The URL can be used to link to this page

2000-05-23AGENDA MOUND CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, MAY 23, 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, itt which event the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence. o OPEN MEETING - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. PRESENT PROCLAMATION TO AMERICAN LEGION REPRESENTATIVES FOR DONATION OF FLAGPOLE AND MONUMENT TO MOUND UNION CEMETARY. DEDICATION CEREMONY: MAY 27, 2000, UNION CEMETARY. APPROVE AGENDA. At this time Agenda items can be added, deleted or amended. Items can be removed from the Consent Agenda, to be voted upon after the Consent Agenda has been approved. CONSEN ,. AGENDA: PAGE *A. APPROVE THE MINUTES: MAY 9, 2000, REGULAR MEETING ............................ 1864-1878 *B. CASE//00-15: VARIANCE, THOMAS J. DIOSZEGHY, 5900 BEACHWOOD ROAD, EAST 50' OF W 200' OF LOT 47, AUD. SUBD. 168, IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT A GARAGE WITH A PROPOSED FRONT YARD SETBACK OF 11', PID# 23-117-24 13 0042 ................. 1879-1890 *C. CASE# 00-16: VARIANCE, TERENCE J. ALMQUIST, 4515 MANCHESTER ROAD, LOTS 1,2,3, BLOCK 14, AVALON, IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT A TWO-STORY GARAGE WITH A PROPOSED FRONT YARD SETBACK OF 13', PID# 19-117-23 31 0060 ................ 1891-1907 *D. CASE# 00-17: MINOR SUBDIVISION, THERESA GUBRUD, 6349 WALNUT LANE, LOTS 3 & 4, BLOCK 10, MOUND TERRACE, PID# 14-1! 7-24 32 0065 ..................................................................... 1908-1920 *E. APPROVAL OF MISCELLANEOUS LICENSES ............................................................... 1921 *F. PAYMENT OF BILLS .............................................................................................. 1922-1942 COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT ON ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA. (PLEASE LIMIT TO 3 MINUTES PER SUBJECT.) PUBLIC HEARINGS: ITEMS 5 THROUGH 11. PUBLIC HEARING: CASE//00-05: ZONING AMENDMENT. CHESTER J. YANIK & ASSOCIATES, LENGTHY LEGAL, NOTE ATTACHED PRELIMINARY PLAT DATED FEBRUARY 2. 2000. CONVERSION OF AN EXISTING R-2 ZONE TO A B-1 ZONE. MAKING ALL ZONING OF THE PROPERTY CONSISTENT IN ORDER TO ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE WESTONKA SENIOR CENTER .... 1943-2012 PUBLIC HEARING: CASE # 00-06: STREET EASEMENT/VACATION. CHESTER J. YANIK & ASSOCIATES. LENGTHY LEGAL. NOTE ATTACHED PRELIMINARY PLAT DATED FEBRUARY 2, 2000, TO CONSOLIDATE MULTIPLE PROPERTIES ALLOWING FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE WESTONKA SENIOR CITIZEN CENTER ............................. 2013-2082 PUBLIC HEARING: CASE//00-04: MAJOR SUBDIVISION. CHESTER J. YANIK & ASSOCIATES LENGTHY LEGAL. NOTE ATTACHED: PRELIMINARY PLAT DATED FEBRUARY 2. 2000. IN ORDER TO CREATE A LAND MASS ADEOUATE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE WESTONKA SENIOR CITIZEN CENTER ....................................................................... 2083-2159 Ao CASE# 00-07: VARIANCE. CHESTER J. YANIK & ASSOCIATES. LENGTHY LEGAL, NOTE ATTACHED PRELIMINARY PLAT DATED FEBRUARY 2. 2000. HARDCOVER AND PARKING SIZE ............................................... : .................... 2160-2166 Bo CASE//00-19: VARIANCE. CHESTER J. YANIK & ASSOCIATES. LOT & BLOCK SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT C. PROPOSED WESTONKA SENIOR CITIZEN CENTER TO ALLOW NON-CONFORMING SIDE AND REAR YARD SETBACKS .................................................................. 2167-2173 PUBLIC HEARING: TO CONSIDER A PROPOSED BUSINESS SUBSIDY TO BE GRANTED BY THE CITY TO RAY MAR PROPERTIES. INC. a.k.a. MOUND FAMILY HARDWARE STORE. (THE "RECIPIENT") UNDER MINNESOTA STATUTES. SECTIONS 116J.993 THROUGH 116J.994. THE PROPOSED SUBSIDE INVOLVES TAX INCREMENT FINANCING ASSISTANCE TO FACILITATE DEVELOPMENT BY THE RECIPIENT OF 2 A RETAIL CENTER INCLUDING A HARDWARE STORE IN THE CITY ............... ' .............................................................. 2174-2183 PUBLIC HEARING CASE//00-24: MAJOR SUBDIVISION, RAY MAR PROPERTIES (MOUND FAMILY HARDWARES. 2250 COMMERCE BLVD, MOUND VISIONS 1sT ADDITION, PID# PENDING ............. 2184-2218 CASE//00-25: VARIANCE RAY MAR PROPERTIES, BRUCE DODDS, MOUND FAMILY HARDWARE, MOUND VISIONS 1sT ADDITION PID# PENDING .................................................................. 2219-2220 10. PUBLIC HEARING: CASE//00-13: STREET VACATION/EASEMENT. MARY STEEN, 5104 DRUMMOND RD, LOT 2, BLK 1, TEAL POINTE, IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING, PID# 25-117-24 12 0232 CASE# 00-12: VARIANCE, MARY STEEN. 5104 DRUMMOND RD, LOT 2, BLK 1, TEAL POINTE, IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING, PID# 25-117-24 12 0232 ................................................... 2221-2282 11. PUBLIC HEARING: CASE# 00-18: ZONING AMENDMENT, STEVE CODDEN, 1800 COMMERCE BLVD., LOT & BLOCK AS PER SURVEY, REZONE IN ORDER TO CREATE A CONFORMING R-2 STRUCTURE WHICH WILL FLOW WITH EXISTING LAND USE PATTERNS OF THE AREA, PID# 13-117-24 23 0004 ............................................................................... 2283-2294 12. CASE# 00-21: VARIANCE, TOM TURNER, 5537 BARTLETT BLVD., LOT 10 & THE EAST 20' OF LOT 9, BARTLETT PLACE. TO SCREEN IN EXISTING PORCH WITH A NON-CONFORMING LAKESIDE SETBACK, PID# 24-117-24 23 0015 ............................ 2295-2318 13. CONSIDERATION OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN .................................................................................................................. 2319-2334 14. CONSIDERATION/ACTION ON RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES RELATING TO COMPLIANCE WITH REIMBURSEMENT BOND REGULATIONS UNDER THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE ('INTENT TO BOND' RESOLUTION) ................... 2335-2339 15. ACTION ON RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF REAL PROPERTY TO HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ............................................. 2340-2341 3 16. ACTION ON RECOMMENDATION TO DEDICATE ALL PROCEEDS AND INTEREST FROM THE RENTAL OF MOUND DEPOT TO A PARK AND RECREATION FUND ....... 2342-2347 17. PRESENTATION OF ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT BY INDEPENDENT AUDITORS. (SEE ENCLOSED BOOKLET): STEVEN MC DONALD 18. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS Ae B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. K. L. M. N. O. FINANCIAL REPORTS, THROUGH APR 2000 & MAY 1 ........................... 2348-2351 MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT: APR 2000 ............ 2352-2358 CORRESPONDENCE FROM GEOFF MICHAEL ........................................ 2359-2360 EDC MEETING MINUTES: APR 20 ............................................................ 2361-2366 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT MTG MINS: APR 12..2367-2383 AMM FAX NEWS ....................................................................................... 2384-2386 LMC FRIDAY FAXES ........................................................................................ 2387 LMC LEGISLATIVE UPDATES .................................................................. 2388-2391 CORRESPONDANCE RE: WOODLAND POINT ......................................... 2392-2393 RETIREMENT NOTICE: POLICE SERGEANT STEVEN GRAND ...................... 2394 RESIGNATION NOTICE: COMMUNITY SERVICE OFFICER MATT CARNS .... 2395 ARTICLE: MAYOR BLASTS OSHA AT ERGOMICS HEARING ................. 2396-2397 METROPOLITAN PARKS & OPEN SPACE COMMISSION AP .................. 2398-2400 WESTONKA HEALTH COMMUNITY COLLABORATIVE MINS: APR 21.2401-2403 LETTER FROM MARK SALITERMAN ON LIQUOR STORE LEASE ......... 