2000-08-08 PLEASE TURN OFF ALL CFJI. PHONE~ & PAGERS IN COUNCIL CHAJ~BERS
AGENDA
MOUND CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, AUGUST 8, 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 Council Member or Citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed
from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence.
1. OPEN MEETING - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. PAGE
2. APPROVE AGENDA
3. *CONSENT AGENDA
*A. APPROVE MINUTES: JULY 25, 2000, REGULAR MEETING. 3382-3396
*B. PAYMENT OF BILLS .......................... 3397-3411
*C. APPROVE A RESOLUTION OPPOSING WINE IN
GROCERY STORES ................................ 3412
4. COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT ON ANY ITEM NOT
ON THE AGENDA. (LIMIT TO 3 MINUTES PER SPEAKER.)
5. PUBLIC HEARING:
A. CASE # 00-38 BRISTOL CLASSICS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
- 2642 COMMERCE BOULEVARD .................... 3413-3431
6. DICUSSION/ACTION ON CASE ~)0-22 & 00-23: LANGDON BAY PUD AND
STREET VACATION ................................ 3432-3527
7. NOTICE REGARDING BEARD GROUP, INC FINAL DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT .................................... 3528-3529
8. DISCUSSION/ACTION ON RESOLUTION TO INCREASE HENNIPIN COUNTY
SHERIFF'S WATER PATROL PRESENCE ON LAKE MINNETONKA. 3530-3536
9. DISCUSSION/ACTION ON COUNCIL SPONSORSHIP OF APPRECIATION EVENT
FOR BOARDS AND COMMISISONS.
10. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS
A. AMM Fax News ............................... 3537-3539
3380
PLEASE TURN OFF ALL CELL PHONES & PAGERS IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS
B. The Ehlers Advisor .............................. 3540-3545
C. Suburban Rate Authority minutes: July 19, 2000 ............ 3546-3549
D. Planning Commission minutes: July 10, 2000 .............. 3550-3558
E. Economic Development Commission minutes: July 20,2000 Regular
Meeting .................................... 3559-3570
EDC July 27, 2000 Workshop .......................... 3571
F. Mound Police Department monthly report: July 2000 ....... 3572-3577
3381
COUNCIL BRIEFING
August 8, 2000
#6. Lan~,don Bay
Some things to ponder: If you are thinking of asking for land other than the current park
configuration, consider asking for a play area suited to play ground equipment, that
would serve the young families that are likely to inhabit this neighborhood. This won't
require the land sacrifice that a ball field or sport court would. I encourage retaining the
trail system as shown, and to consider a trail, not a sidewalk, lining West Edge, which
would act as a link to this development, the future county trail and trails planned by
Chuck Alcon in his future developments.
#7. Beard Group Redevelopment
Council members are encouraged to reflect a very positive impression to onlookers about
this minor setback, and be clear about the City's intent to quickly shift gears and move
forward. It is also essential not to make any public statements about Beard Group or Bill
Beard that could be in any way construed as slanderous, but to convey our relationship as
good. The reality is, if he can work out the issues, he could still end up being our
developer. Thus, we need to continue to nurture that relationship.
#9. Board and Commission Recognition
Staff is recommending that the Mayor and Council host an appreciation event for the
members of thc Mound boards and commissions. Suggested dates, based on an already
very full calendar of events, are October 3, 5, or 17. These dates have passed Mayor
Mciscl. Thc event would bc held in thc evening at Mound Bay Park Depot. Staff would
prepare certificates of appreciation noting the years of service to a particular board or
commission for each member. The press would be invited and group pictures would
appear in thc Laker. Lori Ham has prcapprovcd this. Staff wishes to sec thc Council take
thc credit for this event.
MINUTES - CITY COUNCIL - JULY 25, 2000
The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session
on Tuesday, July 25, 2000, at 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road,
in said City.
Those present were: Mayor Pat Meisel; Council Members: Andrea Ahrens, Bob Brown,
Mark Hanus, and Leah Weycker. Also in attendance were City Attorney lohn Dean, City
Manager Kandis Hanson, City Clerk Frank Clark, City Planner Loren Gordon, and
Recording Secretary Diana Mestad. The following interested citizens were also present:
Ken & Sally Custer, Steve Wagner, Bruce & Patti Dodds, Lorrie Ham, The Laker; Tom
Casey, Amy Cicchese, Lakeshore Weekly; David Greenslit, Barb & Ryan & Roy Stoll, Troy
D. Hicks, Bart Roegin, Tim Hafagle, Marilyn & Derek Hostetler, Adam Greshowak, Pat
Morrissey, Rick Roberts, Kevin Plann, Andrew Mahoney, and Wayne E. Ehlebracht.
*Consent Agend&' Ail items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by
the Council and will be enacted by a roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of
thexe items unless a Council Member or Citizen so requexts, in which event the item will be
removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence.
OPEN MEETING - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Meisel opened the meeting at 7:43 p.m. and welcomed the people in attendance. The
pledge of allegiance was recited.
APPROVE AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA
Council Member Hanus stated that he had an issue with Item B that he wished to discuss at
the end of the meeting. This would still allow payment of the bills.
MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Brown, to approve the agenda and consent agenda.
The roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 5-0.
*CONSENT AGENDA
*1.0 APPROVE MINUTES: JULY 11, 2000. REGULAR MEETING.
MOTION, Ahrens & Brown, unanimously.
*1.1 PAYMENT OF BILLS.
MOTION, Ahrens & Brown, unanimously.
'1.2 APPROVAL OF LICENSES AND PERMITS
MOTION, Ahrens & Brown, unanimously.
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- JULY 25, 2000
SET PUBLIC HEARING: DgAF
· 1.3 CASE g00-38 BRISTOL CLASSICS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - 2642
COMMERCE BOULEVARD: AUGUST 8.
MOTION, Ahrens & Brown, unanimously.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS:
· 1.4 CASE g00-36: 4707 MANCHESTER - MINOR SUBDIVISION & VARIANCE
RESOLUTION//00-71
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A MINOR
SUBDIVISION AND VARIANCE TO CREATE ONE
ADDITIONAL LOT FROM THE PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 4707 MANCHESTER ROAD, LOTS
1, 2, AND 3, BLOCK 9, WYCHWOOD, PID//19-
11%23 32 0086, P & Z CASE//00-36 AND 00-37
Ahrens & Brown, unanimously.
1.5
COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT ABOUT
SUBJECTS NOT ON THE AGENDA. (PLEASE LIMIT TO 3 MINUTES PER
SUBJECT.}
Linda Skorseth, 5648 Alder Road, voiced her concern regarding the second referendum
question for the improvements to the athletic fields. She feels that the itemized list totaling
$1.45 million is inflated, because the fields are currently operational. Ms. Skorseth
identified the items currently on site that she felt would not need to be replaced or updated.
She read from a letter provided to her by the Soccer Association stating that they currently
maintain and will continue to maintain the field at the site. She further stated that the
baseball association also feels that the cost is too high. Ms. Skorseth is concerned that the
opportunity to purchase the fields will be lost because of the inflated costs associated with the
second referendum question.
Mayor Meisel stated that this information had been thoroughly reviewed at the previous City
Council meeting and that the Council decided that the second question needed to be put on
the ballot to let the citizens know that there are other costs beyond just acquisition of the
property.
Council Member Brown explained that this amount would allow the City to work within a
range to improve the fields including only doing minimum improvements. He also pointed
out that even though some areas of the athletic field are relatively new, there have been code
changes since that time, which now require updating when a new owner comes in.
Mayor Meisel stated that the concept of the City being able to spend within a range of
dollars would be addressed in the Q&A that is going to be distributed to the public in the
City Newsletter.
The City Clerk confirmed that the referendum questions have already been sent in and no
further changes could be made at this time.
The City Manager stated that the Q&A would be distributed to the public in two weeks and
would contain the exact language of the referendum questions. The Q&A will also discuss
the process available for public input regarding the level of improvement made to the fields.
Council Member Weycker inquired when the open house on this issue would be held. The
City Manager stated the open house would be held on August 16, 2000 from 5:00 to 7:30
p.m. at Our Lady of the Lake Catholic Church.
Ms. Skorseth stated that she would be asking the various sports groups to attend the open
house.
Council Member Hanus stated that unless these groups had a bond to guarantee the work
would be done, the City had to look at the situation as if there was no other way to do the
maintenance. He also stated that the numbers for the itemization came from the actual costs
incurred at other community parks.
David Greensilt, 5046 Bayport, stated that in reference to the petition being distributed by
the House of Moy, he felt that the public should have a choice. He stated that he saw a
problem with an outside developer making money on the City and that he felt local
businesses would suffer. He asked the Mayor whether she is running for re-election and why
she excused herself during that presentation.
Mayor Meisel stated that she felt there was a perceived conflict of interest and on the advice
of the City Attorney, excused herself from the discussion.
Mr. Greenslit stated that the point seemed to be that the election would show what the people
think about the redevelopment issue. He felt that the energy spent on this for the last ten
years could have been better devoted to help all of Mound.
1.6
PUBLIC HEARING: CASE #00-22 & 00-23: LANGDON BAY PUD AND
STREET VACATION.
The City Planner reviewed the project including the proposed setbacks. He stated that the
average lot would be 60 feet with side yards of 10 feet and 6 feet for a total of 16 feet
between lots.
Council Member Hanus asked whether the proposed park land included the land for the trail.
The City Planner confirmed that the trail land was included in the park land.
Council Member Brown asked whether the cul-de-sac access road had been deleted from the
plan. The City Planner confirmed that this was no longer part of the plan.
The City Planner discussed the issues that were outstanding at the last meeting. In reference
to the issues regarding the site lines and traffic flow issues on Lynwood; this has been
resolved with the County. The developer will be grading back the right-of-way and installing
a retaining wall in front of the Carlson property on the west side of Robin Lane. In
addition, a left mm lane for westbound Lynwood traffic would be installed to alleviate traffic
In reference to concerns about the Alwin homestead, the City Planner stated that an
application to move the house to the Carlson property has been received. The Minnesota
Historical Society has determined that the house does not meet landmark criteria and so is
allowed to be moved.
Council Member Hanus asked whether the wetlands would be subject to the buffer law that
was currently under consideration? The City Planner stated that the buffers do not come into
play on this, but that the wetlands would require approval from the Watershed District.
Council Member Hanus asked if there was a wetland near one of the proposed homes. The
City Planner stated that there was an edge that met up with a wetland, but that no deviation
from the required setback was being suggested here.
The City Planner stated that in reference to the bluff, some of the homes would not meet the
30 foot setback requirement. He stated that the Planning Commission had recommended
maintaining the setback where possible and allowing a variance where necessary. The City
Planner stated that this was an unresolved issue at this point.
Mayor Meisel asked what the amount of deviation from the required setback would be. The
City Planner stated that it was approximately 15 feet and that Staff is uncomfortable with
this.
The City Planner stated that in reference to the improvement of Westedge Road, Staff has
indicated to the developer that this will need to be improved to a collector standard including
curb and gutter on the Mound side and an asphalt edge and ditch on the Minnetrista side.
The City Planner stated that Minnetrista has made it clear that they will not be contributing
to the cost of improving Westedge and the City is challenged with finding the best way to
cover the cost. Staff has proposed that the developer pay the cost for improvement minus
the Hennepin County drainage improvement and minus the residential assessment to
properties in Mound along the road. This would result in the developer paying ~/ of the cost
with the remaining a,/ to come from the assessment. He stated that it is necessary to
entertain and schedule the assessment.
The City Planner stated that the new water main is necessary because this area currently has
low pressure. The proposed new loop would provide adequate service. Staff suggested that
the developer pay this cost with an area charge to each lot of $1,500. The developer has
made a counteroffer of $1,000.
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - JULY 25, 2000
The meeting was recessed at 8:30 p.m. because of inclement weather.
DRAFT
The meeting reconvened at 9:15 p.m.
Tim Whitten, Rottlund Homes, stated that he has previously presented the concept plan for
this development to the City Council.
In reference to the lot setbacks, Mr. Whitten stated that four lots would have a reduced
setback of 20 feet if necessary after more study is completed. He stated that this is necessary
because of the pond elevation in the area.
Mr. Whitten stated that he felt they had good success with Hennepin County in resolving the
issues regarding the site lines and left turn lane.
Mr. Whitten stated that the park would include a gazebo and that the two acres of park land
does not include the trail land.
Mr. Whitten stated that the wetlands would fit comfortably into the proposed site and that a
homeowner's association would be established to maintain these areas.
Mr. Whitten stated that Rottlund is challenging their engineers to save as many trees as
possible on the site. He further stated that Rottlund is now comfortable paying the water
assessment fee of $1,500 per lot. Rottlund is comfortable with the plans for Westedge Road
as presented by the City Planner and is neutral on the issue of the proposed sidewalk.
Mr. Whitten stated that Rottlund wishes to begin construction on the model homes prior to
the completion of the street improvement with the intention to finish both projects at the
same time. He also stated that Rottlund would like to place temporary signs at the entrances
of the development to direct people during the marketing period.
Mayor Meisel opened the Public Hearing at 9:16 p.m.
Joe Stepnik, Woodedge Road, Minnetrista, stated that he felt the paving and curbing of the
road would have an impact on the wetland. He did not feel the City should give variances
for bluff setbacks and should instead require the developer to work within the City standards.
Mr. Stepnik questioned whether allowing the developer to use narrow streets would impact
the turning radius in the cul-de-sacs. He also questioned whether the proposed path to the
park on the I.ake Langdon side would be crossing the railroad tracks and expressed a
concern over safety with this plan. He further stated that he felt maintenance of the wetlands
should be handled by an association and not the developer.
Maryann Sales, Westedge/Lynwood, stated that she was concerned about allowing the
developer 75 variances in order to develop this site.
Bart Roglund, 2260 Westedge, stated that he felt there was no need for a sidewalk. He was
concerned that the amount of proposed park land was undersized. Mr. Roglund stated that
the developer should be held to the current standards and not allow a variance on setbacks.
Mr. Roglund stated his concern about the impact of more homes on an area with low water
pressure and wanted an analysis done to ensure that the loop would work. Council Member
Brown confirmed that the City Engineer had studied this issue.
Mr. Roglund stated that he had safety concerns about speed and visibility on Westedge Road
and was also concerned about dust control during the construction process. Mr. Roglund
was not in favor of curb and gutter on only one side of the road and asked that the Council
consider another alternative.
Troy Hicks, 2255 Westedge, Minnetrista, stated that he was concerned that if the road was
going to be widened, how would the property owners giving up land be compensated. He
stated his concern is that raising the road could cause flooding problems. Mr. Hicks did not
feel that the curb or the sidewalk was necessary. He also felt that the City should not give in
to the developer's requests, but should instead hold the developer to the City's standards.
Mr. Hicks suggested requiring that a percentage of trees on the site be saved. He also
wondered when the issues of grading and pitch would be addressed and whether the natural
pond water access was going to be cut off by this development.
Mayor Meisel closed the Public Heating at 9:30 p.m.
Council Member Brown stated that the Planning Commission had recommended not installing
the sidewalk. He further stated that in reference to the water flow issues, a storm sewer with
holding ponds was planned for the site.
The City Planner stated that drainage improvements and ponding are planned. There is still
additional detail to be worked out, but the Watershed District is involved in this issue.
Council Member Weycker asked whether the cul-de-sacs were in fact a reduced size. The
City Planner stated that they were 90 feet in diameter, which is a standard size.
The City Planner also stated that there is a need to better understand how the drainage at this
site will work and that will be part of the Watershed District approval process.
Mayor Meisel asked what the impact of having curb on only one side would be. The City
Planner stated that this was a less than ideal solution from Staff's viewpoint.
Council Member Hanus asked why the curb and gutter could not wait until Minnetrista was
ready to develop. The City Planner stated that Minnetrista feels that their development side
is already complete.
Council Member Hanus confirmed that if the City waited to do the curb and gutter, they
would not be able to assess the 75 new homes to contribute to the cost. The City Planner
stated that this was true in that only adjacent homes could be assessed in the future.
The City Manager stated there would be a lack of motivation to do this improvement in the
future.
Council Member I-Ianus asked what Minnetrlsta's plan was for traffic relevant to the Sanders
North development. The City Planner stated that he did not know what the plan was but that
he thought it was anticipated that there would be access across the railroad west of
Westedge.
Council Member Hanus stated that the current knowledge was that Minnetrista's intent was
to leave Westedge as a gravel road and wondered if it was Minnetrista's policy not to assess
for road improvements. The City Planner stated that it was not Minnetrista's fu'st choice to
assess, but rather to look to the developer.
The City Manager stated that there was a fundamental difference in that Mound would
improve the road to an urban standard while Minnetrista improved roads to a rural township
standard.
Council Member Hanus asked who is currently maintaining Westedge. The City Planner
stated that the two cities share the cost of maintenance.
Council Member Weycker stated that she felt there was a need to go back to Minnetrista to
further discuss this issue.
Mayor Meisel stated that she did not feel it was fair to put the cost on the developer.
Mr. Whitten pointed out that Rottlund is paying ~ of the cost, which would essentially cover
the Minnetrista side of the road.
Council Member Weycker asked whether curb and gutter on one side would affect the
drainage and wetlands. Mr. Whitten stated that the intention was that the water flow would
not change.
Council Member Brown stated that the Planning Commission saw this as an opportunity to
reduce the cost of improving this road.
Council Member Hanus asked what additional right-of-way would be required on the Mound
side. The City Planner stated that there is enough land in the existing right-of-way. On
Robin road, l0 additional feet would be necessary on each side and the developer already has
purchase agreements with the owners.
Council Member Hanus asked whether them was also enough existing right-of-way to include
the proposed sidewalk. The City Planner stated that according to the design there was
enough land on the east side but that because the west side would have a ditch, there was
still a question as to how much space would be necessary.
Council Member Hanus asked what hardship was being used to grant the variances. The
City Planner stated that the PUD allowed the opportunity to vary and did not require separate
consideration of each home.
Council Member Hanus asked if some homes were removed from the development, would
the remaining meet existing setbacks. Mr. Whitten stated that the plan is to bring the houses
closer to the street and that it is not an issue of more lots, but rather an issue of using the
proposed architecture.
Mayor Meisel asked what the specific plans were for keeping trees and replanting. Mr.
Whitten stated that there would be two trees per lot planted in the boulevard. There would
also be a tree in each front yard. He further stated that keeping the houses closer to the road
would save trees on the lot perimeter.
Council Member Hanus asked whether the idea of saving a certain percentage of trees would
be feasible. Mr. Whitten stated that it would be difficult to manage to a number.
The City Attorney stated that frequently an inventory of trees is done and then the developer
gives a good faith estimate on what can be saved.
Council Member Ahrens stated that she felt the City Attorney's suggestion was more realistic
and suggested identifying and tagging trees and also protecting the root systems.
Mayor Meisel stated that Staff needs to work with the developer on this, as the lay of the
land will make it difficult to save the trees. Mr. Whitten stated Rottlund's willingness to
work with the City on this issue.
The City Planner stated it would be best to look at the areas of the site that would not be
heavily graded. Council Member Weycker asked how this could be worded for the
resolution.
The City Planner stated he had not brought a resolution before the Council tonight because
there were still too many outstanding issues.
Council Member Hanus expressed concern over the layout of the park land and questioned
what the land on the south side of the railroad tracks was actually like. The City Planner
stated that about one-half of that land was actually useable.
Council Member Hanus stated that he wanted to see if the land was actually of value and that
he would rather have one large area than two smaller areas.
Mr. Whitten stated that Rottlund had met with the Park Commission who had come to the
conclusion of the two smaller parcels.
Council Member Weycker stated that access to the lake and the future trial were important
pieces in the Park Commission's decision.
Council Member Ahrens stated that she was more inclined toward one bigger park. Council
Member Hanus stated that he preferred the 2.7 acres in one spot and that the developer could
design around this. Mayor Meisel stated that she is not against this idea, but she does not
feel it is fair to ask for the 2.7 acres in one piece.
Council Member Hanus pointed out that to date the developer has been told to go in the
direction of two smaller parcels and wondered if there had been exploration of one parcel.
8
Rex Alwin, current property owner, stated that there is 20 acres of wetland and wildlife area
that could be developed with community support.
Mr. Whitten stated that Rottlund would analyze and bring information back to Council on the
condition of the land near the lake.
Mayor Meisel stated that she felt that having curb and gutter on only one side of Westedge
was still an issue. The City Planner stated that Minnetrista may not want or accept an urban
style development on their side of the road.
Council Member Ahrens asked whether the curb was only planned for one side in order to
save money. Mr. Whitten stated it was an issue of fairness.
Council Member Ahrens asked whether the improvement would change the water flow on the
Minnetrista side. Mr. Whitten stated that it would not. Council Member Hanus stated that
if a water flow problem was created, the City would be asked to resolve it.
Council Member Brown asked whether the road could be slanted to collect water on only one
side. The City Planner stated that this would be an engineering question, but he felt it was
not a probable design for safety reasons.
Mr. Whitten again stated that the drainage on the Minnetrista side would not change.
Council Member Brown stated his concern about the sidewalk in that the Planning
Commission saw no reason to put one in.
The City Attorney questioned whether removing the sidewalk would allow the entire
improved road to be located in Mound. The City Planner stated that he did not have an
answer at this time, as the numbers were not available.
Council Member Hanus asked the City Planner to provide an answer to the question of
putting the entire road in Mound in the future, as this would eliminate the difficulties in
getting approval from Minnetrista for the water main.
Council Member Brown pointed out that the City Engineer had mentioned that using an
alternative route for the water main would increase the cost.
Council Member Ahrens asked whether the new loop for the water main would benefit the
Minnetrista residents. Council Member Hanus stated that it would be a benefit to the ones
who are currently receiving water service from Mound.
Council Member Ahrens asked what direction Staff was looking for at this point. The City
Planner stated that the current outstanding items were the park land issue, the bluff setbacks,
the wetlands, the roadway design and drainage, and the sidewalk. Council Member Hanus
added information on Minnetrista's traffic plan for the future. Mayor Meisel added tree
saving measures and temporary signage for the developer. Council Member Brown added
information on the impact of the elevation change at Lynwood and Westedge.
Council Member Ahrens asked whether it was unusual for a developer to construct model
homes prior to the road improvements. The City Planner stated this was a normal way to
proceed.
Mayor Meisel asked what the developer planned for dust control during the construction
phase. Mr. Whitten stated that Rotflund employed a standard dust control procedure during
the development process.
Mr. Whitten asked whether the issues listed as outstanding were all in need of more
investigative work. Council Member Brown stated that the information would be brought
back to Council at the same time as the resolution.
MOTION, by Ahrens, seconded by Brown, to direct Staff to research the
information for the outstanding issues and to put together a resolution for
Council consideration. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
0.
1.7 PROPOSAL FOR SKATE PARK BY AREA YOUTH.
Council Member Weycker stepped down at this time, as she is personally involved with this
issue.
Ryan Stoll, 1210 Morningview Drive, Minnetrista, stated that his group was here tonight to
address Council about building an in-line skate and skate boarding park. He stated that the
Take 5 park had 300 members and that he felt this park would be very popular.
Derrick Hostetler, 6168 Sinclair Court, stated that this would be a designed skate park that
would not need to be staffed and would not raise the City's insurance rates.
Andy Mahoney, 1400 Park Drive, Orono, stated that the group was asking for land,
restrooms and drinking water. He stated that they would be asking various civic groups for
support and donations.
Pat Morfissey, 2601 Setter Circle, stated that Hopkins has a new skate board park and that
they are asking for Council's help in getting a park for the Mound area.
Council Member Brown confirmed that because a tier 1 park was proposed, it would not
raise the insurance rates. Ryan Stoll stated that if the ramps were less than 3 feet the rates
would not be raised and the park would not require supervision.
Leah Weycker stated that the information on the insurance rates came from the League of
Minnesota Insurance Trust.
Council Member Brown asked what the highest air was that could be achieved off a 3 foot
ramp. Derrick Hostetler stated that it would be 5 feet from the top of the ramp.
lo
cov vc a rvr s- 25, 2ooo
The group presen the Council with a petition that was currently being circulated for
community support. The petition had 370 signatures at that time.
The group suggested the land behind Wolner field could be used for this park. Ms. Weycker
stated that the Park Commission has suggested the old community center site and that the
Council adopt a dollar for dollar matching fund to support this effort.
Council Member Brown questioned whether an unsupervised park would allow the younger
skaters an opportunity to use the park. The group stated that the older skaters were very
supportive of younger skaters and that they had not had problems with this in the past.
Council Member Hanus proposed that the park would need to be run by the City or have an
organization or club to oversee its use. Ms. Weycker stated that the collaborative ran the
Take 5 park and is willing to help oversee this park. She stated that because of insurance
regulations, an individual couldn't own this type of park.
Council Member Hanus asked what the size of the proposed park was. The group stated it
was 75 x 100 linear feet. Council Member Hanus asked what type of flooring was involved.
The group stated the park would be entirely cement.
Council Member Brown stated that he felt there was an opportunity to put the park where the
batting cages on Wolner field are currently located. The cages would then be moved
between the fields. This would provide the skaters with access to the restrooms and
concession stand already in place.
Mayor Meisel confirmed with the group that the City Council is interested in this plan and
would be willing to hear more about it in the future.
1.8
ACTION ON PARK AND OPEN SPACE ADVISORY COMMISSION
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPOINTMENT.
Council Member Brown stated that he wished to pull this item from the agenda until the
information on who the other applicants were could be provided. Mayor Meisel stated that
the Park Commission minutes had just arrived that day and the Council had not had a chance
to review the information.
Council Member Hanus stated that there is an issue on how to deal with the interview
process. Currently, the commissions want to do their own interviewing, but are actually
only advisors in the process. The City Council was not being notified of the interviews,
which they are supposed to be able to attend.
MOTION, by Brown, seconded by Hanus, to table this item for the next meeting.
The vote was 4 in favor with Weycker voting nay. motion carried.
Council Member Brown stated that there is an issue with the community in that people are
automatically reappointed and the public would like notice when a term is going to expire.
MOUND CITr COUNCn~ MINUTES- JULY ZS, 2000 -- ,% ~s~ ~
Mayor Meisel asked what the notification time for an opening was. The City Clerk stated it
was 30 to 60 days.
The City Manager asked whether an ordinance was necessary to establish this process. The
City Clerk stated that the information should come from the City Attorney.
1.9 STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ON
AGENDA PUBLICATION.
The City Manager statext that she is backing off on this item as after closer scrutiny, she
feels the ordinance does not require publication but only notification. She stated that the
publication standard is difficult to comply with as the amount and type of issues on the
agenda can change daily. She would like to be able to amend the agenda as often as
necessary up to the time of the meeting.
Council Member Hanus suggested continuing to publish the agenda with a disclaimer that it
may have changed somewhat by the time the meeting is held.
Council Member Ahrens asked why it was necessary to change from the current procedure.
The City Manager stated that she is concerned about putting the City at risk if last minute
changes are made.
The City Manager suggested that the disclaimer could include the City's website address and
note that a complete agenda would be posted at City Hall. Council agreed with plan.
STAFF REPORTS:
1.10 UPDATE ON STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSIDERATIONS.
The City Manager stated that there is still no resolution to this issue and they are preparing
to go back in August to try to find some common ground. She is waiting for a response
from the LMCD and is recommending an extension of this item to September 14, 2000.
MOTION, by Ahrens, seconded by Weyeker to grant a 60 day extension. The
vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 5-0.
1.11 UPDATE ON MEDIATION PROCESS FOR 2200 BLOCK OF COMMERCE
BOULEVARD.
The City Manager stated that this has been a very slow process to date. There are five to six
people at each meeting, which makes it very difficult to coordinate calendars. To date,
John's Variety and the sporting goods store have met with the mediator. The goal is to have
a group meeting following the individual business meetings after which recommendations will
be made.
MOVND clrr COV~VC~L MI~S- JULr ZS, ZOO0 ~'~'[~,I~
r.f
Mayor Meisel asked whether there was a feeling of cooperation among the participants. The
City Manager stated that good ideas are coming out of the process.
1.12 UPDATE ON CORRESPONDENCE WITH B&D NETKA.
The City Manager stated that there is a history of Staff communication and trying to arrange
a face-to-face meeting.
Council Member Hanus asked whether they are still interested in TIF and if it is not
available, are they still interested in developing. The City Manager stated that because she
has been unable to reach them, she does not know what their feelings are.
1.13 UPDATE ON OPEN SPACE REFERENDUM PROCESS.
The City Manager stated that the open house would be held on August 16, 2000 from 5:00 -
7:30 p.m. at Our Lady of the Lake Catholic Church. Staff is recommending that this be an
opportunity for people to talk about the issue in a non intimidating, comfortable and
convenient environment. She stated that there would be stations with story boards set up
with Staff assigned to each. There are news releases and a Q&A going out to publicize this
event.
The City Manager stated that the ground rule for the event was that this be treated as a
polling place in that the various Commissions and the City Council should be listeners and
hear the public input, but be neutral in their position.
Council Member Hanus stated that he has discussed the issue of remaining neutral with the
City Manager and the City Attorney and it was felt that if asked specifically for an opinion,
it would be best to give the person your phone number and discuss it at a later time.
Mayor Meisel brought up that during the citizen comment portion of tonight's meeting, it
was mentioned that the various sports groups would be encouraged to attend and she felt they
needed to know that this is not the correct format for them to address the public.
The City Manager stated that they are asking people to keep politics out of this event.
Council Member Ahrens stated that if people chose to lobby for their position, there was
nothing the City could do about it.
Council Member Weycker stated that it was the City Attorney's position that if the City
sponsors the event; it has to be a neutral event.
Council Member Hanus stated that the law says people can present their position, but the
Council needs to remain neutral.
The City Manager stated that Council Members who were uncomfortable with this format
would not need to attend.
13
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- JULY 25, 2000
1.14 WORKSHOP CONTINUATION: CONDUCTING MORE EFFICIENT
MEETINGS.
This item was tabled for the next meeting.
INFORMATION
AMM FAX NEWS
FINANCIAL REPORTS THROUGH JUNE 30, 2000.
LIQUOR STORE SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT THROUGH JUNE 2000.
MISCELLANEOUS
The City Manager stated that she had a correction to make to the Council brief where it was
stated that the Livable Community Grant was $400,000. The correct amount is $900,000.
At this time, Wayne Ehlebracht, 4873 Shoreline Drive, asked to address the Council. He
asked what the specific booths at the open house would be.
The City Manager stated that the booths would be:
1. The proposed site.
2. The wording for the referendum.
3. The financing.
4. The proposed site improvements which would be broken down into levels.
5. The school station.
She stated that dollar ranges would be attached to all of the above.
Mr. Ehlebracht asked where the figure of $1.45 million came from. Mayor Meisel stated
that this information would be covered at the open house, but is an "up to" amount and the
City would not be required to bond for all the money.
The City Manager stated that there would be a sticker vote system at the open house so that
the public could indicate which plans they favor.
Council Member Ahrens stated that as a point of order this was not the time for citizen
comment and the meeting needed to move forward. Council Member Brown agreed with
this statement.
At this time Council Member Hanus brought his concern from the Consent Agenda regarding
the bills. He stated that in reference to the cost of the Hennepin County Assessor ($71,000)
he felt that it might be less expensive for the City to have its own assessor rather than use
the County Assessor. The City Manager stated she would keep an eye on this cost.
14
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- JULY 25, 2000
ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION by Weycker~ seconded by Brown to adjourn the meeting at 11:50 p.m.
The vote was unanlmously in favor. Motion carried. 5-0.
Kandis Hanson, City Manager
Attest: City Clerk
PAYMENT BILLS
DATE: AUGUST 8, 2000
BILLS ACCOUNTS PAYABLE
BATCtI#
#0072
#0073
#0074
TOTAL BILLS $344,858.00
AMOUNT
$ 570.23
$174,324.01
$169,963.76
~AGE ~ P U R C H A $ E J 0 U R N A L
AP-C02-O1 CITY OF MOUND
VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD PRE
NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS A~OUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMSER A~
~(;011 056446-00 49.79 GAS FILLER DISH 75-7800-2310
~/0~/00 ~/Ob/O0 49.79 JRNL-CD 1010
AbM'E~UIPHENT & SUPPLY IbC VENDOR TOTAL 49.79
~0201 21360 iIO.O0 DEPOT REPAIR 01-4340-3800
~/06/00 6/05/00 110.00 JRNL-CU i010
AL'S MAST_ER PLUM~ING VENDOR TOTAL 110.00
A0333 000625 135.39 06-00 GASOLINE CHARGES 73-7300-2210
~/08/00 8/08/00 i35.39 JRNL-CD ..... 1010 .....
000725 110.i7 07-00 GASOLINE CHARGES 73-7300-2210
8/08/00 8/0~/00 110.17 JRNL-CD ................... ~_010
AMOCO OIL COMPANY VENDOR TOTAL 245.56
~/o8/oo ~/o8/oo
81~3
$/08/00 8/08/00
AkCOM
A040~
[oiiMUNICATIONS, INc. VENDOR TOTAL
12060
12113
12114
12115
12ii6
i2117
12lib
i2119
12120
i2121
5105100 810~100
6108100 8108100
5/08/0u 8106100
5108100 8/0S/00
~10~100
~/08/00 ~lO[IO0
~10~1o0 8/ohio0
8/u8/00 ~10~100
8/OE/O0 8/05/00
5108100 6/0~/00
188.95 P'A GE~ REPAIR
188.95 JRNL-CD 1010
99.83 PAGER REPAIR 22-~170-3200
99.B3
288.78
300.00
300.00
49.59
49.59
49.59
49.59
49.59
4~.59
269.17
269.I7
49.59
49.59
49.59
49.59
49.59
49.59
49.59
49.59
JRNL-CD 1010
CTY RD 15 AND 5ELMONT EXTRA 01-43~0-~.00 .............
JRNL-CD i010
CANARY BEACH PORTABLE TOILET . 01-4340-39~0
JRNL-CD lOiO
CENTERVIE~ BEACH PORTABLE TOIL ..
JRNL-CD
HIGHLAND PARK
JRNL-CD
_ 01_-4340~3~0 ..........
1010
MOUND BAY PARK
JmNL-CD
PEKBROKE BEACH
JRNL-CD
PHILBROKE PARK
JRNL-CD
49.59 TYRONE PARK PORTABLE TOILETS
49.59 JPNL-CD
PORTABLE TOILETS __. 01~434Q-3~00
1010
PORTABLE TOILET .... 01-.~340~3~00
1010
PORTABLE TOILET. _ 01-434~-3900 .....
1010
PORTABLE TOILET __ _~1,43~.~-~909 .........
1010
SWENSOK P*RK PORTABLE TOILETS 01-4340-3900
JRNL-CD 1010
THREE POINTS/CANARY BEACH PORT 01-4340-3900
JRNL-CD 1010
o1-434o~oo
1olo -
-'AGE 2
AP-CO2-O1
cE~DOR ............ I-NV'OI CE
NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE
12122
~/08/00
A SPE'i~I '~:N'V I ROi,IMEt,;T AL'
PURCHASE JOURNAL CITY OF mOUND
DUE HOLD PRE-
DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCuUNT NUMBER AM
49.59 WYCHWOOD ~EACH PORTABLE TOILET 01-4340-3900
~/08/00 49.59 JRNL-CD lOlO
vE~o, TOTAL 10i5.48
:0520 000718
3,500.00 APPRAISALS POST OFFICE SITE 55-5879-3100
6/08/00 8/08/00 3,500.00 JRNL-CD 1010
~AKKEN, LIEKL, JANSSEN, VENDOR TOTAL
3500.00
30549 19293400
_.8108100 8108100
673.50 LI@UOR 71-7100-9510
673.50 JRNL-CD _ 1010
193254U0
3/08/00 8/06/00
2,i29.65 LIQUOR
2,i29.65 JRNL-CD
71-7100-9510
........... .1. 010 ........
i9326900
8/08/00 8108100
100.90 LIQUOR
100.90 JRNL-CD
71-7100-9510
......... 1010 ............
19371400
..................... 5/08100 8/0B/00
139.00 LIQUOR 71-7100-9510
139.00. JRNL-CD ............................... 1.OlO ...........
19377100
8/08/00_. 8/08100
1,488
1,488
.65 LIOUOR 71-7100-9510
.65 JRNL~CD ................................................. 1010_
19380700
.................... 6/08/00_ 8/08/00.
224.50 LIQUOR
224.50 JRNL-CD
71-7100-9510
........................... 191~
19424100
8108/00 8108100
1,119.75 LIWUOR
1,119.75 JRNL-CD
71-7100-9510
............. 1010 ........
19425400
5/08/00 8/08/00
137.40 LIQUOR
137.40 J~NLTCD
71-7100-9510
32264900
8108/00 8/08/00
186.68 MIX
186.68 JRNL-~D
71-7100-9540
lOlO
SELLaOY CORPORATION
~0550 10306
VENDOR TOTAL
8/08/00 8/08/00
6200.03
256'96 SAND -SAGS '
256.96 JRNL-CD
0i-4280-2300
]010
SERG BAG COMPANY
VENDOR TOTAL
256*96
~0744 Bl1159901
8/08/00 8/08/00
200.00 IuTOXILYZER
200.00 JRNL-CD
CLASS,
BERG, KEN
.... 01-41~0~4_110 ..........
1010
~CA/FORENSIC SCIENCE LAB
VENDOR TOTAL
200.00
C0970 613051~3
b/OB/OD 8/08/00
132.24 MIX
132.24 JRNL-CD
71-7100-9540
1010
61310232
b/08/00 8/06/00
120.16 MIX
120.16 JRNL-CD
71-7100-9540
1010
COCA COLA BO'rlLING-HIDUEST V~ND9N TOTAL
252.49
PAGE 3
AP-C02-01
VENDOR 1 NVO I CE
NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE
Cl104 00O$02
b/08/O0 8/08100
CHAD,~ICK AND HERTZ, P.A VENDOR TOTAL
CZi06 136542
5108100 8~08~00
VENDOR TOTAL
cc~PbR~TE EkPRESS DELIVERY
C1110_0~0725
5/08/00
DUE HOLD
DATE STATUS AMOUNT
8/o~/oo
C R_[~_~9~ _I ~C ......... VENDOR. ~OTAL
Dl154 71075
8/08/00 8/08/00
DAHLHEIHER DISTRIBUTING CO VENDOR TOTAL
327804
PURCHASE JOURNAL
CITY OF HOUND
PR
DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER
5,695.00 07-00 PF:OFESSIONAL SERVICES 01-4110-3120
5,695.00 JRNL-CD ........... 1010 .....
5695.00
~2.~0 ~7-14-00 DELIVERY CHARGE .... ~4196~ .......
62.40 JRNL-CD 1010
62.40
950.00 4956 EDGEk~ATER APRON REPLACE
950.00 JRNL-CD 1010
_.950.00
240.00 BEER
240.00._ JRNL-CD
240.00
71-7100-9530
.............................. lOlO
8/08/00 8/05/00 360.20 JRNL-CD
~/08/00 8/06/00 157.65 JRNL-CD
328594 ~8.dO" AIR ~A~'K
a/08/00 8/08/00 78.00 JRNL-CD
DANKO EHERGEHCY E~UIP~,ENT VENDOR TOTAL
91200 103564
8108100 5/08/00
DAY DISTRIBUTING COMPANY
VENDOR .TOTAL
E1420 657423
5108100 8/08/00
659099
8/08/00 8/08/00
659100
8108/00 8/05100
660491
8/08/00 8/08/00
662137
8/08/00
662138
~/08/00 8/08/00
22-4170-2200
1010
662729
22-4170-2200
1010
ETC. 22-4170-2200
1010
595.85
1,915.90
1,915.90
BEER ................... Z 1-_.? 100_c_9 _5}.0_ .......
JRNL-CD 1010
1915
375
375
.9O
.00 BEER
-O0._JRgLTCD
71-7100-9530
................. !0!0
5,695
5,695
.85 BEER
.85 JRNL-CD.
51.45 DEER
51.45 JPNL-CD
71-7100-9530
............. 1 o~ o .....
71-7100-9530
.......... 1~1L .....
54.00 BEER
54.00 JRNL-CD
71-7100-9530
_ 10_10
2,862
2,862
.25 BEER
.25 JRNL-CP
27.15 HISCELLANEOUS
27.15 JRNL-CD
6~.25 BEER
71-7100-9530
........ iO1Q .....
