Communications Plan ......................... 4 3. Target Audiences ................................... 4 4. Communications Goals ................................ 5 5. Key Messages ..................................... 6. Tools Lis ........................................ 6 7. Strategies and Tactics ................................ 7 3 2 Mound Redevelopment Communications Plan 1. Background In 1991, the Mound City Council spearheaded a downtown revitalization effort and gathered a large group of community volunteers to work with the City's Economic Development Commission to look at strategies for revitalizing downtown. The Mound Visions Concept Plan was introduced in 1992. Much progress has been made since that time. On December 14, 1999, the Mound Housing & Redevelopment Authority voted to approve a redevelopment plan for Downtown Mound, based on the concept plan. The redevelopment area takes in 100 acres of downtown. It would reorient downtown toward Lost Lake and Lake I.angdon. It would feature new commercial development, housing, a transit station, a public greenway, pedestrian walkways and opening the Lost Lake Canal to boats. It contains four redevelopment project districts: Langdon District - Six acres in the core of downtown bounded by Commerce Boulevard, Lake Langdon, Our Lady of the Lake Church and the railroad line. Plans are that the development would include 15,000 square feet of retail, 14 for-sale townhomes, 40 rental townhomes, and 34 rental apartments. Time Frame: Construction expected to begin in the Fall of 2000. Coast to Coast/True Value District - Four acres in the core of downtown bounded by Lynwood Boulevard, Commerce Boulevard, Belmont Lane and the railroad line. Plans are to develop a total of about 23,000 square feet of retail and 8,000 square feet of office space. The project will be split into two phases. Time Frame: Construction of Phase 1, 15,000 square feet of retail, will begin in Spring 2000. Construction of Phase 2, 8,000 square feet of retail and 8,000 square feet of office adjacent to Coast to Coast/True Value, will begin in 2002. Auditors Road District - Six acres in the core of downtown bounded by Commerce Boulevard, Auditors Road, County Road 15 and the railroad line. Plans are that the development would include 40,000 square feet of retail and 85 condominiums/apartments. Time Frame: Acquisition will occur in 2001 and construction in 2002. Hotel District - Five acres in the core of downtown bounded by County Road 15, the Super America site and Lost Lake. Plans are that the 3 3 development would include a hotel, and the site would be used for a banquet facility and farmer's market. Time Frame: Construction beginning in 2002. The entire redevelopment will cost about $23 million. It will be financed by land sales, developer fees and tax increment finance (TIF). The City will also use two federal ISTEA grants to help pay for the rehabilitation of Lost Lake Canal/greenway and gas tax dollars to reconstruct Auditors Road and County Road 15. 2. Purpose for the Communications Plan The purpose of this communications plan is to help the City of Mound organize its communications and outreach efforts with the public and with other important groups, also called "target audiences". This plan identifies a set of target audiences, goals, key messages, tools, tactics and strategies to accomplish that communications effort. This communications plan looks out through 2000 and should be updated annually. 3. Target Audiences All Mound Residents Residents and Business within the Redevelopment City opinion leaders -- Council, board and commission members -- civic organizations -- community groups -- City staff News Media -- Mound Laker -- Lakeshore News 4. Communications Goals The plan's communications goals correspond to the target audiences. Each of the communications tactics and strategies listed in this plan are built from these goals. Goal No.1 Goal No.2 Goal No. 3 All Residents To keep all Mound residents informed about the Mound redevelopment, the reasons for it and the progress with it. Residents and Businesses in the Redevelopment Area To keep residents and business owners in the redevelopment area informed of what is happening in the redevelopment project area and why, and the timing of future activities, especially those dealing with acquisition and relocation. City Opinion Leaders To keep City opinion leaders informed about the redevelopment and provide them with the information they need to inform community members and answer questions. Goal No. 4 News Media To provide the news media with accurate and timely information on Mound downtown redevelopment, enabling the news media to assist the City in keeping community members informed. 