2404-2405 4 COUNCIL BRIEFING May 23, 2000 //8. Mound Family Hardware Considerations Mike Mueller, Jr. and the partners of Mueller and Lansing have expressed their disapproval of the plat as recommended by the Planning Commission. They have a concern about being treated fairly, and want to be made whole by the City. It is the County road project, however, that is adversely impacting their property. That being the case, it should be the County that makes them whole, which it will by compensating them for the land taken. Should the City stray from the original design for the downtown and offer them the opportunity to build to their liking, Mueller and Lansing are, in fact, being made whole twice--once by the County and again by the City. Council Members are advised to remain true to the long-standing plans for downtown, knowing that any change in design standards opens the door for more of the same, thus, changing the face of new downtown Mound, as it was envisioned. #13. Storm Water Management Plan From a practical standpoint, it is necessary that the City adopt a Storm Water Management Plan that has buffering provisions equal the minimum standards of the Watershed District. This is advised to facilitate future development and redevelopment in Mound. A policy that can be approved by the Watershed District will improve the likely approval of our developments and will allow for increasing hard cover up to 75%. Our current coverage (30%) severely limits development opportunities. Our standard will require variances, which may not be approved. They are also likely to be challenged and they will be difficult to defend, according to the City Attorney. #18.C. Correspondence from Geoff Michael Two unsuccessful attempts were made to contact Mr. Michael. Twice messages were left on his recorders. The dates of these calls are undocumented. He also returned calls, but no connection was made. With the date for the Planning Commission agenda approaching, Jon Sutherland was briefed as to the need and the reason for the appointment, the item was placed on the agenda and the 1 O-point memo from Prosser was added to the agenda packet. It was expected that Sutherland could very adequately pass along the message. Also, while in a conversation with Loren Gorden, Gorden, who was about to call Mr. Michael in preparation for the Planning Commission meeting, was also asked to discuss the item with Michael. Both of these staff members were present at the Planning Commission meeting to further discuss the Council request for an appointment. It was my thought that through all of these efforts, Mr. Michael would be informed sufficiently to lead the Commission to make an appointment recommendation. #18.O. Letter from Mark Saliterman on Liquor Store Lease Please note the letter from the Liquor Store landlord. There needs to be discussion devoted to this pseudo-notice-to-vacate as to how the City will proceed. I will assemble some data and a staff recommendation for you to consider at your next meeting. Thank you for your kind consideration! MINUTES - CITY COUNCIL-MAY 9, ~000 DRAFT The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, May 9, 2000, at 7:30 P.M., in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present were: Mayor Pat Meisel; Councilmembers: Andrea Ahrens, Bob Brown, Mark Hanus and Leah Weycker. Also in attendance were City Attorney John Dean (excused at 9:45 p.m.), City Manager Kandis Hanson, City Clerk Fran Clark, City Planner Loren Gordon, Park Commissioner Jun Faclder, City Engineer John Cameron, and Secretaries Sue McCulloch and Diana Mestad. The following interested citizens were also present: Jori Ayaz, Kristen Beise, John Beise, Jane Carlsen, Martin Cowder, Tom Custer, Lorrie Ham, Duane Lzisinger, Dorothy Netka, Bill Netka, Peter Meyer, Linda Skorseth, Ani Tasciyan. *Consent Agenda: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the Council and will be enacted by a roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember or Citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence. OPEN MEETING - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Meisel opened the meeting at 8:03 P.M. and welcomed the people in attendance. The pledge of allegiance was recited. Mayor Meisel thanked the City Clerk for being the City of Mound's Acting City Manager for the past several months, consisting of almost a full year. She stated the City Clerk did a fine job with all the work she had consumed by becoming Acting City Manager. Mayor Meisel presented the City Clerk with a bouquet of flowers. APPROVE AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA City Manager added Item F as a public hearing on the business subsidy of the Ray Mar Properties for May 23, 2000, to the Consent Agenda. City Manager added Item L to the Information/Miscellaneous which would be a report on the Minnetonka Cable Broadcast. Councilmember Hanus pulled Item B and E from the Consent Agenda. MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Ahrens, to approve the agenda and consent agenda with add-on ofItems F and L and the removal ofItems B and E. The roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 5-0. CONSENT AGENDA *1.0 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 9, 2000 MINUTES OF APRH. 18, 2000, COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING. MOTION. Hanus, Ahrens, unanimously. *1.1 MISCELLANEOUS PERMITS. Mound City Days American Legion Mound Volunteer Fire Department MOTION. Hanus, Ahrens, unanimously. '1.2 AWARD BID FOR SEAL COATING. MOTION. Hanus, Ahrens, unanimously. *1.3 BUSINESS SUBSIDY GRANTED TO RAY MAR PROPERTIES - PUBLIC HEARING. MOTION. Hanus, Ahrens, unanimously. 1.4 MINUTES OF APRIL 25, 2000, REGULAR MEETING. Councilmember Hanus stated on page 1698, paragraph 6, line 3 and 4 should read as follows: "storage which was allowed to stay up for two years, after which it had to be removed." Councilmember Hanus stated on page 1698, paragraph 8, lines 1 and 2 should read as follows: "Councilmember Hanus stated the City Council mentioned that if the garage could be made conforming, he would consider approving this case, but it is not. Mr. Gray stated the front." MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Brown, to approve the April 25, 2000, minutes as amended. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 5-0. MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 9. 2000 1.5 PAYMENT OF BILLS. Councilmember Hanus stated on pay 1712, the bill for installing the dock at the depot should be charged to the park fund and not the dock fund because it is a park dock. MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Brown, to approve the payment of bills as amended. The roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 5-0. COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT ABOUT SUBJECTS NOT ON THE AGENDA. (PLEASE LIMIT TO 3 MINUTES PER SUBJECT.) Duane Lzisinger, representing the Legion. Mr. Lzisinger stated he has been working on a memorial to be dedicated to the City of Mound and those people who gave their lives for the freedom we enjoy. He stated he is asking the Mayor and the City Council to accept this monument on behalf of the citizens of'Mound. He stated a dedication and a short program would be made on May 27, 2000, at 2:00 p.m. at Union Cemetery. Mr. Lzisinger invited City Manager Hanson, City Clerk Clark, and Park Director Fackler to the dedication as well who have been of great assistance with the dedication. He further stated the public would be invited with a short reception to follow. Councilmember Hanus asked if it would be appropriate to accept this memorial at the next meeting and accept it under a resolution or proclamation at the May 23, 2000, meeting. Mayor Meisel agreed. Mayor Meisel asked if Mr. Lzisinger could be made available, as well as other members. Mr. Lzisinger stated he would not be in attendance, but he would be able to get other representatives to be available on May 23, 2000. 