71-7100-9550
........ iO1Q
71-7100-q530
PAGE 4
AP-C02-O1
VENDOR INVOICE
NO. INVOICE NM~R DATE
~/u~/Ou
PURCHASE
CITY OF MOUND
J 0 U R N A L
DUE HOLD PRI
DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER
8/08/00 68.25 JRNL-CD 1010
EAST SIDE ~EVERAGE
V£NDOR TOTAL 9133.95
E1485 5258/71400
&/OE/O0 8/08/00
492.00 07-01-00 THRU 09-30-00 MAINTEN
492.00 JRNL-CD
01-4320-3800
101.0
E~UIPHE~4T SUPPLY INC VEtiDOR TOTAL
Eib90 CC2S6~ '
s108100 8108100
ESS ~ROS'~ND SUNS INC VENDOR TOTAL
492.00
994.71 MANHOLE RINGS AND GLUE
994.?1 JRNL-CD
994.71
78-7800-2300
1010
E1515 1075
......... ~/o8/Oo ~/o~/oo
6,779.35 07-00 CURBSIDE RECYCLING .... 7Qt4270~20.~ ............
6,779.35 JRNL-CD 1010
E-Z.RECYCLING. INC.
Fl710 000706
&/08lO0
000719
8~08~00
000724
8/08/00
VENDOR TOTAL 6779.35
63.01 MILEAGE E~PENSE REIMBURSEMENT 01-4060-4120
8/08/0Q ........... 63.0.~ JR.NL-CD .............................................. 1.~ ......
31.50 MILEAGE EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 01-4040-4110
8~08~00 31 ......................... 10~
... 50 JRNL-CD
2.75 MILEAGE EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 01-4060-4120
8/08/00 . 2.75 _ J~NL-CD ............................... ~L ....
FRANCENE CLARK
GlZ56"38g~080
VENDOR TOTAL
....... 5108100 8106/00
97.26
10.09 07-18-00 HATS 73-7300-2250
10.09 07T18-00 MA~S ............. ~8.-7~00~.22~0
24.26 07-18-00 UNIFORMS 01-4280-2240
24.26 07-18-00 UNIFORMS 73-7300-2240
24.26 07-18-00 UNIFORMS ................ ~.7~0~_~_4_0_
i03.05 JRNL-CD 1010
381714
~/08/00 8/08/00
28.34 07-11-00 MATS 2274170-.223~ _
28.34 J~NL-CD 1010
354058
b/08/O0 8/08/00
14.79 05-30-00 HATS
14.79 JRNL-CD
....... 7177100r~_2.%p .........
1010
390902
6/08/00 8/08/00
20.65 07-25-00 HATS
20.65 JRNL-CD
1010
G g K SERVICES
VENDOR TOTAL
166.83
61770 039692-B
8/0~/00 8/08/00
351.45 BASKETBALL GOAL AND BACKBOARD 01-4340-5000
351.45 JRNL-CD 10.10_ .
GAME TIME
GlO90 ' 1500731-/~
VENDOR TOTAL
351.45
15'30 07~00 ~ATER #5158500
15.30 07-00 WATER ~5158500
01-4020-2200
01-4140-4100
PAGE 5
AP-C02-O1
PURCHASE JOURNAL
CITY OF MOUND
--~NDd~ ............. ~N~i~E - 6U~ '~OLD ............................................
NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER
6/06/00 £/06/00 30.00 JRNL-CD 1010
26.9o .07-00 ~T~ ~525~02 .... 01.4SZO-ZZOO ........
8708)0'0 ~o&/O0 26.90 JRNL-CD ioio
000731-C
5/08/00_ 8/08/00
. 28.37. 07-00 ~ATER #5158502
28.37 07-00 WATER #5158502
28.36 07-00 ~ATER #5158502
85.10 JRNL-CD_ _ _
01-4280-2200
73-7300-2200
78-7800-2200
............. 1010
GLEN~OOD INGLE~OOD VENDOR TOTAL t42.60
6/08/00 8/08/00 570.69
......... 2~3~J2 ...... 2'9.~o
8/o~/oo 8~o~zoo 29.5o
~/08/00 8208/00 4~5.72
WINE 71-7100-9520
JRNL-CD 1010
71-7100-9550
1010
JRNL-CD 1010
71-7100-9520
1010
'~I~CELLANEOUs'
JRNL-CD
244691 381.00 WINE
8/08/00 8/08/00 381.00 JRNL-CD
246271
b/08/O0 8108100
....... 246~86
5/08/00 8/08/00
GRIGGS COOPER & COMPANY
300.61 WINE 71-7100-9520
300.61 JRNL-CD 1010
256.48 ci @uoR ................... 7~-~0'~ .......
256.48 JRNL-CD 1010
VENDOR TOTAL 198~.00 ......
G1977 O00710-A
8/08/00 8/08/00
986.86 TH~U 06=19-00 TELERHONE_SERVIC ..... 01~4~20~3220
986.86 JRNL-CD 1010
000701-B
8/0~/00
8/08/00
292.45
355.00
402.44
1,049.89
THRU 06-19-0Q TELEP_HONE SERVIC ...... Olm~2BOr~2ZO
THRU 06-19-00 TELEPHONE SERVIC 73-7300-3220
THRU 06-19-00 TELEPHONE SERVIC 78-7800-3220
JRNL-C~ ................................... __iE~L ......
00o701-C
8/08/00 8/08/00
667.70
667.70.
THRU 06-19-00 TELEPHONE SERVIC 01-4140-3220
JRNL~CD ................. 10!~
000719-A
-000719-B
~/08/00
b/08/O0
8/08/00
8/06/00
1,184.09
3.63
~.62
2.72
~.96
1.96
1,200.98
308.03
370.58
41&.02
1,096.63
THRU
THRU
THNU 07-19-00 LONG DISTANCE
THRU 07-19-00 LONG DISTANCE
THRU 07-19-00 LONG DISTANCE
THRU 07-19-00 LONG DISTANCE
JRNL-CD
THRU 07-~9-00 TELEPHONE S~RVIC
THRU 07-19-00 TELEPHONE SERVIC
THRU 07-19-00 TELEPHONE SERVIC
JRNL-CD
07-19-00 TELEPHONE SERVIC 01-4320-3220
07-1a-O0 LONG DISTANCE ...... 01-.4040-3~_20 ....
01-4190-3220
01-4090-3220
01-~095-3220
01-4340-3220
1010
01-4280-3220
73-7300-3220
7~7800-3220 ......
lO10
PAGE 6 P U R C H A S E
AP-C02-Oi
VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD
NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT
0oo719-C
G T E HINNESOTA
8108100 &/Oa/O0
VENDOR TOTAL
702.46
i06.30
62.22
1.99
~72.97
JOURNAL
CITY OF HOUND
DESCRIPTION
THRU 07-19-00 REGULATED sERvIc
THRU 07-19-00 NOk-REGULATED SE
THRU 07-3.9-00 LONG DISTANCE SE
THRU 07-19-00 NON-REGULATED SE
JRNL-CD
5575.03
ACCOUNT NUMBER
oi'4i4o-3~2o
oi-4i4o-3~2o
oi-4i4o-312o
Ol-4i40-3220
1010
H2004 .205232
404.81. REGISTER PAPER, ETC.
404.81 JRNL-CD
ZlTTlO0-2200 .........
lOlO
H&MCO DAIA PRODUCTS
VENDOR TOTAL 404.81
H2040 14o7 981.56 BOLT ON GUTTER BROOH 01-4280-2310
..................... mL06/O0. B/O6/O0 961.56 JRNL-CD ..........................
HATCH, JIM SALES COMPANY VENDOR TOTAL 981.56
H'~075-' -669 ~3'6 ............... ~8.00 D~OG T-E ST5 ................. 0~2~0~ ~ .........
8/08/00 ~/08/00 38.00 JRNL-CD iOlO
HEALTHCOMP EVAULATION SER~ VENDOE TOTAL 38.00
~s__~EO~?O_3~
~/o8/oo ~/o~/oo
. . .36.4~ 0~00 NETWORK C_HARGES ................ 01r~5_-_3~9~.
36.40 JRNL-CD lOlO
dE~]~_C~..~NF.Q TECH _ .VENDORTOTAL .....
36.40
H2140 000719
........... 6/08/00 8/08/00
624.48 05-00 SERVICE GOOKING FEE 01-4140-4250
624.48 JRNL-CD ............
.................................. 1010
000720
8/08/00 8/08/00
HENN CO SHERIFFS DEPT VENDOR TOTAL
H2283 8022182
6/06/00 8/08/00
HOME DEPOT/GECF VENDOR TOTAL
351.36
351.36
975.84
53.71
53.71
'53.71
06-00 SERVICE ~,OOKING FEE 01-4140-4250
J~NL-CD .......................... _! 0_1_ O_ .......
CONDUIT AND EL-~ows
JRNL-CD lOlO
123o9 23~93452
......... 6/O8/oo ~/o8/oo
70.53_ 07~10~00 THRU O8-10-O0_COPIER ........ 01-4320~3&P0_
70.53 JRNL-CD 1010
23095070
8/08/00
IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS
12333 001009 -'
~/08/00
i'N~RAT£'CH
8/08/00
VENDOR TOTAL
8/08/00
VENDOR TOTAL
33.10
33.I0
33.i0
99.30 JRNL-CD
i69.~3
07-12-00 THRU 10-12-00 COPIER ..... 01-.428.0-214g .......
07-~2-00 THRU 10-12-00 COPIER 73-7300-2140
07-12-00 THRU 10-12-00 COPIER 78-7800-2140
1010
i28.94 SAFET~ VESTS
i28.94 JRNL-CD
128.94
78-7800-2300
1010
PAGE ? P U R C H A S E J 0 U R N A L
AP-CO2-01 CiTY OF HOUND
VENDOR ' iNVOiCE- DUE HOLD.
NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT
I2390 04740'4 106.50
~/08/00 8/O&/O0 106.50
IN~OXIMETERS VENDOR TOTAL 106.50
DESCRIPTION
MOUTH PIECES
JRNL-CD
PR
ACCOUNT NUMBER
01-4140-2100
1010
J2579 1139508 2,276.10 LI@UOR
6/08/00 8/08'/00 2,276.10 JRNL-CD
71-7100-951Q ....
1010
....... ii~9599 .............. 1,483.1o. WINE_
&/O~/O0 8/08/00 1,4~3.10 JRNL-CD
71T%lOOt~5~O
10!0
........ 114.228} _~
3,718.70 LIQUOR
8/0~/00 8/08/00 3,718.70 JRNL-CD
71-7100r9.5!0
1010
.......... 1.1422.~6 ........ 1,802.25. WINE.
8/08/00 8/08/00 1,802.25 JRNL-CD
71-~10.0.-~520
1010
JpHg_S.O_N_ DROT~_E. RS_.L!_~uoR .... V_ENDO~R_TOTAL __ 9280.15
J260u 000726
8/08100 8/08/00
14.95 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT
l~.9%._JRNL-CD .........................
70-4270-4120
........ 1.o~ ~ .....
YCE NELSON VENDOR TOTAL 14.95
2840 000731
~/08/00 8~08~00
LEAGdE OF MN CITIES VENDOR TOTAL
77.00 05-01-00 THRU 04-30-01 DUES 01-4040-4130
77.00 JRNL-CD 1010
-77,oo ...........
L2930 5-297457
74.86 STARTER AND CORE ............... 01~4280~2310
74.86 JRNL-CD 1010
LOWELL'S AUTOMOTIVE/ZITCU* VENDOR TOTAL 74.86
M3030 176690 3,880.50 BEER
$/08/00 8/08/00 3,880.50 JRNL-CD
71-7100-9530
.................................... !.o ~g .......
176691 564.60 BEER 71-7100-9530
8/08/00 8/08/00 564.60 JRNL-CD 1010
MARK VlI DISTRIBUTOR VENDOR TOTAL 4445.10
M3080-336~:-~
~/08/00 8/08/00
2,201.~306-00 TRUE VALUE DISTRICT ..... 5s-5~si-~ibo
2,201.83 JRNL-CD 1010
MCCOMBS FRAhK ROOS-ASSOCI$ VENDOR TOTAL
2201f83
M3328 000424
~/OE/O0 8/08/00
315.00 CERTIFICATION TESTS 22-4170-4110
315.00 JRNL-CD 101'0
00072i
B/O8/O0 8/08/00
50.00 CERTIFICATION REGISTRATION 22-4170-4110
50.00 JRNL-CD 1010 -
MN FIRE SERV CERTIFIC~TN * VENDOR TOTAL
3371 000725
365.00
150.00 ANNUAl DuES
01-40&0-4130
PAGE
AP-C J2-01
VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD
NO. INVOICE NM$R DATE DATE STATUS
&/08lO0 8102100
MN PUBLIC. EMPLUYEP LAHOR · VENDOR TOTAL
M3470 48889
~/08/00 8lO&lDO
MN VALLEY TESTING LAbORATO VENDOR TOTAL
M3490
......... ~i08)00 81o81o0
....... 000.6~0 ............
........................ 8!o81oo_ 81o81oo
MOUND FIRE DEPARTMENT VENDOR TOTAL
M3500 000830
8/08/00 8/08100
~-~N~-~E--~'E[i E~' '-~ ~ ....... ~D~R TOT AL
M ~o 2 ._o~_ozz~ ...............
8~08~00 8~08~00
~O~N~._~O~I.NG_~_REDEVELOP~ VENDOR.TOTAL
N369~ 000719
.................. 8(0~(00_~ E/08/O0
NATL RECREATION & PARK ASS VENDOR TOTAL
N3740 TI-0051387
~/08/00 $/08/00
NEWMAN SIGNS VENDOR TOTAL
03870 19.3020952~0!
~/08/00 8~06~00
OFFICE DEPOT VENDOR TOTAL
P3995 5767-1o
8108100 8/0~/00
PBS GRAPHIC ART DESIGN YENDOR TOTAL
P4021 627757 -
&/08lO0 8/08/00
627758
~/0~/00 8/OE/O0
PURCHASE JOURNAL
CITY OF MOUND
PR
A~OUNT DEsCrIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER
· 150.00 JR l~l-C'- C D ................................ -~-~-~)-- .....
150.00 _.
72.50 COLIFORm, MF-WATER 73-7300-2260
72.50 JRNLrCD .... 1010 ......
72.50
5,578.50
6~0.00
1,250.00
7,508.50
05-00 SALARIES 22-4~?0-1390
05-00 DRILLS 22-4170-1380
05-00 MAINTENANCE ..... 22-4i?0~1~80
JRNL-CD 1010
7,752.25 06-00 SALARIES .....
650.00 06-00 DRILLS
1,250.00 06-00 MAINTENANCE
9,652.25 JRNL-CD ............
.... 22~4170~13_9~
22-4170-1380
22-4170-1380
.......................... _LOi~ .......
17160.75
8,484.17 08-00 FIRE RELIEF
8,484.17 JRNL-CD
8484.17
95-9500-1400
107
10,000.00 1ST..HALF 2000 RRO~ERTY TAX/AID ..... 9.6T~gO-4~Q~_
10,000.00 JRNL-CD 1010
10000.00
290.00 REGISTRATION CONFERENCE 01-4340-4110
290.~0 JRNL.-CD ............................................
290.00
11~.38 LETTERS HA-BLACK ........... 0~-:~:~0
1~4.38 JRNL-CD 1010
114.38
20.77 SLIDE PAGES_CLEAR .......... 22~4.~2.1~.Q .......
20.77 JRNL-CD 1010
20.77
570.37 MOUND ~&A LAYOUT DESIGN
570.37 JRNL-CD
55-5880-3100
..... 1.010
570.37
379.78 LIeUOR
379.78 JRNL-CD
i21.00 WINE
121.00 JRNL-CD
71-7100-9510
1010
...... ?~ :-~-~ :~%-~ ...........
101e
PAGE 9 P U R C H A S E J O U R N A L
AP-C02-O1 CITY OF MOUND
V ~'~[~-0~ ....... INVOICE DUE HOLD PR
NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS AHOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER
027759 209.50
5/08/00 8/08/00 209.50 JRNL-CD
71-7100-9540
....
630051 3,868.40 LIQUOR 71-7100-9510
..... ~/08/00 $/O&/O0 3,868.40 JRNL-CD ....... lOlO
630052
......................... ~/~£!.0o _ 8/0~/oo
107.00 WINE
i07.00 .JRNL-CD
71-7100-9520
.............................. ~010
630053 gO.O0 MISCELLANEOUS
.... 8/08!00 8/06/00 _90.00 JRNL-CD _ _
71-7100-9550
..................... 1010
PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS, · VENDOR TOTAL 4775.68
33140
33204
PINNACLE DISTRIBUTING VENDOR TOTAL
~-~-0~ ........... 995.~0 CIGARETTES
&/08/O0 8/08100 995.40 JRNL-CD
....... SSg-b~ ...................... 8~'7~ CIGARS ........................... 71-7100-9550
5/08/00 8/08/00 86.75 JR~4L-CD 1010
33139 886.55 CIGARETTES 71-7100-9550
8/08/00 8/08/00 886.55 JRNL-CD 1010
67.00 CIGARS 71-7100-9550
8/08/00 8/08/00 67.00 JRNL-CD 1010
............................... 2f-.8~- ~G~kYY~S .................................... 7~-7~00-958o
5/08/00 8/08/00 27.87 JRNL-CD 1010
' - 2'063.'57
P4049 676200 92.15
.................... 8/06/00 -8/0~/00 - 92.15
_JULy AUG_SE~T.ZOO~_RES~_.CON~O ...... ~1-4320-4200
JRNL-CD 1010
~L~!JK~_T~'S,__I~ ..... VENDOR TOTAL
92.15 .........................
~4171 857393-00 3,994.96
8/08/00 8/08/00 3,994.96
LIQUOR
. JR NL~C~
71-7100-9510
857653-00
~/08/00 8/08/00
3,300.2! WINE
3,300.2! __JRNL-CD ..........................
71-7100-9520
859393-00 5,901.43 LIQUOR
8/08/00 8/0~/00 5,901.43 JRNL-CD
~UALITY ~INE & SPIRITS VENDOR TOTAL 13196.60
71-7100-9510
.................... kOJg .........
R4199 000721
~/o~/oo 8/o8/oo
~"C~--~[ECTRI-C',-iNC. -' VENDOR'TOTAL
127.60
127.60
i27.60
SERVICE CA~L
JRNL-CD
01-4340-2330
1010
R4209 1783
6/08/00 ~/08/00
106.52
106.52
07-00 TRASH
JRNL-CD
SERVICE
. 01-4320.~3750 ........
1010
PAGE iO P U R C H A S E J 0 U R N A L
AP-C02-Oi CITY OF MOUND
VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD PR
NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS A~IOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER
RAN~"~ ~N~TATjbN - ' VENDOR TOTAL 106.52
R~2~9_ 48o362 46.25 07-10-00 DELIVERY SERVICE _ 55-5880m31.0~ ......
37.54 07-11-00 DELIV[RY SERVICE 55-5880-3100
c/O~/O0 8/0~/00 84.09 JRNL-CD 1010
ROADRUNNER T~ARSPRuTATIOh* VENDOR TOTAL
84.09
R4290 6912~
d/08/O0 8/08/00
i24.22 ICE 7ir7100-.9~50 .......
i24.22 JRNL-CD' iOlO
69486 172.64 ICE_ . _ 71-7100~9550 .........
8/08/00 B/Ob/O0 172.64 JRHL-CD 1010
...... Zoo12 ....... 164.54 ICE
8/08/00 -8~08)00 -- 164.54 JRNL-CD
..................... 71-710~-~550
1010
...... ?0335 ............... 163.44
8/08/00 8105/00 163.44
ICE ........ 71p7100~95S0 ...........
JRNL-CD 1010
R q N_;_S_.!f E__ Cg ~ p_A.t~_Y ........ VENDgR__ TQTAL 6_24. _8.4
S4391 2861 437.75 GALAWAY RD REMOVE TREE 01-4340-5110
....................... _8/_.~_8/0(~_. _8/_0.8(0.0 ........ _437...7_5__ J_RN~L-CD_ ...........................................
2863
8/08/00 8/08/00
436.65 4555 DORCHESTER REMOVE TREE 01-4340-5110
436.65__ .JRNL-CD .......................................... ~.~1~
2864 599.06
8/08/00 8/08/00 599.06
EVERGREEN ROAD REMOVE TREES 0i-~340-S110
JRNL.CD ...................... _1~0
2865
~/08/00 8/0~/00
958.50 460~ KILDARE REMOVE TREES 0~-4340-5110
. 9~$.5q _J~.~L-CD ................................ 1010
SHOREWOOD TREE SERVICE VENDOR TOTAL
2431.96
s~6'0 5 -~ o 6'[ 5~ ........... 2,60 6. oo
~/OB/O0 8/08/00 2,600.00
-THRU
JPNL-CD 1010
· '206760 ' ' 1,879.00 THRU 07-15-00 FINXL INVOICE' - 55=5'87~:3~ ........
~/08/00 8/08/00 1,879.00 JRNL-CD 1010
206813 950.00 THRU 07-15-00 ENVRON ASSESSMEN 55-58'63~3100 --
950.00 THRU 07-15-00 ENVRON ASSESSMEN 55-5882-3~00
950.00 THRU 07-i5-00 ENVRON ASSESSMEN 55-5881-3100
950.00 THRU 07-15-00 ENVRON ASSESSMEN 55-5881-3100
8/0~/00 8/08/00 3,800.00 JRNL-CD 1010
STS CONSULTANTS LTD
VENDOR TOTAL 8279.00
S4622 438 391.28 FLUSH VALVES, TOILET SEATS ETC 22-4170-3830
......... 51~8100 8/08/00 391.28 JRr~L-CD ....... 1~ ........
_s_UP_E_E_I_O_R__.P.L~H_B_I_NG_ g '_rt_E A_T_I N_._V E_ _N DO R__ TqTAL _ __~21.28
S4630 00D721 1,353.82 THRU 07-21-00 GASOLINE CHARGES 01-~280-2210
PAGE 11 PURCHASE JOURNAL
AP-CU2-01 CITY OF HOUND
VENDuR INVOICE DUE HOLD PR
NO. INVOICE NHBR DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER
67.71 THRU 07-21-00 GASOLINE CHARGES 73-7300-2210
I93.52 THRU 07-21-00 GASOLINE CHARGES 76-7800-2210
....................... 609.92. THRU_ 07r21-00 GASOLINE CHARGES _ 01-4340~2210 .......
11.07 THRU 07-21-00 GASOLINE CHARGES 01-4140-2210
4.30 THRU 07-21-00 GASOLINE CHARGES 01-4190-2210
_ 6/08/00 ~/08/00 2,240.34 JRNL-CD lOlO ........
SPEEDWAY SUPERA~ERICA LLC VENDOR TOTAL 2240.34
S~63i-0007~3 ............. 1,110.97 ~'YHRU 07'~3-~0 GASO~i-NE cH~GES - '-~"~':~210 ........
8/08/00 8/08/00 1,1~0.97 JPNL-CD 1010
SPE~A~"~'UPERA'M~i~A [LC ' VENDOR TOTAL '' il~O.~7 "
8/o8/00 -8)o8/oo
95.72 THRU 07-22-00 GASOLINE CHARGES .22,41~0~2210
95.72 JRNL-CD lOlO
S~E~g~__SUR~.~A~E_R.I_CA..kLC__VENDOR.TOTAL
95.72
T4730 135 39.33 07-15-00 REZONING LEGAL AD
...................... _8/._08__/_0_0.__ ._8_/0_8(Q~) ...... 39.33__ JR_NLTC.D_ ................
01-2300-1090
1.010
139 39.33 07-15-00 PUBLIC HEARING LEGAL 01-2300-1090
....... ~/O_8LOg ~08/00 .......... ~9.~3 JRNL_~C~ ................................ 1010
149
&/O$/O0 8/Og/O0
134.82 07-15-00 ORDINANCE LEGAL 01-4190-3510
134.~2 JRNL~CD .................................. 1~10
150
....................... ~/08100 . 8/08/00
41.20 07-22-00 ORDINANCE 01-4020-3510
41.20.. JRNL-CD ........................... I~iQ ......
155
................... 6/0~/00 8/06/00
35.58 07-29-00 CUP LEGAL AD 01-2300-1102
_ 35.5~ JPNL-CD ................................... ~.03._0
THE LAKER VENDOR TOTAL 290.26
~4~70-~7--1-5~d ..... 31~.06 BEER
3/08/00 8/08/oo 3i4.oo JRNL-CD
i99678
8/05/00 8/08/00
199679
6/08/00 ~/08/00
19998i
20~22
$/08/00 8/08/00
5/08/00 8/08/00
200421
5/08/00 8/08/00
i7~o~-6 '
~108100 8/08/00
98.50 MISCELLANEOUS
98.50 JRNL-CD
5,230.85 BEER
5,230.85 JRNL-CD
I95.00 BEER
195.00 JRNL-CD
13,i28.20 BEER
I3,128.20 JRNL-CD
48~40 MIX TAXABLE
48.40 JRNL-CD
313.00 BEER
313.00 JRNL-CD
71-7100-9530
1010
?1-7100-9550
1010
1010
· 71_710o~5-~
1010
1010
1010
PAGE 12 P u R C H A S E J 0 U R N A L
AP-C02-01 CITY OF MOUND
vENbOR INVOICE DUE HOLD ...... PR
NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER
200423 1,165.25 BEER 71-7100-9530
d/08/O0 8108100 1,i65.25 JRNL-CD . ._ 1010
201084 36.30 MISCELLANEOUS 71-7100-9550
6/08/00 8/08/00 36.30 JRNL-CD 1010
201085 3,347.35 BEER
$/08/00 8/08/00 3,347.35_ JRNL-CD
71-7100-9530
...... 101g
THORPE DISTRIBUTING COHPAN VENDOR TOTAL 23870.85
T~808 i252~" 113.63 07-10-00 PLANNING MEETING 01-4190-4200
~/08/00 8/O&/O0 113.63 JR~L-CD 1010
...... 1'~3~ ......... 247.50 07'~i~gO 'cOoNCIL MEETING ......... ~i-'4~-~0-~ .........
125.63 07-13-00 POSC MEETING 01-4340-4200
~/08/00 8/08/00 373.i3. JRNL-CD
12848 101.25 07-20-g0 DCAC HEETING 81-4350-4200
308.2~. 07-20-00 COUNCIL/HRA.MEET]NG
8/08/00 8/08/00 409.50 JRNL-CD 1010
.TLM~._S~Y~R ~ SITE ~ECRE~_VENDOR TOTAL
T4812 000703-A 625.00 CONTRACT FOR DEED
~/08/00_.8/08/00 625.00. JqNLTCD ....
55-5881-3100
.................................. _1 O.l~ ....
000703-B
...................... 8/08/00.
8/08/00
595.00 CONTRACT FOR DEED 55-5881-3100
59_5.00_. JRNL-CD ................................ 101.0
TITLE GUARANTY FUND, INC. VENDOR TOTAL 1220.00
T49~ 0~4'~ ..... 8'5'6--RECEPTAC~E - - -
8/08/00 8/08/00 8.50 JRNL-CD
TRUE VALUE VEND3R TOTAL 8.50
01-4340-2330
1010
T4965 253320 147.92 05-00 ELEVATOR SERVICE
8/08/00 8/0~/00 147.92 JRNL-CD
......... 01 -_ 43 _20_-. ~4.20_0_
1010
THYSSEN LAGER~UIST
T~985 254523-0
ELEVATO VENDOF TOTAL
8/08/00
265578-0
8/oa/oo
~7.92
12.21 OFFICE SUPPLIES
12.21 OFFICE SUPPLIES
12.21 OFFICE SUPPLIES
12.21 OFFICE SUPPLIES
12.21 OFFICE SUPPLIES
4.07 OFFICE SUPPLIES
4.07 OFFICE SUPPLIES
6.11 OFFICE SUPPLIES
0.11 OFFICE SUPPLIES
81.41 JRNL-CD
40.74 OFFICE SUPPLIES
40.74 OFFICE SUPPLIES
01-4040-2200
01~.4_0~0~22~0 ...........
01-4140-2200
01-4~90-2200
01-4340-220~
01-4280-2200
71-7100-2200
73:~3o~r 2 20_L .......
78-7800-2200
.1010
o1~464d:~S66 .........
o~-4o9o-~2o~
PAGE
AP-C02-O1
VENDOR ...... I~VOICE
NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE
DUE HOLD
DATE STATUS
a/oB/OD
TW'I~'C'iTY-OFFICE ~UPPLY CO VENDOR TOTAL
PURCHASE
CITY OF HOUND
AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
40.74 OFFICE SU~PLI[S
40.74 OFFICE SUPPLIES
40.7~. OFFICE SUPPLZES
13.58 OFFICE SUPPLIES
13.58 OFFICE SUPPLIES
20.36 OFFICE SUPPLIES
20.36 OFFICE SUPPLIES
271.58 JRNL-CD
352.99
JOURNAL
PR~
ACCOUNT NUMBER
01-4140-2200
01-4190-2200
01-4340-2200
01-4280-2200
71-7100-2200
73-7300-2200 .......
78-7800-2200
1010
U5030. 6543130
a/os/oo 8/08/00
ds-Ki-L~E~ ...................... VENDbR'TOTAL
83.60 STATIONARY ROD
342.29 BALI CURBS, ETC
425.89 JRNL-CD
425.89
73-7300-230_0
78-7800-2300
1010
___ ~LoB/P_q... B/_o~_/oo ........
WATERTOWN PARTS CENTER VENDOR TOTAL
40.42 FUEL FILTER,OIL FILTER ETC ...... 01-42B0.~23~0 ..........
40.42 FUEL FILTER,OIL FILTER ETC 73-7300-2310
40.42 FUEL FILTER,OIL FILTER ETC 78-7800-2310
121.26 JRNL-CD ....
................................... 1010
121.26
000728
8/08/00 8/08/00
10.00 07-25-00 HRA HEETING VIDEO 01-4030-3100
iO.O0 JRNL-CD lOlO
~E~VER'~g'OHN-E-: ............ VENDOR TOTAL ~0'.00 '
~5~_ ~9~_83~ ............................ 1,10Z.60.._AUGUST 2000 CLEANING .............. 01:_~32.g.,~9 ...........
97.27 AUGUST 2000 CLEANING 01-4280-4200
97.27 AUGUST 2000 CL[ANING 73-7300-4200
......................... 97.27 AUGUST 2000 CLEANING ............. 78-7800-4200
~/08/00 8/08/00 1,399.41 JRNL-CD .............. ~0~'~ ......
,~E_S_~_ME_T_.RO_.BU.!L_DI!4__G H_A!NT.._V_ENDO,R TOTAL. 1399.41
~5690 20440 581.80 05-24-00 ~LACKTOP
a/O&/O0 8/08/00 581.80 JRNL-CD
27-5800-2340
................. ~__0 Z__O_ ....
20783 191.54 05-31-00 9LACKTOP 27-5800-2340
8/08/00 8/05/00 191'54 JRNL-CD ....... !_910 .....
VENDOR TOTAL 773.34
ug ~UELLER & SONS
Z6564 000720
$/08/00 8/Og/O0
30.00 REFUND DOCK SHARE FEE
30.00 JRNL-CD
GENE SMITH VENDOR TOTAL 30.00
81-3260-0000
1010
Z6699 000727
6/08/00 8/06/00
KELM, MARK VENDOR TOTAL
Z6707 000725
364.82 POLICE CHAPLAIN TRAINING
364.82 JR;IL-CD
364.82
380.60 REFUND BUILDING PERMIT
01-4150-4110
1010
01-3251-0000
PAGE i4 P U R C H A S E J 0 U R N A L
AP-C02-Oi CITY OF MOUND
~V E N--~ 6'R ............... I N V'O'i-E E DuE H~LD ............................... ~-R-E
NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER ~
~/O&/O0 8/OB/O0 3~0.60 JRNL-CD 1010
5UCK£ATIN,. ELIZABETH . VE~,'DOR TOTAL 380.60
Z670a 000726 18.24
. 5108100 8108100 16.24
UTILITY REFUND
JRNL-C[
79-3B95-0000
......... 1010
SCHAEFER, TRACY VEt:DON TOTAL 18.24
Lo~O~ 000731 193.00
~/o8/oo 8/o~/oo 193.oo
NPE[RA .... VENDOR TOTAL 19'3.00
PUBLICATIONS
JRNL-CD
01-A040-4170
lo10
zdT~_o_o08o] .....
~/08/00 8/05/00
21.35 UTILITIES REFUND .......... 79_~3B 95.~ OD 0 ........
21.35 JRNL-CD 1010
CHRIS~IA!qSUN,._DONNA ..... VENDOR TOTAL _ .21.35 .............................................
TOTAL ALL VENDORS
169,963.76
A Resolution Opposing Wine Grocery Stores
A bill which would allow wine to be sold in grocery & general food stores is strongly expected to be introduced during next
year's legislative session. This initiative will only be defeated through one on one participation and support of industry
members.
At the recent League of Minnesota Cities annual conference MMBA representatives began an effort to encourage municipali-
ties to pass the resolution below. Many thanks go to the first three cities to pass the resolution, Renville, Spring Lake Park and
Battle Lake.
MMBA encourages all member cities to pass the resolution and send copies to their 'senator, representative and the MMBA
office (P.O. Box 32966, Minneapolis, MN 55432).
If you would like more information on this issue, contact the MMBA office at 763-572-0222, 800-848-4912 extension 3925 or
A RESOLUTION OPPOSING THE CONCEPT OF ALLOWING WINE TO BE SOLD,
FOR OFF PREMISE CONSUMPTION AT ANY OUTLET OTHER TH AN THE
MUNICIPAL LIQUOR STORE
WHEREAS, the sale of wine (including sweet "pop" wine), wine coolers and associated products, for
off premise consumption, in any (city) business outlet, other than the municipal liquor store, could
cause problems in our youth of uncontrolled and excessive drinking and subsequent increases in
police protection costs; and
WHEREAS, the sale of wine in any (city) business outlet, for off premise consumption, other than the
municipal liquor store would be damaging, injurious and otherwise detrimental to the financial status of
the (city) municipal liquor store and the city itself
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of (city), State of Minnesota, hereby
express our opposition to the sale of wine, for off premise consumption, in the city other than at the
(city) Municipal Liquor Store.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE (CITY) CITY COUNCIL THIS (DATE).
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY OFFICIAL
MUNICIPAL LIQUOR STORES 4
RESOLUTION # 00-
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCES
FOR 2642 COMMERCE BLVD. FOR TI:IF. PURPOSES OF A
BOAT AND MARINE SALES AND MERCHANDISE BUSINESS
UPPLOTTED LAND
PID # 23-112-21 14 0008
P & Z CASE # 00-38
WHEREAS, F. Todd Warner, applicant, has submitted a request for a conditional use
permit to operate boat and marine sales and merchandise business in the property located at 2642
Commerce Blvd., and;
~REAS, the property is zoned B-1 Central Business District and allows boat sales as
a conditional use, and;
WHEREAS, the property encompasses approximately 10,000 square feet and has about
90 percent existing hardcover, and;
WI{EREAS, the applicant intends to use the property as it is with no building or site
modifications, and;
WI~EREAS, the business would operate as a display and sales of classic wooden boats
and accesories, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommended
approval of the conditional use permit as recommended by staff; and,
NOW, TI~REFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound,
Minnesota as follows:
The City does hereby grant a conditional use permit and associated variances with the
following conditions: .4.~,~~ ,~
a. Require all merchandise Roquiro all ~,,d~i~erebavdioe be located
within the building~ outside displa~boats'~ be limited to 72
,t
hours.
b. The parking lot be paved to city standards within 18 months of the
approval of this resolution.
c. A hardcover variance of 60% is granted. ,
d. A building setback variance of 45 feet ~,..~d~~o~-r~
This Conditional use permit is granted for the following'new legally described
property:
The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with
Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording.
August, 8, 2000
ADD-ON CONSENT
RESOLUTION #00-
RESOLUTION APPOINTING ELECTION JUDGES AS RECOMMENDED
FOR THE PRIMARY AND GENERAL ELECTIONS
SEPTEMBER 12, 2000 & NOVEMBER 7, 2000
BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota,
does hereby approve the following list of election judges for the the Primary Election September
12, 2000, and the General Election November 7, 2000:
Adams, Eugene
Anderson, Becky
Anderson, Dorothy
Anderson, Marion
Bostrom, Ron
Bostrom, Holly
Bums, Marlene
Charon, Karol
Coleman, Chris
Davis, Karin
Doshan, Mary
Erickson, Elta
Frankie, Naida
Gilmore, Arlene
Guttormson, Patty
Hall, Richard
Hanson, Robert
Hasse, Cklair
Jensen, Dallas
Jensen, Liz
Jessen, Phyllis
Jones, Jerry
Koenig, Edythe
Langley, Valerie
Leisinger, Duane
Miller, Sara
Mueller, Mike
Niesen, Jim
O'Brien, Dorothy
Orn, Phyllis
Overstreet, Marsha
Payne, Pauline
Rahn, Jodi
Rasmussen, Tom
Regan, Margie
Regan, James
Reimer, Gall
Richter, Edward
Richter, Ella
Ries, Marjorie
Roberts, Collette
Schmidt, Susan
Schwalbe, Sue
Schwingler, Ann
Schultz, Deb
Shanley, DeDe
Shepherd, Harriet
Strong, Betty
Sundberg, Mary Lou
Swenson, Marcia
Taylor, Tom
Weber, Liz
Werner, Charlotte
Weycker, Leah
Wilsey, Sandra
Wilson, Clifford
August 8, 2000
RF~OLUTION NO. 00-
RESOLUTION REAFFIRMING AUTHORIZING CITY SPONSORSHIP OF
STATE
GRANT-IN-AID SNOWMOBILE TRAIL FUNDS
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, did on
February 12, 1991., adopted Resolution No. 91-30 entitled, "Resolution Authorizing
City Sponsorship in State Grant-In-Md Snowmobile Trail Funds"; and
WHEREAS, the Department of Natural Resources is requesting that the
City again reaffirm its sponsorship of the State grant-in-aid snowmobile trail funds;
and
WHEREAS, the Southwest Trails Association have requested the City of
Mound sponsor grant-in-aid snowmobile trails through the Minnesota Trails
Assistance Program.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Mound, Minnesota, is willing to act as a sponsoring unit of government in
applying to the State of Minnesota for the grant-in-aid funds for snowmobile trails
that will be maintained by the Southwest Trails Association.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Manager is authorized to
apply to the Department of Natural Resources for the Minnesota Trail Assistance
Program on behalf of the Southwest Trails Association; and
The City Manager ad Finance Director are hereby authorized to execute
and approve contractual agreements for this grant.
DRAFT
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
JULY 10,2000--MOUND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MINUTES
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, JULY 10, 2000
DRAFT
DRAFT
Those present: Acting Chair Michael Mueller; Commissioners: Orvin Burma, Jerry
Clapsaddle, Becky Glister, Cklair Hasse, and Council Liaison Bob Brown. Absent and
excused: Commissioners Frank Weiland, Bill Voss, Geoff Michael; Staff present: City
Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, and Recording Secretary Diana
Mestad.
1.0
CASE #00-38: CONDITIONAL USE, PUBLIC HEARING, TODD
WARNER, BRISTOL CLASSICS, 2642 COMMERCE BLVD,
UNPLATTED 2 117 24, PID #23-117-24 14 0008.
The City Planner stated that this case involves changing the use of the property from
industrial to more of a sales and display of powerboats and accessory items. The
applicant wants this facility to serve as the retail side of his business. The applicant's
company is involved in the restoration of wooden boats. The proposed site would be the
point of contact for people wanting to buy a boat or get information about the boats, etc.
In the future, the applicant would like to do more with the building but for now would
like to use the site as is. No building plans or site improvements are being presented at
this time.
The City Planner stated that there is an issue with parking at this site. The question is
whether to improve the right of way including drainage improvements or whether to
handle this issue later on when the site is improved.
The City Planner stated that Staff is recommending that any boats for sale stay within the
building.
Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the request
with the following conditions:
1. Provide hard surface paving of the parking area and stripe parking spaces.
2. Require all merchandise be located within the building.
Glister asked what the speculation was regarding the amount of traffic. The City Planner
stated that this had been discussed briefly and it was felt this would be much less traffic
than a gas station type of store would generate. Staff felt the amount of traffic would be
similar to an office use.
The City Planner stated that there would be some walk in traffic and that this was the
type of business that is more destination oriented.
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
JULY IO, 2000--MOUND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DRAFT
Glister asked if the hours of operation were daytime only. The City Planner stated that he
thought that was the case, but no specific hours were provided.