5. Key Messages This is a general set of key messages to be used in communication about the Mound redevelopment plan. The set of key messages will grow and evolve as the project develops. 3 The City of Mound is moving forward with a plan to revitalize and redevelop downtown. The plan is based on the community's 1992 Mound Visions Concept Plan which found that a big reason for the decline of downtown is that it doesn't work well as a district. The redevelopment plan calls for reorienting downtown to the lakes and includes new housing, new commercial development, transit facilities, a 5 and oPening Lost Lake Canal to public pedestrian wglk-vvays greenway, boats. The entire redevelopment is expected to occur over the next three to five years and will be financed through land sales, develoPer fees, tax increment finance (TIF), a federal ISTEA grant and state gas tax funds. Revitalization will provide for a distinct community identity, making downtown more pedestrian friendly, increasing convenience, opportunities for retail services and businesses, and new housing options. Redevelopment will ensure that Mound has the tyPe of shopping, services and housing options that today's residents want. 6. Tools List Q&As - Periodic Q&As sent to the community to update and answer questions that arise with the redevelopment. Newsletter -- One page double-sided newsletter to be sent Periodically to Mound residents and businesses. Q&As can be sent as the newsletter, and the newsletter would use the same nameplate developed for the first Q&A. City's Internet Web Site - Newsletter articles, Q&As and other information will also be provided on the City's web site. Open houses - An open house would be held for community members on the school site development prior to any plans going to the City Council for approval. News Releases - News releases would be provided to the media to coincide with important events and milestones in the redevelopment. Fact Sheet -- One page describing project facts at a glance, to be developed early in 2000. City Newsletter - Periodic articles in the City's quarterly newsletter. Vision Boards - Elevations and other drawings providing a vision for each development project. 3 7. Strategies and Tactics A) City Information Effort Summary: Written communications will be the backbone of an ongoing City information effort during 2000. During the summer, prior to work on the Langdon development, information such as the vision boards and Q&As/newsletters can be provided in the bank for everyone to see. Once plans have been developed for the school site, an open house can be held for community input, prior to any City reviews. Tools: Q&As, Newsletters, City Newsletter, City Web Site, Open Houses, Fact Sheet, Vision Boards. Goals: 1 and 2 B) Presentations to City Opinion Leaders Summary: Ongoing, periodic presentations will be made to City opinion leaders as the redevelopment progresses. In addition to presentations to policymaking bodies -- such as the Economic Development Commission, Planning Commission, City Council and Housing Redevelopment Authority, -- presentations will be made periodically to civic groups and community organizations such as the Jaycees, Lions, American Legision and VFW. Another example -- another presentation will be made to the Historical Society in mid-March to update members. Periodic City staff briefings will be scheduled for the third Tuesday of each month. Tools: Vision Boards and other written materials as needed. Goals: 3 and 1. C) Business Community Coffees Summary: An ongoing communications effort with the business community will ensure that those who will be most impacted by the redevelopment are kept informed. Periodic early morning coffees at City Hall with the business community will continue to be held. In addition, the periodic community newsletter will address upcoming activities and schedule for the redevelopment. Tools: Vision boards, Q&As, Newsletters, City Newsletter, City Web Site, Open Houses, Fact Sheet. 