1.6 ACTION ON RECOMMENDATION TO EXTEND THE TEMPORARY 27 FOOT STATUS ON THE AYAZ DOCK SITE. The Park Director explained the applicant was issued a slip location in 1999 on a temporary basis until the year 2000. He stated the applicant is now requesting that his temporary use of the slip be extended for the 2000 boating season. The Park Director stated this was discussed at the Park Commission level and it was approved. Commissioner Brown asked if after the year 2000, would the slip go back into a slip size for a boat that is not larger than 24 feet. The Park Director stated the slip would not be extended at all for the year 2001. Jorj Ayaz, 4844 Island View Drive. Mr. Ayaz explained he is requesting his 18-foot slip to be changed to a 27-foot spot for the 2000-boat season, after which time it would be eliminated in the year 2001. He noted staff would at some point eliminate this spot and the year 2001 would make this possible. Mr. Ayaz further stated he would appreciate being in a slip that is walking distance from him home in the year 2001 and allowing the City to work with him concerning this request. MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 9, 2000 DRAFT He stated the reason he would like this increase is because there were 2, 18-foot slips in his location, and the woman that shared with him, is out of the system which opens up this space. He further explained he asked the two abutting properties if they would have any problem with this new arrangement, and they stated this would not be a problem with them. Mr. Ayaz would like a permanent solution until he has been moved to a different location. Mayor Meisel asked the Park Director if discussions and decisions would be made regarding boat sizes on the July agenda. The Park Director agreed with this statement. Mayor Meisel stated she is not sure if she agrees with approving a permanent, temporary slip and also allowing a 27-foot boat in an 18-foot slip on a permanent, temporary basis as well. Councilmember Ahrens stated because Devon is shared with a storm sewer, the ultimate goal for the City was to remove slips in this location until there would be seven leiS. Councilmember Ahrens is concerned about the large, 27 foot boat in this location. She further stated the applicant agreed to last year that this spot was going to be a temporary spot only for the year 1999, and then the following year, it would be removed. The Park Director stated this spot was designated for the year 1999 as a permanent, temporary 18- foot slip for the applicant. The applicant asked if the dock slips at Devon are going to be made smaller to now allow boats larger than 27 feet. Councilmember Ahrens stated she understands that this location would be made to accommodate boats that are not bigger than 24 feet because of the small dimensions of the location itself. There were questions by the applicant wondering if the City of Mound was going to try and accommodate the larger size boats that individuals are now purchasing. Mayor Meisel stated if the City of Mound does consider this a possibility, than fees need to be discussed. She stated Mound at this time is not in the Marina business. The applicant further requested that his site location for his 27-foot boat be approved by combining the current two 18-foot slips into one slip for his permanent, temporary use in the year 2000. He stated the neighbors in this location are acceptable with this solution. Councilmember Ahrens mentioned the City of Mound needs to respect the system that has been organized concerning the multiple slips. She stated this location was to be a temporary spot and the applicant knew it would expire the year 2000. Councilmember Hanus appreciates all of the applicant's work to help in accommodating this possible change for the use of the slip. The Park Director explained the changes in the City of Mound's dock system that will be implemented concerning the slips sizes and that there would be limitations made on the slips to help build a consistent and workable program for Mound. Mr. Fackler referred to page 1732 and 1733 of the minute packet. 4 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 9. 2000 DRAFT Councilmember Weycker stated the limitations in the dock slips sizes have not been approved at this time by City Council, but there is hope to have this done in the future. Mr. Ayaz suggested having the City of Mound rearrange the slips and have the smaller boats in the shallow end and the larger boats in the deeper end. Councilmember Ahrens noted the City of Mound has designated a square footage area that it would like to use for boats. The City of Mound does not want to have all of its shoreline, especially in front of a park, looking like a Marina at this point in time. Mayor Meisel suggested allowing this slip to be a temporary spot for this boating season, based on the fact that the Dock Commissions would come back with suggestions from their July meeting with limits on boats sizes in all multiple locations. She stated this would allow the applicant to stay in this location for one more season, but this slip would go away next year. Mayor Meisel further stated she does not want to make this spot a permanent, temporary position forever. Councilmembers Hanus and Ahrens stated this was the agreement last year, which would take away this slip this season. Councilmember Brown suggested allowing the applicant to stay at Devon this year, and if the water drops, he will not be docking his boat anyway. Furthermore, after this year the City could work with the applicant by locating his boat at a different location. Councilmember Brown suggested making the Devon slip a temporary site. Mr. Ayaz stated he would rather be placed with a smaller boat on a specific spot next year, such as Amherst. MOTION by Brown to allow the applicant to leave his boat for the 2000 season at Devon in slip 9, and in the year 2001 to find a alternative location with the help of staff. The Park Director stated when a slip is dedicated as temporary, the spot would stay temporary until it has not been renewed, and at that time, the spot would be removed. The City Attorney stated it would appear the applicant has the fight to have a 21-foot boat which is a temporary fight. The City Attorney further stated there is an underlining continuing fight to the applicant to have an 18-foot boat which would be permanent as long as the applicant pay its dues. Councilmember Brown's motion died for lack of a second. Councilmember Ahrens asked the Park Director how many boats are currently located at this site. The Park Director stated he assumed there were 7, but he could not give a certain answer unless he checked the computer list in his office. MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 9. 2000 DRAFT MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Mayor Meisel, to allow the applicant to remain at this current dock so as long as there are no more than 7 boats at this location, and the 27 foot boat would be allowed at this site only for the 2000 boating season. Discussion The Park Director asked if he could be excused to check the computer listing in his office to see if there are currently 7 boats at this location, including the applicant's. Councilmember Brown stated this spot is temporary, permanent for the applicant until he sells the 27-foot boat or does not pay his fees, at which time, the spot would go away. Mayor Meisel excused Mr. Fackler and recessed at 9:05 p.m. Mayor Meisel reconvened at 9:15 p.m. The Park Director distributed a listing showing boat slips at the Devon location to the Councilmembers. He stated it would appear there are 7 boats, including the applicant's boat, at this site. The motion was retracted by Councilmember Ahrens having received the above information from Mr. Fackler. MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Mayor Meisel, to approve a slip of 27-feet at Devon for the applicant for the 2000 boating season, and in the 2001 boating season in revert back to an 18-foot slip. Discussion Councilmember Brown stated it seems inappropriate to remove the applicant next year as long as he does not sell his boat and he pays his fee. He would like the Park Director to work with the applicant for next year to allow the applicant to be placed in another slip spot. Motion carried. 3-2 (Brown, Hanus voting nay). Councilmember Hanus stated he is voting in the opposition because of past circumstances and the decision from 1999 concerning this case. He wanted to remain consistent with last year's decision. Councilmember Brown stated he is voting in the opposition because as long as the applicant pays his fee and he has not sold his boat, the applicant should have a right to stay in the current slip. 6 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 9. 