Mueller asked what the hardcover requirement was. The City Planner stated that it was
currently 30 percent, but with the surface water management plan it could go up to 75
percent. Brown stated that at the last Council meeting, it looked like the surface water
management plan would be coming through shortly.
The City Planner stated that it was about 2,700 feet ofhardcover and that would be a
close number, but no definite survey was available. With the gravel driveway the number
would be closer to 50 percent.
Burma asked what the impact of requiring a hard surface parking lot would be. The City
Planner stated there really is not an increased.
The City Planner restated that currently there were no changes being made to the site.
The City Building Official handed out the new survey and the Commission took some
time to review this.
Burma confirmed that the City Planner's recommendation was that there not be any boats
outside including the back of the building. The City Planner stated yes that was the
recommendation and that it is consistent with other districts of this type.
Mueller asked about setbacks abutting a residential area and whether there was a variance
being given. The City Planner stated that this is an existing condition and Staff is looking
to recognize what is on the property as the building sits today. He further stated that
approval could reflect a variance or could draw on the previous conditions.
Mueller asked whether there would be a future concern when the building is changed in
that by establishing today what the setbacks are, is the Commission implying what the
new building setbacks would be. The City Planner stated no, it has been indicated to the
applicant that when a new building was considered, the zoning standards would be
revisited based on the development plan.
Brown inquired about the gravel lot and the requirement that it be paved. He stated that
the bait store is also located at this site with people using the other driveway and he felt it
would be better to blacktop the whole area for appearance. The City Planner said the
owner of the bait shop could be consulted. Staff feels this is desirable, but there is a
question as to whether it should be done now or when expansion is done. If the hard
surface is done now and has to be tipped up when the site is improved, it may not make
sense. Brown stated that it was cheaper to do the work when the equipment was there;
but that it was the owner's decision.
Mueller asked if Staff was requiring the lot to be paved, what was the plan for the bait
store. Brown stated that the Commission could not require the bait store to pave the lot,
but he hoped things would be upgraded later.
DRAFT
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
JULY 10,2000 -MOUND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
DRAFT
Acting Chair Mueller opened the Public Hearing at 7:46 p.m.
DRAFT
Chuck Lubig, 2670 Commerce Place, expressed his concern about boat repair work being
done at this site.
Tom Reese, 5641 Bartlett Blvd., stated that he has waited 32 years to clean up this comer.
He feels the parking lot is an eyesore and a safety issue and wants the parking lot
required to be completed now and would also like the bait store to participate if possible.
He is in favor of the project. Mr. Reese reaffirmed his understanding that there would be
no outside storage of boats or late night lighting of the parking lot.
Acting Chair Mueller closed the Public Hearing at 7:50 p.m.
The applicant, Todd Warner, addressed the Commission. He stated that he is already in
the building. He has been a Mound resident for 25 years and is interested in the
development of the City. Mr. Warner stated that he is not sure what easements are
currently in place that give rights for people to drive through between the properties. He
stated that he has simple plans and drawings for the future building and that he is looking
to do a face-lift that is in line with the Mound Visions Project. The proposed building
would have a nautical look and include a door in front that boats can go in and out.
Mr. Warner wished to make it clear that he did not want people to think there will never
be a boat outside. He stated that because he has clients from a wide area, it is likely to
occur. He stated that there is no repair shop at this site and this is the corporate office.
The building will have a showroom and feature boats. There will be some additional
lifestyle items. There will be lights on the boats at night from inside the building. One
of the design plans is to put an awning on the front of the building and pull a boat outside
during the day to display. Mr. Warner is asking for flexibility to display these antique
boats.
In reference to the parking issue, Mr. Warner restated that he has not found an easement
that allows the bait shop to exit across the property. He is looking at further development
of the site and feels it is a prime site and has great potential. Mr. Warner is considering
the issue of whether to end the bait shop traffic across his property.
Mr. Warner stated that he is in the process of a name change to Mahogany Bay. He is
currently developing a television show about the restoration of boats and is looking for
this to be the identity of his business.
Brown asked about plans to blacktop the front. He also stated that regarding the
flexibility of leaving boats outside, the problem was that it would stretch into longer
periods of time and could develop into an all the time situation. Mr. Warner stated he
just wanted to have an understanding about this so that there would be no
misunderstanding and he wondered what the law said in regard to this.
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
DRAFT
Mr. Warner stated this site had been an eyesore in the past and he felt the antique boats
would be a draw to people. He stated that at times boats would be outside overnight as a
client would be coming to pick it up in the morning. Repaired boats would be picked up
and dropped off at this site, but would not be repaired there. Mr. Warner wanted the
Commission to be clear about what their expectations were. He further stated that this
site was not intended to be a storage yard.
Brown stated that the neighbors would not want to see four or five boats on the street all
the time with for sale signs. Mr. Warner stated that his boats were wood and could not sit
outside.
Brown asked about whether the intended lighting was back lighting on the boats rather
than reflecting out of the building. Mr. Warner stated the light would reflect on to the
boats in the interior so that people driving by could see the boats. He is also looking to
highlight the building. A potential plan for the north side is to do a mural of a classic
boat and this would be lighted. Mr. Warner stated that behind the building is a buffer
zone of approximately 200 feet, which should shield the lighting from any neighbors.
Mr. Warner stated that he has fewer employees in this building then past owners.
The City Building Official stated that he wanted to show the floor plan and discuss the
use of thinners, etc. Mr. Warner stated that he wanted to assure everyone that this would
not be in any way a repair facility.
Mueller stated that the lighting has to meet the requirements and be passed by the City
Building Official. He asked what specific thoughts Mr. Warner had on the parking lot
paving issue.
Mr. Warner stated he did not have the costs involved in the paving and did not know
what the impact of the bait store would be. He further stated that did not want to do the
improvement without shutting off the bait store traffic. He is still pricing this and
exploring his development budget.
Mueller stated that the gravel area in the bait store area is on public property and that the
difficulty of paving someone else's property is a question for the bait store. The Planning
Commission would most likely recommend the property be paved, but there would be a
fairly long time frame in which to accomplish this. Mueller further stated that the bait
store business needs to be viable.
Brown asked if there was any thought about expanding in that way. Mr. Warner stated
there could be conversations in that direction. He is studying the Mound Visions
information now and waiting for reports. Mr. Warner stated that he wants to be part of
the new Mound direction.
Clapsaddle commented that it was his opinion that it is not reasonable to expect the boats
would all be inside. He stated that he had no problem with a boat under a canopy outside,
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
JUL Y10,2OOO -MOUND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DRAFT
but feels that a restriction limiting the number of boats outside at any one time would be
more reasonable. Clapsaddle reaffirmed that this is a B 1 zone and that businesses need
lighting, exposure, and traffic.
Brown stated that this would be a big improvement to the site.
Mueller asked how large the vehicle that hauls the boats would be. Mr. Warner stated
that they had four different tracks the largest of which is an F350. He does not have any
semis, but does have a hydraulic trailer. In most cases, they would not bring the boats to
the office, but would pick up boats in other locations.
Mueller inquired about the length of time for outside display for a single boat. Mr.
Warner stated that the canopy would be used for a showroom boat and then would be
brought in at the end of the day.
The City Planner stated that Staffwould look at the idea of a boat being pulled out as
there would be a need to provide space for parking the one boat outside. He further
stated that the issue of trailing boats fi:om the landing up to the site for a period of an hour
or so is not considered storage but should be addressed in some terms in the use permit.
Mr. Warner stated the length of time boats would be at this site was a matter of
coordinating schedules. He felt this might be a daylong type of thing.
Mueller confirmed the time frame maximum was two days. Mr. Warner stated 72 hours
would be more accurate and that this could be three different boats during that time. He
further stated that spring and fall would be the increased time.
Glister asked whether the towing vehicles would be located at this site. Mr. Warner
stated those vehicles would be at the repair facilities. Vehicles located at this site would
be for the four employees working at the site.
Brown stated that 72 hours was a long time, but he could live with 24 hours. Mr. Warner
stated that there would be things to coordinate and he felt 24 hours might be too little
time. Mr. Warner wants people to know that he wants this site to look very business like
and proper.
Brown stated that for discussion he wanted to change item 2 of the Staff
recommendations to require all sale merchandise to be located inside the building and
that outside boats are to be kept to a maximum of 12 or 24 hours.
Burma stated that 72 hours was a rare exception, and that 48 hours was more realistic.
MOTION, by Clapsaddle, seconded by Glister, to approve Staff
recommendation revising item two to read "Require all sale merchandise be
located within the building and outside display boats to be limited to 72
hours."
DRAFT
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
JULY 10,2000-MOUND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
DRAFT
Discussion:
DRAFT
Mueller questioned the time fi.me of paving the parking lot and suggested one year or 18
months. Clapsaddle and Glister agreed with this.
Mr. Warner stated that would put the time fi'me into January. Mueller stated that this
was a necessary improvement because of the soft spots in the parking area. Mr. Warner
stated that he did not know what the issues would be regarding the County property.
Clapsaddle stated that if the lot was not paved, the current limits of the parking lot would
not allow the tracks with a boat to get through.
Mueller offered an amendment to the Motion to add the time frame of 18 months to item
1 of Staff recommendations. Clapsaddle and Glister accepted this amendment.
Brown stated that he brought up the changes to item 2 of the Staff recommendation
because he did not want to see sale type stuff on the road. Mueller stated that outdoor
sales are allowed in the business district.
Clapsaddle confirmed the code would take care of the parking ratios.
Mr. Reese asked how many pieces of merchandise could be outside at one time. Mueller
stated the area was limited for space and not much would fit outside.
Acting Chair Mueller called the question.
AYES: 6
Motion carried. 6-0.
Chair Michael called a break at 8:30 pm.
Chair Michael called the meeting to order at 8:35 p.m.
Burma left the meeting at this time.
PLANNING REPORT
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
g-Ill
TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff
FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP
DATE: July 10, 2000
SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit
APPLICANT: F. Todd Warner
CASE NUMBER: 00-38
HKG FILE NUMBER: 00-5
LOCATION: 2642 Commerce Blvd.
ZONING: Central Business District B-1
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Linear District
BACKGROUND: The applicant has submitted a request for a boat and marine sales operation in
the building previously used by National Power Chair. The business is called Bristol Classics,
Ltd., owned by the applicant Todd Warner. Business operations at this site would include sales
and display of wooden power boats and accessories. The company has other facilities in the area
that are involved in restoration and storage of classic boats. This location would serve as the
primary point of contact for customers. Initial plans are to use the existing building as is while
the business gets started. The applicant has indicated to staff that future plans include a new
building with a "Lake Minnetonka" flair consistent with the Downtown Visions Plan.
The Zoning Code prescribes a number of review criteria for conditional uses. Boat and marine
sales are considered an acceptable use in the B-1 District with approval of a conditional use
permit by City Council. The lot conforms to district minimum requirements for lot area as does
the building for bulk requirements.
As a retail use parking requirements are 1 space for every 150 sq. ft. of floor area. Based on 3600
sq. ft. of building floor area, the code requires a minimum of 8 parking spaces. The current
parking area is gravel and although is not stripped, has enough area to accommodate parking.
Staff would recommend the gravel parking area be improved to hardsurfacing at some point in
time. There are a number of ways this could occur. Staff would like to see hardsurface up fi'ont to
upgrade the existing gravel area. A second approach would be to require it as part of the
conditions for approval to be addressed at a later time. A third approach would be to postpone
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
p. 2
1t00-38 - 2642 Commerce Blvd. CUP
July I0, 2000
improvements until the future plans are certain.
Staff would recommend all boat and accessory displays be located within the building. This is a
high visibility, high traffic area that should reflect a higher standard of development. Outdoor
boat displays will not lend any help with this image.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council
approval of the request with the following conditions:
1. Provide hardsurface paving of the parking area and strip parking spaces.
2. Require all merchandise be located within the building.
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
Application for
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 472.0607, lax: 472.0620
Planning Commissio,nnD~:.~ ]0, ~
RECEIVED
JUN 000
Case No. ~ ~ ..~ NIOUND PLANNIN5 &
Conditional Use Permit Fee: $250.00
Distribution:
City Planner: (O '/Z-/~
City Engineer:
.u.,,c vo s;
Parks: (/? ' /q'~/J
Fire Dept ~//-/~(-~
Other: /~ '/~/'~'~0 /~.~_,
Please type or print the following information:
INFORMATION Address
2642 Commerce Blvd., Mound, MN
LEGAL
DESCRIPTION
Name of Business
Bristol Classics,
La Unplotted 23 117 24
Subd~s~n
Ltd. DBA Mahogany Bay
Block P~ #
PI~ 23-112-24-14 0008
APPUCANT
P, Todd Warner
Name
Address 3056 Highland Blvd., Mound, MN
Phone
(H) d5~-472-6290 0~0952-470-7851
(If other than Address
applicant)
Phone
ARCHITECT,
SURVEYOR, OR
ENGINEER
ZONING
DISTRICT
Name ~a ry
Addmss R~
Phone
(H)
Cimle: R-1
R~ttle, Landscape Arch.
513, 8180 Parley Lk. Rd., Waconia,
~ (M)
R-lAR-2 R-3 ~'~B-2 B-3
MN
55387
CHANGE OF
USE
Revised 10-26~99
FROM: Light Manufacturing
TO: Boat and Marine Sales
D~onofProposedUse: Buildinq is to be used for the display and
sales of classic wooden boats and accessories. The lot is to
be used as existina-for customer and employee p~rking only.
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, parting, and describe the steps taken to mitigate
or eliminate the impacts.
Impact is minimal. Customer traffic entering and leaving premises
is the major activity. Existing ha~d cover is not altered.
If applicable, a development schedule shall be attached to this application providing reasonable guarantees
for the compleaon of the proposed development Estimated Development Cost of the Project
$ ?~,~
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 appl/catfon must be signed by all owne~s.~)f ~...e~ct proper~y, or an exp/ana~on given why this is not
Print Applicant's Name ' Aplflif:ant's Signature ' Date
Print Owner's Name
Owner's Signature Date
Print Owner's Name
Owner's Signature Date
Rev. 10-26-99
06/15/00 09;05 FAX
Re/~ax Results
9~:~ o~/~/~0
OO6
~A
RECEIVFD
JUN
MOUND PLANNING ~ ,NSP.
06/15/00 09:42 F~ 6129423185
1~002
cr/Y oF MQUND
RECEIVED
JUN 1 5 ?000
MOUND PLANNING & ltVSP.
HOUSE
,.
DRIVEWAY, PARKING
Et'C.
x ~3--
X
TOTAL ~~ BLOCS .................
TOTAL HARDCOVER I
UNI~I~ I OVER (v~llaate dlffManaml ............................... [
06/I§/00 09:16 TX/Rg N0.5764
P. 002
07/21/00 ]~I 13:04 ¥~ 612 682 3522
Otto As$oclates, Inc,
004
Ilttl
4
07/21/00 FRI 13:03 Fi~T~ 612 682 3522
Otto Associates, Inc.
0O2
RECEIVED
.I UI. 2 ~ 2000
!!~0UND I"LANNING & INSP.
Norm Domholt
6/28/00 O.N.A. 1 '=20'
'i
2
07121/00 ~l 13:0¢ FA~X. 612 682 3522 Otto Associates, Inc. ~003
~3ertificate of Survey
AREA = 9994.14 ~F..
tlt.,ll¥l
3
CITY OF
SURVEY ON FILE.'? YES IINO ~
LOT OF RECORD7 YES I
YARD
IIOUSE .........
FRONT
FRONT
SIDE
SIDE
REAR
LAKE
TOP OF BLUFF
FRONT
SIDE
SIDE
REAR
LAKE
TOP OF BLUFF
NO
DIRECTION
N S E W
N S E W
N S E W
N S E W
N S E W
N S E W
DETACilED BUILDINGS
MOUND - ZONING
R!
RiA
R2
R2
R3
REQUIRED
INFORMATION SItEET
ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZEIWIDTIt: EXISTING LOT SIZE:
zo,oo0/6o("~1 '~.soo/o
. ~ LOT WID'I 1[:
6,000/40 n2 20,000/80
6,000/40 ~3 10,000/60
14,000/80 LOT DEFi'H:
8Rg ORD. I1 30.000/100
I EXISTING/PROPOSED VARIANCE
50'
10' OR 30'
N S E W
N S E W
N S E W 4'OR6'
N S E W 4'OR6'
N S E W 4'
N S E W 50'
10' OR 30'
HARDCOVER 30% OR 40%
Yhis Zoning Information Shcel only summarizes a portion of thc requirements oullincd ill thc Cily of Mound Zoning Ordinance. For further information, coumct the C|ly of Mound
Plalming l.}eparlmenl at 472-0600. ·
Z~
RESOLUTION #00-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND
GRANTING PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL, FOR
A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AREA BY CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT, LOT AND STREET DESIGN VARIANCES, FOR
LANGDON BAY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
P&Z CASE #00-22 AND 00-23
WHEREAS, the applicant, R.H. Development, has submitted a Preliminary Plat application
for a single family Planned Development Area development called Langdon Bay in the manner
required for platting of land under the City of Mound Ordinance Code, Section 330:00 and under
Chapter 462 of the Minnesota State Statue and all proceedings have been duly conducted thereunder,
and
WHEREAS, the proposed development includes 27.41 acres of land including proposed
right-of-way to be vacated with approval of the final plat. This land represents the largest single
undeveloped parcel of land in the City. The development of the property has been identified as a
triggering mechanism to correct a number of public infrastructure deficiencies that the proposed
development would further impact including roadways, water systems, and drainage, and
WHEREAS, the Mound City Code allows the establishment of Planned Development Areas
"to provide a method by which parcels of land in the Residential Use Districts having unusual
building characteristics due to subsoil conditions, topographic conditions, elevation of water table,
unique environmental considerations, or because of the parcel's unusual shape or location in
relationship to lakes, trees or other natural resources requires a more unique and controlled platting
technique to protect and promote the quality of life in the City", and
WHEREAS, a number of natural and physical conditions on the property including
wetlands, bluffs, topographical elevation changes, native hardwood forest, existing road right-of-
way, and available access points. These conditions present a number of complicated development
issues that will need to be addressed to develop the property as proposed. To minimize the impacts
on the property's natural features, reduced front yard setbacks are proposed to reduce primary and
secondary grading. The benefits of this approach will allow a greater number of trees to be protected
versus a development incorporating typical subdivision design standards; and
WHEREAS, the development is located in the R-1 Zoning District which requires for lots
of record, a minimum of 10,000 sq. ft. lot area, a minimum lot width of 60 feet, a front yard setback
of 30 feet, side yard setbacks of 10 feet, 15 feet rear yard setback, and a minimum building floor area
requirement of 840 square feet, and
WHEREAS, all lots exceed the minimum lot size requirement of 10,000 square feet and lot
width requirements of 60 feet at the required front yard building setback as required in the R-1
zoning district, and
WHEREAS, impervious cover for the project exceects til,~ g0 percent ~llc~wable hardcover
£or non-lots ot record. Th~ -additional impervious cover is largely due to the expamivc common
driveway and guest parking area. Developktg the pr~c~ty wi//a traditional d~veway~s would reduce
the amount of ~mper~ious uoVer, however, it would complicate storm water drainage~ro~ms in
· the area, and
WHEREAS, the City has considered traffic and other aspects of the proposed project as it
might affect public health, safety or welfare and imposed conditions upon the approval addressing
those considerations, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and City Council have studied the practicability of
the preliminary plat planned development area, and the variances, taking into consideration the
requirements of the City, giving particular attention to the arrangement and location of the street,
their relation to topography, floodplain, wetlands, water supply, sewage disposal, drainage, lot size
and arrangement, the present and future development of adjoining lands and the requirements of the
Zoning Ordinance and other official controls, and
WHEREAS, the City Council, on July 25, 2000, held a public hearing pursuant to Section
330:00 of the Mound City Code of Ordinances, to consider the approval of the Langdon Bay
Subdivision located on property described as follows and shown on the attachment:
Lots 1 and 2, Auditor's Subdivision No. 231,
Hennepin County, Minnesota.
WHEREAS, the physical characteristics of the site are suitable for the type and density of
development contemplated subject to the conditions imposed herein, and the proposed subdivision
as conditioned is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the existing land use in the area, and
WHEREAS, it is the intent of the City to preserve wooded areas and to retain, as far as
practicable, existing tree cover. The property contains significant tree cover of native maple and
basswood varieties. Construction of public roadways and building pads for single family units will
require a large degree of grading to certain areas of the property. In these areas it is not practical to
protect existing trees and vegetation. In other areas where limited grading will occur, especially in
secondary grading of individual lots, there is a greater oppommity to protect existing trees, and
WHEREAS, an upgraded water system will need to be provided an acceptable level of water
service to the development for private use and public fire protection. This area of the city currently
has low water pressures and an additional 75 homes will further degrade the water supply to this area
without system upgrades, and
WHEREAS, the variances requested are the minimum variances necessary to alleviate the
practical difficulty created by the topography of the site and to facilitate the preservation of existing
vegetation, and the granting of variances will would not be detrimental to the purposes of the Zoning
Ordinance or to property in the same zone, and
WHEREAS, said plat is in all respects consistent with the City plan and the regulations and
the requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and the City Code of Ordinances of the City
of Mound.
WHEREAS, at the Planning Commission has voted 7 to 0 for approval of the preliminary
plat.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound,
Minnesota:
The issuance Preliminary Plat subject to compliance with the City Engineer's report and the
following requirements and conditions:
The final plat drawing labeled as Exhibit A is hereby incorporated into this Resolution
and all improvements shall be as shown on the plans or as modified under the approval
of the City Engineer. The location of all dwellings shall be only as provided on the
City's Zoning regulations, or as modified by official action of the City Council; and any
inconsistent dwelling location in the final plat shall be ignored.
Prior to the City releasing the final plat, the Developer shall sign a development contract
with the City. The development contract shall stipulate that construction of all in, ms
covered by said contract shall be completed within 280 days of the City releasing the
final plat. As ]~art of the development contract, the Developer shall furnish the City with
a performance bond or an irrevocable letter of credit or other form of security approved
by the City Attorney in the amount of 125% of estimated construction costs as per plans
approved by the City Engineer.
3. The developer install a 10 inch public watermain consistent with the City Engineer's
recommendation including looping connections.
The developer provide funding necessary for upgrading of Westedge road to City
collector roadway standards to include 32 feet pavement section, curb, gutter and
drainage improvements, and4' feet sidewalk coim¢ction on the City of Mound portion
fi:om the south property line of the development to Lynwood Blvd. (County Road 15).
Assessments fi:om abutting Mound property owners will contribute their fair share to
include the value of a local residential roadway design. The Minnetrista side of the
roadway will receive only roadway surface and shoulder improvements. No curb and
gutter improvements are required unless requested participation by the City of
Minnetrista is offered.
5. Upon approval of the final plat, the City shall enter into appropriate agreements with the
City o f Minnetris. ta t~llow for th~.~at}d const~udc~a o f ~W estedge R~a~~g-,
6. Upon approval of the final plat, City agreements
the
shall
enter
into
appropriate
with
the
City of Minnetrista and private property owners as needed to allow for the design and
construction of the watermain.~c,~L>v
7. A 50 feet right-of-way be provided along Robin Lane to its connection with Lynwood
Blvd.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
The developer comply with Hennepin County access requirements of Robin Lane at
Lynwood Blvd.
The buildable area for each lot include all structure encompassing the house, attached
garage, decks and porches to meet the setbacks as shown on the proposed building plans.
Hardcover for each lot be not more than 30%.
The stormwater drainage plan be reviewed and approved by the Minnehaha Creek
Watershed District (MCWD).
The Developer shall secure and provide the City with a copy of a stormwater permit fi:om
the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District prior to the City releasing the final plat.
The homeowner's association be responsible for storm water pond maintenance.
The developer shall be responsible for the installation of private utilities. The utihties
shall not be installed until the boulevard or utility easements have been graded and the
grade elevations are approved by the City Engineer. All utilities shall be located
underground.
No building permits shall be issued until a contract has been awarded for utility and street
construction and the MPCA permit is issued and the Final Plat has been filed and
recorded at Hermepin County.
The Conservation Easements be provided and included in the Final Plat Approval for all
wetland and bluff areas.
The developer shall work in good faith with City Staff prior to commencement of grading
work to identify the primary and secondary grading limit areas. Within the secondary
grading limit area and where feasible in the primary grading limit area, City Staff and the
developer shall identify and secure measures to protect appropriate trees and vegetative
stands.
In areas outside of primary and secondary grading limit areas, all trees over a 6 inch
caliper shall be protected, except where wetland, ponding and drainage systems may
preclude protection.
The Developer shall secure and~.rovide copies to the City's Building Official of all
~ and rewews and perrmts '~ ~h% Minnesota Department of Health and the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, or any other applicable permits, prior to beginning
construction. The Building Official will not authorize construction until permits are
secured.
The developer shall comply with the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) and other
regulatory agency requirements including the Army Corps of Engineers and Department
of Natural Resources.
Bo
21.
Right-of-way tree planting varieties be reviewed and approved by the City Planner.
Minimum size and dimension for deciduous trees are applicable as prescribed by the
City's landscaping regulations. Planting details shall be provided prior to installation
along with material warranty evidence from the nursery.
22. The proposed right-of-way vacation request be conditioned on approval of the final plat.
23.
The City Attorney shall examine title to the property and shall render a title opinion to
the city showing the ownership stares of the property prior to filing. The applicant shall
provide the City Attorney a current abstract or register of property abstract for Langdon
Bay.
24.
The plat shall be filed with Hennepin County within one hundred eighty (180) days of
the City Council approving the final plat. If the plat is not filed within that time period,
it shall become null and void.
25.
A Homeowner's Association shall be established for all lots within the subdivision and
provided prior to the Final Plat Approval. All of these documents shall be reviewed and
approved by the City Attorney.
26.
Prior to any occur~ancy the applicant shall secure Certificates of Occupancy from the
Building Offic~al~?illhot be ~ssued for homes m the subdivision until utilities and
access
servicing the horhes"X are approved by the City Engineer, Public Works Superintendent,
and Building Official.
27. The MPCA's Best Management Practices shall be applied to the development and
subsequent management of the property.
28. Developer will reimburse the City for legal, engineering and planning costs incurred for
review and approval of this plat.
Approves the following variances subject to approval of the Final Plat:
Required Proposed Variance
Cul-de-sac right-of-way radius
50'r 45'r 5'r
Lots: Required Proposed Variance
Setback for one side yard on all lots 10'
6' 4'
From Yard Setback
30' 25' 5'
Lot 4, Block 2 - Bluff Setback
30' 25' 5'
Lot 8, Block 2 - Bluff Setback 30' 10' 20'
C. Approves a Conditional Use Permit conditioned on approval of a Final Plat.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that such execution of the certificate upon said plat by the
Mayor and City Manager shall be conclusive showing of proper compliance therewith by the
subdivider and City Officials and shall entitle such plat to be placed on record forthwith without
further formality, all in compliance with Minnesota Statute Chapter 462 and the City of Mound Code
of Ordinances.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember
by Councilmember
and seconded
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
Pat Misel, Mayor
Attest: City Clerk
MEMORANDUM
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
Illla
k-tH
To: Mound Honorable Mayor and Council
From: Loren Gordon, City Planner
Date: August 4, 2000
Subject: Langdon Bay PDA Preliminary Plat issues
I have attempted to answer the key questions asked fi:om the last meeting. The proposed
resolution may also answer other concerns that were raised during the hearing. I also plan on
providing photos of the project to better communicate areas that are in question.
Traffic plan for West Edge in Minnetrista?
· City staff has indicated there are no plans for further development north of the railroad.
This is a large lot zoning area and their Comprehensive Plan doesn't anticipate any
changes until after 2020. South of the railroad a concept plan for Saunders Lake North
has received concept approval from Minnetrista. It appears that the development will not
move forward until the railroad abandonment issue is resolved which looks to be at least
year and probably more. At that time the trestle, could be addressed by a future owner,
potentially Hennepin County Parks or the adjoining Cities or developer. The concept plan
shows 64 lots at a density of 1.4 units per acre. The City of Minnetrista indicates that the
developer will be responsible for all roadway related costs as part of development.
How should tree preservation be addressed?
· The proposed resolution has a condition to protect as many trees as possible in the
primary and secondary grading limits. Additionally, any tree outside those limits over a 6
inch caliper would be protected where wetland and drainage improvements allow.
· Staff has suggested in the resolution, that conservation easements be established for
sensitive areas. This will provide continuous protection of trees once the development is
completed.
Concerns about the road elevation at West Edge and Lynwood
· The road elevation of West Edge will need to be brought up some amount to reduce the
grade at Lynwood. Without further design information it is difficult to say how much will
be necessary at this time. City Engineer John Cameron will be available at the Council
meeting to provide further insight to this issue.
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
P. 2
Langdon Bay Preliminary Plat issues
.4ugust 4, 2000
Proposed park dedication lands
· The contour information for the sliver of land adjacent to Langdon Bay indicates it is
relatively steep on the east half and just above the water level on the west half. There is
probably a small amount of land available for use of the 1.2 acre parcel. The bottom line
with this parcel is it is not developable and is probably in the City's interest to accept it.
By accepting it, the City would have ownership of most of the north shore of Lake
Langdon, which may have future usefulness for future downtown redevelopment related
projects and a future regional trail. The central question that should be answered is, even
if the City accepts this land, should all or a portion of it qualify as the developer's park
land dedication. The Council does have the authority to not accept it as land and have the
developer contribute cash in lieu of land. If the parcel were not taken as a land
contribution, an equal amount of money should be provided to the City that reflects a fair
market value.
· If the Council would like a larger parcel, the most useable site in the meadow in the
northwest comer of the property along West Edge. If this site is ultimately agreed on,
staff would strongly suggest an off-street trail of 5' to 8' width be incorporated into the
West Edge roadway design to provide a link to surrounding neighborhoods. (As a note, a
sidewalk on one side of the street will be provided in the development.)
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
WARA REAL ESTATE, INC.
RECEIVED
AU6 0 ~ 2000
MOUND PLANNING & INSP.
MEMO
Date: August 3, 2000
To: Tim Cruikshank, City Administrator, City of Minnetrista
Kandis Hanson, City Manager, City of Mound
From: Charles A. Alcon, Project Manager, Wara Real Estate, Inc.
Subj: West Edge Road Development Discussions
Ref: a) Meeting August 1, 2000, City of Mound, Wara Real Estate,
Inc., Rottlund Homes
Encl: 1) RailAmerica letter dated May 30, 2000
Wara attended the reference a) meeting at the invitation of the Honorable
Pat Meisel, Mayor of the City of Mound. The purpose of the meeting wes to
discuss the status of the Saunders Lake North development relative to the
development proposed for Mound near Langdon Lake. The meeting
discussions eventually involved a wide range of issues for the West Edge
development corridor from County Road 15 to Halstead Lane.
Wara necessarily assumes in making the following comments that some form
of mutual agreement between Minnetrista and Mound will eventually be put in
place to address many of the development issues herein as the cities share
boundaries on the northern portion of West Edge yet each city has portions
of West Edge contained wholly within their individual boundaries from
Woodedge to Halstead Lane.
A summary of the major points of discussion follows:
a. The Rottlund development in Mound will consist of approximately 75
homes with accesses on County Road 15 and West Edge.; this
development is ready to proceed to Preliminary Plat with construction
imminent.
b. The Wara development in Saunders Lake North has Concept Plan
approval for 65 homes but cannot proceed to Preliminary Plat until the
Dakota Rail trestle issue is resolved; thus the schedule for Saunders
Lake North is directly dependent upon the abandonment of the rail line
and salvage of the rails and ties ( see enclosure 1 )) and at this point in
time this development schedule is indeterminate.
c. Improvement of West Edge road by Rottlund to a 9 ton road with a 66'
ROW is presently proposed with curb and gutter, sewer and weter on the
Mound side and gravel shoulders on the Minnetrista side; this
14573 GRAND AVE. SO. · SUITE 100 ' BURNSVILLE, MN 55306 ' (612) 435-2022 · FAX (612)
WARA REAL ESTATE, INC.
o
improvement would extend to approximately Woodedge Road ( the
southern boundary of the Rottlund property); Minnetrista has declined to
assess and therefore has declined to participate in this road
improvement.
d. The portion of West Edge that travels through the Wara property in
Saunders Lake North has not been publicly dedicated nor have utility
easements been granted ( the road is a "traveled road" since 1967and
has been used and kept in repair by the City for 6 years thus the road is
deemed to be dedicated to the width of the actual use only ).
e. Right of Way from Woodedge to the trestle may only be 50'.
f. Mound requires a loop in their 10" water main to support the water
requirements of the new development; this extension would be from West
Edge and Halstead Lane to the new development. The City of Mound
inquired if access through the Wara property along the existing gravel
West Edge Road in Saunders Lake North could be obtained.
g. All parties agreed that if the road and water interface issues could be
resolved ( sewer does not appear to be an issue ) that the West Edge
corridor from County 15 to Halstead Lane could be developed in
separately timed stages and still provide the required water and road
services for both cities.
Wara offers the following observations concerning these discussions:
a. The proposed road improvement from County 15 to Woodedge should
have curb and gutter on both sides.
b. What are the sewer and water options for the single Minnetrista home on
the West side of West Edge between County 15 and Woodedge?
c. What are the sewer and water options for the Minnetrista residents of
Woodedge Road ( given that MUSA is not near term and zoning indicates
large parcels) ?
d. What are the sewer and water options for the single Mound resident East
of Woodedge/West Edge and the single Minnetrista resident East of
West Edge and North of the trestle?
e. Will additional ROW be required between Woodedge and the trestle?
f. If Rail America abandons the rail line and Hennepin County assumes the
corridor for future light rail and leases the corridor back to Hennepin
County Parks for a trail, then the responsibility for a pedestrian bridge
over West Edge should be the responsibility of Hennepin County Parks.
With respect to the Mound request for a utility easement for extension of their
10" main to the new development, Wara proposes the following, subject to
mutual agreement between the cities and final legal review by Wara,
Minnetrista, and Mound attorneys:
a. Wara will grant to the City of Mound a utility easement agreement, within
the Saunders Lake North Wara property, along the easternmost edge of
WARA REAL ESTATE, INC.
the existing gravel West Edge Road and adjacent to the existing wetland,
sufficient to construct an extension to the 10" water main subject to the
following conditions:
1. Surveying and engineering costs and construction costs will be the
responsibility of the City of Mound; the surveying and engineering
contract will be a directed procurement to Otto Associates in Buffalo,
the surveyors and engineers for the Saunders Lake North
development, to avoid possible interference with future road/utility
design by Otto Associates for Saunders Lake North. The 10"
extension will include a tee connection and valve for eventual hookup
by Wara to the Saunders Lake North water supply for emergency
interCOnnect purposes between the cities. Life cycle support and
maintenance agreements are COnsidered a matter between the cities.
Wara Real Estate, Inc. will have final approval of the location of this
easement. Further easement requirements, if any, North of the Wara
property are the responsibility of the City of Mound.
2. The City of Mound will formally resolve to fully support the Saunders
Lake North development, when occurring, including assuming the cost
for the construction of West Edge Road from the southeastern Wara
property line to the intersection of West Edge and Halstead Lane; the
City of Mound will be responsible for obtaining ali road construction
property construction easements for this section from their affected
residents and the MCES properties. In the event that the City of
Mound does not complete construction of this segment prior to Wara
developing Saunders Lake North, then the City of Mound will delegate
to the City of Minnetrista segment design, inspection and acceptance
rights through the one year warranty period ( the Mound/Minnetrista
City Engineers will co-review and co-approve the design for this
segment but one City will administer the construction to avoid two
separate Planning Commission and City Council approvals ) and the
City of Mound will reimburse Wara for the construction costs of this
segment. Life cycle maintenance of this segment is a matter for the
cities. The City of Mound is responsible for all required traffic studies
associated with either the Langdon Lake development or the Saunders
Lake North development and is responsible for all new controlled
intersections required as a result of these developments.
6. Wara representatives are available to discuss these points as required;
please contact the undersigned at 763-477-7063.
Charles A. AlCOn, Project Manager, Saunders Lake North
14~7=~ (~RAND AVE. SO. ' SUITE 100 ' E~,URNSVlLLE. MN 55306 ' (612) 435-2022 ' FAX (612) 435-8668
RailAmerica,
82
19. 2O00
Hcnncpia Cotm~ Board oFCommissione~
A24000 Oovemment Center
Mirm~at~l~. M2Xl' 55487,.0240
Te~: 861/994-6015
I~E;: Docket No. A.B-492 (Sub-No. IX), D~flcot~ Rm'l, ~uc.-Petttioa for Exempt
Abandonment in McLead, Carver ~nd Heunepin Counties, Miaaesot~
MAY $ 0 2000
D¢~ Sk/~adam:
Public Service
Dekom Reil, Inc. ('DA.KR') is pLmning to file a Petition for Exempt A~enc~mnent ~ ~e
Su~c T~spo~fion Bo~ ('S~') on or ~ut I~c 23, 2~ ~ ~on ks ~fi~ 43.9-
~1 l~e ~m ~l~os: 24.6 a~ Wa~a~ ~ to ~1~ 68.5 ~ Hum~ ~. A ~ of~e
pm~ ~o~t ~ ~h~.
~t to the STB's environmental resulations at 49 C.F.R., Pan II05, we arc ad~g you of
this proposed action so tha~ you may assist us in id~mi~ing whether ~c propos~xI ~c~ion is
consismnt wi~ existing land use plans.
Wc would eppr~ciate yom' review ot"the proposed abandonment and any comm~t~ you may
wish to offer. We would al~o appreciate you providing us wi~ a written response so r, hat we can
forward it co thc S"L'B.
Thenk you in edv~nce for your prompt essistence. If you h~ve any qu~fiom conc~g ~
m~. pI~g con~t me.
S~c i~ "'
, /
Gencml Cou~l '
Regula:o~ Man~
Ru~ 04 O0 I1:41a
p.2
June 28, 2000
Donald Cadson
6301 Lynwood Blvd
Mound, MN 55364
Dear Mr. Carlson:
Below please find an agreement with regards to the 10 foot strip along Robin Lane we would like to
obtain an easement to the City of Mound for street and utility purposes.
This Agreement made and entered into this 23= day o~ June, 2000 by and between Donald
Carlson (the 'Seller") and R.H. Development, Inc., a corporation under the laws of the State of
Minnesota anti its assigns (the 'Buyer").
DESCRIPTION. Seller agrees to tender a street and ulir~j easement to the City of Mound on property
located in the City of Mound, Hermeptn County, Minnesota, desc~ as the easterly ten (10) feet of
the Carlson property, from Lynwood Blvd, to the Nwin property n(x, th border, along the Existing Robin
Lane.
PURCHASE PRICE In ex=hange for said ten (10) fee~ along Robin Lane, Buyer agrees to give Seller
the 15 feet of the property adjacent to selling property cun~nl~y known as Butternut Road (mad
easement). Also, along with the vacated mad property, Buyer will pay Seller a cash equivalent of equal
amount, based on a bid to be received for the Bolg fence.
This transaction will take place no later than thirty (30) days after the existing road easement has been
vacated, with pem~ission from the C~ of Mound, and any olher governmental bocly deemed necessa~j
for said vacation and approval of the final plat as submitted by FLH, Development on the Alwtn
property.
Ronaid C. Helmet
President
May 27, 2000
Harold
P.O. Box 5
Mound, MN 5535~
Dear Mr. Borg:
Below please find an agreement with regards to the 10 foot strip along Robin Lane we would like to
obtain an easement to the City of Mound for street and utility purposes.
This Agreement made and entered into fJ1s 23m day of May, 2000 by and between Harold
Bo~ (the 'Seller') and R.H. Development, Inc,, a coq3oratlon under the taws of tl'~e~,,e of
and its assigns (the "Buyer. ~../~5'2",~-'~ /~'''='''''"
DESCRIPTION. Seller agrees to tender an easement to the City o~ound, property located in the City
ot Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as the~oostCily f~n (l_0).~et. of ~e Borg property,
chain link fence along the Borg ~l~pmpe~ boater, from R~in Lane, to me ~ ~,os~om ~-,,'.~Z'".~..-7
property line, ending st ~ Holter prope~ bon~er. Said fence shall be 6 feet in height and be installed
in acco~ance with any mstric~ons or o~dinances the City of Mound may have.
This transaction will take place alter R. H. development receives ~ plat approval from the City of
Moun~l.