3 7 Goals: 2., D) News Media Brief"mg Sessions Summary: At the time of important events and milestones in the redevelopment, the news media would be briefed, enabling them to do a news story or feature on the redevelopment. For example, a briefing could be held for reporters once the development agreement is signed with Beard but prior to the begining of work in the Langdon project area in the fall, enabling the media to forecast information about the work that will take place in the fall. Tools: News Release, Fact Sheet, Vision Boards on computer file or print out, and other written information as pertinent. Goals: 4. 3 8 February 22, 2000 RESOLUTION NO. 00- RESOLUTION APPROVING SUBMITTAL OF AN APPLICATION FOR USE OF 2000 URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM CONSOLIDATED POOL FUNDING AND AUTHORIZING SIGNATURE OF SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY AND ANY THIRD PARTY AGREEMENTS WHEREAS, the City of Mound through execution of a Joint Cooperation Agreement with Hennepin County, is cooperating in the Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Gant Program; and WHEREAS, the City of Mound has developed a proposal for the use of Urban Hennepin County CDBG funds made available to it, consistent with local and Urban Hennepin County housing and community development needs and priorities. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound approves the submittal of the following application for funding from the Consolidated Pool of the Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program and authorizes submittal of the proposal for review and inclusion in the 2000 Urban Hennepin County Community Development BlOCk Grant Program. Activity Budt, et Conversion of studio apartments to fully handicapped accessible apartments in HUD subsidized housing that is occupied by elderly, handicapped and low income persons at 2020 Commerce Blvd. in Mound. $100,000. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby authorizes and directs the Mayor and City Manager to execute the Subrecipient Agreement and any required Third Party Agreement on behalf of the City to implement the 2000 CDBG Program. ADOPTED.- the 22nd day of February, 2000 ATrEST: City Clerk Mayor 81/87/2888 14:88 ..... G1247,25078 MOUNDH~A January 7, 1999 Mound I-LR.A. Commissioners Subject: CDBG Funds for 2000 Dear Commissioners: I was speaking to Mark Hendrickson of the Hennepin County Office of Planning and Development. He informs me that I can apply for money to convert four of my studio apartments into two totally handicapped accessible units, lie said that this kind of renovation is a priority in Hennepin county. This would help in two areas. Xt would eliminate two studio apartments, they are hard to rent, and it would fill the need for handicapped accessible apartments. I have estimated the amount to be $100,000 for the changes. Please let me know your thoughts. I think that the CDBG proposal comes up on your city agenda in February. Please consider this project when you are looking into your budget. Sincerely Pinky 01/07/2000 14:08 6124725070 MDUNDHRA PAGE AUTHO. RITY TO: NAME ~"'~,/~ COMPANY P4'~ ~"(- ~/9 ~!/~7 8. LOCATION FROM: KAROL "PINKY" CHARON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR PHONE / FAX - 612.472-5078 DATE /.}?/~no 0 PAGE ! OF Indian Knoll Manor I 2020 Commerce Boulevard Phone & Fix: [612] 472-5078 I Mound, MN 55364 M/NNF. SOTA DEPARTMENT OF AGR/CULTI.5~ NOTICE OF APPOINTI~ OF ASSISTANT WI::.gY~ INSPECTOR FOR CITY OR TOWNSI{IP INSTRUCTIONS 1) Comple~ this form. 2) R~turn to thc County. Agricultural Iaspex:tor:. Gr~g Se. nat 417 North 5th Str~e.t Minneapolis, MN 55401-1309 NAM~ OF PERSON API~OD~rED James Fackler ADDRESS 5341 Maywood Road CrrY, STATF. ZIP CODE Mound, MN 55364 T~ ~.HONF.