2000 1.7 DISCUSSION ON ANTENNA RENTALS. The City Planner stated this matter involves a leasing situation with the water towers in Mound. He stated there has been an interest in the past six months in wireless companies to put antennas and/or receivers on water towers. The City Planner stated the City needs to be proactive just to provide a spot for companies to expand and also to put the city in a position to have this as a revenue-generating source. He stated to have upfront planning on this project would then involve hiring a radio frequency consultant, Gary Laziact. He would like to find out what companies have an interest in Mound and then find out how the needs would suit the people and the company. After that point, the City would act as the leasing agent. Mayor Meisel asked how much the study would cost for the City to be proactive. The City Planner mentioned it would cost about $575, with an additional stafftime. The City Planner stated the revenue for the City could be as high as $20,000 per year, per company. Councilmember Hanus asked what the nature of the radio frequency consultant would entail. The City Planner stated he would do a search on the companies interested and find out what the needs of the City are, what equipment was required, and then find out the company's frequency ranges. Councilmember Hanus is concerned the City could do this investigation itself by drafting a letter to that degree. The City Planner stated the study would also discover who needs to be on the top of the tower and what the needs of those involved would be. The City Manager stated the hiring of the consultant would inform the city of the frequencies that are out there and what companies need the high ones and what companies could settle for the low frequencies. With this thought, the City could then make more money with it organized in such a fashion. Councilmember Hanus is concerned about this project because of the US West experience the City of Mound encountered. The City Planner stated there are ground facilities of a concern as well. Councilmember Weycker asked if Mr. Laziact was experienced in this area. The City Planner stated he works for Owl Engineering and this is his career and he would have some insight to bring to Mound as well with this topic. Mayor Meisel suggested allowing the study to be made by the radio frequency consultant, but having the costs capped at $1,000. Councilmember Weycker agreed. Councilmember Hanus stated the main benefit for this consultant is the planning purposes for the use of the tower space. 7 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 9, 2000 DRAFT Councilmember Ahrens asked what the recourse would be if companies are assigned a location of the tower. The City Planner stated ifa company wants a better spot than what the City of Mound recommends they could pay the higher price. The locations on the towers would be leased for five years. MOTION by Mayor Meisel, seconded by Brown, to hire a radio frequency consultant with a cap of $1,000 for his fee and staff. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 5-0. 1.8 DISCUSSION ON STORM WATER RATES AND RECOMMENDATION TO CALL PUBLIC HEARING. James Prosser presented the storm water rates. He further thanked the City of Mound's staff for their help. Mr. Prosser explained there would appear to be approximately 1 million dollars for capital improvements in this category. He stated to set the rates he compared other cities rates and other structures. He gave examples of what the costs would be increased in an apartment, condominium and house of certain size and cost. Councilmember Ahrens asked why cities that have already accomplished a lot of their capital improvements are still collecting funds for this cause. Mr. Prosser stated each city has to find out what the level of protection has been decided and then they decide if the monies should keep being collected to look for the future. Councilmember Hanus asked if the ordinance in place would require another public hearing. Mr. Prosser stated Mound does require a public hearing for this change, and suggested sending out a preliminary mailing to the community and have a public information sessions, like an open house, to look at the projects at hand and discuss the rate structures or impact it would have on the people. The City Manager stated it increases the buy-in and this causes less objections at the time the program is implemented. Mayor Meisel stated there are a lists of recommendations on page 1746 that need to be addressed before the public heating. The City Manager stated staff needs to review the recommendations and also find out what the general operations. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Ahrens, to table the storm water rates recommendation until the first meeting in June, 2000. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 5-0. MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 9, 2000 DRAI:T 1.9 KEY FINANCIAL STRATEGIES WORKSHOPS FOR CAPITAL NEEDS. James Prosser discussed the key financial strategies workshop for the City Council to consider attending now that the City Manager is on board. He stated the workshops last generally 11/2 hours long for four sessions. He stated a lot of work is done in the interim. Mr. Prosser stated this workshop could be completed in six months. The City Manager would like this completed before the next six months because of pending projects, budget approaching, and the tower. The City Manager suggested the workshop to be set for June 20, 2000, which would have normally been a COW meeting. Councilmember Ahrens suggested having the meeting over the dinner hour. Mr. Prosser stated the City Council could pick a council meeting night, with the workshop beginning at 5:30 p.m. and ending before the HRA meeting at 7:00 p.m. The meeting suggested was June 27, 2000, at 5:30 p.m. Mr. Prosser recommended there are capital improvement needs, in the range of 2 million dollars, that need to be discussed and this may start in a planning stage now so it would not hold up any of the redevelopment project. Mayor Meisel suggested having the capital improvements looked at together, and nothing being initiated before then. The City Manager agreed. 1.10 COMMUNICATIONS PLAN ON DEVELOPMENT ISSUES. James Prosser stated he has already presented a communications plan in the packet and if there were any further discussions, he would gladly address those concerns. The goal of such a communication plan is to make the people understand why projects are being done and when they are to be completed. Councilmember Hanus asked about the press release cost. Mr. Prosser stated this is basically making sure that it conforms with the everything which is about 5-7 hours of time. He stated the City can certainly do this on their own as well. Councilmember Hanus asked what the hourly rate is on the communications individual being hired by Mound. Mr. Prosser stated she is paid about $95 per hour. Councilmember Brown stated the City does not need a hotline. The City Manager stated the hotline would be a recorder that would record those questions and then the questions would be written down by the City Manager and passed on to the appropriate individual with the appropriate answers. Councilmember Ahrens is concerned having the public calling the consultants and being charged for each call being made. Evidently, Mr. Chamberlain he received 20 calls last week which were charged to the City. The City Manager stated Mr. Chambeflain's name will be taken offofthe MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 9. 2000 DRAFT newsletter because of the additional unnecessary expenses being added to the City. The City Manager's name will be listed rather. Councilmember Ahrens would also appreciate Mr. Chamberlain not returning the calls if he receives anymore. Councilmember Hanus noticed the biggest expense item is the briefing book. He questioned if we really need this book because of the input being received weekly from Mr. Prosser. The consensus agreed the weekly briefings are great and they would like to stick with this type of communication as well as the Q & A updates. Mayor Meisel mentioned an update with the public on the redevelopment for May 16, 2000, at 7:30 a.m. and whether this appointment is going to work with the City Manager as well as Councilmembers. The consensus agreed this meeting could be postponed until June 6, at 7:30 a.m., when more redevelopment work would have progressed. The City Manager mentioned that staff should prepare for a presentation on the update in redevelopment of Mound for the June 6, 2000, meeting. The consensus agreed to keep items 2, 3, 4, 5 (questionable) and 7 (keep for now, but take off Mr. Chamberlain's name and replacing it with the City Manager's name) from the communications list. Mr. Prosser suggested having the City hand out a chronology listing of the redevelopment at the public scheduled meetings. Mayor Meisel asked if there were any changes to the communications plan agreement. Councilmember Weycker suggested on page 1776, the park commission should be listed as an organization that would be giving information concerning the green space. 