'- Ronald C. Helmet Harold Bo~
President
I
I
I
!
\
f/
\
\
July 26, 2000
To:
Kandis Hanson - Mound City Manager
Loren Gordon - City Plmmer
3on Sutherlmad - Buildh~g DepmXment
Mayor Pat Meisel
City Council Members
RECEIVED
AUG n ZOO0
MOUND PLANiqlhG & INSP.
From: Bart Roeglin mad Fmafily - Westedge Boulevard
Re: Lm~gdon Bay Development and Westedge Boulevhrd Road Improvement
Subjects of Concern:
1. Side Yard Setbacks - The development has enough land available to meet the standard
requirement. By addh~g an additional 4 feet of width to each lot it would only take about FOUR
lots of the development mad greatly reduce crowdh~g and FIRE RISK.
EXAMPLE - a SIXTEEN foot house sepm'ation with roof lines extending. It is possible to
have only TWELVE feet between houses at the roof line a definite FIRE HAZARD. Rottland
Homes keeps talking about having to chm~ge BUILDING size to meet larger setbacks - how
about changing LOT widths ?? Agah~ tlfis would only reduce the developmem by FOUR lots.
2. Westedge Boulevard - So many tl~ags are affected by the developmem of this road
A. The possibility of loosing numerous mature trees along the east boundary on Lots 3
and 2. We don't want these trees to be lost.
B. A paved road memos faster traffic - how about speed linfits of 25 MPH ?
C. Rottland Homes is asking for reduced road widths tlu-oughout its development. I have
heard very few co~mnents against tiffs. Why not give Westedge Boulevard a variance to keep the
road at its PRESENT width of 28 feet not 32 feet which is no different than Rottlmad's request.
PAVE the road at its PRESENT width - don't disturb the lm~d of home owners on Westedge
Boulevard.
D. Assessment ofhnprovements. P~,~posed improvements to Westedge benefits Rottland
and the new developmem. The Mound residents on Westedge Boulevard benefit in NO way to
Page 2
more traffic and faster traffic. The cost of the hnprovements should be paid in its emirety by the
developer and/or assessed to each new lot in the development. The road is being hnproved
because of the new development and the additional traffic it will create. The development is the
reason and the driving force behind this road hnprovemem - LET THEM PAY FOR IT.
3. Park Land. Park land dedication should be USABLE space - not just chunks of land that
the developer can't use to put a house on!
4. Dust and Dirt Control. Specific wording should be in place to ensure this is done on a
daily basis. Just water on a gravel road is not the answer. Calcitm~ Chloride is - it does not
evaporate as water will in a matter of minutes.
Again - to sum it up - the road development is a IvlAJOR concern. Leave it at it's PRESENT
width and asphalt it. We don't want to lose the trees - the developer is taking enough of them
fi.om the development site. .... .
Tlmnk you for your thne and consideration.
Respectfully -
July ~l, 2000
Mound City Manager - Kandis Hanson
City Council Members
City Planner - Loren Gordon
Building Department - Jori Sutherland
Mound Public Works - Greg Skinner
Mayor Pat Meisel
Planning & Zoning
RECEIVED
JUl. 3 1 2000
MOUND PLAI~!~ii%~ ~
Re: Langdon Bay Development
From: MaryAnn Sells 2218 Westedge Boulevard Mound, Mn
At the meeting on July 25, 2000 several Westedge Boulevard residents voiced concerns about the
proposed Langdon Bay Development as it affects improvement of Westedge Boulevard.
It is important for all the individuals mentioned above to come to my property and SEE what is at
stake for me and my property. Should the road be widened as proposed and should the road
become a controlled intersection I would LOSE trees, t~ontage and privacy. I would GAIN a
HAZARDOUS driveway.
As it is now cars speed up and down this road. If the road is widened and paved it will
INCREASE SPEED, DECREASE SAFETY and create a noisy barren emqronment on which my
home is situated. Who will COMPENSATE me for those losses - the Developer, the City? My
home would be extremely close to the street causing a decrease in its value, appearance and
privacy.
Changing the crown of the road mad elevation to accommodate the improvements would create a
HAZARD for me to enter and leaxre my driveway. If the hnprovements take place how does the
CITY OF MOUND propose I have a safe entrance to my driveway and home?
Bottom Line - PAVE THE ROAD AT ITS PRESENT WIDTH. THE DEVELOPER
SHOULD PAY FOR IT - IT BENEFITS THE DEVELOPMENT NOT US
PERSONALLY COME TO MY PROPERTY AND SEE WHAT'S AT STAKE.
Thank you.
July 20, 2000
To:
Mound City Manager - Kandis Hanson
City Planner- Loren Gordon
Building Department - Jon Sutherland
Mayor Pat Meisel
City Council
Planning & Zoning Department
RECEIVED
Re: Langdon Bay Development
From: Mal'y~nn Sells 2218 Westedge Boulevard Mound, MN
As a Mound resident of 13 years who lives on Westedge Boulevard there are definite concerns
and issues concerning the above mentioned development.
When discussion first started it appeared that Rottlund Homes was concerned with preserving the
trees and creating a development in harmony with the environment. Now the discussions center
around destroying the area to accommodate mere housing to make their development more cost
effective for them.
The city of Mound bas definite setbacks to adhere to, soil erosions plans to follow, easements to
grant, appropriate utility procedures to follow, hard cover vs area, to follow when applying for a
building permit. Don~ these procedures apply equally to everyone? Ii'75 ind/viduals asked the
City for setback variances would they be allowed? Probably not. Yet by allowing setbacks to be
changed for Langdon Bay development that's essentially what's happening !!
With the proposal of widening Westedge Boulevard my property would suffer a great loss of
property value, privacy and the right of quiet enjoyment. Since there is a 30 foot minlmmn
setback from the street - the widening of the road would be in secdn8 a precedence of things to
come. Does that mean Mound would then allow homes to be built within less LESS than the
minimum setback..977 W'rdmut the trees to shield my home from trnff~c there would be increased
noise as well as loss ora natural resource.
Since MJnnetrista will not participate in the cost of the road they will be benefiting from
something they aren~ paying for. Why should those of us on the Mound side absorb the cost for
them? It would seem that if it's necessary to widen the road the developer should pay for it
instead of assessing just a few of us for somethin~ we haven't asked to receive. If the speed llmit
were increased it would create a safety hsues for those of us as well The negatives far outweigh
Page Two
any positives there could poss~ly be.
It is my understanding that if there were fewer units built in Langdon Bay there would be no need
to widen the road since the need for an egress road would be el;minuted. Why subject just a few
residems of Mound (those of us on the gravel part of Westedge) to lose so much of our property
and privacy? Do we as residents and taxpayers not have the fight to have OUR needs and wants
met? Why should just a few' ofus bear the price financially and in loss of land so that an individual
and a developer can profit so greatly?.
A right turn lane from Westedge to Lynwood would cost me a major portion of my lot - who
COMPENSATES me for the loss of my land and who COMPENSATES me for the loss of
market value for my' home? Who determines the amount of that loss and what it means to me..977.
Who COMPENSATES me for the additional traffic and noise?
We chose to live here for a reason - we enjoy the beauty of the area - that includes the trees and
the natural environment. If we Westedge Boulevard residents wanted to live in an overly
populated, tree stripped area we would have built our homes in another area. These are the
homes we built on the land we chose - don't let a developer take it away from us.
Memorandum
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
k-tH
TO: City of Mound Staff, Planning Commission and Council
FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP
DATE: June 22, 2000
SUBJECT: Preliminary Plat PDA and Street Vacation - "Langdon Bay" - R. H. Development
APPLICANT: R. H. Development/Rottllund Homes
OWNER: Leroy Alwin
LOCATION: 1000 Robin Lane
ZONING: Residential R-1
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Low Density Residential
The Langdon Bay Preliminary Plat PDA and Street Vacation request from Rottlund Homes is
back on this agenda for additional review of outstanding issues from the previous meeting. The
following issues were identified from that meeting along with a status/recommendation for each:
· The comments included in the letter from Hennepin County regarding Lynwood Blvd.
This is an item that should be left for Hennepin County and the developer to work
out and be part of the City's conditions of approval.
· How to address protection of Wetlands and Bluff areas?
Staff has suggested that combinations of conservation easements, utility and
drainage easements be utilized. Staff would rather have these areas, especially
wetland and ponding areas, in private ownership with easements running in the
City's favor.
· Will a homeowner's association be established and include pond maintenance agreements
or should the City take over maintenance of the ponds?
Staff would suggest the development include a homeowner's association to
address the maintenance of ponds, protection of sensitive areas, and general
development regulations that would be imposed outside of the zoning
regulations.
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
~00-22 and 23Langdon Bay Preliminary Plat PDA and Street Vacation - additional comments
.June 27, 2000
Level of improvement to Westedge Road.
Staff has indicated the City's position should be to require improvement of
Westedge Road from the southern property line to Lynwood Blvd. This level of
improvement includes building the roadway to a 32 feet collector standard with
curb, gutter, drainage systems and a sidewalk on the Mound side.
The developer's position is to improve the roadway based on the City's request
minus the curb and gutter on the Minnetrista side assuming there is participation
from other benefiting parties.
The City has indicated to the developer that properties in Mound along the road
should be assessed their fair share based on a local road standard.
ROW extension of the eastern cul-de-sac to the property line.
ca Staff has concluded that the ROW not be extended to the property line as
previously indicated. After further review of the site conditions and adjoining
property, it would be difficult to construct roadway through the site unless the
ROW were graded to an acceptable standard up front. The outlet to the adjacent
wetland also runs along the property line and would require additional study to
adequately address a future road connection that is unlmown at this time.
ca Associated with this issue is the proposed grading for the cul-de-sac lots and the 4
feet retaining wall shown. Staff would recommend the retaining wall be removed
to prevent impacts on the stream and furore maintenance and safety issues for the
property owner.
Assessment amount for water service.
Rottlund is asking for a reduction of water service fees from $1,500 to 1,000 per
unit. This is a Council decision.
Have home models open for showing prior to street hardsurfacing.
ca Typically road surface improvements are in place prior to construction. Council
would need to approve this request.
Should street trees be located in the ROW between the sidewalk and curb?
ca Staff feels this is appropriate for this development.
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
p. 3
#00-22 and 23Langdon Bay Preliminary Plat PDA and Street Vacation - additional comments
June 27, 2000
· Bluff setbacks along Robin Lane.
Need to show the top of bluff for the lots along Robin Lane. It appears that only 1
or 2 meet the 30 feet top of bluff setback. If there is not a willingness from the
developer to meet this setback, the existing proposal with reduced setbacks could
be considered for approval as part of the development standards with the PDA
final plat.
Status of the Alwin homestead.
At this time, the Minnesota Historical Society has completed a preliminary review
of the property for its architectural, historical, and cultural significance. The
findings to date indicate the property is probably not eligible for a state or
national landmark designation.
· Gazebo structure for the park.
The developer is offering to build a gazebo structure in the park that would mimic
the architectural detail of the proposed homes. Need to get additional input from
the Park and Recreation department on this.
· Potential for a ball diamond on the site.
The developer has reviewed this request that was discussed at the June 134
Council. Their findings were that a ball diamond would require 3 acres of land
plus additional land for parking. They feel this is up and above what they could
reasonably be expected to provide for land.
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
$UN-21-2000 16:19 ROTTLUND HOMES MN 651 638 0501 P.01/10
ROTTLUND HOMES'
Corporate & Minnesota Division Offices
3065 Centre Pointe Drive
I~osevllle, MN .~'1 '13-~ '130
(6§1) 638-0500 · Fax (651) 638-0501
Facsimile Cover Sheet
To:
Company:
Phone:
Fax:
Kandis Hanson
City of Mound
(952) 472-0609
(962) 472-0620
From:
Company:
Phone:
Fax:
Tim Whitten
The Rottlund Co., Inc.
(651) 638-0500
(651) 638-0501
Date:
Pages including this
cover page:
June 21,2000
10
Comments:
Dear Kandis:
The Enclave at Tuckaweye in Maple Grove is an example of similar sized homes with
10' and 5' side yard setbacks. Rottlund did this development about two years ago.
Attached are sample plans, site plan and directions. I have indicated a "star" on the
map which is your destination (Ranchview Lane). Please call with any questions.
JUN-21-2000 16:19 ROTTLUND HOMES MN 651 638 8581 P.02/10
JUN-21-~000 16:20 ROTTLUND HOMES MN 651 638 0501 P.03/10
18
17
19
16
12
I1
7
6
5
4
3
2
THE ENCLAVE
AT T U C KAWEYE
OF MAPLE GROVE
I i
10
9
N
8
7
6
5
$1Dk'WAIX
'rR~L
RECEIVED
J U N 2 2 2111]0
MOUND PLANNINU & INSP.
/
/tATI~ CON~f ONLY,
$I~ BDII. DER .roll ACIIL~/. g~.~I.~, ON
LL~DSCAI~G A/ID l'k*a','S
1I:~UAL HOU$1NI~
OPPOI~IIJNI1Y
64TH Ave_
ROTTLUND
HOMES""
JUN-21-~000 16:21 ROTTLUND HOMES MN 651 638 8581 P.04/10
T H E EN C LAVE AT TU C KAWEYE
STANDARD FEATURES
THE GRANDVIEW
2,765 SQ. FT.
2-STORY, 4 BEDROOM
THE KIN~D
2,650 SQ. FT.'
2-STORY, 4 BEDROOM
THE STRATTON
2,229 SQ. FT.
2-STORY, 4 BEDROOM
INTERIOR FEATURF5
& CONVENIENCES
Top vent Majestic gas ~eplacz with wood surround and choice of
Marble or Brkk fionts
Spemcular fireplace featttre wall
$1,800 lighting allowance
$:20.00 per yasd C,wet/V'myl allowince
6-panel white Masonite doors
Oak raib of main floor staircase
Pre-finished Oak "picture-frame". cabineu
All Oak millwork
Master bath shower and whirlpool bath
Matte white cultured marble vanity raps
All white outlets and swichplam
Executive-look knock-down ceilings
Rough in 3/4 bath on lower Wvd
Main level 9' ceilings and vaulra:d arm
Main level laundry with laundry tub
ALL APPLIANCES BYWHIRLPOOL
Disposal.
Dishwasher
Refrigerator- si&-by-dde
Electric or Gas rang~
Washing machine
Electric or Gas clothers Or
Biaek-facM microwr~e
Extended 5 Fat para and labor appliance warranty
(Appliancea are as shown in model, excluding the cl~igntr white
fini.~es which m optional)
THE MONTCLAIR
2,355' SQ. FT.
2-~rORY, 3 BEDROOM
THE OVERBROOK
1,768 SQ. FT.
RAMBLER
RECEIVED
JUN 2 2
MOUND PLANNINLi & INSP.
ENERGY/SERVICES
Carrier air conditioning, 3 - 4 to-, ([xr plan)
50 gallon hot water hearer
80% efficient gas furnace w{th a 5 y~ar,wam.nty
200 AMP dectri~ sen'ice
3 telephone pre-wire
2 cable tel~sion pre-wir~
Sump pump system
Smoke det~ors
'EXTERIOR
3-car attached garage
Full y~d of sod and 1 boukutd tree
Weathenhidd wood cued ,,4Mow~ with vinyl dad exteriors
Designer 1/2 window gri&
Exterior viny[, stone and Ceda~ trim
C, eminteed Horizon sMngks
4' x 6' patio (~ir.h walk-out)
10/12 roof pitch "A" front
Weather prodouflerz a~ entries
Poured concrete ba~ment walls
PLUS
The T~hn Cides best builder with over 20 .m. experien~
Rorrkmd Homes designs can be "customized"
10 ymr stmmu-al ~eannty
Extend~ 5 y~r appli~c~ ~u~uV
Pmf~sional interior ckaaing prior to move-in
l~t'tlund Builder Repmeatafive to aui~c pau
with :11 your phnning deraih ~
Customer orientation /% ~
pdo~,o do~g ~'~uild~rO~orr Li£~
.@ RO'IWLUND
HOMES"'
OPRORTUNrlY
3UN-~1-~000
16:21
ROTTLUND HOMES MN 651 638 0501
THE OVERBROOK
P.OS×iO
RECEIVED
JUN 2 2 ~00~
MOUND PLANNII'~G & INSP.
THE ENCLAVE A:F
LODGE HOMES "50 SERIES"
l't~. ROTI'Lt,'~ COMi'.~,~. ~C.
ALL B. OOR ?LA~,~ ,~'V..) ELD,~Oa$ ~ 11{E EXCLTdS~ I~ROI~RI'Y 01.: 1'~
gOTT/.IJ~ CO~, ~:, COITNGI'IT t'I~J~GB~Vr COb'LD RI;SULT
[Z c.a.T. BROS~CLrIICLN L~'DF.R t'l;Di~&L COri'RIGI. tT LAW
ROTTLUND
HOMESTM
JUN-21-2888 16:22 ROTTLUND HOMES MN 651 6.38 8581 P,06/10
THE OVERBROOK
MASTER FAMILY
BEDROOM ROOM
GARAGE
DINETTE /
KITCHEN
I ,~.
DINING
ROOM
FOYER
UVING
ROOM
I'
RECEIVED
JUN 2 ~ ZOO0
MOUNU I-'LANNIN6 &
~I.IIIiI~[~II~VE A'I~ TUCKAWEYE
.. I (.) L)G I~'~ HOME.";
$~ BtrltD~ fOR ~ DE/a/~ ON
,[~,E~It,IAL HOUSING
OPPORTUNflY
ROTFLUND
HOMESTM
$UN-21-2000 16:23 ROTT5UND HOMES MN 651 G~B 0501 P.07/10
THE KINCAID
THE I]t~[$1~WE AT TUCKAWEYE
LODGE HOMES "50 SERIES"
'r tie R~ C~OMP. a~L~. ]I,~C. MI~ ~u'ILDER l. Ir.E~£ ,t I ~ ~ 5
~ rcOOR PL~'~ .~ E;[~T]O~[5 K.~ '[Z[~ I~C~'~ PR~Pr~r~ OF T~.
Ro'rl'i,l.ri~ O:)M?/,.NY. I~C. roIn~Rl~I-1T IhTRr~F~I~T COULD R~'UI.T ~;
LEr.,AI. PRC~CUIION L~I)ER kliDl:R.tl. ¢OHltlGI-tr
Budder t~r Life
ROTTLUND
HOMESTM
JUN-21-2000 16:24 ROTTLUNQ HOMES MN 651 638 0501 P.08/10
.!.
THE KINCAID
BEDROOM
BEDROOM
SrTllNG
ROOM
BEDROOM
E FAMILY
ROOM
-
DINING
ROOM
UVING '
ROOM
GAP, AGE
LF.C,,tL ~l[OSa:;[~Oh' t/~DER tr~F.J~ CO[~/3U~m' L~.
TH E ENCLAVE AT TUCKAWEYE
,~,,EGUAL HOUSING
OPPOIIIIJNI/Y
RFOEIVED
J U N 2 '_Z 2000
MOUN0 PLANNING & INSP.
R UND
HOMESTM
JUN-21-2000 16:24 ROTTLUND HOMES MN 6S1 638 0S01 P.OD/10
THE GRANDVIEW
THE ENCLAVE AT TUCKAWEYE
Your
I...OD(SE HOMES "50 SEI~.IES" ---' Builder.for Lit~
FLOOR Pk~i.~,l~ ~"'~TlOh'5 ~ ~ EXCL~IV~ B~Ol~klT O~ 1~
l~6,g PRO:~ClIEON UNDIm 1~I. COPYI~IGflT LAW,
AItTb-'I'S CONCEI~f
~ BlllYJ)r~R ~R ACR'YJ. DETA.II~ ON
DO41)SCAI'~qG .~Uq]~ P~;S.
~I~I:QUAL HOUSIN~
RO'rTL~
HOMESTM
JUN-21-2000
16:25 ROTTLUND HOMES MN 651 G38 8581
THE GRANDVIEW
BEDROOM ~~,.~mL/
y
P.10/10
BEDR~
DEN
FAMILY I-""l m LIVING
/
· '-' ROOM
R~M ., KITCHEN /
// Ik
,
[-~ ....... .
ROOM
GARAGE
MAIN LEVEL
_f ,
THE ENCI.AVE A"i' 'I'UCKAWEYE
L()I-)(iE I--.I (_-) N, IE5 "50 SERIE.g"
i.~G.~. PRC~CUTK~ LI~E~ L~g~t.L COPYR,TGIfl' ~W.
EO, UAL HOUSING
RFCEIVED
JUN 2 2 2000
MOUNO PLANNING & INSP.
ROTTLUND
TOTAL P.10
12:15 ROTTLUND HOMES MN 651 638 0501
ooo~. ~.,~ ~r ~ ~- _~; . . ~,~ ,..~
1
I
,\
TOTRL 2.~ ~,
Northern States Power Company
414 Nicollet rvlall
Minneapolis, Minnesota $,5401-1993
Telephone (612) 330-5500
cdEIVED
! 9 2000
June 12,2000
Planning and Inspections
CityofMound
5341Maywood Road
Mound, MN55364-1687
SUBJECT: Langdon Bay Vacation-R.H. Development, Inc.
This letter is written in reference to your memo of May 25, 2000 concerning the
application by R. H. Development, Inc. for the vacation of a portion of Langdon Bay
located in the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, Section 14, Township 117,
Range 24, Hennepin County, MN.
Please be advised that NSP needs to retain its easement rights in the property subject to
the above- referenced vacation.
Diane Ablan
Real Estate Representative
Land Services
612 330-2943
MINUTES
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, JUNE 12, 2000
DRAFT
Those present: Chair Geoff Michael; Commissioners: Orvin Burma, Becky
Glister, Cklair Hasse, Michael Mueller, Bill Voss, Frank Weiland, and Council
Liaison Bob Brown. Absent and excused: Commissioner Jerry Clapsaddle; Staff
present: City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Suthedand, City
Engineer John Cameron, and Recording Secretary Diana Mestad.
BOARD OF APPEALS:
CASE # 00-22: LANGDON BAY PUD; PUBLIC HEARING
CASE # 00-23: LANGDON BAY, STREET/EASEMENT VACATION; PUBLIC
HEARING
The City Planner stated these two items are considered one project by Staff and
would be discussed together. The preliminary sketch plan was reviewed in
February and is the same except for some minor modifications. This is a 28-acre
site; currently undeveloped with one house. The proposal is for a single-family
residential subdivision with 75 lots and a density of 2 3/4 lots per acre. The
project is a planned development approach intended to reduce street right of
ways and pavement widths. Side yards proposed are 6 ft rather than 10 ft on
one side of the lot. Lots are arranged with through streets and cul de sacs.
Rottlund is the builder and the developer on this project.
Staff issues include concerns about access to the development. The plan shows
a 50-foot right of way to Lynwood. There is a need to secure an additional 20-
foot right of way. West Edge Road is currently a rural area and needs a 30-foot
pavement width with a 60-foot right of way. West Edge also needs a full roadway
section and Staff is asking for road improvements. Also, this road needs an
additional right of way at the eastern most cul de sac for potential future access.
Dedicated park land includes two acres divided among four parcels; one along
Lake Langdon, one in the corner, a trail head at the development entrance, and
another connector for the trail. The developer has indicated that the trail system
will be improved with a hard surface.
There is still an issue with the existing residence, which was built in 1916, and is
unique in character. Staff wishes to explore the option of keeping the house on
the property or moving it elsewhere. Staff is waiting to hear from the Minnesota
Historical Society as to their views on the house.
Other outstanding issues include the infrastructure related to dealing with water,
sewer, and storm water ponding. Staff is relying on the Watershed District for
D AFT
information on the storm water issues. The proposed grading plan was shown.
Narrow street widths will reduce the impact on the trees in the back of the
homes. After grading, the site will have roughly 10 feet of rise and fall through
the streets. Currently the site has a 20 to 30 foot rise and fall throughout.
The developer is proposing to vacate portions of the street leaving the trail
segment as public.
Staff recommends approval of the Langdon Bay Preliminary Plat PUD and the
street vacations as requested with the following conditions:
1. A 50 feet right-of-way be provided along Robin Road at its connection to
Lynwood Blvd.
2. The developer provide improvements to West Edge Road consisting of an
improved 32 feet face-to-face road with curb, gutter, drainage and sidewalk
improvements.
3. Additional ROW be provided through the eastern most cul-de-sac to the east
property line of the site.
4. The WCA provisions apply to the development.
5. The developer adhere to the Hennepin County Transportation Department
comments.
6. Include the comments of the City Engineer's report.
Voss asked whether it was premature to recommend approval of the plat before
the amount of the assessments were known. Also, he asked whether the
developer should have reached an agreement with the County in regard to the
left turn lane before approval was given. Finally, Voss pointed out that in
reference to the report from the City Engineer, only five of twenty-eight items that
were recommended for this project are answered "yes" as being in place. He felt
that Staff's recommendation for approval was premature. The City Planner
stated that the memo from Hennepin County regarding the issues with access to
the development was received two weeks ago and the developer has had little
time to address these issues. He further stated that Hennepin County does have
a lot of control over what happens on that road, but he feels that the issue of the
left turn lane is easy to address.
The City Planner stated that the assessment that Staff recommends is that the
property owners abutting the road in Mound would be assessed for a typical
residential road assessment. Staff needs to work out exactly what the numbers
would be. Voss again asked if it wasn't premature to recommend approval
without this information in place. The City Planner stated that it could be
recommended if the Commission wished to entertain that motion. He stated that
if there was alternative wording preferred, that was also an option. The City
Planner stated that he is viewing the road project as a benefit to the property
owners who would be paying this assessment. He further stated that these
property owners would only be assessed the amount for a regular residential
DRAFT
road and not for the full amount of the collector road that would be built.
The City Engineer stated that in regard to his recommendations that were not yet
completed, some of the items need to be flushed out such as the permits, and
these are not usually applied for until the final plans are complete.
Weiland asked whether County Road 15 was going to being built up and whether
Minnetrista would be contributing to the cost of this improvement. He wondered
if the Minnetrista property owners abutting the road were going to be assessed.
The City Planner stated that this was a complicated issue. The road in question
is halfway between Minnetrista and Mound and the development is in Mound. In
the past, property owners have not been required to pay for future use.
Minnetrista does not see a need to assist the current owners. At this point,
Minnetrista participation is limited to a drainage culvert. The North Sanders Lake
project has been tabled until future access is obtained; and that developer would
improve that portion of the street at that time. There is a gap in Minnetrista on
the street that Staff does not currently have a plan for how to get the road
improved.
Weiland asked if the water issues were resolved including fire and usage. The
City Engineer stated that those issues still needed to be worked out. He has
required the developer to pay $1,500 per unit to the City capital improvement
fund to pay to extend the ten-inch water main from Minnetrista through the
development. He further stated that more flows needed to be done to determine
what is currently in place. This is historically a Iow water pressure area. The Fire
Marshall quotes some water pressures that need to be met and the City Engineer
does feel that this needs to be done.
Weiland concurred with Voss that the City Engineer's report needed to be
complete before approval was given. He was concerned that these items could
not be corrected at a later date.
Brown asked the City Engineer about the issues with water flow in this area. The
City Engineer discussed what he felt would be the best solutions concluding that
another water tower would be optimal, but not probable.
Burma asked the City Planner what was planned for the two acres of dedicated
parkland. The City Planner restated the proposed uses of this land.
Burma stated that the February 28 meeting handout states that 2.7 acres of
parkland would be dedicated and wondered what happened to the .7 acres. The
City Planner stated that this had been submitted to the Park Commission and
even though it was short of the original plan, the Park Commission did approve
this plan.
Burma asked about the cul de sacs' proposed radius in relation to the
DRAFT
specification from the Fire Chief for a minimum turning radius of 75 feet. The
City Planner stated that no city has that size of a tum around. The City Engineer
stated that he had never heard of 75 feet radius being required and that he
thought this may be an error.
Mueller asked whether the County was requiring a left turn lane on West Edge
Boulevard. The City Planner stated that there was no comment from the County
on this, and no position had been taken by the City at this point.
Mueller asked whether Minnetrista had submitted the other subdivision to the
County. The City Planner could not confirm whether this had been done.
Mueller questioned what exactly the proposed improved trail would be. The City
Planner stated the trail would connect from the right of ways through the
development and that the Parks Commission had asked for 8 foot bituminous
covering.
Mueller asked why the Park Commission minutes were not included in the packet
for tonight's meeting. The City Planner stated that Staff was present at the May
meeting.
Mueller stated that during the sketch plan review, he had asked to see examples
of similar side lots of 6 and 10 feet and wondered if the City Planner had gotten
those from the developer. He also questioned the plan to move the houses
closer to the street in order to maintain the trees and wondered if there would be
conservation easements in place or if there would be bylaws attached to the
development. He stated that he did not understand how the trees would be
saved if the lots were being cleared to the edges. The City Planner stated that
this planning technique does not preserve a lot of trees and if that was a goal in
this development, a different design would be needed.
Mueller asked whether narrowing the streets helped the City in any way or was it
only for the benefit of the developer. The City Planner stated that narrowing the
streets would decrease the impact on the land.
Mueller confirmed that the original plans had been for about 80 lots and now
there were 75 lots planned. The City Planner confirmed these numbers stating
that since the preliminary planning, additional wetlands were found on the land.
Mueller asked if the wetlands would be protected from potential changes by
future homeowners. The City Planner stated that the City should establish
draining and utility easements for the wetlands in the final approval stage. He
also suggested establishing conservation easements for any significant trees.
Mueller stated his concern that approval by the Commission at this stage would
be premature because only Staff would be reviewing the final plans.
Voss questioned whether with the significant Iow land, would there be any
assurance that there would not be flooding problems. The City Engineer stated
this was part of the Watershed District review when the plans are submitted in
order to get a permit.
Hasse questioned whether the amount of the wetlands would be included in the
10,000 square foot lot. The City Planner stated that the wetlands are in the
center area of the development and that the minimum lot area is 10,000 square
feet including any wetland. He further stated that there is not an ordinance for
these particular wetlands and that this is typical approach.
Mueller asked if including the narrow streets, there was a total on the expected
hardcover for this development. The City Planner stated that the developer
would need to be asked about this issue.
Weiland asked how the homeowners in the inside section of the development
would get out to the trail. The City Planner stated that there was a park trailhead,
and that people would have to go down the street to get to the trail access.
Chair Michael opened the public hearing at 8:24 p.m.
Bart Rogland 2260 West Edge, stated that the development was originally
presented as reducing the setbacks to save the trees, but in fact that is not really
the case. Mr. Rogland stated that all the standards are coming in below normal
including the setbacks, water, and parkland. He felt that the street assessments
on West Edge would only benefit the builder and, therefore, the builder should
pay for the street. Mr. Rogland stated that three weeks ago, he called Hennepin
Parks regarding the proposed trail on the railroad tracks and was told that
currently no plans are in place. He further stated that he was told that the County
had until 2009 to make a decision on whether to buy this land and that it would
be a ten-year minimum before trail would be in place. Mr. Rogland asked the
Commission if West Edge Road would be improved before excavation of the
development began as he was concerned about the dust from the construction
traffic.
Mueller stated that over the years there had been requests for improvements to
West Edge and asked Mr. Rogland if he had made such a request. Mr. Rogland
stated that yes he had requested improvements, and that dust control was the
main issue for the request.
Mueller stated that it had been determined that it was too expensive for the
residents to do the improvements at that time. Mr. Rogland replied that the
residents were opposed to the improvements at this time because of the high
price of curb and gutter.
DRAFT
Joe Nastapinak, 5560 Wood Edge Road, stated that with a planned unit
development, he felt that a better design could be developed to protect the 100-
year-old trees that were on the property. He further stated that the amount of
hardcover proposed would cause flooding in the area and that torrential rains do
flood West Edge currently. Mr. Nastapinak stated that the wetland area is
currently filing in and if City takes over wetland, it will need to do maintenance to
keep it at its odginal depth.
Jim Niesen, 2221 Mill Pond, commented that the Commission was behind the
times in their presentation style. He stated that everything in the presentation is
black and white and should have been colored in to clearly show what trees will
be cut and what will be saved and also exactly where the wetlands were located.
He stated that regarding the wetlands included in the lot area, the City would
need to impose rules on the homeowners for years and enforce the rules
because of fertilizer run off into the wetlands. Mr. Niesen wondered how the City
would be able to make and enforce these types of rules. Mr. Niesen also pointed
out that there were wetlands that were not part of the development to the east
and wondered if there were going to be restrictions on the builder to keep runoff
during the construction phase from getting into this area.
Helene Borg, P.O. Box 5, Lynwood, confirmed that the 8 foot pathway was
included in the 50-foot dght of way. The City Planner confirmed this. Ms. Borg
asked if the roadway that follows along the path in an unimproved state would
ever be improved. The City Planner stated that the right of way was for a future
connection. Ms. Borg confirmed that she meant the trail along Robin Lane.
Gordon stated that this was correct. Ms. Borg stated that a future property
owner could conceivably improve the area. Gordon stated that this was unlikely
as existing wetlands would preclude any development. Ms. Borg stated that
there was there a possibility that in the future there could be a development on
the north side. Mueller said that the vacation would preclude any future
development and that the developer was asking for a vacation from the current
line up to new road if that trail remained on the edge of property. Ms. Borg is
concerned that there is a potential problem that could occur in the future.
Lisa Holter, 2241 Southview Lane, asked for clarification of the right of way. The
City Planner stated that they are suggesting that a possible right of way
connection be secured in one cul de sac for future development. Ms. Holter
asked what secure meant in this framework. The City Planner explained the
need for this. Ms. Holter asked if this was equivalent to what currently exits, but
not necessarily improved, for example, no road. The City Planner confirmed this.
Ms. Holter also asked about vacation right of ways and how they would affect
other landowners for potential future development. She wondered why right of
ways were being taken. The City Planner stated that these were requests made
b'y the developer because there was no street system currently laid out. Michael
stated that the developer would speak about this issue.
DRAFT
Rex Aim, owner of the property in question, stated that he had brought the
problem with West Edge to the City's attention and suggested they petition the
County to extend County Road 44. He also proposed a solution to Minnetrista
regarding the railroad bridge that he felt was too Iow. He has proposed
lowering and widening West Edge Road, which he feels is the County's
responsibility. Mr. Aim stated that he has been trying to preserve the wetlands,
woodlands, and greenlands, but that his taxes have been doubling by the year
and he cannot live there anymore. His recommendations have been ignored and
that is why he is needs to sell. Mr. Aim feels the current plan is the best use of
the property, but he wants to get the County involved to make the road
improvements and not look to the neighbors to pay the cost.
Chair Michael closed the public hearing at 8:47 p.m.
¥oss confirmed with Mueller that if approval is passed tonight, the issue will not
come back to the Commission. Mueller stated that there were many issues that
still needed to be addressed including the question of whether property owners
are losing their ability to do something in the future with their property.
Tim Whitten, Rottlund Company, stated that the issue with Hennepin County was
a surprise to them. Rottlund had been operating under the impression that it was
a public street. Staff had asked Rottlund to make contact with Hennepin County
and they would need time to get more information. Mr. VVhitten stated that the
issue with the left turn lane is not as serious as the issues with the site lines. He
stated that there is always a concern when there is County jurisdiction over a
development. Mr. Whitten stated that the issues regarding West Edge Road
were tough and the City is looking to the developer to solve the problems. The
developer is prepared to make up the difference between a normal street
assessment and the collector road that is needed. Normally, half the road would
be considered their obligation at a cost of about $35,000. He further stated that
there is an opportunity for Hennepin County to share the cost with the residents.
Rottlund is estimating to take up to 3/4 of costs as the developer. This is being
done not so much for the City and the residents, but because the Minnetrista side
is a problem. It would be possible not to do curb along the Minnetrista side and
possibly not on Mound side. This issue is still in the early stages. Mr. Whitten
stated that he has appreciated working with the staff.
In reference to the issues of saving the trees on this development, Mr. Whitten
stated that the setbacks and moving houses forward does not do job they had
hoped. The topography proved to be more difficult than preliminary grading
information indicated. Also, the amount of wetland was a surprise. Mr. Whitten
further stated that one side of the project is a lot lower than the other side and the
pond is higher on one side which limits accessibility for the road. The developer
has decided to look at individual lots in an effort to save more trees. This will be
possible in the areas where the roads and homes are close in elevation. Custom
grading will be used to achieve this. Mr. Whitten stated that the vacation is
DRAFT
considered a benefit to everyone. This is on Iow land of the site where there
would never be a street and Mr. Whitten suggested that maybe an easement
would help people be more comfortable with this.
Mr. Whitten stated that West Edge Road is the most difficult of the issues brought
out tonight. In reference to the parkland issues, Mr. Whitten stated that the trail
has been considered an improvement. The developer has met with the Park
Board twice. Mr. Whitten stated that they are planning to build a gazebo on the
park site, but as yet have not determined the appearance of the gazebo. Mr.
Whitten stated that there has been some discussion of moving the old house
onto the park site.
Mueller asked about his request in February to see examples of other areas
where short setbacks were used. Mr. Whitten stated that he was at fault for not
following up on this request and that he would provide this information shortly.
He stated that he has a number of examples close by.
Mueller asked what percentage of the West Edge Road cost they were
comfortable with paying. Mr. Whitten stated that typically the developer would
pay for half the road and that they are expecting to do more than that. Mueller
confirmed that the actual dollar amount would need to be confirmed before a
commitment could be reached. Mr. Whitten stated that, yes, they were just
starting to do the work and that curb cost was a big part of this.
Mueller asked if originally the developer had talked about utilities within the street
and trees in the boulevard. Mr. Whitten confirmed that this was still in the plan
subject to approval by the City and the City Engineer.
Mr. Whitten stated that they are proposing to put a sidewalk in to allow access to
the park for the inner residents. This would be in the same location with the
boulevard and trees. Staff does not require this sidewalk, but it is something
extra offered by the developer.
Brown asked if the developer had done the Centennial Lakes Project. Mr.
Whitten said yes to this and Brown stated this was a beautiful development that
is quite similar to the one proposed.
Voss stated this issue has been in front of the Commission twice and that they
could add requirements at the end of the Staff recommendation 5, and also add
"change requirements" on 6.
MOTION by Voss, seconded by Brown, to approve Staff's
recommendation with the additional requirements.
Discussion:
DRAFT
Mueller stated that he was surprised that Voss was moving forward without all
the answers and wondered if he was off track. Mueller questioned the site line
issues and the need to rebuild a County road. Mueller also stated that he wanted
to see the minutes from the Park Commission's meeting to review what they
talked about in reference to this development. He also wished to see an
example of an area with 6 feet between houses. Mueller stated that Centennial
Lakes is a town home development not a single-family development. Mueller
questioned the amount of storage available for boats, snowmobiles, etc. He
further pointed out that the developer does not have all the information from
Staff. Mueller wondered why they would vacate the street on the edge of the
property.
Burma stated that point 2 of the Staff recommendations doesn't indicate that the
improvement is for the full length of West Edge Road and he would like to see
that added. Currently, Staff has recommended the improvement to the south
edge of the development. Burma offered this as an amendment to the Motion.
Voss agreed to include this amendment in his Motion.
Burma stated that he has heard more questions than answers regarding the left
turn lane, the tree situation, and the current set up of the plan. Burma felt that if
the street on the east was put through, two houses would need to be removed.
He also mentioned that there was no resolution on the idea of putting a gazebo
or the old house on the parkland.
Voss stated that the City would not be able to save every tree. He further stated
that the requirement in the Motion that the developer adhere to the Hennepin
County requirements including the site line, would not be removed in the process
through the final plan. Voss stated that the same applied to the City Engineer's
report.
Brown agreed with Voss and felt the developer's statement that they would do
the grading on a lot-by-lot basis would be a good thing.
Chair Michael called the question.
AYES: 3 (Brown, Boss, Hasse, Glister)
NAYS: 4 (Weiland, Michael, Burma, Mueller)
MOTION FAILED.
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Burma, to table the issue for two
weeks in order to get the answers to the outstanding issues.
AYES: 6 (Michael, Burma, Glister, Hasse, Mueller, Weiland)
NAYS: 2 (Brown, Voss)
MOTION CARRIED.
DRAFT
Brown stated for the record that the developer should have the opportunity to go
before Council and the questions still outstanding could have been brought
forward at that time rather than delaying the issue further. Michael stated that
two weeks are not going to make a big difference.
Chair Michael called for a break at 9:20 p.m.
Chair Michael called the meeting to order at 9:26 p.m.