~ (I~CI. LrDE AREA CODE~ 612-472-0611 APPO~ LOCA~ON Mound City Hall CITY ORTOWNSHIPNAM]~ Mound COUNTY DATE OF APPOIN'rM3~IT XN ACCORDANCE ~ M]2,,'NF. SOTA STATUTES 18.80, SUBD. 3, PERTAINING TO ASSL%'TANT W'~m~ INSPF. CTORS, THE ABOVE NAMED PEP. SON IS H]~.EBY APPO~ ~.~ TO BE ASSLSTANT V~EED INSPECTOR FROM TKE DATE ~DICATED UNTIL SUCH A T~iE AS THE MAYOR OR TOWN BOARD WISHES TO TERMINATE THE APPOiNTMeNT. THIS APPOINTN[ENT CONFERS ON TH~ APPOINTEE ALL THE DWr1ES, AUTHORITY, AND PRIVILEG~-~ OF ANY LOCAL WEED 1NSFECFOR AS OUTLINED BY LAW. SIGNATURE (MAYOR OR CHAIR OF TOWNSHIP BOARD) TITLE DATE SIGNED STRF..ET ADDRESS Mayor 2-22-00 CITY AND STATE ZIP CODE 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 H e n n e p i n C o u n t y An Equal Opportunity Employe~ February 6, 2000 NOTICE OF APPOINTMENT OF WEED INSPECTOR Enclosed is a form for the appointment of a weed inspector in your municipality. It is required that the enclosed form be filled out and returned to the County Agricultural Inspector. Please do this as soon as possible. We would like all appointments in by April 14, 2000. Sincerely, 5gm ' Agricultural Inspector Enclosure Department of Environmental Services 417 North Fifth Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401-1397 (612) 348-6509 FAX:(612) 348-8532 Environmental Info Line:(612) 348-6500 Recycled Paper CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA LIQUOR FUND COMPARATIVE BALANCE SHEETS DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND 1998 DRAFT Exhibit E-4 1999 1998 ASSETS CURRENT ASSETS Cash and temporary investments Change funds Inventories, at cost Prepaid items TOTAL CURRENT ASSETS FIXED ASSETS, AT COST LESS ACCUMULATED DEPRECIATION NET FIXED ASSETS TOTAL ASSETS $336,397 925 117,953 0 455,275 56,075 (48,828) 7~247 $462,522 $480,716 925 125,900 607,541 52,750 (47,548) 5~202 $612,743 LIABILITIES AND RETAINED EARNINGS CURRENT LIABILITIES' Accounts payable Accrued salaries and compensated absences payable TOTAL CURRENT LIABILITIES RETAINED EARNINGS Unreserved TOTAL LIABILITIES AND RETAINED EARNINGS $38,258 36,829 75,087 387,435 $462,522 $75,888 29,230 105,118 507,625 $612,743 Exhibit E-5 CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA LIQUOR FUND MPARATIVE STATEMENT OF REVENUE, EXPENSES AND CHANGES IN RETAINED EARNINGS YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND 1998 DRAFT OPERATING REVENUE Sales Cost of goods sold GROSS PROFIT OPERATING EXPENSES Personal services Supplies Professional services Communications Insurance Utilities Repairs and maintenance Rent Other contractual services Depreciation Other TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES OPERATING INCOME NONOPERATING REVENUE Interest on investment INCOME BEFORE TRANSFERS OPERATING TRANSFERS TO OTHER FUNDS NET INCOME RETAINED EARNINGS, JANUARY 1 RETAINED EARNINGS, DECEMBER 31 1999 Amount $1,756,800 1.319,085 437,715 156 199 4 546 2 500 2 300 19 484 6 948 1 849 31 254 4 407 1 279 6,228 236~994 200,721 27,589 228~310 (348,500) (120,190) 507,625 $387,435 Percent of Sales 100.00% 75.08 24.92 8.89 0.26 0.14 0.13 1.11 0.40 0.11 1.78 0.25 0.07 0.35 13.49 11.43 1.57 13.00 (19.84) -6.84% 1998 Amount $1,671,286 1.258,91 9 412,367 143,6O6 3,855 2,400 1,883 13,700 6,895 2,423 31,843 4,090 1,411 4,335 216,441 195,926 21,068 216,994 ~78,500) 138,494 369,131 $507.625 Percent of Sales 100.00% 75.33 24.67 8.59 0.23 0.14 0.11 0.82 0.41 0.14 1.91 0.24 0.08 0.26 12.94 11.73 1.26 12.99 (4.70) 8.29% To: Mayor and City Council From: Joel Krumm, Liquor Store Manager RE: 1999 Annual Report Date: February 15, 2000 The last year of the century proved to be another successful year for the liquor store. Sales and profits were up again following the general trend of the economy. A record breaking summer in sales plus a strong fourth quarter, which was highly publicized due to the end of one millennium and the dawn of another, helped push our sales to an all time high of $1,756,800. This was an increase of $85,514 over 1998. This figure equates to a 5.1% gain which seems to be outpacing yearly inflationary projections. For the first time in