1.11 APPOINTMENT ON OPEN SPACE TASK FORCE MEMBERS. Councilmember Brown explained the Planning Commission was confused regarding what exact organization members were being appointed for. He stated because there was confusion, the Planning Commission tabled this matter. Mayor Meisel explained the City Council was suppose to bring back some names that could be included for the advisory committee to answer the 10 questions concerning the green space. Councilmember Brown suggested Keith Johnson; Councilmember Weycker suggested Sue Cathers or Lynn Peterson; and Mayor Meisel suggested John Wagrnon (a retired engineer). Mayor Meisel recommended putting the names in an enclosed item and drawing two of the names to serve on the committee. The City Manager asked which names were suggested previous to tonight's meeting to serve on the advisory committee. Mayor Meisel stated they were Kim Anderson, Wayne Ehlebracht, a 10 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 9. 2000 DRAFT Park Commission member, and two more citizens from tonight's meeting. She explained the first meeting would be planned for May 17, 2000. The City Manager stated they would be taking the square-foot rate approach regarding soccer fields and other fields and this would be a rough estimate based on the market, but a good approach. The City Manager further stated she would like uses of the green space. Peter Meyer stated they are used for football, soccer, one Babe Ruth field, one baseball field, and outdoor skating. The names drawn to serve on the advisory committee were John Wagmon and Lynn Peterson. 1.12 MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN. Mayor Meisel asked if these items should be planned into the capital improvement plan that Mr. Prosser was suggesting earlier this evening. The Park Director stated the Park and Open Space Committee CPOSC'') wanted to present their list of items for budgeting earlier enough for the Councilmembers convenience. John Beise, 1665 Eagle Lane. Mr. Beise is the Chair of the POSC. He stated because of confusion in previous years, he wanted to get the recommendation of the POSC to the Councilmembers as soon as possible to allow for budgeting in the year 2001. He stated these 11 items are in no order of importance. Councilmember Brown asked if it would be possible to get the 11 items in a priority of importance. Mr. Beise stated that is possible, but the POSC would rather keep the items in the order presented and then have the Councilmembers recommend what they would suggest is most important. Mayor Meisel questioned the adopt a green space program. Mr. Beise explained the adopt a green space program is having the person taking the responsibility of the project, and the money budgeted for this project may be for dirt, watering, or other needs. Mayor Meisel suggested having the City water the plants because of the problem with being such a distance fi.om a place where someone could retrieve water for these plants. Furthermore, there would be consideration with this program when the new downtown development has been completed. Mayor Meisel questioned the Sorbel and Highland Parks budget item. Mr. Meyer stated Highland Park has a safety issue concerning the sewer manhole that should be addressed, but both parks there is settling and the topography needs to be leveled out and reseeded. The Park Director also mentioned having a surveyor come out and get the job done. 11 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 9, 2000 DRAFT Councilmember Ahrens stated the budget for trees and bushes would be a good start, but the allowance did not seem very high. Councilmember Weycker commented the items were not prioritized intentionally to allow an open mind discussion with the Councilmembers regarding the 11 budgeted items, which was dwindled down from 20 initially. She further stated these items have been on the budget for the last four ye, ars. Mayor Meisel stated she would like to see the usage plan for IP Hall prior to June 27, 2000, meeting. Councilmember Hanus questioned the Swanson Park item and asked if it was being considered redone for the purpose of code or for the purpose of the old look. The Park Director stated the equipment is old and should be replaced. He stated it would all need to brought up to code if it was only adjusted. Mayor Meisel stated the City would need to sell bonds to accommodate this budget plan the POSC has presented, and there would be a need to show the usage of the bond. 1.13 CITY COUNCIL AND MAYOR SALARIES. Councilmember Brown explained just from tonight's meeting, four additional meetings have been set that the City Council would normally not be attending. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Weycker, to increase the Mayor and City Council salaries $100 per month for the year 2001. Discussion. Councilmember Weycker thought what they are getting paid was a good amount compared to other cities their size. She also recommended the City Council needs to work at minimizing their time and maximizing their work. Councilmember Weycker stated by canceling the COW, they have already received a pay raise. Mayor Meisel stated part of what the elected official is all about is attending the required meetings. Councilmember Weycker noticed the most discrepancy was with the Mayor's salary and this is due to the public comments and special meetings that have fallen onto the Mayor's responsibilities because of the redevelopment. Councilmember Hanus stated the ordinance being proposed by staff mentioned a $25 stiffen for special meetings and special meetings would be defined as % noticed council meeting." 12 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 9, 2000 DRAFT Councilmember Ahrens does not like the ordinance proposed by staffbecause she thinks other Councilrnembers could abuse it in the future. MOTION DENIED. 1-4, (Brown voting aye). Councilmember Weycker would like to see how the proposed ordinance works out. City Manager stated she is hearing some state of exhaustion from all of the meetings attended by the Councilmembers. She suggested she would get articles in the Councilmember packets as informational items and then discussions may arise from time to time about some articles regarding time management. The Councilmembers agreed. 1.14 CITY CLERK'S COMPENSATION. The City Manager stated the City Clerk informed her the year 2000 rate for the City Clerk's position is a .33 difference rate per hour than what the City Manager is being paid currently. The City Clerk suggested to the City Manager to leave her salary at the rate it was before the City Manager came on board. The City Manager stated there is a pay equity plan and a foundation for the basis of compensation of people that work for the City, and for this reason only, she would not encourage the Councilmembers to lean towards the City Clerk's suggestion of compensation. Councilmember Hanus stated the City Clerk was put into a tough position as Acting City Manager who, given the circumstances, did a fine job for the City of Mound. MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Brown, to award the City Clerk a $5,000 bonus for fulfilling her duties as Acting City Manager. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 5-0. 1.15 CITY MANAGER'S REPORT. COUNCIL GOALS AND PRIORITIES FOR THE MANAGER COMMUNICATION MEANS INTEREST IN INDIVIDUAL MEETINGS The City Manager stated there have been priorities established by Mercer as well as the City Council. She is concerned if there are any specifics the Councilmembers would like the City Manager to address and be sensitive to a topic and devoting extra time to this special topic. Mayor Meisel suggested time being set up to discuss the Administrative Policy and a Comp. Worth Policy. She further stated light duty comes into play with this Policy. Councilmember Ahrens mentioned setting up some type of retirement plan or health contributions plan. Mayor Meisel wanted a plan that all qualified members would be able to contribute and keep the City afloat as well. 13 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MIN-I/rES - MAY 9. 