Memorandum
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
It"4H
TO: City of Mound Staff, Planning Commission and Council
FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP
DATE: June 12, 2000
SUBJECT: Preliminary Plat PDA and Street Vacation - "Langdon Bay" - R. H. Development
APPLICANT: R. H. Development/Rottllund Homes
OWNER: Leroy Alwin
LOCATION: 1000 Robin Lane
ZONING: Residential R-1
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Low Density Residential
BACKGROUND: The applicant, R.H. Development/Rottlund Homes, have submitted a
Preliminary Plat for a 75 lot single family development named "Langdon Bay." They have a
purchase agreement with the current owner Leroy Alwin pending development plan approval.
The project is located in the western portion of the community along Westedge Road, Langdon
Lake and County Road 15. Specifics of the plan are as follows:
PARCEL SIZE
PROPOSED UNIT #
DENSITY
ZONING (EXISTING)
ZONING (PROPOSED)
Minimum Lot Size
Minimum Lot Width
Front Yard Setback
Side Yard Setbacks
Rear Yard Setbacks
LAND USE PLAN
27.41 ac
75
2.73 traits/acre
R-1
R-1 PDA
10,000 sf
60 feet
25 feet
6 and 10 feet
15 feet
Low Density Residential
(1-6 units acre)
SUBDIVISION STREET DESIGN
Right-of-way width 50 feet
Pavement width 28 feet/varies
Park Site Dedication 2 acres
The Site
The property contains about 27 acres and represents the largest remaining undeveloped tract of
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
p. 2
g00-22 and 23Langdon Bay Preliminary Plat PD.4 and Street Vacation
June 12, 2000
land in Mound. The property has one home and a few outbuildings. Access to Lynwood Blvd. is
via a gravel driveway along unimproved Robin Road. Big woods vegetation of maples and
basswoods and wetlands characterize the property. There is about 60 feet of elevation changes on
the site. The central portion of the property is a high point and has views of Lake Langdon.
Development Plan
The development plan suggests a curvilinear subdivision design approach for the site. The
developer has indicated this design approach is preferred as it is more sensitive to the
environmental features of the property than a typical grid design. The 75 single family lots are all
similarly sized, averaging 12,830 square feet. This meets the minimum 10,000 square feet
standard for the R-1 Single Family Residential zone. Average lot widths are about 70 feet, which
meet the 60 feet minimum.
Roads/Circulation
The development will be served by two public road accesses from West Edge Road and
Lynwood Blvd. A 50 feet right-of-way and 28 feet pavement width are proposed for all local
roadways in the development. Cul-de-sacs are proposed at a 60 feet ROW radius and 50 feet
pavement radius. Staff has suggested the pavement be reduced to a 45 feet radius which will
reduce hardcover and provide good emergency vehicle movement.
The existing Robin Road ROW at Lynwood Blvd. is 30 feet. The plans indicate a 50 feet ROW
as suggested by staff will be used. The developer is securing additional land from the two
abutting property owners at this time.
The eastern most cul-de-sac should have additional right-of-way platted through to the property
line for future connection. The neighboring property could be further subdivided and a
connection point would provide a good cimulation opportunity in this area and possibly eliminate
a cul-de-sac.
The developer has proposed the vacation of portions Glen Lane and Interlachan Road otherwise
known as Buttercup Lane. Each has a 30 feet ROW and would be split in half with each side
going to the adjacent property owner. Th unvacated portion of Interlachan Road would serve the
proposed trail.
The other road issues with the project deal with West Edge Road and Lynwood. Blvd. West Edge
is currently a gravel nh'al section, no curb and gutter and ditches. Staff's recommendation is for
the developer to improve West Edge to a full urban section, 32 feet bituminous road face to face
with curb and gutter, from the south property line to Lynwood Blvd. The City would entertain
assessments for the property owners abutting West Edge in Mound along this improved portion.
A typical residential street assessment charge would apply to those properties. The developer is
considering the City's recommendation at this time. Minnetrista does not want to assist with this
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
p. 3
ttO0-22 and 23Langdon Bay Preliminary Plat PD,4 and Street Vacation
June 12, 2000
roadway project except for minor drainage improvements. Hennepin County will also contribute
to the drainage improvements.
Hennepin County has submitted a letter to the City asking a left turn lane be provided for west
bound traffic turning into Robin Lane. Additionally, they have concerns about maintaining a 300
feet sight distance to the west of Robin Lane. The developer has been instructed to discuss this
with the County.
Wetlands
There are a number of wetlands that impact the development layout. The plan proposed to fill
some and create others in order for the development plan to work as shown. The Wetland
Conservation Act applies to this development and the City would expect the developer to address
all aspects of this law.
Grading/Storm Water
The site will be heavily graded to allow the street slopes to work and provide building areas for
the homes. The grading plan shows the limits of grading on the site. This also impacts the
stormwater flows on the site. Three storm water ponding sites are provided. They will treat water
before outletting into wetland areas or being discharged off site.
A bluff area exists along Interlachen Road that will be left untouched. Homes here will need to
maintain 30 feet setbacks from the top of the bluff.
Parks and Trails
The plan indicated the dedication of 2 acres of park land with a trail connection along
Inteflachen Road. The park site consist of 4 individual sites, 2 of which are more like trailheads,
the other two being a useable park in the development and the other providing a lake access to
Lake Langdon.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Langdon Bay Preliminary Plat
PDA and the street vacations as requested with the following conditions:
1. A 50 feet right-of-way be provided along Robin Road at its connection to Lynwood Blvd.
2. The developer provide improvements to West Edge Road consisting of an improved 32 feet
face to face road with curb, gutter, drainage and sidewalk improvements.
3. Additional ROW be provided through the easternmost cul-de-sac to the east property line of
the site.
4. The WCA provisions apply to the development.
5. The developer adhere to the Hennepin County Transportation Department comments.
6. Include the comments of the City Engineer's report.
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
Engineering · Planning · Surveying
RECEIVED
JUN 0 7 2000
MOUND PLANNING & INSP.
June 6, 2000
Mr. Jon Sutherland
Planning and Zoning
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, Minnesota 55364
SUBJECT:
City of Mound
Preliminary Plat - Langdon Bay
Engineer's Memo
MFRA #12754
Dear Jon:
Enclosed is a copy of the Engineer's Memo for the Preliminary Plat of Langdon Bay (Rex Alwin
property). If you have any questions regarding our review or need additional information on any
items, please contact me.
Very truly yours,
John Cameron, City Engineer
JC:pry
cc: Loren Gordon, Hoisington, Koegler Group, Inc.
s:~-aain:~lou 12754 :\C orrespondence~sutherland6-5
15050 23rd Avenue North . Plymouth, Minnesota . 55447
phone 763/476-6010 · fax 763/476-8532
e-mail: mfra@mfra, com
C I T Y 0 F M 0 UND , MINNE S 0 TA
ENGINEER'S MEMO
TO
PL/INNING COMMISSION /IND CITY CO UNCIL
DATE: JUNE 5, 2000
CASE NO: 00-22 and 00-23
PETITIONER: R.H. DEVELOPMENT
PRELIMINARY PLAT: LANGDON BAY
LOCATION: Alwin property - West Edge Boulevard and County Road 15
PID 14-117-24 33 0001 and PID 14-117-24 34 0002
Lots 1 and 2, Auditors Subd. No. 231
ASSESSMENT RECORDS:
N/A Yes No
C] E3 x
2. ID x ID
3. x
Watermain area assessments have been levied based on
proposed use.
Sanitary sewer area assessments have been levied based on
proposed use.
SAC and REC charges will be payable at the time building
permits are issued.
Area charges are subject to change periodically as they are
reviewed annually on January 1. The rate assessed would be
that in effect at the time of final plat approval.
Area assessments: Watermain area assessment is based on
proposed 75 units at $1,500.00/unit = $112,500.00.
Other additional assessments estimated:
LEGAL / EASEMENTS / PERMITS:
6. [--I [-] X
7. [3 [23 x
Complies with standard utility/drainage easements -
The City will require utility and drainage easements ten feet
(10') in width adjoining all streets and five feet (5') in width
adjoining side and rear lot lines.
All standard utility easements required for construction are
provided -
The City will require twenty feet (20') utility and drainage
easements for proposed utilities along the lot lines were these
utilities are proposed to be installed. This item will be
reviewed with the final construction plans.
N/A
Yes
D
No
Complies with ponding requirements -
The City will require the dedication of drainage easements for
ponding purposes on all property below the established 100-
year high water elevation and conformance with the City's
comprehensive stormwater drainage plan and MCWD
stormwater management plan.
X
All existing unnecessary easements and rights-of-way have
been vacated -
It will be necessary to vacate the obsolete easements/right-of-
way to facilitate the development. This is not an automatic
process in conjunction with the platting process. It is the
Owner's responsibility to submit a petition as well as legal
descriptions of easements proposed to be vacated: Street
vacation request (Case #00-23) has been reviewed and
approval is recommended as submitted.
10.
11.
X
X
The Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title has been submitted
to the City with this application If it is subsequently
determined that the subject property is abstract property, then
this requirement does not apply.
It will be necessary for the property Owner to provide the City
Attorney with the Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title in
order that he may file the required easements referred to
above.
All necessary permits for this project have been obtained -
The following permits must be obtained by the Developer:
x DNR
x Hennepin County
x MPCA
x State Health Department
x Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
x U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
[] Other
WCA Mitigation
The Developer must comply with all conditions contained
within any permit.
-2-
N/A Yes No
TRANSPORTATION:
X
Conforms with the City's grid system for street names -
The names of the proposed streets in the plat must conform to
the City grid system for street names. The following changes
will be necessary: Proposed street names for east/west street
and eul-de-scas need to be submitted for approval. Robin
Lane to be retained as name of north/south street.
13. [~] [~ X
14. ~ ['-I X
Conforms with the City's Thoroughfare Guide Plan -
The following revisions must be made to conform with the
City's adopted Thoroughfare Guide Plan. See Special
Condition No. 25.
Acceleration/deceleration and mm lanes provided: See
Hennepin County memo dated June 1, 2000.
15. ~ ~ X
All existing street rights-of-way are required width -
Additional right-of=way will be required on existing
section of Robin Lane to provide total width of 50 feet.
UTILITIES:
16. [] X [~]
17. [] [-] X
Conforms with City standards requiring the Developer to
construct utilities necessary to serve this plat -
In accordance with City standards, the Developer shall be
responsible for constructing the necessary sanitary sewer,
water, storm sewer, and streets needed to serve this plat. A
registered professional engineer must prepare the plans and
profiles of the proposed sanitary sewer, watermain, storm sewer
facilities and streets to serve the development.
Final utility plans submitted comply with all City requirements-
The Developer has submitted the required construction plans
for the proposed sanitary sewer, watermain and storm sewer
facilities; and has also furnished profiles of these utilities as
-3=
N/A Yes No
well as the proposed street system (public and private).
ID I--1 x
19. [-] [-I X
20. D [2 x
Per the Developer's request, final plans will be prepared by the
City.
If it is their desire to have the City construct these facilities as
part of its Capital Improvement Program, a petition must be
submitted to the City. The cutoff date for petitions is October
1st of the year preceding construction, if the Developer is
paying 100% of the cost.
The construction plans conform to the City's adopted
Comprehensive Water Distribution Plan -
The following revisions will be required: Final Construction
Plans must be submitted before final plat will be considered
for approval. The proposed 8" watermain ending at
easterly CDS must be extended to plat boundary for future
looping.
The construction plans conform to the City's adopted
Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan -
The following revisions will be required: Final Construction
Plans must be submitted before f'mal plat will be considered
for approval.
21. [-'] X [-']
It will be necessary to contact Greg Skinner, the City's Public
Works Superintendent, 24 hours in advance of making any
proposed utility connections to the City's sanitary sewer and
water systems. The Developer shall also be responsible for
contacting the Public Works Department for an excavating
permit prior to any digging within the City fight-of-way.
GRADING, DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL:
22. ['-'] X [2
Minimum basement elevations -
Minimum basement elevations must be established for the
following lots: Any lots adjacent to wetlands and/or
stormwater ponds.
23. [-'] [] X
. 486
Complies with Storm Drainage Plan -
The grading, drainage and erosion control plan has been
submitted to the City's Consulting Engineer and MCWD for
review to see if it is in conformance with the City's
-4-
N/A Yes No
Comprehensive Storm Drainage Plan and MCWD Stormwater
Management Plan. All of their recommendations shall be
incorporated in a revised plan. The Grading and Drainage Plan
shall also indicate proposed methods of erosion control,
including the placement of silt fence in strategic locations.
Additionally, the following revisions will be necessary:
SPECIAL CONDITIONS REOUIRED:
24.
West Edge Boulevard must be improved to City standards
for collector streets from south property line of proposed
plat to County Road No. 15. Cost sharing is an issue that
needs to be resolved.
_Future~ht-of-way should be provided be~een proposed
Lot5 a~xt~-~O~ Of street to the
east. The th~_e maximum
eet allowed. ---
The proposed 8" watermain ending at easterly CDS must
be extended to plat boundary for future looping.
Final plans to include additional gate valves on proposed
watermain.
The stormwater pond at southwest corner of property
outlets onto private property. Discharge rate cannot exceed
present flow.
Submitted by: (~/~_ (~_~ ~.~ -
/ John Cameron, City Engineer
s:~mainSmfxa:~'nou12754:\Correspondence~ngmemo6-5
-5-
Hennevin Count
~,. A~ ~qu~ Opporm~iz~ ~nploTer Y
Mr. Jon Sutherland
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
Dear Mr. Sutherland:
Re:
RECEIVED
June 1, 2000
JUN 0 5 2000
Proposed Plat-Langdon Bay (CSAH 15, SE quad West Edge Blvd.)
Hennepin County Plat No. 2518 - Review and Recommendations
Minnesota Statutes 505.02 and 505.03, Plats and Surveys, require 30 days for county review of proposed plats
abutting county roads. We reviewed the above plat and make the following comments.
Proposed Robin Lane
· The plat will require an entrance permit for Robin Lane since there will be a change in land use and a street
entrance is replacing an existing driveway.
· We are particularly concerned about the safety of this entrance. In its proposed location, vehicles accessing
the county road from Robin Lane will not have adequate sight distance to the west. The changed use of this
entrance would not be permitted unless a minimum sight distance of 300 feet is provided. We would
recommend an even longer sight distance be provided since we perceive that the operating speeds are
typically above 30 mph in this area.
· Turn and auxiliary lanes will be needed on CSAH-15 at Robin Lane to adequately provide for the traffic to /
from the development. We recommend that at a minimum a westbound left mm lane be provided to Robin
Lane. Roadway shoulders would need to be maintained through this area on both sides of CSAH-15.
We would be willing to assist the city and the developer in working through these issues to arrive at an entrance
and intersection design that adequately meets our safety needs and provides for the site traffic.
West Edge Boulevard
· West Edge Blvd. has severe grade and erosion problems that must be corrected to support this proposed
development and other existing and future development in the area.
· At some point in the future, the intersection at CSAH-15 will require turn lanes on CSAH-15 similar to those
required at Robin Lane.
This intersection would serve a number of properties that involves the City of Minnetrista as well as the City of
Mound. We would be willing to participate with both cities in establishing an improvement plan.
Miscellaneous Items
· All proposed construction within county fight of way requires an approved Hennepin County permit prior to
beginning construction. This includes, but is not limited to access, drainage and utility construction, trail
development, and landscaping. Contact our Permits Section at 745-7601 for the appropriate permit forms.
· The developer must restore all areas, within the county fight of way, disturbed during consln~ction.
Please direct any questions or responses to Dave Zetterstrom (763) 745-7643 or Bob Byers (763) 745-7633. As a
matter of procedure, we request that the City Clerk inform us of the City Council's action on the fight of way and
access provisions.
TDJ:DKZ:irh
c: Pete Tu]kki - County Surveyors Office Brad Moe - Transit & Real Estate
John Cameron - Mound City Consulting Engineer_
Wayne Tower- Pioneer Engineering
Transportation DeparUnent
1600 Prain'e Drive
__ ~ g-y,~ledim, MN 55340-5421
'~'~) f;12) 745-7500 FAX: (612) 478-4000 TDD: (612) 852-6760
Sincerely, ~
Thomas D. Johnson, P.E'f
Transportation Planning Engineer
Recycled Paper
!
I
T
-I
!i
mi
MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE D/J~IiAF~.
MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION
MAY 18, 2000
Present were: Commissioners Peter Meyer, Norman Domholt, John Beise, Tom Casey;
and City Council Representative Leah Weycker. Also present were Park Director Jim
Fackler and City Planner Loren Gordon.
Absent: Commissioner Christina Cooper
Chair Beise called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
LANGDON BAY I ROTTLUND HOMES
Discussion .of appropriate park land dedication
City Planner Gordon introduced Mr. Tim Whitten of Rottlund Homes, who was present to
acquaint the Park and Open Space Commission with the development at Langdon Bay
and to get the Commission's input into a workable development plan. A 10% land
dedication had been discussed.
Chair Beise questioned what the current park layout is for the development.
Mr. Whitten presented the preliminary plans for discussion, noting that 2.8 acres have been
set aside for parks and trails. This is very close to the amount needed on this 28 acre
parcel
Chair Beise asked if any park structures were planned.
Mr. Whitten replied that they had been considering sidewalks on both sides of the street
and some sort of gazebo structure, or play structure, would also be agreeable.
Chair Beise asked if there had been some consideration of leaving out the parks and
making a trail around the entire perimeter of the project.
Mr. Whitten replied that there Would be many areas that a trail would not work due to either
extreme grades or wetlands.
Councilmember Weycker stated she sees the layout as isolating this neighborhood and
would like to see some change to incorporate this neighborhood into the surrounding
neighborhoods a bit more.
Mr. Whitten replied that with sidewalks on all roads, walking from this neighborhood to
surrounding neighborhoods would be very simple, and encouraged.
Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission
May
Chair Beise expressed his opinion that it looks like a lot of the changes suggested the last
time this plan came before the POSAC have been incorporated, and this plan looks very
good.
Commissioner Casey questioned whether some of the parkland could be around and
including the Alwin house, rather than having it torn down.
Mr. Whitten stated there are some problems with this as the house sits on a very high
point, and the surrounding roads have a much lower elevation. To update the house would
likely cost around $100,000 which makes it not financially feasible. If the City would like
to keep the house, the whole plan would likely have to be changed to move roads and so
on since the elevations are so different.
Chair Beise asked whether the house could be moved, but did not know where it could go
as the City does not have enough land in one parcel to accommodate this house.
Commissioner Domholt stated that there would have to be a retaining wall all the way
around the house to hold the elevation.
Commissioner Casey stated he would like to see this possibility explored, why it may or
may not work, and what changes would need to be made to keep the house.
Chair Beise believed it would be hard to get public support to keep this house. He noted
that even public support to fix up Island Park Hall is Iow, and that would take much less
money and have more uses when done.
Park Director Fackler stated he would like to see it moved and someone else improve it.
But, as for the City taking on this responsibility, he questioned what use the house would
be to the City. He noted this is an additional project to take on, in view of the current Island
Park Hall project.
Chair Beise stated he would be in favor of moving the house to a more central site if it is
worth saving. This would be the most important question. The house really would not fit
into this development, so moving it would be the best option to investigate.
Councilmember Weycker suggested that City Planner Gordon check the house, and report
back to the Commission on the structural soundness of the house, and the possibility, from
his opinion, of moving the house.
Chair Beise summarized that Rottlund should move forward with their plans, while the
Commission looks into the possibilities discussed regarding saving the house. The whole
plan will not have to be redone to save the house.
2
-DEPARTMENT
;~415 WI[SHIRE
BOULL~VARD
MOUND, MN 55364
012/472-3555
FAx: 0 I 2/47;~-3775
moundflmdepl~emthlinl~ net
FIRE CHIEF
DAVID E)OYD
ASSISTANT CHIEF
MICHAEl. PALM
FIRE MARSHAL
April26,2000
RH DEVELOPMENT
2300 W. 97TM Street
Bloomington, MN. 55431
Re: Langdon Bay Plat
1. Fire hydrant system plans and specifications shall be
submitted to the fire department for review and approval
prior to construction.
2. Hydrant spacing. Minimum distance between hydrants 500
feet. Maximum distance fi.om any point on street or road
fxontage to a hydrant, reduce by 50 feet for dead end street
or road.
3. One and Two Family Dwellings. The Minimum fire flow
and flow duration requirements having a fire area which
does not exceed 3,600 square feet shall be 1,000 gallons per
minute. Fire flow and flow duration having a fire area in
excess of 3,600 square feet shall not be less than that
specified in table A- III - A- I. A reduction in fire flow
may be reduced if the dwelling is provided with an
approved fire sprinkler system.
4. Minimum turning radius of 75 feet for all eul-de-sac's.
5. Road widths less than the approved widths for parking shall
be posted no parking at any time.
If you have any questions or concerns, Please do not hesitate to
contact me at (612) 472 - 3555 or my pager at (651) 225-6884.
Sincerely,
Michael A. Palm
Mound Fire Marshal
PIONEER
engineering
Internal
Memorandum
Date: April 21, 2000
To: Wayne Tauer
From: Nicholas Polta
Re:
Preliminary Hydrology Calculations for Langdon Bay, Mound Minnesota
The following is a brief summary of the preliminary water quality requirements for the above
referenced project. The pervious curve number and impervious fraction variables are assumed
values based on similar developments 0VINPCA Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas).
The site is broken into two(2) watersheds. One draining to the wetland Northeast of the site,
the other draining south to the Langdon Lake. The following is a breakdown of the flow
calculations:
Watershed
Northeast
Peak Flow Peak Flow Peak Flow
2-Year Storm 10-Year Storm 100-Year Storm
(cfs) (cfs) (cfs)
Exist. Prop. Exist. Prop. Exist. Prop.
8.27 9.60 17.57 16.41
South
16.73 21.80 39.16 34.86
The water quality ponds have been sized in accordance with the Walker PONDSIZ program. I
have attached the full calculations for your review. Please see the attached ancillary
information for more detail.
If you have any questions or think it would be beneficial that I provide any specific details,
please let me know at your convenience.
2422 Enterprise Drive o Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55120 · (651) 681-1914 · Fax 681-9488
Application for
MAJOR SUBDIVISION
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55354
Phona: 472.0607, Fax: 472-0620
PLANNING COMM. DATE
CITY COUNCIL DATE:
DISTRIBUTION { DATE
CITY PLANNER
CITY ENGINEER i %'I ;,, · -
PUBLIC WORKS 't(.
PARKS t / ~"
DNR
FIRE DEPARTMENT
ASSESSING - -
OTHER:
Please type or print the following information:
CASE NO.
TYPE OF APPLICATION
SKETCH PLAN REVIEW
PRELIMINARY PLAT
FINAL PLAT
$10/LOTOVER2 LOTS ~ -7 ~
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: POA
ESCROW DEPOSIT
VARIANCE
TOTAL
PROPERTY
INFORMATION
Subject
Address West Edge Road & Robin Road
Name of Proposed
Plat
:" EXISTING
,.., LEGAL 1 & 2
DESCRIPTION Lot
Subdivision Auditors Sub No. 231
Block
PlDg
Plat #
ZONING
DISTRICT Circle: R-1 R-lA R-2 R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3
PA D
APR I 200[
C,I ¥ .~F MOUi., D
FEE
$150
$ 250
$1,000
$100
APPLICANT The applicant is: ._...~er omen ~evel'oper
Name R.H. Development
Addmss 2300 W 97th Street. Bloomington. Minnesota 55431
Phone
(H) ~A9 (612) 831-3830 (M)
OWNER
{if other than
applicant)
Name Leroy V. Alwin
Address 1000 Robin Lane, Mound, Minnesota 55364
Phone
(H) (W)
(M)
SURVEYOR/
ENGINEER
Name Pioneer Engineering, P.A.
Address 2422 Enterprise Drive, Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55120
Phone
(H)
':,._ (Revised 02.04-00))
Major Subdivision Application
(651) 681-1914 (M)
..Page 2
Description of Proposed Use: 7 5
Single Family Lots, all of 10,000 S.F. or larger
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 describe the steps taken to mitigate or
eliminate the impacts.
An additional 75 households will obviously have some impacts om the area,
i.e. traffic, public utilities, lose of vegetation etc. The l~ym,~ w~ d~gn~d
to limit these impacts wherever possible.
If applicable, a development schedule shall be attached to this application providing reasonable guarantees for the
completion of the proposed development.
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS:
Number of Structures: 75
Lot Area Per Dwelling Unit: ! 2.830
Estimated Development Cost of the Project:
sq. lt.
Number of Dwelling Units/Structure:
Total Lot Area: 962,250 sq. ft.
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 application must be signed by all owners of the subject property, or an explanation given why this is not the
case.
Ron Helmer, R.H. Development ~ S' ature
Print Applicant's Name Date
Leroy V. Alwin
Print Owner's Name Date
xt- -OeO
Print Owner's Name
(Revised 02-04-00)
Owner's Signature Date
Rev. 12-28-98
Planning Commission Date:
Application for
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620
Case No.
PAID
APR 1 2000
~r'ry ~.F fJOUND
City Council Date: Conditional Use Permit Fee: $250.00
Distdbution: ~ ,~
City Planner: /--~1'~--~ Public Works: /JC-~J~-Cf-~ FireDept. '~~'~
City Engineer:.
Please type or print the following information:
PROPERTY Subject
INFORMATION Address West Edge Road & Robin Road
LEGAL
DESCRIPTION
Name of Business
Lot 1 & 2 Block Plat#
APPUCANT
Subdivision Auditors Sub No. 231 PID#
The applicant is: owner other;. Developer
Name R.H. Development
Address 2300 W 97th Street, BloominRton, Minnesota 55431
OWNER
(if other than
applicant)
ARCHITECT,
SURVEYOR, OR
ENGINEER
ZONING
DISTRICT
Phone
(H) (VV) (612) 831-3830 (U)
Name T,eroy V, Alw±n
Address 1000 Robin Lane, Mound, Minnesota 55364
Phone
(H)
Name
Address
Phone
(H)
Circle:
(W) (M)
Pioneer Engineering, P.A.
2422 Enterprise Drive, Mendota Heights~ Minnesota 55120
~0 (651) 681-1914
R-1 R-lA R-2 R-3 B-1 8-2 B-3
(M)
CHANGE OF
USE
FROM: Agricultural
TO: Single Family Residential
10,000 S.F. Lot
· GondilJonal Use Perrn/t App,/ca#on
Page 2
DescrlptlonofPmposedUse: 75 gingle Family Lot , of 10,000 S.F. or larBer
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 describe the steps taken to mitigate
or eliminate the impacts.
An additional 75 households will obviously have some impacts on the nrea,
i.e. traffic, public utilities, lose of vegetation etc. The layout was
designed to limit these impacts wherever possible
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:
$ 1,125,000.00
Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure
for this property? ( ) yes, {D no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and
provide copies of resolutions.
This application must be signed by all owners of the subject property, or an explanation given why this is not
the case.
Ron Helmet, R.H. Development
Print Applicant's Name
Date
Leroy V. Alwin
Print Owner's Name
Applicant's Sign'~ure
Owners Signatflre Date
Print Owner's Name
Rev. 12-28-98
Owner's Signature
Date
I
I
\
,,L ll~-
iii i! IL
! I
,j
Memorandum
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
TO: City of Mound Staff, Planning Commission and Council
FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP
DATE: February 24, 2000
SUBJECT: Sketch Plan Review - "Langdon Bay" - R. H. Development
APPLICANT: R. H. DevelopmenffRottllund Homes
OWNER: Leroy Alwin
LOCATION: 1000 Robin Lane
ZONING: Residential R-1
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Low Density Residential
R.H. Development/Rottlund Homes has submitted a sketch plan for staff and Planning
Commission review and comment. They have a purchase agreement with Leroy Alwin, pending
development plan approval. The proposal is for an 80 lot single-family residential development on
the undeveloped 27 acre parcel with typical 70 lot widths and 10,800 square feet lots. Gross
density for the project as proposed would be 2.96 dwelling units per acre, which falls within the
low density residential range provided for in the Comprehensive Plan. It has been indicated that
the developer will pursue a Planned Unit Development (PUD) approach for the project. The
property is currently zoned R-1 Single family residential which establishes a 10,000 square feet
minimum lot area and 60 feet lot width.
My comments on the sketch plan are as follows:
· The proposed sketch plan represents a Major Subdivision and would require preliminary
and final plats if it proceeds. The developer has indicated they would like to entertain the
PUD process to allow for narrower ROW and street widths.
· The concept suggests a mix of typical grid and curvilinear subdivision design. The 80
single family lots are all similarly sized at 10,800 square feet. This meets the minimum
10,000 square feet standard for the R-1 Single Family Residential zone. The concept
shows the property "lotted out" with the exception ofwetland/ponding areas and two park
sites. Additional attention is needed at the platting stage to remove butt/"sandwiched" lots
fi.om some areas.
· The typical housing plans seem to be a good "fit" in the neighborhood and also meet
community needs for "upscale" single-family housing. It appears that the existing
residence and outbuildings would be removed. They have some unique qualities that if
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
p. 2
Langdon Bay Sketch Plan Review
February 28, 2000
retained, could add value to the property. Additional consideration should be given to see
what potential exists for their continued use.
· The developer would like to narrow the street corridor by narrowing the fight-of-way,
street width and front yard setbacks. Conceptually, staff agrees with this approach to
minimize environmental impacts. Less street pavement will reduce the amount of
hardsurface and water runoff improving water quality.
· Park site dedication requirements would indicate the need for a minimum of 2.7 acres of
parkland on the property. Given the buildout of the community and the lack of parkland in
this area, staff would prefer a parksite on the property rather than fees in lieu of land. The
developer has shown a connection to the railroad right-of-way, which looks to be a future
regional trail connection. This is a positive feature for the development/community. Need
to show additional pedestrian connections within the development.
· Additional topography information is needed at a 2 feet interval. There may be some areas
that could be considered bluffs.
· The site has a number of natural features that will affect this development concept
including slopes, wooded areas, and wetlands. Additional plans will need to be prepared
showing existing site conditions to a greater detail than is provided. Tree protection
policies will require attention is given to the densely vegetated areas that cover a majority
of the property. Additional wetland information will be needed to satisfy the Wetland
Conservation Act (WCA).
· Two access points are provided via undeveloped Robin Lane (Robin Lane currently serves
as the driveway to the Alwin homestead) and West Edge Road. These appear to be logical
connections to the roadway network. Further detail is needed from the developer to
address road improvements on West Edge Road. The road is not classified as State-Aid
because the Minnetrista half cannot receive state funding.
· There are other dedicated public rights-of-way on the property that could be used a
pedestrian trail system.
· Need to show a utility plan for the development. Watermain needs looping in the
development and sanitary sewer main and connections need to be shown.
· Storm drainage and ponding system needs to be further explored for the site.
These are my comments based on review of the sketch plan. Subsequent changes to this plan may
affect these comments. Additional comments from Public Works, Engineering, Parks, and Fke
Departments would be in addition to what I have provided. Other comments not discussed may
certainly arise at Planning Commission and Council at preliminary and final plat stages il'pursued.
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Mi~mesota 55401
Engineering · Planning · Surveying
· ~ Associates, Inc.
RECEIVE .P
FEB 2 Z ZOO0
OUND PLANNIIvb & iN$
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
February 21, 2000
Jon Sutherland, Planning and Zoning
John Cameron, City Engineer
City of Mound
Sketch Plan Review
Langdon Bay (Alwin Property)
MFRA #12754
I have reviewed the sketch plan submitted and find that it is limited to a proposed street alignment
and lot arrangement. With no information on proposed grading or utilities, there is very little for me
to comment on.
As previously mentioned, everyone needs to be aware that there are water pressure problems in this
area of Mound. The City has previously considered the extension of the ten-inch watermain fi:om the
northwest comer of the property to the ten-inch main at the intersection of West Edge Boulevard and
Halstead Lane. For a number of reasons the project was never undertaken.
The improvement of West Edge Road is a similar situation, primarily because it straddles the
boundary line between Mound and Minnetrista.
cc: Loren Gordon, Hoisington Koegler Group
s:\main:kMou 12754:\Coreespondenceksutherland2-2
15050 23rd Avenue North · Plymouth, Minnesota · 55447
phone 612/476-6010 . fax 612/476-8532
e-mail: mfra@mfra.com
.ROTTLUND HOMESTM
A DMSION OF THE ROTTLUND COMPANY, INC.
RECEIVED
:'-'.3!;
February 11, 2000
Mr. Jon Sutherland
Building Official
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, Minnesota 55364
Dear Mr. Sutherland:
R.H. Development, Inc. and The Rottlund Company, Inc. are pleased to be presenting to
the City of Mound a concept site plan for the Alwin property. The site consists of
approximately 27 acres and is located south of Lynwood Road and east of West Edge
Road. Our concept is for an 80-lot single-family residential development called
"Langdon Bay". The proposed minimum lot size is 70' in width and 144' in depth, for
10,800 square feet.
One of our main concerns is to save as many trees on the site. This can be accomplished
in a number of ways. First is the shape of the lot: Making the lot 70' wide and still
keeping at a 10,000 square foot minimum allows the lot to be deeper. This keeps the
house further form the rear lot line which is where most of the slopes and trees exist in
this concept. Also, we will be requesting some reduction of lot side yard and front yard
set backs. The side yard set back at the garage to be 6' minimum instead of 10', and 20'
front yard setback at the house and 25' at the garage instead of 30'. This flexibility of the
front road set back allows the house to be closer to the street, and the reduction of the
side yard allows the house to be slightly wider which reduces the depth of the house, both
of which help keep the house away from the rear lot line. This helps keep the house
away form the rear lot line to help save grading down the streets, which in mm saves
slopes and saves trees. Having one builder controlling the house sizes on the lots also
helps in the effort to save trees.
The house designs are planned to be approximately 2000-2600 square feet and be priced
at an estimated average of $250,000. There will be a mix of one-level and two-story
plans. Some unique features are a decided effort to lessen the dominance of the garage
and a promoting of the house entries and front porches. This is done by pushing the
3065 CENq'RE POINTE DRIYE ROSEVII 1 I:~ MN 55113
(651} 638-0500 FAX (651) 638-0501
February 11, 2000
Page 2
garage back into the house plan and having the front porch and the house closer to the
street than the garage. Some plans will have a two-ear garage to the street with a tandem
garage for the third stall to answer the demand for 3-car garages, but not have it dominate
the front of the house. Also, to take advantage of the comer lots, side load gages will be
used to promote the front porch opportunity. Another unique feature is that we are taking
our theme of Architecture from Rex Alwin's existing house which is a "Craftsman" style
home built in the 1930's and threading into the exterior elevations of the homes.
We are exited about an opportunity to create this type of special neighborhood in Mound,
and look forward to working with the City of Mound towards this goal.
Sincerely,
THE ROTTLUND COMPANY, INC.
Timothy Whitten, AIA
CCi
Ron Helmer, R.H. Development
John Helmer
Todd Stutz, Rottlund Homes
k,
,,,,-
I
\ \
DRAFT
MINUTES
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2000
Those present: Chair Geoff Michael; Commissioners: Jerry Clapsaddle, Becky Glister,
Cklair Hasse, Michael Mueller, Bill Voss, Frank Weiland; Council Liaison Bob Brown
(dismissed at 9:05 p.m). Absent and excused: Commissioner Orvin Burma. Staff
present: City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, and Secretary
Sue McCulloch.
The following public were present: Klm Anderson, Marshall Anderson, Jane and Marry
Carlsen, Wayne E. Ehlebracht, Lisa Holter, Steve Howard, Tim Loberg, Peter C. Meyer,
John Parker, Bart Roeglin, Sandy Roeglin, Linda Skorseth.
Chair Michael welcomed the public and called the meeting to order at 7:39 p.m.
MINUTES - APPROVAL OF THE FEBRUARY 14, 2000, MINUTES OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.
Brown stated the Planning Commission would be receiving in their packets the City
Council minutes in the future. He stated there have been delays in the minutes but this
is being worked on.
MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Hasse, to accept the February 14, 2000,
Planning Commission meeting minutes as submitted. MOTION CARRIED:
8-0.
BOARD OF APPEALS:
CASE # 00-10: SKETCH PLAN REVIEW; ROTTLUND HOMES, 1000 ROBIN LANE,
LOTS 1 AND 2, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVlSOIN #231; PID~ 14-117-24 33 0001; 14-117-24
34 0002.
Gordon presented this case. He stated R.H. Development/Rottlund Homes submitted a
sketch plan for staff and Planning Commission review and comment. They have a
purchase agreement with Leroy Alwin, pending development plan approval. The
proposal is for an 80 lot single-family residential development on the undeveloped 27-
acre parcel with typical 70 lot widths and 10,800 square feet lots. Gross density for the
project as proposed would be 2.96 dwelling units per acre, which falls within the Iow
density residential range provided for in the Comprehensive Plan. It has been indicated
Mound Plannina Commission Minutes, February 28, 2000
DRAFT
that the developer will pursue a Planned Unit Development (PUD) approach for the
project. The property is currently zoned R-1 Single family residential which establishes
a 10,000 square feet minimum lot area and 60 feet lot width.
Gordon commented on the sketch plan as follows:
a. The proposed sketch plan represents a Major Subdivision and would require
preliminary and final plats if it proceeds. The developer has indicated they would
like to entertain the PUD process to allow for narrower ROW and street widths.
b. The concept suggests a mix of typical grid and curvilinear subdivision design.
The 80 single-family lots are all similarly sized at 10,800 square feet. This meets
the minimum 10,000 square feet standard for the R-1 Single Family Residential
zone. The concept shows the property "lotted out" with the exception of
wetland/ponding areas and two park sites. Additional attention is needed at the
platting stage to remove butt/"sandwiched" lots from some areas.
c. The typical housing plans seem to be a good "fit" in the neighborhood and also
meet community needs for "upscale' single-family housing. It appears that the
existing residence and outbuildings would be removed. They have some unique
qualities that if retained, could add value to the property. Additional
consideration should be given to see what potential exists for their continued
use.
d. The developer would like to narrow the street corridor by narrowing the right-of-
way, street width and front yard setbacks. Conceptually, staff agrees with this
approach to minimize environmental impacts. Less street pavement will reduce
the amount of hardsurface and water runoff improving water quality.
e. Park site dedication requirements would indicate the need for a minimum of 2.7
acres of parkland on the property. Given the buildout of the community and the
lack of parkland in this area, staff would prefer a parksite on the property rather
than fees in lieu of land. The developer has shown a connection to the railroad
right-of-way, which looks to be a future regional trail connection. This is a
positive feature for the development/community. Need to show additional
pedestrian connections within the development.
f. Additional topography information is needed at a 2 feet interval. There may be
some areas that could be considered bluffs.
g. The site has a number of natural features that will affect this development
concept including slopes, wooded areas, and wetlands. Additional plans will
need to be prepared showing existing site conditions to a greater detail than is
provided. Tree protection policies will require attention is given to the densely
vegetated areas that cover a majority of the property. Additional wetland
information will be needed to satisfy the Wetland Conservation ACt (WCA).
h. Two access points are provided via undeveloped Robin Lane (Robin Lane
currently serves as the driveway to the Alwin homestead) and West Edge Road.
These appear to be logical connections to the roadway network. Further detail is
needed from the developer to address road improvements on West Edge Road.
Mound Plannina Commission Minutes. February 28, 2000
DRAFT
The road is not classified as State-Aid because the Minnetrista half cannot
receive state funding.
i. There are other dedicated public rights-of-way on the property that could be
used a pedestrian trail system.
j. Need to show a utility plan for the development. Watermain needs looping in the
d~v~lol3m~nt and ~anitary §~wer main and eonn~c'tion~ n~d to b~ ~hown.
k. Storm drainage and ponding system needs to be further explored for the site.
Gordon stated there might be additional comments from the Park Commission, Public
Works, Engineering, and Fire Departments to this sketch plan that have not been
provided to him yet.
Gordon stated the Westedge location would need to be reviewed with great intensity
because this is the dividing lining between Minnetrista and Mound.
Voss asked where the access was going to be located for the future trail system.
Gordon stated a small trail head would be developed through the park location near the
railroad track. The developer stated he would expand on this question when he
presents the sketch.
Brown stated the City of Mound is in desperate need for parkland because they will be
losing some park space with the redevelopment of downtown. He asked if it would be
feasible for the developer to locate one large piece of property where a nice park with
swings and a Babe Ruth ballfield could be built.