the history of the liquor store operating revenues exceeded the $200,000 level. SALES BREAKDOWN LIQUOR $553,586 1998 LIQUOR $530,078 BEER $836,720 BEER $804,861 WINE $271,957 WINE $249,676 MISC. $94,537 MISC. $86,671 TOTAL $1,756,800 TOTAL $1,671,286 Both beer and liquor departments showed gains of 4.0% and 4.75% respectively keeping up with overall industry averages. The biggest gains percentage wise were made in the wine and misc. categories. Both showing a growth of 9.0%. This is fortunate since these are the two areas where our profit margins are the highest. Gino has prepared a preliminary draft that gives you a complete picture of the current status of the liquor operation. I remind you that this is a preliminary draft and not a finalized audited report. You should be receiving an official report from the auditors sometime in May. However past experiences have proven that he is usually right on the money. I hope this has been of some benefit for you. If there are any other questions you may have of me about the operation I would be pleased to answer them. You all know where I can be reached. Sincerely. Exhibit E-4 CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA LIQUOR FUND COMPARATIVE BALANCE SHEETS DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND 1998 DRAFT ASSETS CURRENT ASSETS Cash and temporary investments Change funds Inventories, at cost Prepaid items TOTAL CURRENT ASSETS FIXED ASSETS, AT COST LESS ACCUMULATED DEPRECIATION NETFIXED ASSETS TOTAL ASSETS 1999 $336,397 925 117,953 0 455.275 56,075 (48,828) 7,247 $462,522 1998 $480,716 925 125,900 0 607,541 52,750 (47,548) 5,202 $612,743 ~ABILITIES AND RETAINED EARNINGS CURRENT LIABILITIES Accounts payable Accrued salaries and compensated absences payable TOTAL CURRENT LIABILITIES RETAINED EARNINGS Unreserved TOTAL LIABILITIES AND RETAINED EARNINGS $38,258 36,829 75,087 387,435 $462,522 $75,888 29,230 105,118 507,625 $612,743 CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA LIQUOR FUND MPARATIVE STATEMENT OF REVENUE, EXPENSES AND CHANGES IN RETAINED EARNINGS YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND 1998 DRAFT Exhibit E-5 OPERATING REVENUE Sales Cost of goods sold GROSS PROFIT OPERATING EXPENSES Personal services Supplies Professional services Communications Insurance Utilities Repairs and maintenance Rent Other contractual services Depreciation Other TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES OPERATING INCOME NONOPERATING REVENUE Interest on investment INCOME BEFORE TRANSFERS OPERATING TRANSFERS TO OTHER FUNDS NETINCOME RETAINED EARNINGS, JANUARY 1 RETAINED EARNINGS, DECEMBER 31 1999 Amount $1,756,800 1,319,085 437,715 156,199 4,546 2,500 2,300 19,484 6,948 1,849 31~54 4,407 1,279 6,228 236,994 200,721 27,589 228,310 (348,500} (120,190) 507,625 $387,435 Percent of Sales 100.00% 75.08 24.92 8.89 0.26 0.14 0.13 1.11 0.40 0.11 1.78 0.25 0.07 0.35 13.49 11.43 1.57 13.00 (19.84) -6.84% 1998 Amount $1,671,286 1,258,919 412,367 143,606 3,855 2,400 1,883 13,700 6,895 2,423 31,843 4,090 1,411 4,335 216,441 195,926 21,068 216,994 (78,500) 138,494 369,131 $507,625 Percent of Sales 100.00% 75.33 24.67 8.59 0.23 0.14 0.11 0.82 0.41 0.14 1.91 0.24 0.08 0.26 12.94 11.73 1.26 12.99 (4.70) 8.29% Minnesota Department of Natural Resources February 4, 2000 Jim Fackler 5341 May-wood Road Mound, NLN 55364 Dear Mr. Fackler: Your application for a Minnesota ReLeaf Grant has been approved for the amount of 55.000. Your project received a good score, bur this was an exceptionally competitive year for the available grant funds. The committee felt strongly about distributing funds to as many projects as possible, and even kighly rated projects received less than the ori~nal request. A grant agreement will be prepared and mailed to you shortly. In the meantime, I strongly suggest that you begin shopping for your trees, if you haven't already. Desmacrive storms in !998 and a strong economy have combined to create a shortage of quality trees. Keep in mind that all trees planted using ReLeaf funds must come from a nursery dealer or grower certified by the kin. Department of Agriculture. You should note that this grant