2000 DRAF'I The City Manager stated there are two people wanting to retire this year and is working on this plan. Councilmember Weycker would like to set up a bi-annual staff review for the City Manager. Mayor Meisel stated there is good documentation from the league that could be used. Councilmember Ahrens memioned to have the City Manager seen by as many businesses in town as possible to help out the redevelopment. The City Manager stated she only shops in Mound and does mention to the clerk who she is when she is paying. She further stated whenever she can she is in the public eye, such at the school board and the rotary party. Mayor Meisel stated she has heard positive feedback about the City Manager. Councilmember Ahrens stated they have been a City Council that has been known to pass zero increases on the levies. The City Manager stated each project should be assigned a specific project number by consultants so the bills are coded properly, so the dollars get eventually passed back to the developer. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS. 1. Finance Department Reports: Finance Director Gino Businario Annual Report Revenues & Expenditures Report: March, 2000. Investments Reports: April 18, 2000. 2. LMC Memorandum: Board of Directors Vacancies. 3. Friday Fax. 5. Suburban Rate Authority Minutes: April 19, 2000. 6. Dock and Commons Advisory Board Commission Minutes: April 20, 2000. 7. LMCD Minutes: March 22, 2000. 8. Advisory Park and Open Space Commission Minutes: April 13, 2000. 9. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District role revisions. 10. We really need a Special Legislative Session, don't we. 11. May, 2000, calendar. 14 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 9, 2000 DRAF1 12. Minnetonka Cable Broadcast. The City Manager stated there is an opportunity to repeat the City Council meetings on Saturdays at 1:30 p.m. She stated all of her programming is not making way to the public. The City Manager approved this change of programming. Councilmember Hanus stated the City of Mound is on a temporary agreement with the cable broadcast, and the City was going to audit them to determine how the studio hours were be used. The City Manager was directed to follow up with this project. 13. The City Manager routed her business card to all City Councilmembers. 14. Councilmember Ahrens asked about the CBDG and the possibility of a hearing date being set. Mayor Meisel stated this topic will be discussed in a June, 2000, meeting. ADJOURNMENT. MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Weycker, to adjourn the meeting at 11:44 p.m. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 5-0. Kandis Hanson, City Manager Attest: Mayor Meisel 15 61~-~868~8 HOISINGTON KOEGLER 317 P02 MAY 19 '00 09:12 RESOLUTION # 09- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE FRONT YARD VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A DETACHED GARAGE AT $900 BEACHWOOD ROAD, THE EAST .~0 FEET OF THE WEST 200 FEET O1* LOT AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NUMBER 168 P & Z CASE #00-15 WHEREAS, the applicant, has requested a front yard variance construct a residence on the property at 5900 Beachwood Road. The associated variances are as follows: Existing/Proposed Required Variance Front Yard 11 ft 20 ft 9 tt ; and, WHEREAS, the property is located within the R-1 Single Family Residential District which requires a lot area of 10,000 square feet, a 20 feet front yard setback and a 6 feet side yard setbacks for lots of record. Hardcover coverage is 2464 sq. ft. which is under the 4575 sq. ft. allowed; and, WHEREAS, the proposed garage would encroach 9 fec-t into the front yard setback; and, WHEREAS, the Beachwood Road right-of-way is unusually wide in this location for a local residential roadway; and, WHEREAS, the front of the garage would be approximately 47 feet from the back of thc curb as proposed; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommended that the Council approve the variance as requested; and, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council oft. he City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The City does hereby approve the variance as requested. 2. This variance is approved for the following legally described property as stated in the Hcnncpin County Proper~ Information System: THE EAST 50 FEET OF THE WEST 200 FEET OF LOT 47, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NUMBER 168, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA. .. DRAFT MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, MAY 8, 2000 Those present: Chair Geoff Michael; Commissioners: Orvin Burma, JerTy Clapsaddle (excused at 10:15 p.m.), Becky Glister, Cklair Hasse, Michael Mueller, Bill Voss, Frank Weiland, and Council Liaison Bob Brown; Staff present: City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Suthedand, City Engineer John Cameron, and Secretary Sue McCulloch and Diana Mestad. The following public were present: Sue Almquist, Terry Almquist, Cathy Bailey, John Beise, Kdsten Beise, Ron Christensen, Steve Coddon, Ken Custer, Robert J. Davis, Cathi Dioszeghy, Tom Dioszeghy, Bruce Dodds, Patti Dodds, Mike Empson, Angela Femanoez, Carlos Fernanoez, Jennifer Garder, Martin Garder, Brian Gulrud, Theresa Gulrud, Milton Hentges, Tom Kirk, Linda Kladsrup, Steve Kladstrup, Phil Lansing, Randy Lee, Peter Meyer, Mike Mueller, Bill Netka, Dorothy Netka, Brad Nordgren, Deb Olson, Lowell Olson, Bill Plume, Travis Rapie, Roger Reed, Tom Reese, Jeff Ruhr, P.M. Ruhr, Mary Steen, Tom Tumer, Jack Weist, Roger Westman, Dave Willette, Ben Withart. CASE #00-15: VARIANCE; THOMAS J. DIOSZEGHY, 5900 BEACHWOOD ROAD, EAST 50' OF W 200' OF LOT 47, AUD. SUBD. 168, IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT A GARAGE WITH A PROPOSED FRONT YARD SETBACK OF 11 ', PID#23-117-24 13 0042. Gordon stated the applicant, Thomas Dioszeghy, has submitted a variance request to build a two stall detached garage. As proposed the garage would have a 12 feet setback from the property line and a 47 feet setback from the roadway. The right-of-way alignment of Beachwood Road presents a substantial hardship to the property. The property does not currently have a garage and the proposed 24 feet by 24 feet building will improve its livability. Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the variance as requested. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Glister, to approve the variance as recommended by staff. MOTION CARRIED. 8-0. Chair Michael stated this case will be heard by City Council on May 23, 2000. PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: May 8, 2000 SUBJECT: Variance Application APPLICANT: Thomas Dioszeghy CASE NUMBERS: 00-15 HKG FILE NUMBER: 00-5 LOCATION: 5900 Beachwood Road ZONING: R-1 Single Family Residential COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Low Density Residential Ill[] lilll BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The applicant, Thomas Dioszeghy, has submitted a variance request to build a two stall detached garage. As proposed the garage would have a 12 feet setback from the property line and a 47 feet setback from the roadway. The right-of-way alignment of Beachwood Road presents a substantial hardship to the property. The property does not currently have a garage and the proposed 24 feet by 24 feet building will improve its livability. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the variance as requested. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 RECEIVE['. APR 0 7 2000 MOUND PLANNIP!G & Ir,,JSP (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Distribution: VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 53,41 Nlaywood Road, l~ound, NIl~ 553GA Phone: 472-0607, Fax: 472-0620 Application Fee: $100.00 City Planner City Engineer Public Works CaseNo. 00- i5 DNR Other SUBJECT PROPERTY LEGAL DESC. PROPERTY OWNER Address Lot .~. '~ 0~ t~. ,2.00 Block Subdivision ZONING DISTRICT R-1 o,~ Y_ ~T J ~, O o 4/'Z_ Plat~ R-lA R-2 R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3 Name ~"~/O,,ut~S ~, ,~/O<~Z~'~-~['~)~ Address~"~]Oo /~'.4~-~/~o~ ~cY/ /~Oo~d, ,,~,A,,, Phone (H)(.o/o?..