Tim Wittman, Vice President of Rottlund Homes, presented his sketch plan. He stated
they have a valid purchase agreement with Rex Alwin regarding this property. In the
beginning, Rottlund Homes would have liked building townhomes on this property, but
Mr. Alwin was quite offended with that offer and made it quite clear he wanted single
family homes built. After discussions, Rottlund Homes agreed to build single family
homes on this property and they are very excited to be a part of this project.
Mr. Wittman stated the property around Lake Langdon is being proposed for park use.
He stated this park would have access to the lake with a trail or sidewalk going to and
from the park through the development. He stated this property does have some steep
edges, but also includes very beautiful trees. He stated there is a wetland area
designated in the development that Rottlund intends to stay away from and help
preserve this area. Mr. Wittman stated there are storm ponding areas that need to be
worked on as well. He stated the position of the road right-of-way was in the Iow area
which was odd, but workable.
Mr. Wittman mentioned he met with the Park Commission. The Park Commission
would like more park dedication than required, although the developer is pleased with
the 2.7 acres presented, but also a little flexible. He stated the Park Commission
thought the park dedication around Lake Langdon looked very attractive. The
3
Mound Plannin(~ Commission Minutes, February 28, 2000
D'.RAFT
developer stated they would be putting in a second, small pocket park up by Lynwood
that would include a gazebo and play structure. These 85 single homes would be
priced around $250,000.
Brown restated he would like Rottlund Homes pursue the possibility of having one large
park dedicated in this development, rather than two smaller parks.
Mr. Wittman stated the public appreciated the site sizes and the location of the houses
on the sites for the purpose of saving as many trees as possible behind the homes. He
is hopeful to reduce the right-of-way surface that would allow the homes to be closer to
the street. He further stated he is proposing the setbacks not so far back and also
keeping the homes more wide than deep. He further stated rather than 10 feet on the
sides of the homes, a 6-foot side setback is being proposed. All of these compromises
will help save the trees in this development.
Clapsaddle suggested having more flexibility in each lot size. Mr. Wittman stated he
would keep this possibility in the back of his mind.
Mr. Wittman stated it was asked of him if they would be able to save Mr. Alwin's house
or not. He stated Mr. Alwin's house would need to be brought up to the standards, but
will certainly look at the opportunity of preserving his home.
Mr. Wittman further stated the style of homes would be bungalow, one level, and two-
story homes. He stated each home would have a two-car garege with a tandem for a
third car. There would be a porch proposed for each home being built and also having
a boulevard tree planted in the right-of-way.
Voss suggested if this meets the upscale single family homes, he would recommend
having 10 feet on each side of the homes rather than the 6 feet dimension proposed.
He stated this would be more appealing to buyers.
Brown stated having only 12 feet between each home might be a problem with the fire
department. He stated the 20-foot dimension would help with fighting rites.
Mueller stated he liked the sketch plan proposed tonight. He stated it appears Rottlund
Homes is creating a nice neighborhood with parks made available for the public. He
stated he appreciates the front porch on the homes. Mueller stated the 26 feet wide
streets are probably workable, rather than the 28 feet wide in the City ordinance.
Mueller asked if the City Engineer has commented yet about including a boulevard tree
in the front yard which might be located where the utility easement has been
designated. Mr. Wittman stated Rottlund Homes could be creative with the City
Engineer in putting the utilities in a proper location.
Mueller asked Mr. Wittman about the trail right-of-way and whether it should be
sidewalk or a trail. Mr. Wittman stated he would prefer to see a sidewalk approach.
4
Mound Planninq Commission Minutes, February 28, 2000
DRAFT
Mueller asked if any of the trail site is being considered for the parkland dedication and
at this point, it is not. Rottlund Homes has not reached into the final details of the
development of the site.
Mueller asked if hardcover had been calculated where the wetland areas have been
planned. Mr. Wittman stated no calculations of hardcover have been discussed up to
this point.
Mueller was concemed about the setbacks being considered on comer lots. Mr.
Wittman stated the lots would be 25 feet setbacks.
Mueller asked Mr. Wittman if after reviewing a sketch plan, the Planning Commission
should be looking at something that is comfortable to them with regard to zoning and
what could be agreed upon and discussed at a later date. Mr. VVittman stated this was
a true statement.
Mueller questioned the 6-foot side yards. He stated he would appreciate Rottlund
Homes supplying the Planning Commission with examples of homes in a development
they have already developed and it has been a positive experience for them and the
homeowners. Mr. Wittman would be happy to demonstrate homes of this type.
Voss asked about how wide the Dakota Line currently is. Mr. Wittman stated it is about
100 feet. Voss asked Mr. Wittman if this property is being considered as park
dedication property at this point. Mr. Wittman stated this is not being considered as
park dedication, but rather open space where grass could be planted in some fashion.
Clapsaddle stated the parkland space would be increased if the Dakota Line could be
redone in the suggested way by Mr. VVittman.
Clapsaddle is concerned about maintaining big boats/rv's in front of homes at this
development. He would like to see it written there would be restrictions with such
vehicles being allowed to be parked in the front of their homes. Gordon stated this is
normally covered in the covenants. Clapsaddle stated covenants tend to fade away
over time. He further stated he is very excited about the plan proposed, but strongly
stressed he does not want to see big boats/rv's in front of these people's homes. Mr.
Wittman stated he could possibly suggest the covenants of the association run beyond
the normal 20-year period.
Brown stated he appreciated the concept being proposed. He stated he does not
approve of the 6-foot side yard, as well as having two parks in this development. He
would propose having a few of the lots located by Lake Langdon to be considered
lakeshore property, and moving the park by Lake Langdon up to a location where one
large park could be dedicated to this development. Mr. Wittman stated Rottlund
Homes is flexible.
Mound Plannin(~ Commission Minutes, February 28, 2000
D AFT
Voss asked the Chair if the public could speak tonight if they wished even though this
was not a public hearing. Chair Michael stated this would be fine.
With regard to the 6-foot side setbacks, Sutherland suggested having each house built
with six feet on one side and 10 feet on the other. With these dimensions, there would
be 16 feet between each home, which is closer to the 20 feet requirement. Mr. VVittman
appreciated Sutherland's suggestion and will highly consider it.
Mueller stated he does not recall many plats Coming to the City in a drainage wetland
area. He stated there often are outlots, such as in Pelican Point or Teal Point. Gordon
stated this is possible by having the property part of your own property. He stated
platting back through a pond is favorable. Gordon stated this sets a situation where the
homeowners association would maintain. Secondly, it could be a regional pond where
the City would maintain it with an outlot. Gordon prefers not handling this problem with
an outlot.
Bart Roeglin, 2260 VVestedge Boulevard, Mound. Mr. Roeglin is concerned whether
the developer will actually keep all the trees it intends. He has seen other developers
make promises and do not fulfill them. Mr. Roeglin would also appreciate the
Commissioner walking the property by themselves and noting areas that will need to be
filled. He stated when there are areas that need filling, this of course disrupts the soil,
and causes trees to die. Thirdly, Mr. Roeglin is concerned about the traffic that will
increase tremendously by Westedge with this development. He would like changes if
possible in the routing of the traffic. Finally, Mr. Roeglin would like to see some control
of the dirt blasts that will occur with this development. Mr. Wittman noted his concerns.
Brown stated the City would like to cul-de-sac the area near Westedge which would
push the traffic out towards Hwy 110 and assist in the amount of traffic going in that
direction. Secondly, he is confident from other reputable resources that Rottlund
Homes is honest and reputable.
Sandy Roeglin, 2260 Westedge Boulevard, Mound. She stated right now where she
lives there are approximately eight homes and with this additional 85 homes being built
in this location, she is concerned the property would be too dense with too many
homes.
Chair Michael wanted it clarified by Rottlund Homes that a motion be passed tonight
does not represent the Planning Commission is in complete favor of the sketch plan.
Mr. Wittman completely understands and stated this is not a binding situation and they
still have a lot of work to do to finalize the plan.
MOTION by Voss, second by Brown, to conceptually approve this project
with a minimum of 2.7 acres of park dedication property and a road width
minimum of 28 feet.
Mound Plannina Commission Minutes, February 28, 2000
D AFT
Discussion.
Brown made a friendly motion to have the distance between houses a minimum of 16
feet and suggest the 2.7 acre park dedication be one large park, rather than 2 smaller
ones.
Voss did not accept the friendly motion by Brown.
Mueller stated he appreciates the location of the park being proposed.
Brown stated he does not see Mound people using the park as suggested.
Clapsaddle stated it is premature to narrow the street at this point. He further stated
the location of the park is appreciated and the trail would be an added plus.
Clapsaddle stated the City needs to solve the problem of having a Babe Ruth ballfield
for the citizens of Mound, but it is not realistic to suggest a developer give the City a
large park being requested, but rather a park that Rottlund has suggested today.
Clapsaddle suggested having the motion amended to not include the size of the road
width to be 28 feet at this point.
Mueller agreed at this point stating the road width should be 28 feet is premature.
Voss stated he would certainly remove this part of the motion, but a nice wide street for
the children to play in when appropriate would be appreciated.
Mueller offered a friendly amendment to keep below the 30 percent hardcover
requirement for this development. Voss agreed to this friendly motion by Mueller.
Brown stated he does not want two or three parks located in this development because
of the neighbors possibly saying "this is our park in our development" and not
appreciating those that do not live in the development using the park. Brown further
stated having one large piece of property would look more city designated, although,
he would be comfortable at this point removing his friendly motion.
Clapsaddle stated he appreciated the boulevard concept with the sketch. He also
stated he would like seeing the railroad section created as a historical thing.
Brown asked if it would be possible to put the utilities down the middle of the street
rather than in the location of where the boulevard would be suggested by the
developer. Gordon stated having utilities in the middle of street is not done today
because of access to them. He stated typically the utilities fall between the sidewalk or
the back edge of the curb.
AMENDED MOTION by Voss, seconded by Brown, to conceptually approve
this project with a minimum of 2.7 acres of park dedication property, a 16
7
Mound Plannina Commission Minutes. Februarv 28. 2000 DRAFT
foot side yard setback, and a maximum of 30 percent hardcover for the
development. Motion carried. 8-0.
DRAFT
Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission
February 10, 2000
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 10, 2000
Present were: Commissioners Peter Meyer, Norman Domholt, john BeJse, Christina
Cooper; and City Council Representative Leah Weycker. Also present were Park Director
Jim Fackler, and Secretary Kristine Kitzman.
Absent: Commissioner Tom Casey
Also present was Mayor Pat Meisel.
PRESENTATION FROM ROTTLUND HOMES ON THE REX ALWIN PROPERTY
Tim Whitten, Rottlund Homes, was present and addressed the Commissioners regarding
the development of the Rex Alwin property. Eighty (80) lots of single family homes are
planned for the property, selling in the $250,000 price range. An internal park is planned,
in addition to park space on the land that is across the current railroad track, which is
lakeshore.
Chair Domholt questioned whether sidewalks would be part of the plan.
Mr. Whitten replied that trails have taken over recently. However, in this development
sidewalks are part of the plan.
Commissioner Meyer questioned if having sidewalks has any bearing on the width of the
street.
Mr. Whitten replied that the City would determine what the width of the streets are,
especially if the streets are going to be public.
Councilmember Weycker stated her satisfaction with the fact that they are planning to
bring back the front porches, and downplaying the garages. The work done shows
planning, and stands to be a very nice neighborhood. She asked if the original house is
going to be saved.
Mr. Whitten stated that if there is any way to save the house, it will be saved. However,
it has never been improved, and it may not be possible to bring it up to code.
Park Director Fackler questioned what size the internal neighborhood park would be.
Mr. Whitten stated that it would be approximately 2.4 acres total. There are many ways
DRAFT
Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission
February 10, 2000
that the developer handles the parks, and that is an issue that can be discussed with the
City. He suggested the best way is to find out what the City wants, and then respond.
Regarding the equipment, again the City input is very important, but the developer would
definitely like to see something that fits in with the style of the neighborhood.
Park Director Fackler stated that it would be better to have any trails established, and a
park with equipment established before people move into the homes. He noted that once
they move in and get used to an open space, it becomes somewhat difficult to begin
adding things.
Commissioner Meyer stated that right now the Park Commission could not emphatically
state that they would prefer the trail anywhere, as there is not enough information.
Mr. Whitten stated that right now the developer is just looking for some direction so that
they can gather the correct information to pursue areas the City is interested in. If the Park
Commission has any preference, the developer will pursue the information needed. He
advised that the developer is very interested in saving as many trees as possible, and will
put forth every effort to do this.
Park Director Fackler questioned whether the developer gives any type of warranty to the
City if a tree is left in a right-of-way and dies in the space of a couple years. He asked if
the developer would take the responsibility of removing them.
Mr. Whitten stated that could definitely be discussed and some amount could likely be put
in escrow for that purpose.
Councilmember Weycker cautioned Mr. Whitten to double check the location of any Indian
Mounds, as it is a Federal offence to disturb those areas. She does not believe there are
any there, but it would not hurt to make sure.
SURVEY ON FILE? YES
LOT OF RECORD? YES I NO
YAI~J) . ' J DIRE~ION
IIOUSE .........
FRONT N S E W
FRO~ N S E W
SIDE N S E W
SIDE N S E W
~AR N S E W
~KE N S E W
TOP OF BLU~
ZONING DISTRICT. LOT SIZE/WIDTH: EXIS'I'ING LOT SIZE:
Ri 3.0,000/60 B1 '7, SO0/O LOT WIDIH:
R1A 6,000/40 B2 20,O00/80
R2 6,000/40 II3 10,000/60
R2 1¢, ODD/SO LOT ~)~.PT¥1:
e~ ssg o~. zz ~o,ooo/zoo
~Q~D I ~i~G/PRO~SED VALANCE
I
.1
I _ I
1000 Robin Lane Aud. Subd. #231
Leroy A1 ~,,i n
Lots 1 & 2
14-117-24 33 0001
14-117-24 34 0002
6~31o
GARAGE, SllED ..... DETACHED BUILDINGS
FRONT N S E W
FRONT N S E W
SIDE N S E W
SIDE N S E W
REAR N S E W
LAKE N S E W
1'DP OF BLUFF
Survey no R-I~
-I
ItARDCOVER 30% OR 40%
co~FoR~,N~? Y~s, ~o, ? 1~¥: I DATED:
This 7~ning Information Sheet only su~arizcs a ~ion of ~e te~rcmcn~ oulli~ in ~e Oily of Mou~ Zoning ~ina~e. For ~r~er info~tion, contact the City of Mound
Pla~in~ ~partmem at 472-0~.
' ' .." '; I '; '"- ~ ' ~ ~'~) ~ '~, ~ ~L,,' ...... ' .....
~'.-.,.-.~-.'~. ,,,., ~ ,..... ~.~;,., t.~ I I,,~.:?~-L~:.;::,~L ,:., ~-
- ~~_ .~ ~,. ~ ~g _ ~1,- ,., .:., ~-~i ., ~.,
I
",' '~'t..- TM,' .,~ ~',N
~ - . ... ,,.~ . ,..,.-
' 1411724
',GOVT LOT !1 '~'~'~SGovT LOT I0
RFC, E VED
MAY
MOUND
Application for
STREET I EASEMENT VACATION
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 472-0607, Fax: 472-0620
Planning Commission Date: (. i {.~'~ ~ I '~
City Council Date:,,.~L~I~. $ '?
Distribution: ~5' ~..~'OD City Planner
~'. ~Z~oOO City Engineer
5- ? ~-OO Public Works
~_.' Z~OOMinnegasco
Z.~ O0 Police Dept.
~'- Z.'~ 'O0 Fire Dept.
Please type or print the following information:
APPLICANT Name R.H. Development, Inc.
Address 2300
Phone(H)
Adjacent Address
ADJACENT
PROPERTY Name of Business
(APPLICANT'S
PROPERTY) Lot
W. 97th Street, Bloomington, Minnesota
IW) 612-831-3830
See Attached
Case No. 0~ "~
Block
(M)
Plat
Subdivision
ZONING Circle: ~ R-lA
DISTRICT
R-2 R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3
PID~
DESCRIPTION
OF STREET
TO BE
VACATED
See Attached
REASON
FOR
REQUEST
IS THERE A
PUBLIC NEED
FOR THIS
LAND?
Unused right-of-way
NO
Print Applicant's Name Applicant's Signature
Date
Print Applicant's Name
(RevVed 02-~4-00)
Applicant's Signature
Date
FC'.F1VED
MAY
Application for
STREET / EA3EMENT VACATION
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 472-0607, Fax: 472-0620
Planning Commission Date:
Distribution:
15-~.~'00 City Planner
~'. ~z~-O0 City Engineer
5o ~.~-~-00 Public Works
Please type or print the following information:
APPLICANT Name R.H. Development, Inc.
ACtress 2300 W. 97th Street,
Phone (H)
A~jacent ~res$ See Attached
ADJACENT
PROPERTY Name of Business
(APPLICANT'S
PROPERTY) Lot
Subdivision
ZONING Ckcte: ~ R-lA R-2 R-3 B-1
DISTP, ICT
V
DESCRIPTION See Attache(/
OF STRE=-T
TO BE
VACATED
REASON
FOR
REQUEST
Unused right-of-way
NO
IS THERE A
PUBLIC NEED
FOR THIS
LAN0?
Print Applicant's Name
Applicant s Signature Date
Bloomington, Minnesota
ON) 612-831-3830
iht Applicant's Name
(Iqew~e~102-0400)
Applicant's Signature
Date
CITY OF MOUND -~'-'ZOi~iNG INFORMATION SHEET
ZONING DISTRICT. LOT SIZE/WIDTH:
SURVEY ON FILE? YES
LOT OF RECORD? YES / NO
HOUSE .........
FRONT
FRONT
SIDE
SIDE
REAR
LAKE
TOP OF BLUFF
DIRECTION
N S E W
NS E W
N S E W
NS E W
N S E W
N S E W
R1 10,000/60 B1 7,500/0
RIA 6,000/40 B2 20,000/80
R2 6,000/40 B3 10,000/60
R2 14,000/80
R3 S~E ORD. I1 30,000/100
REQUIR.gD ] EXISTING/PROPOSED
IY
50'
10' OR 30'
EXISTING LOT SIZE:
LOT WIDTH:
LOT DEPI H:
VARIANCE
GARAGE, SHED ..... DETACHED BUILDINGS
FRONT N S E W
FRONT N S E W
SIDE N S E W 4'OR6'
SIDE N S E W 4'OR6'
REAR N S E W 4'
LAKE N S E W 50'
'FOP OF BLUFF 10' OR 30'
Planning Department at 472-0600.
liARDCOVER 30% OR 40%
CONFORMING? 'YES / NO I ? J BY: J DATED:
I
This Zoning Informatio. Sheet only summarizes a portion of the requiremems oullincd in the Cily of Mouud Zoning Ordinance. For further information, con--ct the Cily of Mound
CITY OF MOUND
MEMORANDUM
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
To.'
From:
Date:
Subject:
HRA Board
Kandis Hanson, Executive Director
August 4, 2000
Lake Langdon and Auditor's Road Redevelopment
I have received a letter from Bill Beard in which he concludes that the "project's economics are not
viable." I am enclosing a copy of that letter.
As you are well aware, the HRA and The Beard Group, Inc. have worked long and hard to attempt
to fashion a development package that will satisfy the objectives of all the parties, and will
accomplish the redevelopment of the Lake Langdon and Auditor's Road areas as envisioned in the
Mound Visions Plan. Unfortunately, those efforts have not achieved the desired results.
The challenge for the HRA is to determine how to proceed.
Because Bill's decision was not entirely unexpected, I have been discussing possible next steps.
Those discussions have yielded several conclusions:
1. Although we have not discussed these matters with any other possible developer, we
believe that the project's economics, although not viable for The Beard Group, Inc., may be viable
for others.
2. We believe that the project design, use mix and densities contained in the Mound
Visions Plan, which are the product of many years of city and community work, should continue to
form the cornerstone for the redevelopment of those areas.
3. From both a tax increment standpoint and from a public perception standpoint, we
believe that the HRA needs to continue with efforts to develop the Lake Langdon and Auditor's
Road area.
4. We believe the Beard letter can be viewed as an opportunity. Representatives from
some businesses have expressed concerns about some aspects of the redevelopment effort. To the
extent practical, an effort will be made to address these concerns in furore development agreements
for this area.
In light of the foregoing, I would encourage the HRA to reaffirm its commitment to move forward
with the redevelopment of downtown Mound. Ehiers & Associates will be providing a summary of
thc actions that will be taken to continue the redevelopment process for review by thc HRA.
Finally, I want the HRA to know that Bill Beard and The Beard Group, Inc., have been excellent to
work with, and I hope that they may find a way to participate in any process that is approved by the
HRA.
printed on recycled paper
August 3, 2000
Ms. Kandis M. Hanson
City. Manager
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
R_E: Auditors Road and Langdon Districts
Dear Kandis:
It is with ~eat regret that I write to inform you and the Mound }iRA that after considerable
review and analysis we have determined that the project's economies are not viable.
Specifically, the amount of T1F generated by the project is not adequate to offset the extra
ordinary infrastructure and land acquisition costs. Under the approved concept plan the "gap"
between the amount of assistance available and the amount of assistance required was
$3,100,000. As different approaches were explored the gap was narrowed to just under
$2;000,000. These "alternative approaches" included increasing the project's density,
eliminating portions of the project, reducing the return to the developer and looking to create
additional value outside the Langdon and Auditor's district. Many- of these alternative
approaches would have required revisions to the approved plan, and since these approaches
didn't eliminate the gap, it would not be productive to present them as alternatives to the I-IRA.
Please know we have a considerable financial and emotional investment in the project and are
committed to working with the HRA and its staffto find the answers and solutions that will
allow the project to move forward. To that end it is our intention to attend the Tuesday Au~ast
8~ HRA Commission meeting to be available to answer any questions the HRA Commissioners
may' have.
Please don't hesitate to contact me with any questions or comments.
Sincerely,
The Beard Group, Inc.
William H. Beard
President
CC: Distribution List
10 - l lth Avenue Sontti.. ~,o. tl _~.'las,.: ~ .....,. I~N. 55343-7568 (952) 930-0630 Fax (952) 930-0631
7/7 '~ q?nq'o~ ~Hqq'l ~7 '¢ 'ShY
+~SZ~4E4616 T-I~Z P.DDZ/DDZ F-427
From-CITY OF ORONO
Please forward A.S.A.P.
TO:
Lake Area Mayors
FROM:
Mayor Gabriel Jabbour
DATE: July 25, 2000
SUBJECT: Letter from the LMCD Regarding Increased Water Patrol Presence on Lake
Minuetonka
A letter came out fTom the LMCD to all member cities today regarding funding for additional
Hennepin County Sheriff s Water Patrol presence on Lake Mi~netonka. This letter was in response
to a proposal I made at the Sune 2g LMCD meeting, and which was also discussed at a Lake Area
Mayors' meeting on June 30.
It is very important that, as you review r_he proposal, it is clear that the proposal involves ~tree
souxces of funding as follows:
a. 33% funded by the LMCD within its current levy.
b. .33% funded by the LMCD member cities.
c. 33% funded by the private sector.
Given a projected cost of $ 100,000, the Lake Area Cities would jointly contribute $33,000 of the
total cost. If you have any questions regarding the proposal, please do not hesitate to call me.
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
18338 MINNETONKA BLVD. · DEEPHAVEN, MINNESOTA 55391 · TELEPHONE 612/745-0789 · FAX 612/745-9085
Gregory S. Nybeck, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
July 24, 2000
BOARD MEMBERS
Douglas E. Babcock
Chair, Tonka Bay
Bert Foster
Vice Chair, Deephaven
Eugene Partyka
Secretary, Minnetrista
Craig Nelson
Treasurer, Spring Park
Andrea Ahrens
Mound
Bob Ambrose
Wayzata
Kent Dahlen
Minnetonka Beach
Craig Eggers
Victoria
Tom Gilman
Excelsior
Greg Kitchak
Minnetonka
Lili McMillan
Orono
Tom Skramstad
Shorewood
Herb J. Suerth
Woodland
Sheldon Wert
Greenwood
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
LMCD Mayors and Councilmembers
LMCD Member Cities
Interested Parties
Douglas Babcock, LMCD Chairman
Greg Nybeck, LMCD Executive Director
Increase in Water Patrol presence on Lake Minnetonka
Dudng the past year, the LMCD Board of Directors, the LMCD member cities, other agencies
and interested parties, have been reviewing Lake Minnetonka's activity levels and changes in
usage pattems. Notable changes have occurred in the area of charter boat licensing,
specifically the increase to our maximum allowed number of full liquor licenses; and in area of
increased size and scope of weekend anchoring at the north side of Big Island, including
numerous, large, semi-organized events for which no LMCD Special Event permit was
obtained. The Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol Division was especially concerned
about the lack of Public Safety access to the Big Island area dudng these weekend
timeframes.
While some action has been taken by the District to help achieve a better balance for all users
and uses, like adding marked navigation lanes to the Big Island area, there still are a number
of concerns being discussed by agencies and the public at large. The current concems all
have brought forward a common thread, the need for increased law enforcement presence on
the Lake, particularly during the summer season. Those of us familiar with the current state of
enforcement on the Lake can easily conclude that the current levels and types of enforcement
provided by the Water Patrol are of high quality and are very cost effective, especially when
recognizing the volunteer Special Deputy program. But, we can also see that increasing full-
time enforcement levels by dudng the summer months would do a great deal to improve the
consistency of enforcement and the quality of experience for all aspects of lake use.
At the June 28th regular meeting of the LMCD Board of Directors, a presentation was made by
Orono Mayor Gabriel Jabbour proposing the need to explore additional Hennepin County
Sheriff's Water Patrol presence on Lake Minnetonka. ^ suggested course of action was to
increase the presence by two full time Deputies, for five months, for the 2001 boating season.
50% Recycled Content
20% Post Consumer Waste
After significant discussion, the attached LMCD Resolution 99 was adopted by the LMCD at
this meeting. Two objectives are established in LMCD Resolution 99. They include: 1) the
LMCD believes that a supplemental law enforcement program, partially funded by the LMCD,
the member cities, and the private sector is needed and would be beneficial to Lake
Minnetonka, and 2) the LMCD would agree to be the lead agency in this type of endeavor.
Web Page Address: http://www.winternet.com/-Imcd/
E-mail Address: Imcd@winternet.com
DRAFT proposed my Mark Hanus
8-7-00
To: LMCD
From: City of Mound
The City of Mound takes a very negative position on the funding issue relative to increased
patroling on Lake Minnetonka.
Any increase in problems experienced due to charter boats and liquor consumption, as indicated
in your letter, is directly controlled by the LMCD. The LMCD licenses these operations m~d has
the ability to control the quantity and type of operation v,-ithout increasing costs. If these
operations cause problems, the LMCD should address it in their licensing procedures.
If these commercial operations create the need for more patrols, then they should pay for these
patrols through higher fees. The city of Mound is not interested in subsidizing private businesses
iii this manner.
It is, in large part, the City of Mound's opinion that this proposal is the result of recent litigation
that has rendered the authority of the volunteer members of the water patrol less than previously
thought. It is not the responsibility of local municipalities to make up the shortfall.
This regional lake that has mandates to increase congestion by adding more accesses and parking
is being squeezed without any compensation for resolving the problems created by that squeeze.
If there is a problem, it is a regional problem, not a local one.
Those agencies requiring more congestion must be made to bear the burden of the results. The
County and the State should be petitioned to pay for the problems that they are creating.
The cities surrounding the lake pay far more than our share of taxes already. We should not be
expected to pay for increased law enforcement that is required because of non-residents floodh~g
into our area. Especially when there is no local benefit to the cities.
The City of Mound is strongly opposed to having to pay higher fees to address p~oblems created
by others.
Cc: All LMCD Member Cities
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
This proposal and resolution was carded forward to the Mayors meeting on June 30th, which
in~:luded a wide range of local, regional and state representation. Representation included
State Senator Gen Olson, State Representative Barb Sykora, Hennepin County Commissioner
Penny Steele, a representative of Hennepin County Commissioner Mary Tambornino, and a
number of Mayors from the Lake Minnetonka communities. The general consensus of those
present at this meeting believed the idea made good sense and that it should be considered
for the 2001 boating season. It was also agreed that any increase in enfomement should be in
addition to maintaining the levels of funding and enforcement currently provided by the Water
Patrol. In no way was any new program to shift the current levels and funding of enforcement
fror,~ Hennepin County to the Cities.
To keep the momentum moving forward on this proposal and to assist the cities with 2001
budget planning, the LMCD would like feedback from its member communities on it by
Tuesday, August 15th. Specifically, we are looking for whether the member cities would
support an increase of Water Patrol presence on Lake Minnetonka for the 2001 boating
season and whether they are willing to share in the costs for it. Possible funding mechanisms
for the member cities to consider include voluntary contributions or by adjusting the maximum
the LMCD can levy to its member cities in Minnesota Statutes 103B.635 by adoption of a
resolution of ~ of the member cities (10 of 14 cities). It is estimated that the total costs for the
increased presence of the Water Patrol for the 2001 boating season would be approximately
$100,000. The share of the costs for each individual city would be determined using the
existing LMCD levy formula.
If a majodty of cities were in support this proposal, the LMCD would create and lead a task
force to formulate and finalize the details of this program. It would be our intent to present the
results of the task force to all the member cities for approval before requesting any specific
funding amounts for 2001.
Ple3se feel free to call LMCD Executive Director Greg Nybeck if you have questions or
concerns regarding this proposal. Your timely response is greatly appreciated!
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
RESOLUTION 9}
RESOLUTION TO INCREASE HENNEPIN COUNTY
SHERIFF'S WATER PATROL PRESENCE
ON LAKE MINNETONKA
WHEREAS, the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Board (LMCD) of Directors received
public testimony and discussed the need for increased public safety on Lake Minnetonka at its June
28, 2000 Regular meeting; and
WHEREAS, the LMCD Board of Directors discussed the idea of increasing the presence of
Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol Deputies by two during the 2001 boating season for five
months; and
WHEREAS, the Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol, working through a joint and
cooperative agreement with the LMCD that is renewed annually, is authorized to enforce the
provisions of the LMCDordinances by the issuance of citations and such other means as permitted
by state law;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED as follows:
1. The LMCD believes that a supplemental law enforcement program, partially funded by
each the LMCD, the member cities, and the private sector is needed and would be
beneficial to Lake Minnetonka.
2. The LMCD would agree to be the lead agency in this type of endeavor.
Adopted the 28· day of June, 2000.
ATTEST:
Douglas Babcock, Chair
.. .~,"~ ,,,,,,, ~'~ ~ ~ ~ .
":" '" ':"':~ ON LAKE MINN'ETO'NKA
.. GR~flD M ·
.~ :~~ ~,.,~..-,~,..
-~ ~:~ ~Om~ '-'~'
. ~l~,.- ~ ' '
,- ~, ,,~, .,,, .- . ..~ .
~ Meef at 7pm o~ All Stars Sports Bar & Grill ~ 394
Po~of Call on Lake Mika
4673 Shot~ine Dllve, Spring Pall<
HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE
Water Patrol Unit
4141 Shoreline Drive
Spring Park, MN 55384
Patrick D. McGowan, Sheriff
April 6, 2000
Mayor Gabriel Jabbour
City of Orono
985 Tonkawa Rd
Long Lake, MN 55356
Mayor Jabbour:
Per our phone conversation and upon your request, I have compiled some information which
may be helpful regarding the staffing and funding issues for public safety on Lake MLrmetmdm.
Current staffing levels for the Water Patrol Unit include five full-time deputies, one full-time
sergeant and one full-time lieutenant. Currently we have thirty special deputies on staff but have
an authorized strength, of 55 volunteer special deputy positions.
With these staffing levels, we must cover all of Hennepin County - not just Lake Minnetonka.
During 1999, 79% of Water Patrol deputies time was spent on Lake Minnetonka. This is due to
the fact that the majority of activity and calls for service are generated on Lake Minnetonka.
During 1999, the Water Patrol generated 7,340 pieces of activity, wlfich includes citations,
warnings, accidents and miscellaneous calls for service, including thefts, assaults and aid to
citizens. This is down from. an. all-time high of 10,143 pieces of activity and up from a low of
6,829 in 1995 and 5,968 in 1994. This directly correlates with hours worked by deputies:
27,376 in 1999; 29,208 in 1997; 26,887 in 1995; and 25,014 in 1994.
The Water Patrol budget for the year 2000 is $798,504. $135,980 is ftmded by the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources. This money is used to support all functions of the Water.
Patrol Unit, including wages, cost and maintenance of equipment (tracks, boats and
snowmobiles). This also includes all other associated costs such as radios, office supplies,
uniforms for special deputies, etc.
Cost estimates for increasing staffing levels during the summer months are as follows:
$45.68 = hourly overtime rate tbr one deputy including benefits. (We have to use the
overtime rate bemuse if we bring a deputy in from another unit, that unit would have to
pay overtime to backfill the position.)
$45.68 x 5 months (May through September) = $36,544
Hennepin County is an equal opportunity employer
Mayor G Sabbour . Page 2
Staffing / Funding Issues
'In order to staff each boat that goes in service with at least one licensed deputy (due to the
current court ruling) we would need to increase slaffing by 2 - 3 deputies during this five month
period.
I hope this information is helpful to you.
me at (952)471-8353.
If you need anything fmxher, please feel free to contact
Sincerely,
Patrick D. McGowan
Hennepin County Sheriff
rmeth R Schilhng
Sheriffs Water Patrol '"
S/kh
Jul 2G 2888 15:44:29 Uia Fax
-> ganajs Hanson ?age 88! Of BB!
AMM FAX
lie
July 24-28, 2000
Association
15etropolitan
15unicipalitie$
Metro transportation budget has $8 M gap
mThe Metropolitan Council's
ransportation Committee
discussed the Transportation
Division's 2001 budget this week
and learned that pdmadly due to
fuel and wage increases, the
preliminary figures have a revenue
gap of approximately $8.0 million.
To close the gap the staff pre-
sented three policy options that
include increasing state funds
above current levels, raising fares
and/or reducing service. The
committee did not take any action
but intends to discuss the policy
options at its July 31 meeting.
The staff also reported that to
balance the 2000 budget, the
operating budget reserve may be
needed. The increase in fuel and
wages are also driving the costs of
the current year budget.
AMM to present TI F analysis before Senate committee
The AMM, the League of Minne-
sota Cities (LMC) and Minne-
sota Solutions staff will participate
in a panel presentation before the
Senate Tax Committee Wednes-
day afternoon analyzing the recent
Citizens' League report on Tax
Increment Financing (TIF).
The panelists will present TIF
information by type of distdct and
by timeframes that correspond to
legislative actions (pre-1979, pre-
1990 and post-1990). A similar
analysis was included in the 1996
Legislative Auditor's TIF Report.
The analysis to be presented today
will use the 1996 format and data
as a benchmark to compare the
1999 data.
A preliminary review of the data
indicates that the size of district in
terms of captured value and
number of parcels is less for the
post-1990 districts as compared to
the previous districts. The analysis
also finds that approximately 59
percent of the total captured value
in all districts for 1999 is in districts
certified prior to Dec. 31, 1985. In
fact, 83 percent of all captured
value is in districts established
pdor to April 1,1990, the effective
date for most of the post-1990
amendments.
There are 1,036 districts estab-
lished after Apdl 1, 1990. The
districts account for 54 percent of
all established districts and 17
percent of all captured value.
AMM sponsors conference with shopping centers organization
The Intemational Council of
Shopping Centers (ICSC), in
cooperation with the AMM and the
Economic Development Association
of Minnesota (EDAM), is sponsor-
ing a half-day conference on
Tuesday, Aug. 8 related to public
private partnerships.
The program is intended to
present an opportunity for city
officials, developers and planning
professionals to meet and ex-
change views on community
development and redevelopment.
The meeting, which will be held
at the Minneapolis Hilton, will
consist of several general sessions
and workshops. Presenters will
include mayors (Minneapolis and
Blaine), city staff (Burnsville),
planners, association staff, archi.
tects, demographers and local
business officials.
A unique aspect of the program
is the "Development Opportunities"
section. The section displays infor-
mation (graphic, schematics, bro-
chures) about sites and develop-
ment opportunities in the region.
To register for the conference
please contact Jennifer Bredin at
646-723-3636 or go on-line at
www. ICSC.org. If you want to partici-
pate in the "Development Opportuni-
ties'' program, please call Gene
Ranied at 651-215-4001.
AMM FAX
NE
RAn&is HAnson
P~ge 881 Of 882
Association of
etropolitan
Hunicipalities
July 31-Aug. 4, 2000 (page 1 of 2)
Met Council in process of
revising transportation plan
The Metropolitan Council has
begun the process of revis-
ing the Transportation Policy
Plan. The Council's Transporta-
tion Committee held a special
meeting to review the proposed
changes.
The committee suggested
several changes that will be
incorporated in a draft to be
presented to the full Met Council
at a meeting scheduled for later
this month.
Upon approval of a working
draft, the Transportation Advi-
sory Committee (TAC) and the
Transportation Advisory Board
(TAB) will review it. The sug-
gested changes of the two
groups will be reported to the
full Council for inclusion in a
revised draft that will be the
subject of a public hearing. The
hearing has not been scheduled
but will be held in the fall.
The revisions presented to
the Transportation Committee
include but are not limited to
technical changes, modifications
to existing policies to incorpo-
rate smart growth principles
and more detail and specifics
for such policies as rural transit
and other modes - trails, bi-
cycles and freight.
Copies of the latest draft can
be obtained from the Met
Council by calling 651-602-
1000.
AMM ]Vews Fax is faxed to ail AMM city
managers and administrators, legislative
contacts and Board members. Please share
this fax with your mayors, councilmembers
and staff to keep them abreast of impor-
tant metro city issues.
~Copyright 2000 AMM
145 University Avenue ~Fe~t
St. Paul, .~I.N' $5103-2044
Phone: (651) 215-4000
E-mail: amm~tammI45, org
Mayors' task
force examines
housing issues
The Mayors' Task Force
on Affordable Housing
has established several work-
groups to discuss such issues
as zoning, funding, public
awareness and design and
management.
The
work-
groups
should
report
their findings and recommen-
dations to the full task force
at its Monday, Aug. 28 meet-
ing.
Mn/DOT is soliciting TRLF projects
Sept. 15 deadline for submitting applications
Mn/DOT is requesting candi-
date projects for funding
through the Transportation Re-
volving Loan Fund (TRLF). The
deadline for submitting applica-
tions is Friday, Sept. 15, 2000.
To be eligible for funding, the
project must be eligible under
federal funding programs. The
TRLF was established by
enabling state legislation en-
acted in 1997.
The TRLF provides Iow
interest loans to public entities
TRLF Projects ~ See Page 2
July 31-Aug. 4, 2000
~ AMMNewsFax + Page2of2
AMM, LMC to co-host regional meeting this fall
The AMM and the League
of Minnesota Cities
(LMC) will again co-sponsor
a metropolitan regional
meeting this fall.
The meeting is planned for
Thursday, Sept. 28 from 3-
8:30 p.m., and will be held
at the Sheraton Four Points
Hotel in Minneapolis (for-
merly the Sheraton
Metrodome).
Please see the graphic at
right for a listing of the day's
agenda.
More information on how
to register for this event will
be mailed to you soon. If
you have questions, call
Kevin Frazell with the LMC
at 651-281-1215.
3:00 p.m.
3:00-3:45
3:45-4:00
4:00-4:30
4:30-5:00
5:00-5:45
5:45-6:30
6:30-6:40
6:40-7:00
7:00-7:45
7:45-8:30
Regional Meeting Agenda
Opening/Welcome
Overview & Demonstration of LMC & AMM
Services Available via the Web
Web Services Available for your City through LMC
Data Practices, Records Retention & Open Meeting
Law Compliance in the High-Tech Age
Tools for Positive Youth Development in your City
Social Time
Dinner
Welcome from Host City
LMC & AMM President Remarks
Metropolitan Council Roundtable Discussion
"Building Quality Communities"
TRLF ProjectS/Eligibility is based on federal funding programs
From Page 1...
for transportation projects. The
loans are made by the Public
Facilities Authority (PFA)in
conjunction with Mn/DOT.
Several metropolitan area
projects have been funded
through the TRLF. Among them
are the reconstruction of por-
tions of Highway 100, 1-94
bridge replacements in Maple
Grove, construction of a pedes-
trian/bike bridge in Brooklyn
Park and the construction of a
pedestrian tunnel/skyway in St.
Paul.