program is set up on a reimbursement basis. That is, you will receive the money for your M.nReLeaf grant after you have completed the project. If you need a partial pa,vment in advance for purchase of trees (not to exceed 75% of the grant), contact me for approval. Don't hesitate to call on DNR Area Forester Alan Olson (612-826-6760) or me for technical assistance with this project. I hope you will use it as an opportunity to build awareness and support for urban forestry throughout your community. I would also like to suggest that you take a few minutes to thank your state senator and representative since the source of this grant is the Envirommental Trust Fund administered by the Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources. Good luck on a successful project! Sincerely, U&CF Partnership Coordinator 651-772-6148 cc: Alan Olson, DN~R Area Forester Terri Lynn Clark, Grants Administrator encl: Sample Request for Bid on Nursery, Stock DNR Information: 651-296-6157 · 1-888-646-6367 ° An Equal Opportunity Employer Who Values Diversity TTY: 651-296-5484 · 1-800-657-3929 Pnntecl on Recycled Pager Containing a Minimum of 10% Post-Consumer Waste THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 ('612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 February 16, 2000 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM Mayor/City Council ~ Jim Fackler, Park DirectorI ~ [ J Multiple Slip Dock Sites Sp~e~ific~'~ion. For the 2000 boating season two Multiple Slip Docks will be purchased. Attached are the specifications that I would like to use in getting quotes. From past expe~i~n¢9 I have found that in similar looking docks there is a variance in dock quality. Due to this there is a need for specifications to maintain a standard to assure a dock is safe and durable. Because the monies to be spent are under $25,000 only two quotes are needed by State of Minnesota Statute. I will try to obtain four cost estimates from local suppliers. If you see any need to alter the specifications it should be done prior to March 1, 2000 so I may obtain a supplier to assure a installation date by May 15, 2000. printed on recycled paper 2-16-2000 DOCK SPECIFICATIONS PIPE FRAME WORK: * Pipe 1) Tested Schedule 40, 1.5" I.D. or better. Bending Strength (per foot) Minimum 24,000 lbs. or better. 2) Galvanized Fasteners 1) Galvanized DECK CONSTRUCTION: * Decking Material 1) 5/4" Western Red Cedar with radius edge or better. Surface Finish 1) Painted 2) Non-skid coating on walk area. Fasteners 1) Galvanized screw or better. WARRANTY: 1) Five year on decking and Ten year on pipe. MUDPLATES: 1) If needed - include cost each. INSTALL / TAKE OUT: 1) Three year guarantee on yearly rate. Ail dock quotes must include but limited to the following; 1) Enough 3.5'x 8' sections to meet proposed plan. 2) Starter section. 3) Adaptors 4) Bumpers 5) Pipe safety caps. 6) Delivery and installation by May 15, 2000. * A written verification is required from dock company supplier must be provided with the quote. It must show that the construction material (Pipe & Wood) meets or exceeds specification standard. NOTE: The final installation design of the dock will be based on water depth and may require alteration to the proposed plan. The city will be allowed by the contractor to add or delete.docking sections and related items. Any addition/deletion will be a charge/credit equal to the individual quote of a item reflected in the final billing. LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 18338 Minnetonka Blvd. Deephaven, MN 55391 745-0789 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR NEWSLETI'ER Gregory $. Nybeck February ~11, 2000 Big Island Task Force: This past fall, the LMCD Board received public teslimony that some aclJvilJes that took place in Cruiser's Cove in 1999 were causing public safety concerns, including unlicensed special events, over conges~on in the area because of rafting, and the inability of the Water Patrol to patrol the area properly. The Board has approved the recommendation of the Task Force that public safety lanes be established for the 2000 boating season to allow the Water Patrol to