- /-/")~-~?0~' (W) (.o/Z-Z/'2/'/-~5"Oo~ (U) APPLICANT Name (IF OTHER Address THAN Phone OWNER) (H) (W) (M) Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, ~;~' no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutibns. Detailed description of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): Revised 02-04-00 Vadance Application, P. 2 Case No. ~) - I ~) Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning distdct in which it is located? Yes ]~ No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): SETBACKS: REQUIRED REQUESTED VARIANCE (or existing) Front Yard: ( N/S~,~y, ) ~'~ ft. ft. ft. Side Yard: ( NS'~) ~ ft. ft. ft. Side Yard: ( N ) tO ff. ~ ff. I ff. ~__,~I~'T Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft. Lakeside: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft. : (NSEW) ft. ff. ft. Street Frontage: ft. ft. ft. Lot Size: sq ft sq ft sq ft Hardcover: sq ft sq ft sq ft ,,.Does t~_ ~3r-~nt use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which i ~~,~ If no, specify each non-conforming use: $~ Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil ('~oo small ( ) drainage ( ) existing situation ( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify- Please describe: VPriance Application, P. 3 Case No. ~ --[' 5 Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyo, j;~e having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No ~ If yes. explain: Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), NoJ~,. If yes, explain: Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a vadance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes ]~), No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? Comments: I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Owner's Signature ~0'~')~ ~. Applicant's Signature ~'o ,~-'--~---~{~. Date ~/~ /00 r~evised 02-04-00 CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) RECEIVED APR 0 7 Z000 MOUND PLANNING &/NSf PROPERTY ADDRESS: .3r' (~ O0 ~ ~',A c. ~ t,~'O0o'/ ,/~ d/ OWNER'S NAME: T/'/o A,1 icj3 '"~'. LOT AREA /.,~o~.5"O SQ. FT. X 30% = (for all lots) .............. LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 40% = (for Lots of Record*) ....... [ I LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only) *Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted and approved by the Building Official. LENGTH WIDTH SQ Fi' HOUSE ~ 3 X o~ q = 10 ~ ,.~ X = DETACHED BLDGS (GARAGE/SHED) DRIVEWAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. DECKS Open decks (1/4" min. opening between boards) with a pervious surface under ere not counted as hardcover OTHER TOTAL HOUSE ......................... X = TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ................. 10.5 x 5 x 3 = I ;;). X = TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC .................. x = X X = TOTAL DECK .......................... X = TOTAL OTHER ......................... lo3,2. 112 ,-.9, 5'0 TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE ~/OVER (indicate difference) oq qGq I grill I ,3/~ ?/oo Desitin # 42566 ~~ 3/17/'2000 Take this sheet to the Building Materials counter to purchase your materials. lo~u~ s.elected a garage with these options: 'Wide X 24' Deep X 8' High Gable roof w! 4/12 pitch truss construchon. (~ ~.~-'~ 12" gablefl2" eave overhangs. 7/16" OSB Wall Sheathing. 7/16" OSB Roof Sheathing. 20 yr. Classic, Onyx Black Shingles. Pine Soffit. Pine Fascia. White Aluminum Regular Roof Edge. Pine overhead door jamb. 12" Textured Hardboard Lap Siding. RECEIVED APR 0 7 ?.000 IVIOUND PLANNING Front View Back View 'ri 'RECEIVED APR 0 7 2000 MOUND ...... D}/\:,:, ,' : '; RECEIVED APR 0 7 2000 ..... ~ ' ' )UND PLANNING & tNSF Z 4; o 0 '-- %'/'ii ~ 91etl~l~']cl (]Ni'lO~~ O00Z /. 0 UdV ~:JAF:::3O::II::I 4 GENERAL ZONING INFORMATION SIIEET FRONT, N/~[-j I W FRONT: N W · FRONT: NYE # FRONT: N S B W ..,.....,.,..¢. .,.,-..% ,. o.... . ... o... ~: N S B W ~ ~: N 'S E W 4' EXXSTING AND/OR PROPOSED PRINCIPAL BUILDING FRONT FRONT SIDE: SIDEs PEARs -/ ACCESSORY BUILDING FRONT FRONT SIDEs SIDEs PEARt LAg~SHOI~ NO. ?~ WILL THE PR]3-DOSEDJKDROVEI4~'*N'llJ; CONFOJ~4? YES NO C: < ,,< -- ~ 0 0 RESOLUTION # 00- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A FRONT YARD VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT AN ATTACl~ED GARAGE AT 4515 MANCI:[F. STER ROAD, THAT PORTION OF LOTS 1, 2, AND 3 BLOCK 14, AVALON, PID tt 19-117-23-31-0060 P & Z CASE #00-16 WHEREAS, the applicant, has requested a front yard variance construct an attached garage on the property at 4515 Manchester Road. The associated variance is as follows: Existing/Proposed Required Variance Front Yard 13 ft 20 ft 7 ft ; and, WHEREAS, the property is located within the R-2 One and Two Family Residential District which requires a lot area of 6,000 square feet, a 20 feet front yard setback and a 6 feet side yard setbacks for lots of record. Hardcover coverage is 2440 sq. ft. which is under the 2730 sq. ft. allowed; and, WHEREAS, the proposed detached garage would encroach 7 feet into the front yard setback on Manchester Road, the Tuxedo Road setback would meet front yard requirements; and, WHEREAS, the property does not currently have a garage and has unusually steep slopes which make a conforming garage difficult to locate; and, WHEREAS, the proposed garage would improve the livability of the properly; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommended that the Council approve the variance as requested; and, NOW, TI~EREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The City does hereby approve the variance as requested: 2. This variance is approved for the following legally described property as stated in the Hennepin County Property Information System: THAT PORTION OF LOTS 1, 2, AND 3 BLOCK 14, AVALON,, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA. .. D AFT MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, MAY 8, 2000 Those present: Chair Geoff Michael; Commissioners: Orvin Burma, Jerry Clapsaddle (excused at 10:15 p.m.), Becky Glister, Cklair Hasse, Michael Mueller, Bill Voss, Frank Weiland, and Council Liaison Bob Brown; Staff present: City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, City Engineer John Cameron, and Secretary Sue McCulloch and Diana Mestad. The following public were present: Sue Almquist, Terry Almquist, Cathy Bailey, John Beise, Kdsten Beise, Ron Chdstensen, Steve Coddon, Ken Custer, Robert J. Davis, Cathi Dioszeghy, Tom Dioszeghy, Bruce Dodds, Patti Dodds, Mike Empson, Angela Femanoez, Cados Femanoez, Jennifer Garder, Martin Garder, Brian Gulrud, Theresa Gulrud, Milton Hentges, Tom Kirk, Linda Kladsrup, Steve Kladstrup, Phil Lansing, Randy Lee, Peter Meyer, Mike Mueller, Bill Netka, Dorothy Netka, Brad Nordgren, Deb Olson, Lowell Olson, Bill Plume, Travis Rapie, Roger Reed, Tom Reese, Jeff Ruhr, P.M. Ruhr, Mary Steen, Tom Tumer, Jack Weist, Roger Westman, Dave Willette, Ben Withart. CASE #00-16: VARIANCE; TERRENCE J. ALMQUIST, 4515 MANCHESTER ROAD, LOT 1, 2, 3, BLOCK 14, AVALON, IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT A TWO-STORY GARAGE WITH A PROPOSED FRONT YARD SETBACK OF 13', PID# 19-117-23 31 0060. Gordon stated the applicant is seeking a front yard variance to build an attached garage with a second story living area. The requested vadance is listed below. Existing/Proposed Front Yard 13 (Manchester) Required Variance 20' 2.5' The property is located within the R-2 Single and Two Family Residential District which requires a lot area of 6,000 square feet, a 20 feet front yard setback and a 6 feet side yard setback. Hardcover is under the 30 percent requirement as proposed. All off-street parking occurs outside on a gravel area where the proposed garage would be located. A stairway from the parking area connects to the first floor of the house Gordon stated the proposed garage location would allow the existing stairway to be interior and allow the front living room window to remain. Staff agreed the project is an improvement to the property but the request is not the best option. The Planning Commission could work with the applicant for a more suitable location for the garage and addition that would maintain setbacks. Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council deny the variance as requested. Staff stated this was a hard case because the applicant currently does not have a garage. Mueller stated this is a good plan for this lot. He stated it makes it difficult to put a garage anywhere else. He further stated this appears to be the best spot for it if a garage is going to be built on the lot. Mueller stated even if the garage is coming off of Tuxedo, there is good site view. Voss suggested having this matter tabled to be able to work more with the applicant to allow for the best plan possible when building his garage. Chair Michael stated this house really needs a garage. Burma stated the applicant does not have a garage and they do have 25 feet to back out from with the plan that is being proposed. Burma is very much in favor of this garage. Glister stated there are garages right up to the lot line in other areas of the City, and being the lot has difficulties and this appears to be the best spot for the garage, she would approve this case as well. Weiland asked the applicant if he is planning to run the stairs into the garage. The applicant stated he would keep the stairs in the location they currently are located. MOTION by Voss, seconded by Mueller, to approve a variance of 7 feet for a two-story garage. MOTION CARRIED. 