The loans, which can expedite
the completion of the project,
can be repaid with local funds or
future state or federal aid (high-
way) payments.
Additional information regard-
ing the TRLF can be obtained by
calling Brian Vollum of Mn/DOT
at 651-582-1408 or visit their
web site at: http://
www. oim.dot.state, mn. u s/trlf
THE
EHLERS
.DVISOR
Leaders in Public Finance Since 1955
June 2000
Leading News
Legislative Changes Affecting Local Government
The 2000 session of the Minnesota Legislature produced no
large, sweeping changes in local government finance.
The session resulted in numerous "tweaks" to existing statutes.
These changes offer new opportunities and challenges for local
government. This summary highlights the 2000 Session from a
public finance perspective. A more complete session review
can be found at our web site.
Public Improvements
· Signs, posts and markers related to addressing for
enhanced 911 telephone service can be financed as an
improvement under Chapter 429.
· Facilities for Intemet access and other communications
purposes can be financed as an improvement under
Chapter 429 subject to certain findings about the ability of
such improvements to be provided by the private sector
· A "reasonable estimate" of the total amount to be assessed
and the methodology used to calculate individual
assessments must be available at the Improvement
Hearing.
Tax Increment Financing
· Application of qualified housing district is expanded to
allow TIF for single-family home ownership projects for
"qualified purchasers".
· Mined underground space development is dropped from
the TIF district definition.
· Redevelopment districts can qualify using one or more of
the specified statutory conditions.
· The presence of certain tank facilities qualify parcels for a
redevelopment district.
· Amends the definition of a housing district to include a
project or portion of a project that meets all of the
qualifications of a housing district even if the parcels were
not established as a housing district.
· Changes the definition of administrative expense to
exclude land acquisition financed through bonds not
issued under 469.178 and developer and relocation
See Legislative Change on Page 5
T heL No Levy Limits in 2001!
egislature failed to enact another one year extension of
levy limits for cities and counties. The lack of levy limits is the
classic two-edged sword. No levy limits creates the
opportunity to fund services and improvements curtailed with a
limited property tax levy. The use of this ability must be
considered carefully. The reaction of cities and counties to this
situation may be a factor in the property tax reform debate next
year. Planning and creativity will help you to take advantage of
this opportunity. Some ideas to consider include:
· Capturing revenue from the termination of TIF districts,
particularly the pre-1979 districts expiring in 2001.
· Capturing the revenue from growth in overall tax capacity.
· Reduction in debt levies that allow a shift to taxes for the
General Fund.
· Long term funding plans for equipment and improvements.
We would be happy to help you explore possibilities for
uring levy authority without adding to the tax rate.
Inside The Advisor
What's an Abatement
Things you should know about
tax abatement.
Page 2
Meet Rebecca Kurtz
Ehlers adds financial advisor
specializing in development
projects and TIE
Page 3
Tell Your Development Story No Fool
A strong city role in development
is essential.
Page 4 Page 4
April 1, 2001 is a key date for all
pre- 1979 TIF Districts..
Tools
What's an Abatement and Why Does Everybody Want One?
Laocai governments in Minnesota have had to deal with
batements for many years. Under the traditional meaning
of this term, an abatement occurs when a property owner
successfully appeals for a reduction in the estimated market
value used for tax purposes on their property. This leads to a
reduction in the taxes due on the property, often for several
years. Over the past three years, a new meaning of abatement
has emerged. State law now allows local governments to
voluntarily grant "abatements" as an economic development
incentive.
A New Concept
The law authorizing this new form of abatements (Minnesota
Statutes, Sections 469.1812 to 469.1815) was first adopted in
1997 and has been amended each year since. This law grew out
of concerns by legislators about some aspects of Tax Increment
Financing (TIF), the most commonly used economic
development tool in Minnesota. Concerns included: the lack of
control that counties and school districts had over TIE the cost
to the state (through additional school aids) of TIF, and the
complexities of and restrictions associated with TIE
The term "abatement" is somewhat of a misnomer in terms of
how the new law works. Taxes are not reduced, as in the
traditional meaning of abatements. For the typical abatement,
the owner of the property pays property taxes in the same
manner and amount as ff there were no abatement. However,
all or a part of the property taxes collected on the property may
be paid back to the owner or diverted for another use, as
determined by the abatement agreement(s). The abatement
statutes also allow for the deferral of taxes.
TIF vs. Abatement
Abatements are often presented as an alternative to TIF as a
tool for economic development. There are several key
differences:
Approving Entities. TIF districts may be created by cities
and various forms of development authorities or agencies.
School districts and counties (without an HRA or EDA),
however, have no authority to create TIF districts or to
prevent their creation, even though creation of a TIF
district will affect school district and county taxes. With
abatements, each taxing jurisdiction (school district,
county, city or township) must individually approve the
abatement of their portion of property taxes.
Required Findings. Before creating a TIF district, a
municipality must recognize a variety of"findings" including
the famous "but for" test (that the development would not
occur but for tax increment assistance). The findings
required to grant an abatement are generally less complex
and restrictive. In some cases, an abatement may fall
within the definition of a "business subsidy" under state law.
In these cases, the use of tax abatement may also require
the adoption of "criteria" for granting business subsidies and
the adoption of a business subsidy agreement with the
recipient of the assistance.
Approval Process. The process of documenting and
approving an abatement agreement is generally less
cumbersome and detailed than the process for a TIF
district. The catch is that, in order to receive an abatement
of substantially all property taxes, three government entities
must approve separate abatement agreements. A public
hearing must be held prior to approving the abatement.
Uses of Proceeds. While tax increment proceeds are
subject to numerous restrictions on use, there are no
restrictions on how or where abatement proceeds are used.
Time Limits. The time limits on the use of TIF vary
according to the type of TIF district. If one of the political
subdivisions declines to abate taxes, then the abatement
may occur for up to 15 years. Otherwise, the maximum
time limit is 10 years.
Amount of Abatement. The revenue from abatement
differs from TIF in two important ways. (1) Tax increment
comes from the value of new development, while Tax
abatement may apply to both new and existing value.
(2)There is no financial limit on a city's total tax
increment. On the other hand, the total amount of
abatement in any year for each jurisdiction is capped at the
greater of 5% of the current levy or $100,000.
Bonds. Both TIF and abatement statutes authorize the
issuance of general obligarion bonds without an elecrion
and which are not subject to the debt limit. The maximum
principal for abatement bonds cannot exceed the estimated
sum of the abatements. For TIF bonds, not less than 20%
of the debt service must be paid by tax increments.
Reporting Requirements. For TIF districts, the granting
authority must submit detailed annual reports to the Office
of the State Auditor. There are no required annual reports
on abatements.
School District Taxes. Neither TIF nor an abatement will
affect a school district's total revenue. However, most of
the tax revenue that a school district "loses" to a TIF
2
district is made up through additional state aid. By contrast,
abatement payments are recovered by levying additional
property taxes spread across the entire school district. As a
result, abatements of school taxes will almost always cause
school district taxes to increase, while TIF has very little
impact on school district tax rates.
Benefits
Although abatement lacks the total economic capacity of TIF, it
offers some distinct advantages:
· Simplicity. The process for the approval and use of
abatement is far less complex thau 'I'II:.
Collaboration. With separate approval authority, the use if
abatements encourages collaboration. It requires cities,
counties and school districts to jointly consider implications
of the development project.
· Uses. Abatement fits with projects not well suited to TIE
Suggestions
The interest in abatements is growing as more business owners
and developers become aware of abatements. What should you
do if you are approached with a request for an abatement? Here
are some basic suggestions:
Develop a general business subsidy policy, establishing
purposes for which your organization may and may not
consider granting financial incentives to businesses
Develop specific criteria and policies for approval of
abatements. Remember, tax abatement is a limited resource.
It is important to consider if and how you will provide this
assistance. Does the project meet a "but for" test? Can the
abatement be targeted to achieve specific types of benefits to
the community? Should the use be designed to meet other
standards? Setting policies and criteria allows you to make
best use of this tool, avoid setting unwanted precedents for
future requests and provide consistent criteria against which
to evaluate requests.
Fully analyze the impact of the proposed abatement on
property taxes. The impact on school property taxes is
especially complex. School abatements are likely to increase
taxes for other taxpayers. Your board or council should
receive complete information before taking an action which
will affect property taxes.
Insist on a development agreement which clearly defines
the responsibilities of the property owners receiving
abatements.
Hire your own legal counsel to draft and/or review
abatement agreements, development agreements and other
required legal documents.
Require potential abatement recipients to pay for the costs
of your legal counsel, financial analysis and other expenses.
These expenses should not be absorbed within your
organization's general budget.
For assistance with any aspects of an abatement, contact Ehlers.
Ehlers
Meet Rebecca Kurtz
RTbdecca Kurtz has joined Ehlers as an Associate Financial
visor specializing in tax increment financing and
development projects. She brings a wide range of experience
with community and economic development projects in a
variety of different contexts.
Before joining Ehlers, Rebecca worked on business
development projects at the Minnesota Department of Trade
and Economic Development (DTED). In this position she
assisted communities with their development efforts and
worked with businesses that were expanding or relocating in
the state.
Prior to her position at DTED, Rebecca worked with rural
development at the South Dakota Governor's Office of
Economic Development (GOED). While at GOED she
assisted small businesses with developing business plans,
identifying sources for financial assistance, and creating
marketing opportunities.
Rebecca's educational background includes a Bachelor's of
Science from South Dakota State University. She has been
certified as an Economic Development Finance Professional
by the National Development Council.
Rebecca will serve on Ehlers' TIF Team. She learns the
secrets of"the TIF" from the TIF Master, Sid Inman. When
asked about the first advice he gave his new apprentice
Inman replied, "Feel the TIE It is around you in all
development." Inman expressed some concern that as a
former State employee Rebecca may be susceptible to the
dark side of the TIE Rebecca dismisses such concerns and
says "It is a thrill to learn from a living legend!"
3
Development
Tell Your Development Story
Do you remember the movie Network? In the movie, a
frustrated TV personality sticks his head out of a window
and shouts "l'm mad as h-- and I'm not going to take it any
more." In 2000, this role could be played by any Minnesota
city official trying to meet the challenges of redevelopment and
housing.
Cities face a double bind. On one side is the debate over
subsidies. The simplistic criticism of city financial assistance
for private development is that it is unnecessar,/. Public money
goes to increase the profit margins of a business. The
implication is that public funding of development is a wasteful,
bad thing. On the other side of the development equation,
cities are under pressure to limit sprawl and promote affordable
housing. Smart growth, new urbanism and livable communities
make good headlines. Too often, the discussion of these goals
fails to focus on the reality of making them happen. Look at
the details of su .c. cessful redevelopment projects and you will
likely find public financial assistance.
The conflict over public subsidies shows a lack of
understanding about the development challenges facing cities.
Redevelopment is inherently more difficult. Small parcels need
to be assembled into viable development sites. Buildings must
be demolished and sites cleared. The potential for
environmental problems lurks beneath even redevelopment
site. Existing businesses and residents must be relocated. Each
of these items increases the cost and the complexity of a
development project.
Affordable housing faces economic challenges in every
community. Redevelopment costs exist regardless of whether
the end use is business or housing. In the suburbs, the costs of
land and public improvements escalate the cost of
development. The higher the development costs, the greater
the barrier to affordable rents and housing prices.
Economic assistance for redevelopment and affordable hoUsing
is not about making developers wealthy. It is about creating a
level playing field. It is about basic financial feasibility.
With a significant debate over the property tax system brewing
for 2001, it is essential that cities take time to tell their
development stories. Regional and state policy makers need to
clearly understand that current policies cannot affect
development without tools at the local level. Your experiences
help to create this understanding. What development
challenges confront your community? What are some
identifiable development success stories? What specific steps
did your city take to make this development happen? If public
financial assistance was provided, what tools were used?
Legislators, the public and the media need to understand what
it really requires to undertake redevelopment and affordable
housing. Until city officials decide they're not going to take it
anymore, we will continue to be squeezed by criticism of
subsidies, limitations on development tools, and unrealistic
development objectives.
No April Fool
The gradual sunset of pre-1979 TIF districts from taxes
payable 2001 to 2009 will have a signficant impact upon
cities' tax base and budgets. A few of the more subtle issues
revolving around the decertification of pre-1979 districts
include:
Most bond counsels have determined that cities without
special legislation must spend the cash balances in the pre-
1979 districts by April 1, 2001.
Cities with pre-1990 debt outstanding after April 1, 2001, will
need to decide ff they will defease debt with all revenues
received in 2001 or send tax increment back on an annual
basis.
Because commercial value in pre-1979 districts is not counted
in fiscal disparities contribution ratios, the amount of new tax
base for a metropolitan city will not be $1 for $1 upon full or
partial decertification.
Call us for any darification on these issues.
If your TIF District was certified in:
1997 - Have you complied with the three-
year activity rule?
1996 - The knock, down provisions apply
after four years from the date of
certification.
1995 - The five-year limit on expenditures
applies after five years from the date of
certification.
4
Legislative Change from Page 1
payments within the project area, including debt service on
bonds issued to finance these costs.
· Narrow the definition of tourism facility.
· Counties allowed to give notice of election to use increment
to finance county road improvements within 45 days of
receiving the tax increment financing plan.
· The hearing notice requirement now requires distribution of
the TIF plan. The plan must be provided to the county
auditor and the clerk of the school district at least 30 days
prior to the public hearing.
· Waiver of the 30-day period requires action of the boards of
the school district and the county.
· The county commissioner may waive the 30 day notice prior
to publication.
· Duration of an economic development district changed to
eight years from receipt of first increment.
· Increments can be spent outside of project area to assist
housing that meets the requirements of 469.1763, 2 (d).
· The inflation adjustment factor for new economic
development districts is removed.
· All noncompliance enforcement channeled into 469.1771.
· Adds provisions for the repayment of increments received
before July 1, 2000 and after the maximum duration of the
district.
Tax Abatement
· If one political subdivision in which the parcel is located
declines to grant tax abatement, then the maximum
abatement duration increases to 15 years.
Property Taxes
· No overall changes in class rates.
· The first tier class rate for commercial-industrial property
(2.4%) extends to contiguous parcels containing separate
businesses/structures owned by the same party.
· Certain personal property for utilities is taxed at only the
first tier commercial-industrial class rate.
Business Subsidies
· Eight exemptions to business subsides were expanded or
added.
· New requirements for business subsidy criteria, including a
specific wage floor for new jobs created. Criteria adopted
before May 1, 2000 have until May 1, 2003 to amend criteria
to comply with the new requirements.
· Increasing tax base can be one, but not the sole public
purpose for the subsidy.
· Three key elements of the business subsidy agreement are
changed. The goals for the subsidy must be "measurable,
specific and tangible". The five year commitment to
continue operations is changed from the "site" to the
"jurisdiction" where the subsidy is used. A grantor may
waive the five-year requirement after a public hearing.
· Wage and job goals may be zero, but a public hearing is
required.
· A summary of the terms of the subsidy, rather than the
entire subsidy agreement, needs to be available upon
publication of the hearing notice.
· The interest rated used to calculate repayment of assistance
cannot be less than the implicit price deflator.
· The time period for meeting wage and .job goals may be
extended for up to one year (requires hearing). All other
goals may be extended without limit on maximum time
period and without a hearing.
· Clarifies reporting for the recipient of the subsidy.
Housing Improvement Areas
· EDA's and HRA's are authorized to implement and
administer housing improvement areas.
· The sunset provision is extended to June 30, 2005.
Special Service Districts
· The sunset provision is extended to June 30, 2005.
Energy Conservation Improvements
· Cities may undertake and finance programs for energy
conservation improvements.
Credit Enhanced Bonds for Counties
· The State is creating a program to provide credit
enhancement for certain county general obligation bonds. '
· Credit enhancement will be available for G.O. bonds issued
for jails, law enforcement, social/human services and solid
waste facilities.
One-Time Funding for Schools
· Training and experience replacement revenue. Provides
additional aid for FY 2001 to soften the loss of T&E
revenue resulting from a faster than had been projected
phase-out.
· Secondary Vocational Aid,. Extends secondary vocational
aid for one more year (FY 2001). This aid had been
repealed effective for FY 2001.
· Special education cross-subsidy revenue. For FY 2000
and FY 2001 only, districts will receive additional special
education aid equal to $8.15 per adjusted marginal cost
pupil unit in FY 2000 and $19.00 per adjusted marginal
cost pupil unit in FY 2001.
· One-time deferred maintenance aid. For FY 2001, most
districts will receive $31.90 per pupil unit to be spent for
deferred maintenance, disabled access improvements, or
fire, health or safety repairs. Districts that qualify for
alternative facilities bonding willreceive $10.00 per pupil
unit.
See Legislative Change on Page 6
5
Legislative Change from Page 5
Permanent Funding for Schools
· Marginal Cost Pupil Units. The calculation of marginal
cost pupil units was changed to the greater of (a) I00
percent of the current year's pupil units or (b) 77 percent of
the current year's pupil units plus 23 percent of the prior
year's pupil units. The change provides additional help to
districts with declining enrollment while removing the
current reduction for growing districts.
· Increase in basic revenue. Beginning in FY 2001 the
general education formula allowance is increased from
$3,925 to $3,964 per adjusted marginal cost pupil unit. The
additional revenue 'must be reserved for staff development.
· Special education aid growth factor. The growth factor
used to calculate the state total special education-regular
revenue is increase from 1.012 to 1.08 for FY 2002 and to
1.046 for FY 2003 and later.
· Operating capital revenue. Beginning in FY 2001, districts
will receive additional operating capital revenue equal to $5
per pupil unit. For FY 2000 and FY 2001, the additional
revenue must be reserved for telecommunications access
costs.
· Telecommunications access revenue. Districts will receive
a new categorical aid to fund telecommunications access.
The aid for FY 2000 and FY 2001 will be based on the net
eligible cost after reductions for e-rate revenue and 'the
additional operating capital revenue ($5 per pupil unit).
Other School Legislation
· Capital Loan Districts - Bond Sale Limitations. Previous
law prohibited districts with existing capital loans from
issuing any bonds more than 20 years after they have
received their capital loan; this has now been extended to
30 years.
· Maximum Effort Capital Loans. Five districts received
new capital loans to finance their building programs.
However, the Department of CFL was directed to study
other means of financing facilities, without capital loans,
and was prohibited from accepting new loans until after the
2001 legislative session.
Education Agricultural Credit. The Legislature increased
the education agricultural credit from 54 percent to 70
percent for agricultural homestead property up to $600,000 in
market value and from 50 percent to 63 percent for othe'
agricultural property or timberland.
Results of
Bond Sales
This edition of The Ehlers
..... ~., iI; Advisor does not contain the
results of recent bond sales in Minnesota. We encourage you to
visit our website for bond sale information.
Ehlers website contains two types of bond sale data. We
maintain an annual summary of Minnesota bond issues. We
also post the results of bond sales conducted by Ehlers. These
two sources of information let you follow trends in the bond
market.
Ehlers & Associates is committed to helping local governments
better understand the issues that shape public finance.
Roseville (MN) Office
3060 Centre Pointe Drive, Roseville, MN 55113-1105
651.697.8500
Brookfield (WI) Office
375 Bishops Way, Suite 225, Brookfield, WI 53005-6202
262.785.1520
Naperville (IL) Office
1001 East Chicago Avenue, Suite 135, Naperville, IL 60540
630.355.6100
On the Intemet at www. ehlers-inc, com
Bond Buyer's 20-Year G.O. Index
6.40%
5.40% ~..
1999 2000
6
MINUTES OF THE QUARTERLY
MEETING OF THE
SUBURBAN RATE AUTHORITY
July 19, 2000
Pursuant to due call and notice, the quarterly meeting of the Suburban Rate Authority was
held at the Maplewood Community Center, City of Maplewood, on July 19, 2000, commencing at
6:00 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Executive Committee
Chair, Ron Case.
2. ROLL CALL:
Brooklyn Park Diane Deblon
Burnsville Steven O'Malley
Circle Pines Jim Keinath
Eden Prairie Ron Case
Gene Dietz
Edina John Wallin
Fridley Jon Flora
Maplewood Marvin Koppen
Minnetonka Fred Hanus
New Brighton Matt Fulton
Plymouth Fred Moore
Shoreview Tom Landwehr
Also present were Mark Sather, City Manager for the City of White Bear Lake, as a guest
and Jim Strommen, Kennedy & Graven, SRA general counsel. It was determined that a quorum of
the voting members of the SRA was present to transact business.
3. APPROVAL OF ANNUAL MEETING MINUTES: Mr. Moore moved to
approve the Minutes from the April 19, 2000 SRA Quarterly Meeting, which had been previously
circulated. Mr. Fulton seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
4. REPORTS OF OFFICERS. Mr. Wallin reported on the financial status of the
SRA as of June 30, 2000 and circulated a financial statement (available upon request). Mr. Wallin
also reported that the League Insurance Trust premium was to be billed in August in the anticipated
amount of $951 or greater. Mr. O'Malley moved to give the treasurer authority to make the
necessary premium payment. Mr. Hanus seconded the motion which passed unanimously. In
addition, Mr. Wallin reported that for the first time the insurance carrier was seeking a resolution
from the SRA. Board regarding its waiver or non-waiver of statutory liability limits. The presence
of insurance coverage does allow the waiver of liability limits. The recommendation was to not
JMS-183464vl
SU160-3
waive any statutory liability limits that would apply to the SRA. Mr. Koppen brought a motion of
non-waiver. Mr. O'Malley seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Mr. Hanus moved to accept Mr. Wallin's report. Mr. Koppen seconded the motion which
passed unanimously.
5. COMMUNICATIONS: Mr. Strommen reported on the mailing of letters to
prospective SRA members in May. Certain cities in the Twin Cities Metro Area were recipients of
letters, each city received a letter to the mayor, city manager and public works director. As a result
of the letter and the follow up by Mr. Koppen of Maplewood, Mr. Sather of White Bear Lake was in
attendance at the meeting. There were no other responses noted by the Board. It was observed that
the opportunity for follow-up still existed and several delegates indicated they would contact cextain
recipients of the letters. Representatives of the SPA may have the opportunity to appear before the
White Bear Lake City Council to explain the purposes of the SRA.
6. ELECTRIC UNDERGROUNDING TARIFF PROCEEDING: Mr. Strommen
reported on the progress in NSP's electric undergrounding tariff proceeding, in which the SRA has
actively participated. Mr. Strommen reported the PUC has yet to rule on the proposed tariff. The
significant development since the April meeting includes the addition of several parties fi.om the
public sector, Minneapolis, St. Paul and Met Council. All support the SRA's objection to expansion
of the tariff proceeding to include relocation of standard facilities, public projects involving different
modes of transportation and location within the city not preferred by the company as a basis for
surcharges. Also of benefit to the cities' position, the Department of Commerce changed its
position and now supports the municipalities in their objections to the scope of the NSP tariff
proceeding. Mr. Strommen reported that the PUC will be taking up this matter some time during
late summer. Under current law, NSP cannot ask the city for the incremental cost for
undergrounding facilities, nor does it have the authority to surcharge specific ratepayers because the
tariff has not been approved.
Mr. Fulton raised the issue of revisiting the SPA's neutrality on whether undergrounding as
a standard facility should be investigated by the PUC. Currently, the non-SRA cities of Oakdale
and Richfield are requesting an investigation into the cost and benefits of undergrounding as a
standard. The SPA has remained neutral because the general consensus supports a city-by-city
authority to underground and pay for the incremental cost internally. Mr. Fulton also expressed the
concern about whether cities with substantial overhead lines are paying for the cost of
undergrounding more frequently incurred in the outer suburban areas. Mr. Strommen commented
that the rate structure does not appear to allow for such a subsidy. Cities have, until the City of
0akdale case, paid for the cost of undergrounding or the customers in a new development project
have paid a surcharge for the underground service. The rate structure currently approved under
NSP's previous rate case does not allow for undergrounding costs as a general expense paid by all
ratepayers. Mr. Strommen offered to confirm that rate design for Mr. Fulton and representatives of
other cities that would be adversely affected by such a subsidy. The SPA will continue to actively
participate in the tariff proceeding.
7. TELEPHONE RATE WHOLESALE GEOGRAPHIC DEAVERAGING: Mr.
Strommen reported on the recent decision by the PUC establishing specific rate zones for wholesale
JMS-179440vl 2
$U160-3
(fixing the lease rate from US West to competitors of US West facility) rate deaveraging. A
memorandum and map was circulated prior to the meeting depicting the four rate zones adopted by
the PUC throughout US West's (now Qwest) state service territory. The PUC decision and order,
issued on July 10, 2000, was the result of a 2~A year long proceeding whereby the "local loop" (the
cost of facilities from the wire center to the customer premises) was studied throughout US West's
Minnesota territory. US West wire centers are the unit of measurement for costs to US West and
adopted as the appropriate means of studying cost. The average cost within a wire center are then
ascribed to each of the 55 wire centers in US West's service area. An attempt during the study to
breakdown the loop costs within wire centers (most notably in rural towns and outer areas) .was
rejected as too difficult to establish.
The four wholesale rate zones are not geographically grouped, but rather grouped by cost.
As a result, the wholesale rate zones within the Twin Cities metropolitan calling area range
anywhere from zone 1 (the least costly $11.84 per month) to zone 4 (the most costly $27.96 per
month). Mr. Strommen reported that information he had received from active participants in the
proceeding was that the wholesale zones has only an indirect effect on the rates that would
ultimately be paid at retail. Marketing considerations of allowing similarly-situated customers
within cities (e.g., Bloomington) reduce or eliminate the likely differentiation between rates that will
be offered even though the wholesale wire center loop costs vary. The most near-term effect will be
on business line rates and competition.
Also, US West is currently under a rate cap contract known as the Alternative Form of
Regulation, at least through 2001 and possibly into 2004. Finally, the presence of anticipated
competition for local service and the convergence of technology offerings, will create a situation
where customers throughout the Metro Area will have two to three options from local carriers of
telephone-internet-cable packages that will vary so greatly the cost of local access will be only one
component of a monthly charge. In other words, the local telephone service options available when
this process is fully developed (perhaps in the year 2003 or 2004) will create wholly different issues
than those faced by the SPA when US West had a monopoly service and the Tier System rate
design was in place, at least within the more heavily populated Metro Areas.
Also balancing rate changes will be the presence of a federally-required universal service
fund (USF) established for the express purpose of subsidizing high telephone rates in rural areas.
The existence of this USF fund will inevitably reduce the telephone rate cost savings that would
otherwise accrue to businesses and residents living in SPA cities. The SPA will continue to
actively monitor and participate in this issue as it moves towards a retail geographic deaveraging
proceeding.
8. UPDATED MODEL ELECTRIC AND GAS FRANCHISES: Mr. Strommen
reported that he has met with a representative of the League of Cities and discussed updated
provisions to the 1995 SRA/League Model Ordinance that has been distributed to cities throughout
Minnesota. The changes are relatively minor and incorporate the developments in ROW
management contained in 1997 state legislation and 1999 PUC rules. Mr. Strommen noted that the
conversion will be complete by the October meeting. He also reported that there has been a good
deal of activity in the gas franchising area. A number of cities are renegotiating gas franchises and
JMS-179440vl
SUI60-3
are experiencing the request for an additional franchise from either Minnegasco or NSP in cities
already served by one or the other.
9. REPORT ON UTILITY TAX REVIEW. Mr. Strommen reported on
developments in the Department of Revenue/Depmment of Commerce review of utility
tax/franchise fee issues that are ongoing. A number of meeting have been held at the Department of
Revenue on these issues. The respective Departments will be issuing reports and possibly
sponsoring legislation for the 2001 session on this issue. The SRA has not taken a position on
personal property tax, but has submitted comments arguing for the preservation of gas and utility
franchise fee authority and that franchise fee should not be used as a substitute for the withdrawal of
other types of taxes, e.g., personal property tax.
Mr. O'Malley also described the positions taken by NSP and other electric utilities on
personal property tax. Currently, certain cities including Burnsville have a significant utility
presence in the City and derive resulting personal property tax. He discussed the ongoing issues
regarding valuation of the property tax as it effects tax revenues to the city. The industry seeks
reduction and/or exemption from personal property taxes within the state. This is a significant issue
affecting cities differently depending on the extent of utility presence in the city.
10. ADOPTION OF 2001 BUDGET: Mr. Strommen noted that the 2001 budget as
modified at the April meeting had been recommended by the Board at the April meeting and
submitted to the SRA cities. No SRA city reported an objection to the budget. Mr. Moore moved
to adopt the 2001 budget (attached). Mr. Koppen seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Mr. Strommen noted that the 2001 budget will be based on 1999 Met Council population estimates.
The 2002 budget will be based on the US Census, available in the Spring of 2001.
12. TIME AND LOCATION OF NEXT MEETING: Burnsville offered to host the
October quarterly meeting beginning at 6:00 p.m.
13. CLAIMS: Kennedy & Graven submitted a claim for $13,663.54. Mr. Keinath
moved to accept the claim. Mr. Fulton seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
15. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
Jlvl$-179440vl
SUI~O-3
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
MINUTES
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, JULY 10, 2000
DRAFT
Those present: Acting Chair Michael Mueller; Commissioners: Orvin Burma, Jerry Clapsaddle,
Becky Glister, Cklair Hasse, and Council Liaison Bob Brown. Absent and excused:
Commissioners Frank Weiland, Bill Voss, GeoffMichael; Staffpresent: City Planner Loren
Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, and Recording Secretary Diana Mestad.
The following public were present: Tom Reese, 5641 Bartlett Blvd.; Tim Hufiaagle, 4707
Manchester; Todd Warner, 3056 Highland; Gary Hittle, Box 513, Waconia.
Chair Michael welcomed the public and called the meeting to ordc~ at 7:30 p.m.
MINUTES - APPROVAL OF THE JUNE 26, 2000, MINUTES OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING.
MOTION by Burma, seconded by Glister, to accept the June 26, 2000, Planning
Commission meeting minutes. MOTION CARRIED. 6-0
BOARD OF APPEALS:
1.0
CASE #0038: CONDITIONAL USE, PUBLIC HEARING, TODD WARNER,
BRISTOL CLASSICS, 2642 COMMERCE BLVD, UNPLATTED 2 117 24, PID
#23-117-24 14 0008.
The City Planner stated that this case involves changing the use of the property from industrial to
more of a sales and display of powerboats and accessory items. The applicant wants this facility
to serve as the retail side of his business. The applicant's company is involved in the restoration
of wooden boats. The proposed site would be the point of contact for people wanting to buy a
boat or get information about the boats, etc. In the future, the applicant would like to do more
with the building but for now would like to use the site as is. No building plans or site
improvements are being presented at this time.
The City Planner stated that there is an issue with parking at this site. The question is whether to
improve the right of way including drainage improvements or whether to handle this issue later
on when the site is improved.
The City Planner stated that Staff is recommending that any boats for sale stay within the
building.
Mound Plannirtg Commission Minutes, July 10. 2000
DRAFT
Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the request with
the following conditions:
1. Provide hard surface paving of the parking area and stripe parking spaces.
2. Require all merchandise be located within the building.
Glister asked what the speculation was regarding the amount of traffic. The City Planner stated
that this had been discussed briefly and it was felt this would be much less traffic than a gas
station type of store would generate. Staff felt the amount of traffic would be similar to an office
use.
The City Planner stated that there would be some walk in traffic and that this was the type of
business that is more destination oriented.
Glister asked if thc hours of operation were daytime only. The City Planner stated that he
thought that was the case, but no specific hours were provided.
Mueller asked what the hardcover requirement was. The City Planner stated that it was currently
30 percent, but with the surface water management plan it could go up to 75 percent. Brown
stated that at the last Council meeting, it looked like the surface water management plan would
be coming through shortly.
The City Planner stated that it was about 2,700 feet of hardcover and that would be a close
number, but no definite survey was available. With the gravel driveway the number would be
closer to 50 percent.
Burma asked what the impact of requiring a hard surface parking lot would be. The City Planner
stated there really is not an increased.
The City Planner restated that currently there were no changes being made to the site.
The City Building Official handed out the new survey and the Commission took some time to
review this.
Burma confirmed that the City Planner's recommendation was that there not be any boats outside
including the back of the building. The City Planner stated yes that was the recommendation and
that it is consistent with other disWicts of this type.
Mueller asked about setbacks abutting a residential area and whether there was a variance being
given. The City Planner stated that this is an existing condition and Staff is looking to recognize
what is on the property as the building sits today. He further stated that approval could reflect a
variance or could draw on the previous conditions.
Mound Planning Commission Minutes, July 10. 2000
Mueller asked whether there would be a future concern when the building is changed in that by
establishing today what the setbacks are, is the Commission implying what the new building
setbacks would be. The City Planner stated no, it has been indicated to the applicant that when a
new building was considered, the zoning standards would be revisited based on the development
plan.
Brown inquired about the gravel lot and the requirement that it be paved. He stated that the bait
store is also located at this site with people using the other driveway and he felt it would be better
to blacktop the whole area for appearance. The City Planner said the owner of the bait shop
could be consulted. Staff feels this is desirable, but there is a question as to whether it should be
done now or when expansion is done. If the hard surface is done now and has to be tipped up
when the site is improved, it may not make sense. Brown stated that it was cheaper to do the
work when the equipment was there; but that it was the owner's decision.
Mueller asked if Staff was requiring the lot to be paved, what was the plan for the bait store.
Brown stated that the Commission could not require the bait store to pave the lot, but he hoped
things would be upgraded later.
Acting Chair Mueller opened the Public Hearing at 7:46 p.m.
Chuck Lubig, 2670 Commerce Place, expressed his concern about boat repair work being done at
this site.
Tom Reese, 5641 Bartlett Blvd., stated that he has waited 32 years to clean up this comer. He
feels the parking lot is an eyesore and a safety issue and wants the parking lot required to be
completed now and would also like the bait store to participate if possible. He is in favor of the
project. Mr. Reese reaffirmed his understanding that there would be no outside storage of boats
or late night lighting of the parking lot.
Acting Chair Mueller closed the Public Hearing at 7:50 p.m.
The applicant, Todd Warner, addressed the Commission. He stated that he is already in the
building. He has been a Mound resident for 25 years and is interested in the development of the
City. Mr. Warner stated that he is not sure what easements are currently in place that give tights
for people to drive through between the properties. He stated that he has simple plans and
drawings for the future building and that he is looking to do a face-lift that is in line with the
Mound Visions Project. The proposed building would have a nautical look and include a door in
front that boats can go in and out.
Mr. Warner wished to make it clear that he did not want people to think there will never be a
boat outside. He stated that because he has clients from a wide area, it is likely to occur. He
stated that there is no repair shop at this site and this is the corporate office. The building will
have a showroom and feature boats. There will be some additional lifestyle items. There will be
lights on the boats at night from inside the building. One of the design plans is to put an awning
3
Mound Plfmning Commission Minutes, Suly 10, 2000
DRAFT
on the front of the building and pull a boat outside during the day to display. Mr. Warner is
asking for flexibility to display these antique boats.
In reference to the parking issue, Mr. Warner restated that he has not found an easement that
allows the bait shop to exit across the property. He is looking at further development of the site
and feels it is a prime site and has great potential. Mr. Warner is considering the issue of
whether to end the bait shop traffic across his property.
Mr. Warner stated that he is in the process of a name change to Mahogany Bay. He is currently
developing a television show about the restoration of boats and is looking for this to be the
identity of his business.
Brown asked about plans to blacktop the front. He also stated that regarding the flexibility of
leaving boats outside, the problem was that it would stretch into longer periods of time and could
develop into an all the time situation. Mr. Warner stated he just wanted to have an understanding
about this so that there would be no misunderstanding and he wondered what the law said in
regard to this.
Mr. Warner stated this site had been an eyesore in the past and he felt the antique boats would be
a draw to people. He stated that at times boats would be outside overnight as a client would be
coming to pick it up in the morning. Repaired boats would be picked up and dropped off at this
site, but would not be repaired there. Mr. Warner wanted the Commission to be clear about what
their expectations were. He further stated that this site was not intended to be a storage yard.
Brown stated that the neighbors would not want to see four or five boats on the street all the time
with for sale signs. Mr. Warner stated that his boats were wood and could not sit outside.
Brown asked about whether the intended lighting was back lighting on the boats rather than
reflecting out of the building. Mr. Warner stated the light would reflect on to the boats in the
interior so that people driving by could see the boats. He is also looking to highlight the
building. A potential plan for the north side is to do a mural of a classic boat and this would be
lighted. Mr. Warner stated that behind the building is a buffer zone of approximately 200 feet,
which should shield the lighting from any neighbors.
Mr. Warner stated that he has fewer employees in this building then past owners.
The City Building Official stated that he wanted to show the floor plan and discuss the use of
thinners, etc. Mr. Warner stated that he wanted to assure everyone that this would not be in any
way a repair facility.
Mueller stated that the lighting has to meet the requirements and be passed by the City Building
Official. He asked what specific thoughts Mr. Warner had on the parking lot paving issue.
4
Mound Plarning Commission Minutes. July 10, 2000
DRAFT
Mr. Warner stated he did not have the costs involved in the paving and did not know what the
impact of the bait store would be. He further stated that did not want to do the improvement
without shutting off the bait store traffic. He is still pricing this and exploring his development
budget.
Mueller stated that the gravel area in the bait store area is on public property and that the
difficulty of paving someone else's property is a question for the bait store. The Planning
Commission would most likely recommend the property be paved, but there would be a fairly
long time frame in which to accomplish this. Mueller further stated that the bait store business
needs to be viable.
Brown asked if there was any thought about expanding in that way. Mr. Warner stated there
could be conversations in that direction. He is studying the Mound Visions information now and
waiting for reports. Mr. Warner stated that he wants to be part of the new Mound direction.
Clapsaddle commented that it was his opinion that it is not reasonable to expect the boats would
all be inside. He stated that he had no problem with a boat under a canopy outside, but feels that
a restriction limiting the number of boats outside at any one time would be more reasonable.
Clapsaddle reaffirmed that this is a B 1 zone and that businesses need lighting, exposure, and
traffic.
Brown stated that this would be a big improvement to the site.
Mueller asked how large the vehicle that hauls the boats would be. Mr. Warner stated that they
had four different tracks the largest of which is an F350. He does not have any semis, but does
have a hydraulic trailer. In most cases, they would not bring the boats to the office, but would
pick up boats in other locations.
Mueller inquired about the length of time for outside display for a single boat. Mr. Warner stated
that the canopy would be used for a showroom boat and then would be brought in at the end of
the day.
The City Planner stated that Staff would look at the idea of a boat being pulled out as there
would be a need to provide space for parking the one boat outside. He further stated that the
issue of trailing boats from the landing up to the site for a period of an hour or so is not
considered storage but should be addressed in some terms in the use permit.
Mr. Warner stated the length of time boats would be at this site was a matter of coordinating
schedules. He felt this might be a daylong type of thing.
Mueller confirmed the time frame maximum was two days. Mr. Warner stated 72 hours would
be more accurate and that this could be three different boats during that time. He further stated
that spring and fall would be the increased time.
5
Mound PlannOlg Commission Minutes, July 10, 2000
DRAFT
Glister asked whether the towing vehicles would be located at this site. Mr. Warner stated those
vehicles would be at the repair facilities. Vehicles located at this site would be for the four
employees working at the site.
Brown stated that 72 hours was a long time, but he could live with 24 hours. Mr. Warner stated
that there would be things to coordinate and he felt 24 hours might be too little time. Mr. Warner
wants people to know that he wants this site to look very business like and proper.
Brown stated that for discussion he wanted to change item 2 of the Staff recommendations to
require all sale merchandise to be located inside the building and that outside boats are to be kept
to a maximum of 12 or 24 hours.
Burma stated that 72 hours was a rare exception, and that 48 hours was more realistic.
MOTION, by Clapsaddle, seconded by Glister, to approve Staff recommendation
revising item two to read "Require all sale merchandise be located within the
building and outside display boats to be limited to 72 hours."
Discussion:
Mueller questioned the time flame of paving the parking lot and suggested one year or 18
months. Clapsaddle and Glister agreed with this.
Mr. Warner stated that would put the time flame into January. Mueller stated that this was a
necessary improvement because of the soft spots in the parking area. Mr. Warner stated that he
did not know what the issues would be regarding the County property. Clapsaddle stated that if
the lot was not paved, the current limits of the parking lot would not allow the trucks with a boat
to get through.
Mueller offered an amendment to the Motion to add the time flame of 18 months to item 1 of
Staff recommendations. Clapsaddle and Glister accepted this amendment.