patrol the area properly and better conlrol the activities. A public headng has been scheduled at the Gray Freshwater Center on Wednesday, 2/23/00, at 7:00 p.m. to further discuss these issues. Attached is a copy of the News Release that has notified the public of this hearing. Exotics Management: This past fall, a RFP was sent out to vendors, for sealed bids, for the purchase of a new Aqua'dc Plant Harvester for the 2000 season. In December, the Board awarded the sealed bid to Hydraulic Bo~t company, Inc. for $111,780, excluding state and federal taxes. The purchase of the new harvester will increase the fleet owned by the LMCD from four to five. The payment of this harvester will come from the EV'~! Equipment Reserve Fund, which are donated funds and are derived from non-levied dollars. The Board has established an EWM Harvesting Program Improvement Task Force to evaluate the program to see if improvements can be made for 2000. The purchase of the new harvester was one recommendation of this Task Force. Other areas of the program are scheduled to be evaluated in the near future. We will provide you further detail of any proposed changes when they are available. Staff is currently preparing plans for the 2000 Zebra Mussel Program, with heavy emphasis on improving public educ~on end awareness. Some oftbe ideas be. ing cor,.~idered include_ poster bo[rd signage, pdnt ads, signage at pdvate and public accesses on the lake, and zebra mussel awareness protests at boating and sportsmen shows. Further details will be provided when they are available. · Review of Code for New and Re-development Pror~osals: At a recent meelJng, the Board considered a re-development proposal of a commercial marina to a multi-family development. This proposal does not comply with a number of LMCD Code provisions, including the 1:50' General Rule and Conversion-of-Use principles. The Board has agreed to review the Code to see if updates needs to made to allow for these types of proposals that are good for the Lake. 'l:he consensus of the Board was that any changes to the Code, if made, need to bogood for the entire Lake and need to. be Iong-term~ This topic.will b..efurther disct*~sSed, at t~%e 2/23/00 Regular Board meeting. · u~date or~Scecial'DeDuty Utigation: In the past 18 months, the LMCD and the Hennepin County Shei~ffS Water P~rol"have addressed a number of cases that challenge the authority of Special DePuties. During this p~i*iod, We have received six favorable rulings and one adverse ruling from the District Courts. The LMCD appealed this adverse ruling to the Minnesota Appellate Court this past fall, with oral arguments conducted in late October. Recently, the Appellate Court affirmed the ruling of the District EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR NEWSLETTER, 2/11100, PAGE 2 Court that restricted the authority of Special Deputies. At its 2/9/00 Regular meeting, the LMCD Board directed the Prosecu'dng Attorney to prepare a petilJon to the Minnesota Supreme Court to review this matter. Further details will be~Provided when available. Annual Charter Boat Meetings: LMCD Code requires that all liquor and charter boat licenses, whether new or renewal, attended mandatory training annually. Staff from the LMCD, the Water Patrol, and the Minnesota Department of Labor and Indus~ will facilitate these ~alning sessions, which will be held ~ sometime in Mamh and April. The focus of the discussion at these meetings will be on charter boat rules and regulations, related liquor rules, and general discussion regarding feedback we have received from the public 2000 Boat Density & User Attitude Survey's: Consistent with the ManagementPlan fo~ Lake Minnetonka, Boat Density and User Attitude Survey's are planned for the upcoming summer. RFP,s have been sent out, with proposals due in the LMCD office by !2 NOON on Monday, 2/14!00. Staff.. plans on making a recommendalion to the Board at its 2/23/00 Regular meeting on which vendor to award the contract ·Updare on 2000 Board Officers & Board Appointments: Board Officers and appointments for 2000 were discussed at the 2/9/00 Regular Board meelJng. Board Officers for 2000 include Douglas Babcock- Chairman, Bert Foster- V',;e Chairman, Eugene Partyka- Secretary, and Craig Nelson- Treasurer. The Board also acknowledged the appointment of Board members from the cities of Excelsior, Minnetrista, Orono, Shorewood, and Woodland. Board member terms, as ou'dined in our enabling legislation, are for three-year terms. Although we have encouraged cilJes to appoint Board members for three years, SOme have decided to appoint Board members for one year.