Brown stated that he brought up the changes to item 2 of the Staff recommendation because he
did not want to see sale type stuff on the road. Mueller stated that outdoor sales are allowed in
the business district.
Clapsaddle confirmed the code would take care of the parking ratios.
Mr. Reese asked how many pieces of merchandise could be outside at one time. Mueller stated
the area was limited for space and not much would fit outside.
Acting Chair Mueller called the question.
AYES: 6
6
3555
Mound planning Commission Minutes. July 10, 2000
DRAFT
Motion carried. 6-0.
Chair Michael called a break at 8:30 pm.
Chair Michael called the meeting to order at 8:35 p.m.
Burma left the meeting at this time.
1.1
CASE #00-36: MINOR SUBDIVISION, TIMOTHY HUFNAGLE, 4707
MANCHESTER ROAD, LOT 1, 2, 3, BLOCK 9, WYCHWOOD, PID# 19-117-23 32
0086.
1.2
CASE #00-37: VARIANCE, TIMOTHY HUFNAGLE, 4707 MANCHESTER
ROAD, LOT 1, 2, 3, BLOCK 9, WYCHWOOD, PID 19-117-23 32 0086.
The City Planner presented the case and stated that Staff has asked that the lot area size meet the
standards by acquiring the vacated area fi.om the property owner on the east.
The applicant has submitted a request to split property from an existing lot to build a new home.
The requests require approval ora minor subdivision and a variance to lot area. The variance is
as follows:
Proposed Required Variance
Lot Area (Parcel B) 5200 sq. ft.
6000 sq. ft. 800 sq. ft.
Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the request with
the following conditions:
1. Parcel A and B meet lot area minimums of 6000 sq. ft.
2. Final grading and drainage plan be approved by the City Engineer at the time of building
permit application.
3. Provide drainage and utility easements along all new lot lines, 5 feet wide on side lot
lines and 10 feet in width along the front and rear lot lines.
4. The new sanitary sewer and water services shall either be installed or some type of
financial guarantee provided, such as cash escrow, performance bond, or letter of credit.
5. One street unit charge in the amount of $1,768.45 shall be paid.
6. A park dedication fee of $500.00 shall be paid.
Brown questioned the Minutes fi.om the June 26, 2000 Planning Commission meeting page 9
that state a different street charge then is being assessed on this lot. The City Planner stated this
number is based on a unit charge for the year the street was reconstructed.
7
Mound planning Corn~ission Minutes, July 10, 2000
DRAFT
Tim Hufnagle, 4707 Manchester, stated that he spoke with the east side neighbor about the
possibility of purchasing the vacated land. The neighbor is storing his boat there and does not
want to sell. Mr. Hufiaagle stated that it is common on this street for houses to be very close
together and that the proposed lots are bigger than others on the street.
Brown suggested a possible solution with the neighbor was for Mr. Hufiaagle to buy the lot and
give the neighbor an easement to store his boat. Mr. Hufi~agle stated he had investigated this and
the neighbor was not interested.
Mr. Hufi'tagle stated that the lot meets all setback requirements and the hardcover requirements.
MOTION, by Brown, seconded by Clapsaddle to approve Staff's recommendation
with the conditions as set forth.
Discussion:
Mueller asked how the minimum 6,000 square feet per lot would be acquired. Brown amended
his Motion to allow a variance.
Hasse suggested that both lots be 5,600 square feet.. The City Planner stated this would then
create two nonconforming lots and he felt it was better to have one lot be conforming and one lot
be nonconforming. The City Building Official pointed out that the next owner may sell the
vacated piece. He also stated that gravel driveways are hardcover although someone at the City
had told applicant they were not.
Brown amended his Motion to allow one lot to be at 5,200 square feet and to include all other
recommendations made by Staff.
Acting Chair Mueller called the question.
AYES: 4
NAYS: 1 (Mueller)
Motion carried. 4-1.
MISCEI ,I.ANEOUS:
1. DRAFT HRA MINUTES OF JUNE 27, 2000.
2. DRAFT CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF JUNE 27, 2000.
ADJOURNMENT:
8
Mound Plannirlg Commission Minutes, July 10, 2000
DRAFT
MOTION by Brown, seconded by Glister to adjourn the meeting. MOTION
CARRIED: 5-0.
Acting Chair Mueller adjourned the meeting at 8:45 p.m.
9
MINUTES - EDC - JULY 20, 2000
The meeting was called to order at approximately 7:10 a.m. by Paul Meisel. Members
present were Jerry Pietrowski, Suzanne Claywell, Stan Drahos, Mark Brewer, Sharon
McMenamy-Cook, and Paul Meisel. Others present were Rhonda Eurich, Gino
Businaro, Bob Brown, Kandis Hanson, and Bruce Chamberlain.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Sharon McMenamy-Cook reported an error in the June 15th minutes, stating the correct
footage of the senior center is 18,000 square feet, not 12,000.
MOTION made by Mark Brewer and seconded by Stan Drahos to approve
the June 16, 2000 minutes as corrected. The motion was unanimously
approved.
Paul Meisel introduced Rhonda Eurich, Administrator at Our Lady of the Lake and a
citizen of Mound, as a guest.
PROJECT UPDATES
MOUND FAMILY HARDWARE: Most members of the EDC reported being at the
ground breaking ceremony on July 17th as was most of the City Council. Kandis
Hanson stated there is still some paperwork to complete. Bruce Chamberlain reported
they will have a dumpster enclosure built on the south side of the building next to the
tracks and we still need to revise the agreement to include the city doing some
landscaping when the new utility line goes through next year. This is a forced main
sewer line that will be relocated from the Auditors Road District.
Bruce reported the Lansing-Miller group has decided to stay in the CBD Parking
Program. The City now has the ability to prevent any fence being installed. Kandis
reported because the city extended the parking program, Lansing-Miller will benefit by
receiving a check.
The Mound Family Hardware project will now be dropped from the EDC agenda unless
something comes up in the future.
POST OFFICE PROJECT: Bruce Chamberlain reported he has been working on design issues
with the post office. He stated they have the building set back from County Rd. 15, with parking
in front, which makes the building surrounded by parking. He reported this does not go along
with the design we have requested. They have not shown in their initial site plan, any
pedestrian ways to the front door from the street, so you have to walk through the parking lot in
order to get to the front door of the building. He is working with them in order to change this
There was a lenthy discussion of the design and location of the building. Mark Brewer
commented that it is important for the post office to come into design compliance as this
building will be one of the first ones seen coming into the downtown area. Bruce stated he
doesn't believe they will move the location of the building due to circulation problems if the
building was moved up to the street. Bruce stated this will be a 6,500 square foot building and
will general some tax increment but not a lot, so there is some leverage from TIF, beyond that,
the building does meet zoning standards.
Mark asked if we needed now to adopt design guidelines as discussed 5 or 8 years ago. He
realized that Mound Family Hardware :has designed their building according to our design
concepts but asked what assurance we have that other buildings will. Bruce stated they did
change the standards for the pedestrian district but the post office is outside this district, so
they do not have as stringent zoning standards. He reiterated that developers are encouraged
to use our design vision but the Council voted to use it as a guideline only for developers to
follow when building. Bruce stated that as a TIF project we may be able to persuade the postal
service to comply. Paul stated that most important to him was the way the building looked but
realized they know how their semi trucks need to come in and probably have a set format with
all new post office buildings. Bruce also stated that with any major changes we suggest to the
building require a further design review, which would take months, so we need to work within
perameters of facial matedal changes only.
All were concemed about the visual effect of having a building not in compliance with the vision
concept. Landscape design was also discussed and it was suggested that the City should may
be offer to landscape the property.
BEARD GROUP DEVELOPMENT OF AUDITORS ROAD DISTRICT AND LANGDON
DISTRICT: Bruce Chamberlain reported they are working through finance issues in the
development right now. The gap started out at about 3.1 million dollars between what the City
could bring to the table with TIF and what the developer was willing or able to bring from
investment. Through taking some of the improvements, such as streetscaping and the
relocation of the well out of the TIF equasion, the gap is now down to 1.5 million dollars. He
stated both the city and the developer then started stragegizing how to close the gap further.
They discussed about bringing more intensity of rental housing to the site, adding another level
to the buildings, etc. Bruce stated Beard was looking at 2 to 3 story buildings but will now be
looking at 3 to 4 instead, bringing about 55 more housing units to the project. Bruce stated this
will bring the gap down to about $800,000 which needs to be addressed. They are presently
looking at how they can reduce the cost of the project and if they can expand the project area
to include the Lost Lake Site and do a development on that site. This would be primarily
housing but could also include a banquet facility, an inn, and possibly a restaurant, coffee shop,
or wine/bar facility. Bruce stated the banquet center has always been part of the concept plan,
but not housing. He stated he has not yet looked at design issues but believes this could work.
Bob Brown stated he was against expanding housing any further. He stated he believed this
was suppose to be a retail project with housing and it now appears to him that in the last 1 1/2
years, the entire project is being changed from a retail housing project to a housing project with
some retail. He stated he could not support any more expansion of housing, especfially rental
housing, and felt we should look at helping in the retail area, 'not housing. Bruce stated that the
amount of retail being proposed in the project has never changed, and there is actually as
much or more retail. Bob Brown stated he did not approve of going into the Lost Lake area
2
and make it rental housing. All along this was suppose to be a hotel, farmers market, and a
park and ride.
Paul asked if any developer would actually be able to develop this area if they were not allowed
to put in the amount of housing now being proposed. Bruce answered him by stating he did not
know that for sure, but Jim Prosser with Ehlers has looked at the numbers Beard has put on the
table and he is not suggesting any numbers out of line. Bruce stated the City knows how much
they can bring to the table and what the cost of acquisition is approximately going to be, we
definitely know what the level of tax is today on those properties and that is what Sets the
baseline. He stated that it was his impression that the proposal by Beard is as intense as a
project can get. Bear is is proposing approximately 135 units of housing, some of which are
owner townhomes, some rental townhomes, but most will be rental apartments. Bruce
explained that if another developer came in they would not be able to generate more tax than
the project being proposed by Beard. Bruce reiterated that we accept the level of intensity that
will give the amount of return needed or the entire project may have to be dropped.
Suzanne Claywell stated that she felt everything should be built as far from the lake as possible
and there should be a green band so everyone can see the lake. Bruce explained that the
required set back is at least 50 feet from shoreline and the entire project creates public
lakefront. He assured her there will be trails and walkways and Auditors Rd. will be seen by
traffic driving by. She reitereated her concerns stating she did not believe any houses should
be built by the lake.
Bob Brown asked that if the city is willing to do the landscaping and the well development, and
assistance with the project, as well as bringing the price down to $800,000, dropping the
difference to 1.5 million dollars, why aren't they willing to come up with the other 1.5 million.
Bruce again explained that Beard has already dropped their return on investment from 20% to
15%. In other words, as Beard is looking for investors for this project, he is suggesting only a
15% return on their investment. What Prosser is telling us is that anythihing lower than that, he
will not be able to find any investors. According to the numbers Prosser is looking at, Beard
really cannot stretch any further.
Bruce stated that what he is headng from the council is that looking at housing on the Lost Lake
Site is just not going to be an option for them and they will not approve it. If that's the case,
then the only scenedo we have is to try and somehow reduce the imput cost for the project by
about $800,000.
Stan Drahos asked where the input cost comes from and Bruce explained that was property
acqusition, demolition/relocation costs, etc. The city cannot pick up these costs, therefore, the
amount of properties will have to be reduced, but that will cause the area to be redeveloped.to
be reduced.
Bruce pointed out that the buildings cannot go higher than four floors or we would not have
enough parking and we would be maxing out the entire site. Jerry Pietrowski stated he is
visualizing a huge building with apartments in it, four floors high, and no green space left.
Bruce explained there really would still be quite a bit of green space and the approximate 180
units would not be on one site, but would include above businesses, Auditors Rd. and the
Langdon District, so it really will not be that dense.
3
Kandis explained that we need to talk about the retail and not just the housing development.
According to Jim Prosser, 50,000 square feet is a large amount of retail space. She stated that
in order to make the rental rates affordable for businesses we currently have to move into and
to attact new businesses to Mound, the housing is necessary because that bdngs the square
footage cost down. She explained that one does rely on the other and cannot be considered
independly.
Mark asked what the objection by the council was to housing on Lost Lake. He pointed out that
we need to look at this as bringing in more people which will bring more buying power and that
will attract more retail people to invest in Mound. Mark and Sharon pointed out that other
communities such as Edina, have housing blended in around retail areas and it-has a very
asthetic appeal. This brought about a discussion on what more housing would do asthetically
to the project in general.
Bob Brown stated in his opinon, 180 or so new units, a lot of it being rental, would bring a lot
more people out to Mound. VVhat we would have would be a small amount of land crammed in
with housing and did not believe this would even look appealing. He stated he believed the
Lost Lake site could be a beautiful spot and the high density should be kept on Langdon and
the downtown business district. He does not believe the site would support that much housing
and it would be better used for a retail or hotel development, farmers market, park and ride and
other things.
Sharon mentioned that without seeing a design we cannot assume that it would not look good.
She stated that after viewing several projects a couple months ago, she now realizes that retail
shops can blend in with housing and have a very asthetic appeal to it. She also pointed out
that this does not mean there will be no hotel and we need people for this project to work. She
stated this may help keep young people who are looking for an apartment after graduation from
moving out of Mound.
Paul asked Bruce if there was anything EDC could do to help resolve this situation with Beard
Development.
Mark stated he did not believe asthefics was a problem. They could be, but they don't have to
be. He stated he also did not want to see the Farmer's Market go but if something has to,
certainly the Farmer's Market would be an option because we still have places to put it. He also
pointed out that we have come this far and if we are looking at some give and takes, and if it
makes the project go or not go, we need to look at doing something to make it work. He also
stated that after fourteen years it would be a shame to drop the project because of $800,000
and a few houses.
Bob argued that it is not a few houses, but 80 more houses on the Lost Lake Site. Mark
explained that that would be equivilant to Excelsior Gables. Bruce told Bob that this area is 3.1
acres. Bob pointed out that when they wanted to put 122 houses in at the school site, which is
9+ acres, everyone balked at it, stating it was way too much density. Mark stated he believed
they were balking at the loss of green space, not the density. This would be more like the
Gables, which sells for $300,000 to $400,000 each. Mark answered by stating that if we drop
the Beard project, we will end up with a lot of green space, but no project.
4
Stan Drahos stated he agreed with Mark that we really need to keep it looking attractive, and
draw people out here. He stated we are now 99% developed in Mound as far as housing goes
and anything we add will sell or rent. He stated he understood what Bob was saying but also
believes that after all these years, we need to do what it takes to make this project work. He
stated that sacrifices need to be made by everybody and because we don't agree with one
portion of the project, we can't afford to allow that to stop the entire project. He agreed that we
should perhaps of done some things different in the past but we are still here today talking and
we can't change the past, but we can make a decision to make it go forward. We have to be
positive about it and do what is best.
The possibility of floating a bond, the City coming up with the money or TIF money_being used
were all discussed. Gino and Kandis both pointed out these were not feasible options.
Jerry Pietrowski asked how far we should concede and felt it was Beard's tum to step to the
plate. He also pointed out that investers can lose on this project and 15% is a Iow return.
Paul summarized what Bob was suggesting that we either squeeze Beard and hope he doesn't
back out or find another developer. Bruce then pointed out that by finding another deveiper,
the numbers still won't be any different. The intensity on the sites cannot be any higher than it
is now and that means the maximum level of tax increment that will be generated from the
project is what this project already shows. They will not want to make the level of return for
investment any lower. In other words, if we don't have a beneficiary willing to give money with
no return and are not willing to compromise, we will not have a project. Jerry stated it was
Beard's responsibility to find a way to build a little cheaper. Bruce stated one thing Beard
proposed to reduce cost was to take a portion of the project presently planned for retail and use
it for housing instead. Bruce stated he was not willing to concede to that suggestion. He stated
that we have worked very hard to create a continuous retail loop along our street frontage. He
pointed out that this was one of the points previously brought up that the perception is that this
is no longer a retail project but a housing project. This is not true but if that were to happen
then that perception would really have some merit.
Bruce stated he believes the cost of the project could maybe reduced but his concern is that the
archetectural quality on the exterior will be the first thing cut. We will then end up with an
unattractive development. He stated that we do have another option and that is to look at two
potential properties that are not suggested to be tom down within these areas. That includes
the Meisel and the Koenecke's work building. He stated that one of the things we need to look
at is the possibility of Beard not acquiring one or both of those properties. He stated it will be
hard not to acquire the Koenecke's work building because we need all the land in back. He
stated that it will also be hard not to acquire the Meisel building because the land to the side of
it is needed, but if we can make out some arrangements with existing property owners, maybe
there is a way to reduce cost. The return or additonal tax generated by those two properties is
fairly Iow, so the downside isn't very great and the upside is pretty good because the cost to
acquire the properties is pretty high.
Jerry pointed out that with talking about a 4% reduction of a $25,000,000 project, we should be
able to find a way to solve the lack of funds. He again suggested that Beard should be able to
come up with the difference. He also agreed that he doesn't want to see Lost Lake used for
housing and would vote no if he was on the council.
Bruce summarized that what he was now hearing was that our first line of attack should be that
we find ways to reduce the cost of the project without impairing archetectural quality. He went
on so say that expanding the project aroa to the Lost Lake site is probably going to be a very
difficult to sell and not what this group really wants either unless it absolutely has to happen.
Sharon pointed out that even then, before they would agree with the change, they would have
to see the plan and how it would look. Sharon again stated she does not want this project
dropped because we refused to even give Beard a chance to show what it would look like.
Bob again stated that all through this project we have not told Beard no and maybe now we
need to do that. Maybe we need to tell him that we have given and given and have brought it
down from 3.1 to where we aro now, it's your turn. Mark stated he believed Beard is willing to
do that but he will take it out of the asthetics, which was our demand to begin with and that is
one place he does not want to give into. He stated he is willing to give up kiosks and perhaps
the Lions Club can assist in making up the difference. He is also willing to concede if they can
make it look as good as the Excelsior Gables with a restaurant attached to it.
Kandis pointed out to the EDC that Beard already has spent a groat deal of time and money on
this project trying to make this project work. We also have spent at least $20,000 a month in
preplanning costs. If this project is dropped and we look for another developer, we will be back
to square one.
Kandis explained that we have held the line with Beard in a number of issues during team
meetings with him every week. She shared that the city has made him meet several
requirements in the past. Bruce added that Beard has been negotiating in good faith, is
committed to this project and has a vision for the project hat is very much in line with the Mound
Visions vision. Sharon thanked him for sharing that because it is important for the committeed
to know he is committed and is not just putting us off.
Bruce again explained that with the additional housing in Auditors Road and Lake Langdon, we
will still be $800,000 short and that is why Beard is looking at Lost Lake. Housing on Auditors
Road will be above the retail on the street.
Mark asked about the school site and Bruce answered by explaining that Metroplains has a
purchase agreement on the school site. Because that project hasn't gone forward, we do not
know how much tax increment that project will generate. Bruce explained thero is a possibility
that access tax increment could be generated from that project, which then could be pulled into
the Auditors and Langdon Districts, in order to make up that $800,000 gap, but it's not currently
there and the city would be betting on the unknown.
Paul asked the EDC for a recommendation to be sent to the City Council. It was the concensus
of the committee to save the project and to be open to a plan for housing at the Lost Lake Site.
It is impossible to agree or disagree with any plan that is not seen. We need to be willing to
approve at least a modified verison of Lost Lake and perhaps then Beard will be willing to
absorb a portion himself.
Bruce asked if thero was any kind of a formal message or statement to give to the City Council.
Paul answered by asking them to explore the options that may shave some of the costs. They
would also like to see a concept drawing from Beard before voting either way.
6
Jerry commented that he beleives the" $800,000 may just be the tip of the cost difference and
that no contractor can bid on a project this size by sketches. Bob Brown stated that he wanted
to go on record that he is all for the project but against any housing on Lost Lake. He stated he
is willing to work with Beard and do whatever it takes to find ways to cut costs and to help him
develop it and make sure it goes ahead.
Kandis asked the committee to keep open minds regarding this feeling of pinch at the 11th
hour. She pointed out that the planning process has gone on for a long time, which is a
comfortable state to be in, but we need to realize that when we move into the action portion of
the project, it's going to be uncomfortable. It may feel like you are being forced into decision
making in the 11th hour, but that's how it goes. That's how it works. A lot takeks .p. lace in that
last segment of time before the deals are signed and this is normal. We just need to get over
this hump and then we will see this project materialize as we saw True Valu materialize this
week. So remember, this is normal and figure the problem solving pod_ion of the project is to be
expected. It's uncomfortable, look for that and we will get past this part. Don't let it slip away.
Kandis at this time offered the committee the choice of either continuing with the agenda or do
a continuation of the meeting at another time. Paul needs to leave in a half-hour and she is not
sure that we can get through the rest of the agenda in that time. The general concensus was to
go ahead and get through as much as possible and have a special meeting for the Business
Relocation review.
HOTEL DISTRICT: Bruce opened up discussion about the decision that was made by the
council regarding the hotel developer, Rick Bloomquist. He explained that we were approached
by Bloomquist, stating he was interested in developing a hotel on the Lost Lake site but wanted
to remain anonymous. This request was honored up until about a week before the council
meeting. His proposal was discussed last month at the EDC meeting and the staff wrote a
recommendation regarding that project, stating we felt the developer is qualified and has the
capability to do a hotel development on that site. The concern staff made was that this was a
little bit too early to consider a hotel development on that piece, primarily because based on the
market study done for the last hotel developer, and based on hotel developers since that time,
Mound could support a facility something like an Americana or a Super 8 but probably not a
facility that is upgraded in archetectural quality or larger in size. So, it was the recommendation
of staff not to pursue a hotel development at this time because we think that after the other
development projects are started, Mound can do better. The City Council followed that
recommendtion and decided not to pursue the hotel development. They encouraged Rick
Bloomquist to stay interested in Mound and give us a little time. He stated we have received
negative feed-back from the developer because of that decision, as well as negative feedback
from council members.
Bruce explained that any hotel development will take all the TIF generation we can possibly put
toward it, as they are on a very fight margin and will need everything they can get to make it
work. Bruce stated that it is his very strong opinion that we would be better off having no hotel
than a Super 8 on that particular site.
Bob Brown stated that the council owes this committee an apology and he was requested to
bring that apology to the EDC for by-passing this committee regarding the hotel site. They
acknowledge that Mr. Bloomquist should have come to a EDC meeting before coming before
the council. The council promised to do their best not to let that happen again and Bob
extended his apology on behalf of the council.
Kandis added that that concern was raised by the EDC. She explained that there are timing
issues that are considered as staff, and there is also the confidentiality issues that we are
presented with and need to deal with all the time. When we meet in staff situations, we can
almost always guarantee confidentiality but when meetings are held with multiple bodies, that
starts to be compromised. Because this committee only meets once a month and the concern
of confidentiality requested we made a judgement call not to wait another 30 days for the EDC
meeting before presenting the plan to the Council. Kandis stated that this may have been a
bad call by not bringing it here and staff, therefore apologizes with this explanation She stated
that in the future she will explain to prospective developers the process they need to go
through.
It was the general concensus that the committee has no objection to being called for an extra
meeting when needed.
Jerry stated he agreed with the council to put this project on hold. He feels we need to get the
Beard project off the table and then maybe re-address the hotel issue. He also believes that if
we can upgrade the hotel to something a little nicer than an Americana Inn that would be fine
but he did not find them distasteful at all. They are Iow budget and run on thin margins.
They're built and tom down after 20 to 25 years and then replaced. Sharon asked if the
developer is willing to wait. Bob answered and stated that Rick came to him after the meeting
and expressed to him that he was very unhappy with this decision. Bob stated that the council
thought it would be like an Americana Inn. Though Rick never said it at the meeting, but after
the fact stated he was willing to work with the city to develop a hotel with the look the city
wanted. Bob then went back and told the city staff and they were going to talk about it and get
back with him. Mark pointed out that this piece of property has been available for a long time
and he can't come now and expect it to go through without consideration of the other projects.
If he would have presented his plan a couple years ago it may have been approved, but now
there are other factors that are coming into play and we need to acknowledge that wait. Bob
said Rick's feeling on this is that he is a local businessman, he gives to the community, he
works in the community, and now he wants to put a project up that's locally owned that will have
the design the city wants, and if there are any complaints the city can come to him not someone
in another state, he will be giving back to the city, so he is upset that he cannot go forward with
the project. The concensus of the group was all that is true but this is not the right time to build
a hotel.
METROPLAINS DEVELOPMENT: Kandis stated that we know the purchase agreement
between Metroplains Development and the school district expired on the 30th of June, Since
then they have verbally agreed to tide things along for a time. There are several things hanging
in the balane that Metroplains felt they could react by on or around the 21st of July, so even
though there is not a written extended extension to the purchase agreement, everyone has
confirmed to the city first hand they expect this project to proceed in one form or fashion. The
school district still wants to close on the deal, Metroplains has confirmed they do, the city still
wants to see it happen because we have a project in mind of our own, and of course, the
realtors do.
8
The Open Space referandum is set for Septemeber 12th. Staff has been working to finalize the
content of a Q and A that will be mailed out to every household within the next two weeks. It's
meant to go out about five weeks before an open house to be held on August 16th in an area
church meeting reom. There will not be a formal presentation but we will have stations
manned by individuals who will discuss a portion of the project and answer questions. The
intent is that when voters come to the polls on September 12th, they will be educated on this
topic. Council has also had input on the Q and A on the content.
VVhereas the odginal question that was submitted by petitioners authoroize the city council to
bond 1.3 million dollars for the purchase and betterment of the 10+ acres of open space, it has
been determined by staff that the 1.3 million, when combined with the purchase pri.ce and soft
costs involved, it isn't enough money. So a second question has been formulated which would
authorize the city council to bond for an additonal 1.45 million dollars, which is the fullest extent
to which the park can be improved, but allows for either minimal improvement on up to maximal
improvements, depending on the wishes of the public. In other words, to bdng it up to the
designed standards of a community park would cost around $200,750,000.
There is going to be an opportunfiy for people to come to a table at the open house and pencil
out what their questions are and from that we will have a revised Q and A that will be delivered
about one week prior to the election, addressing the questions.
Bob Brown stated that he was told the minimum requirement to bring the bleachers up to code,
some lighting, safety uses, and dugouts would be $300,000. The fields then would only be
able to be used about 50% of the time because they would have to "rest the fields", so the
minimum would not allow us to do any more activity than what it is used for today. Kandis
reiterated that the school is taking the lighting that is there now so we would not be able to use
the field once it's dark. If it was developed more extensively, including field irrigation,
maintenance of turf, lighting, etc., would give it more year around and around the clock use.
Maintenance is estimated to be about $20,000 annually, which will be added to the park
budget. Kandis explained that at one station there will be three boards. One will be minimal or
code improvements, listing what that could be. The second one will be mid-range improvement
(Neighborhood Park) and the third board will be maximal improvements (Community Park).
Each board will list the cost of the improvements and what features the park will then be able to
offer. We are considering the idea of giving everyone a dot so at the end they could vote which
type of park they would like to see. This will give us a sense of the level of improvement the
public would like. Sharon brought up that it is important to show the citizens what the cost will
be for these improvements. Bob Brown pointed out that if the city purchases that piece of
property, we are liable for that property and it will be necessary to bring it up to code, which
means we will need new bleachers, baseball dugouts will have to meet safety standards,
fencing around the dugouts will need to be maintained, the concession stand will need to meet
ADA standards, the driveWays where people park need to be upgraded so there are no
potholes, etc.
DOWNTOWN PARKING AND MEDIATION PROCESS: As was mentioned earlier, the
downtown parking program was extended without any objections. There is a mediation process
which we are presently in the early stages of. Each business owner or property owner of the
John's Vadety Block have been invited to attend meetings with mediators from West Hennepin
Mediation Service, Bruce Chamberlain, Kandis Hanson. We have been heard the concerns of
John's Vadety and Dave from Westonka Sports, however after meeting with them, nothing has
been resolved. They have agreed to meet on the next level, which would be a group
discussion. We still need to meet with two representatives from Uncharted Grounds, which
would be the owner and the renter;, and with Gary Santo from Savannah's Consignments.
Mark Brewer asked what Metroplains plans were for their property if they go ahead with the
commercial development portion of their site. Kandis explained the Pond Arena will stay as far
as she knows. They will have very limited parking because most of the parking they now have
will go with the Metroplains commefical development, but the way they have their layout
planned, the buildings would butt up to the comer on two sides and the parking would be
in-between. They have indicated they would do some shared parking arrangements for the
Pond Arena. As for uses for those spaces, we do not know at this point. We believe there will
be one large anchor of some type with smaller other retail businesses attached. Tills area will
possibly be "L" shaped, facing Lynwood and Commerce Blvd. Kandis explained that what is in
conflict is some of the land in the fields is zoned commercial and so Metroplains is of the
assumption that that goes with them and, of course, people interested in seeing the fields
retained and redeveloped, figure that because that is part of the fields dght now, it will go with
them. The portion that is commedcal is the play area is 40% of the developable area for the
comer, which puts a large dent in the developer's plans and the feasibility of his project. In
other words, there is 19 acres total of land and the greenspace people are referanding buying
the 10 plus acres. Three acres out of the 10 are commercial.
Bob Brown explained that if the vote is approved and both referandums have to pass, one
being contingent on the other, we will pay 1.3 for the land and 1.4 to go ahead with
improvements. Once the city owns that property, we can develop and maybe sell back 3 acres.
Kandis pointed out that this also is continengent on how much Metroplains is willing to sell us as
they will be the owner once the agreement is consumated. Because the referandum states 10
plus acres, that is what we are obligated to act .upon and so everything is really in the balance
at this time. Metroplains is hesitant to submit plans for approval here at city hall because they
don't know if they have the extra land or not and dght now they are operating under the
assumption that they do. The plans they turn into the planning department for approval have to
show actual placement of buildings, set-backs, etc. and there is presently too much in question
for them to safely do that. Mark Brewer stated that he would like the commercial portion stay
with the commercial development.
There was suppose to be a Review of Appraisal done today to determine the value of the land.
They were going to gather all the appraisals done by the city, Metroplains and possibly the
school, and base it on today's market rates, rather than doing a brand new full-blown
appraisals. Once it was determined that some of it was commercial and some of it was
residential, there had to be a determination of the value of the land the city would be interested
in, at current rates.
~
Mark asked if the proposal to upgrade would include the large football/soccer field, the
baseball field, two softball fields and hockey arena as well as the playground area. Kandis
explained that when the cost estimated was done, it was based on the facilities already there.
She said that they would have to be relocated but they did not consider any designs.
COMMUNICATION
10
Q & A's: There are two Q and A's scheduled, one coming out in the next couple of weeks and
the second will be mailed shortly after the first part or September. The first one will be
combined with a community news letter insert.
Future Open Houses: There will be an open house on the 16th will run from 5:00 p.m. to 7:30
p.m. and will be either at Our Lady of the Lake Church or St. John's Church. We were advised
by our communications expert, Jill, that it is better to' have the open house off-sight We will
have refreshments and everyone is invited. Boards and commissions should be there as
listeners, not trying to persuade or disuade individuals about their stance on this. We want the
citizens to express what they want to see happen and to write down their comments. We
should be sounding boards and direct them to where they can submit their comments.
OTHER
Bob Brown stated that the VFW came forward and offered a donation of approximately $2,500.
In return they were asking Auditor's Road be named "Veterans Way". The council's explained
to them that a decision had already been made to postpone naming that road and the EDC
would be bringing that issue up at a future date.
Jerry asked Kandis to expand on the railroad abandonment Kandis explained that Railamedca
has petitioned for the abandonment of the tell, however, not everybody wants the rail
abandoned. Some people still receiving service from the reil want to continue receiving that
service, so there is a hold up there.
If it is abandoned, it is being proposed that the land go to Hennepin County Parks and Trails to
be held in safe-keeping for the next 25 years. It is to be used as a trail during that time, but with
the idea it could be converted to light rail sometime after 25 years. At that time it would have a
dual use, with light rail and a trail beside it, but in order to do that, they would need 50 to 100
feet of right of way. There are places in Mound where the right of way is down to 22 feet right
now. She is not sure if they realize that much land has been sold off over the years through
some of the cities. We still want to see this utilized primarily as a trail and we also have
commitments to redevelopment that depend acquiring even more of that right-of-way right now.
Part of Beard's development on Langdon depends on the acquisition of trail right-of-way and
the acquisition of the railroad right-of-way near where the oil tanks is dependent upon relocating
the lift station currfently located by the park-and ride. The lift station needs to be relocated to
right across the tracks and have a force main running across the new True Valu on the north
side of the tracks. All of that is dependent on us getting some of the right-of-way. They are
also telling us that securing fight-of-way from the railroad is going to be almost impossible. So
this is going to be a sticky issue before it's done.
BUSINESS RELOCATION REVIEW
Was deferred to next meeting.
A special meeting was set for July 27, 2000 at 7:00 a.m. Suzanne Claywell will bring rolls.
ADJOURN
MOTION was made by Bob Brown to adjoum the meeting and seconded by Stan
Drahos. The motion passed unanimously.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:55 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Shidey Hawks
12
MINUTES - EDC WORKSHOP - JULY 27, 2000
The workshop was called to order at 7:15 A.M. by Chair Paul Meisel. Members present:
Mark Brewer, Paul Meisel, Suzanne Claywell. Others present: Gino Businaro, Kandis
Hanson, Bruce Chamberlain, Ronda Eurich. It was acknowledged that a quorum was not
present, but is not needed for a workshop.
Bruce Chamberlain led a discussion regarding the relocation of the businesses to be
affected by the downtown redevelopment. The following was established through the
discussion:
businesses cited for relocation counseling within the Langdon District,
Auditor's Road and True Value Districts
projected demolition dates for Langdon District, Auditor's Road District,
True Value District
new location availability in the Langdon District, Auditor's Road District,
True Value District, Old School District, Commerce Square District and
the Hotel District
suitable locations for those cited for relocation within the redevelopment
area, based on the timing
The suitable locations will be suggested to the affected business owners.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 A.M.
ATTEST:
Kandis Hanson, City Manager
LEN HARRELL
Chief of Police
MOUND POLICE
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
Telephone 472-0621
Dispatch 525.6210
Fax 472-0656
EMERGENCY 911
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Kandis Hanson
ChiefLen Harrell
Monthly Report for July,'2000
STATISTICS ~
The police department responded to 525 calls for service during the month
of July. There were 31 Part I offenses r~ported. Those offenses included
1 aggravated assaults, 4 burglaries, 2 vehicle thefts, and 24 larcenies.
There were 85 Part II offenses reported. Those offenses included 4 child
abuse/neglect, 1 forgery/NSF check, 15 weapons, 10 criminal damage to
property, 5 namotics, 15 liquor law violations, 6 DUI's, 4 simple assaults,
9 domestics (4 with assaults), 1 harassment, and 15 other offenses.
The patrol division issued 140 adult and I juvenile citations. Parking
violations accounted for an additional 34 tickets. Warnings were issued to
90 individuals for a variety of violations.
There were 1 adult and 1 juvenile arrested for felonies and 38 adults and
15 juveniles arrested for misdemeanors. There were 2 adult felony
warrant arrests and 10 misdemeanor adult warrant arrests. One juvenile
was arrested on warrants.
The department assisted in 7 vehicle accidents. There were 21 medical
emergencies and 53 animal complaints. Mound assisted other agencies on
18 occasions in July and requested assistance 3 times.
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
MONTHLY REPORT - July, 2000
II.
III.
INVESTIGATIONS
The investigators worked on 4 child protection issues in July accounting
for 22 hours in investigative time. Other cases included burglary, theft,
absenting, vehicle theft, personal injury accident, suspicious vehicle,
possession of stolen property, and NSF checks.
Formal complaints were issued for gross misdemeanor DWI, underage
consumption, noise violation, transportation of loaded pistol, driving a~er
cancellation, drug paraphernalia, obstructing legal process, domestic
assault, trespassing, barking dog, terroristic threats, and malicious
punishment of a child.
Personnel/StatTmg
The department used approximately 35 hours of overtime during the
month of July. Officers used 41 hours of comp-time, 63 hours of sick
time, 168 hours of vacation, 6 holidays and 42 hours at double time.
Officers earned 8 hours of comp time.
IV. TRAINING
All officers attended firearms training with the department. Sgt.
McKinley attended a two day emergency management course, and Harrell,
Truax, and McKinley attended the Southern Police Institute retraining
conference in Plymouth and helped host the event.
COMMUNITY SERVICE OFFICER
A new CSO has been selected and will begin in August.
VI. RESERVES
The reserves donated 80.25 hours of community service in the month of
July. The unit consists of eight members currently.
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
JULY 2000
OFFENSES CLEARED EXCEPT- ~ BY AP.~ESTED
REPORTED UNFOt)NDED CLEARED AP.~EST ADULT JUV
?ART I CRIMES
Homicide
Criminal Sexual Conduct
Robbery
Aggravated Assault
Burglary
Larceny
Vehicle Theft
Arson
TOTAL
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
i 0 i 0 0 0
4 0 0 0 0 0
24 i 0 2 I ~
2 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
31 I I 2 I I
PART II CRIMES
Child Abuse/Neglect
Forgery/NSF Checks
Criminal Damage to Property
Weapons
Narcotic Laws
Liquor Laws
DWI
Simple Assault
Domestic Assault
Domestic (No Assault)
Harassment
Juvenile Status Offenses
Public Peace
Trespassing
All Other Offenses
4 2 0 2 2 0
1 0 1 0 0 0
10 0 1 0 0 0
15 0 8 0 0 0
5 0 0 5 4 2
15 0 0 15 18 1
6 0 0 6 6 0
4 1 3 0 0 0
4 0 0 4 4 0
5 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 1 0 0 0
9 0 0 9 0 12
3 0 1 2 2 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
3 1 0 2 2 0
TOTAL
85 4 15 45 38 15
PART II & PART IV
Property Damage Accidents
Personal Injury Accidents
Fatal Accidents
Medicals
Animal Complaints
Mutual Aid
Other General Investigations
7
0
0
21
53
18
302
TOTAL
401
HCCP
Inspections
TOTAL
525
16
47
39 16
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
CRIME ACTIVITY REPORT JULY 2000
GENERAL ACTIVITY SUMMARY
Hazardous Citations
Non-Hazardous Citations
Hazardous Warnings
Non-Hazardous Warnings
Verbal Warnings
Parking Citations
DWI
Over .10
Property Damage Accidents
Personal Injury Accidents
Fatal Accidents
Adult Felony Arrests
Adult Misdemeanor Arrests
Juvenile Felony Arrests
Juvenile Misdemeanor~trrests
Part I Offenses
Part II Offenses
Medicals
Animal Complaints
Ordinance Violations
Other Public Contacts
THIS YEAR TO LAST YEAR
MONTH DATE TO DATE
94 774 527
35 200 299
22 182 i26
44 438 386
114 619 556
34 196 229
6 42 30
6 37 27
7 65 46
0 17 20
0 1 0
3 10 13
48 215 164
1 11 13
16 75 51
31 151 111
85 430 288
21 194 207
53 380 382
0 257 187
302 2,735 5,284
TOTAL
Assists
Follow-Ups
HCCP
Mutual Aid Given
Mutal Aid Requested
922 7,029 8,946
77 518 347
27 249 265
4 34 25
18 141 101
3 47 42
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
JULY 2000
CITATIONS
DWI
More Than .10% BAC
Careless/Reckless Driving
Driving After Susp. or Rev.
Open Bottle
Speeding
No DL or Expired DL
Restriction on DL
Improper, Expired or No Plates
Stop Arm Violations
Stop Sign Violations
Failure to Yield
Equipment Violations
H&R Leaving the Scene
No Insurance
Illegal or Unsafe Turn
Over the Centerline
Parking Violations
Crosswalk
Dog Ordinances
Code Enforcement
Seat Belt
Overweight Vehicles
Miscellaneous Tags
TOTAL
~ULT
6
6
0
5
0
80
2
0
16
0
3
1
3
0
6
0
0
34
1
2
0
1
0
174
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
JULY 2000
W~NINGS
Insurance
Traffic
Equipment
Crosswalk
Animals
Trash/Derelict Autos
Seat Belt
Trespassing
Window Tint
Miscellaneous
TOTAL
WARRANT ARRESTS
Felony
Misdemeanor
22
24
2
0
9
5
0
0
0
26
88
2
10
Juveniles
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
5677