· ....... ' ..... '~'-~*~*~=~ ~ ~' :~=~:~ ' ~;%~ ~='~ = · . On.going Licenses/Permits: LMCD staff has recentiy inspected all licensed deicing installations on the Lake. ResUlts of these inspections, with related correspondence, have been forwarded to the licensee and the affected municipality. Staff is currenlJy processing all new and renewal without change applications for licensed multiple dock facilities on the Lake. Staff is currentiy processing new and renewal applications for charter boats and related liquor, wine, and beer application. For the 2000 season, it .- appears as though the demand for liquor licenses in 2000 will exceed the number the LMCD is allowed to issue by State law. The Board is queslJoning whether to approach the State legislature in the future to have this number increased. · "Save the Lake" Recognition Banauet Dinner:. The 33rd anniversary 'Save the Lake' Recognition Banquet Dinner was held on Thursday, 2/10/00, at Lord Fletcher's of the Lake. The program included a featured presentalJon by Lake Minnetonka Historical Storyteller Bob Gasch, recognition of the Special Deputy Jamie Demarais, and 2000 LMCD Program Priorities. WebPage: The LMCD WebPage address is: htlp://www.lmcd.org. LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 18338 Mtka. Blvd., Deephaven, MN 55391 NEWS RELEASE (For immediate release) February 10, 2000 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Editor (Lakeshore Weekly News, The Laker, Sun Sailor) LMCD Board of Directors LMCD Member Cities Interested P~ties ~/'~ z~~ Greg Nybeck, Executive Director 2/23/00 Public Hearing This past September, the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) Board of Directors received public testimony that some activities that took place on the north-end of Big Island in !999, more commonly known as 'Cruiser's Cove', were causing public safety concerns. These concerns included unlicensed special events, over congestion in this area because of rafting, and the inability of the Hennepin County Sheriffs Water Patrol to patrol the area properly. The LMCD Board established a Big Island Task Force to discuss these issues and to bring recommendations back to the Board. The Big Island Task Force met this fall to discuss the activities that took place this past summer and to discuss what could be implemented to better control them. Two options that were considered by the Task Force included establishing public safety lanes in Cruiser's Cove and establishing a lakewide-raftJng ordinance. The recommendation of the Task Force to the LMCD Boara has been to establish public safety access lanes through the raflJng area for the 2000 boating season, and not to adopt a lakewide ordinance restricting rafting. The main purpose of establishing these public safety lanes for 2000 boating season would be to allow the Sheriff's Water Patrol to patrol the area properly. The LMCD has scheduled a public hearing for Wednesday, 2J23/00, at 7:00 PM to discuss these issues. The public hearing will be held at the Gray Freshwater Center, 2500 Shadywood Road, in Navarre. All interest persons will be given an opportunity to comment. For further details, please contact the LMCD office at (612) 745-0789. FEBRUARY 20, 2000 TO: JOHN DEAN FROM: FRAN CLARK RE: PETITIONS FOR GREEN SPACE. WHEN ALL THREE PETITIONS WERE ENTERED WE ENDED UP WITH 1010 ENTRIES. OF THE 1010 SIGNATURES 70 36 15 16 19 OF THE SIGNATURES WERE FROM PEOPLE WHO DID NOT RESIDE IN MOUND. WERE UNREADABLE. had no address listed. SIGNED FOR 2 PEOPLE SIGNED TWICE THAT MEANS 158 WERE INELIGIBLE AND SUBTRACTED FROM THE 1010 SIGNATURES. LEAVING 852 ALLOWED. SHORT. THEY NEEDED 963 SO THEY ARE 111 SIGNATURES