8-0. PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: May 8, 2000 SUBJECT: Variance Request OWNER: Terence Joel Almquist CASE NUMBER: 00-16 HKG FILE NUMBER: 00-5 LOCATION: 4515 Manchester Road ZONING: Residential District R-2 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Low Density Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking a front yard variance to build an attached garage with a second story living area. The requested variance is listed below. Front Yard (Manchester) Existing/Proposed Required Variance 17.5' 20' 2.5' The property is located within the R-2 Single and Two Family Residential District which requires a lot area of 6,000 square feet, a 20 feet front yard setback and a 6 feet side yard setback. Hardcover is under the 30 percent requirement as proposed. All off-street parking occurs outside on a gravel area where the proposed garage would be located. A stairway fi'om the parking area connects to the first floor of the house The proposed garage location would allow the existing stairway to be interior and allow the front living room window to remain. Staff agrees the project is an improvement to the property but the request is not the best option. The Planning Commission could work with the applicant for a more suitable location for the garage and addition that would maintain setbacks. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council deny the variance as requested. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 RECEIVEP APR 10 2000 MOUND PLANNIIVG & INS~ (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) Planning Oommission Date: City Council Date: Distribution: VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0607, Fax: 4?2-0620 -'~' l0 -O~ City Planner '"~' l O' g)3 .~' l D- 00 City Engineer .,~. ~'~. O-D -4 · I O- ~) Public Works PAID App~ga~ioln ~&O..O0$,00.O0 ("ATY OF MOUND CaseNo. 0{~)-16 DNR Other SUBJECT PROPERTY LEGAL DESC. Address V.~"/~--/'~" c'~<5'~'~-1'' Lot I) ~./ ~P3 B,ock / 7 Subdivision P~D# I ~ I17 ZONING DISTRICT R-1 PROPERTY Name OWNER Address Phone (H) ?-5"2- c//?L~- 3 L/.~'~' (W) g 4///./'- ~'yy.5'"' Pla~ B-2 B-3 (M) APPLICANT Name .,/" (IF OTHER Address ~ (~W THAN Phone OWNER) (H) ) /.. (M) Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? (~ yes, ( ) no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. Revised 02-04-00 Detailed description of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): Variance Application, P. 2 Case No. (~ ' I ~ !. Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No ~. If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): SETBACKS: Front Yard: ~S E_W ) ?~ Yard: ( N S(~W~) Side Yard: ( N S.~,E ~ ~'l~e_-R~' Yard: ( NS[~IE W ) Lakeside: ( N S E W ) · (NSEW) Street Frontage: Lot Size: Hardcover: REQUIRED REQUESTED VARIANCE (or existing) ft. ~' ft. 0 ft. ft. ~ ff. (") ft. ft. ff. ff. ff. ff. ff. ft. ft. ft. sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ff sq ft Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning distdct in which it is located? Yes (), No (~[. If no, specify each non-conforming use: o Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) too narrow (~topography ( ) soil ( ) too small ( ) drainage ( ) existing situation ( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify Case NO. i~- ~ ~ · Variance Application, P. 3 Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No ~). If yes, explain: Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No ~. If yes, explain: Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a vadance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (), No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this appliCation by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as~red b~ Owner's S,gnatur~/~-'~/~_~~~- f/ _- _ Date Date RECEIYF- APR t 0 2000 CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) PROPERTY ADDRESS: ~5"/~ /'~/~c/~5~ OWNER'S NAME: --j~'~e_~¢¢ LOT AREA /4/~>c ~/00SQ. FT. X 30% = (for all lots) .............. LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 40% = (for Lots of Record*) ....... LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only) *Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted and approved by the Building Official. LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT HOUSE q~ X ~' = ~/O/~ X = DETACHED BLDGS (GARAGE/SHED) DRIVEWAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. DECKS Open decks (1/4" rain, opening between boards) with a pervious surface under are not counted as hardcover TOTAL HOUSE ......................... X = X = TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ................. LS- x = 700 X = X = TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC .................. X = X = X = TOTAL DECK .......................... OTHER X TOTAL OTHER ......................... TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE /~1/~- °~/'~ I .~ c/c/O Pi;d, of Su',-vcy J,~ Lot~ .~ ,., ~:, 9, ~;nd 22, i~iock 14, AvaLon Honnopln County, .v: % hereby c~,rtify that ti:i,; i::..'-~ ':.rue a;'.d corr,~c'~ repr,'..:~cntation of a zurvcy of 'tho. darlos of ~ Lot 22, the :\'orth ha~ of ''" 5~ '~" :':m: ' ~ ._. u~ ~.,,~ t /,f; :,,...t of Lot '~, ~:r,d ~',,~t ~rt of Lt t: i anJ ? LyJ:'.." West o£ a l;ne dr~.,~'n fro~a a p~'.int on tho ~.:o:'th i~ne o." -',ai,'] Let i dt~an: 19 foot ~L~st of the ,'.:orthw.'.;~t corner ~f s/,id '" ' ,.,~.~ i to, fha ~ .... +',' .... + ' .... ~,,, ........ eorn..r (.£ sma .Lt.~ ~/o~t LO :o,~t t,h,,r,,nf , and '~ ........ ~ ' x~ ,n~ .m,.~ a line dr,,~m from ~ '. ..... ~ .~,,~ o. Lots ~ ,md ~ ~',~ '- :.' -' o~ noint, on th,. North ltue of said Lr, t 1 di~:t.ant 19 f,~o% Fa::t of th.~ ~ort.h~o~t cernc~ of Lot i, to the South~o:;t norn,,r ~,:' ~::,jd Lob 2, m;~ there end~n~, ~:iI ~n ~,o~%( l.~, Avalon, and of %h,~ location of sll b~ldinzs thereon, and all vi~Ibl.~ encroachments, if any, from or on said ~nd. .-:,~RESS: ZONE: ~ REQ. LOT AREA: EXIST. LOT AREA: e. oow_ o...co.o, REQUIRED STREET FRONTAGE/WIDTH: (~O · ~lS'r,NG LOT W,O'rH: ~ ~_ ' +/..EX, STI.G LOT D~rH'. ~'7. 0 ' ~'/'-- REQUIRED SETBACKS PRINCIP~.~BUlLDING/HOUSE ~. -j~/p.V_~ ACCESSORY BUILDINGIGARAGEISHED FRONT~"~S $,~n~~,~C ~q~v FRONT: N S E W FRONT: ~ S~Ji~T~ j'Jl,~,,-.~ ~ FRONT: N S E W SIDE: N S~tlJ~ I L?~ · SIDE: N S E W 4' or 6' SIDE: Ni.~E W SIDE: N S E W 4' or 6' REAR: NIXIE W 15' REAR: N S E W 4' LAKESHORET 50' (measured from O.H.W.) LAKESHORE: 50' (measured from O.H.W.) TOP OF BLUFF: ~[~ · TOP OF BLUFF: EXISTING AND/OR PROPOSED SETBACKS: LAKESHORE: TOP OF BLUFF: ACCESSORY BUILDING/GARAGE/SHED 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 LAKESHORE: TOP OF BLUFF: HARDCOVER CONFORMING? ..ES/)NO .... IS THIS PROPERTY CONFORMING? YES ? ~ 'Ibis GeneMi /~n~fl~l~formation Sheet only summarizes a po~on ol the requirements outlined in the CiW of Mound Zoning Ordinance. RD ~19 Z0 ZI Z~ 23 Z4 ~SJ ZS~ ~27 2~ ~ ~ 3t ~ ~ 40 10 40 40 , 40 t 40 ag ~ ~ ;o R D For further information, contact the City of Mound Planning Department at 472-0600. --%,.' / 1~,4 ,< ,< RESOLUTION # 00- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A MINOR SUBDIVISION TO CREATE ONE ADDITIONAL LOT FROM THE PROPERTYLOCATED AT 6349 WALNUT LANE, LOTS 3 AND 4, BLOCK 10, MOUND TERRACE, PID # 14-117-24 32 0065 P & Z CASE # 00-17 WHEREAS, Brian Gubrud, owner, has submitted a request for a minor subdivision to create a lot from the existing parcel, and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-1 Zoning District that requires a 10,000 square feet lot area, 30 feet fi'ont yard setbacks, and 10 feet side yard setbacks for non lots of record. The existing parcel has approximately 48,404 square feet of lot area; and, WHEREAS, the proposed parcel B meets all zoning code requirements for lot width at 60.2 feet and lot area at 14,128 square feet. The proposed house location would also conform to R-1 District setbacks. WHEREAS, the remaining parcel A would be conforming to lot area at 34,276 square feet, lot width at 140 feet, as well as building setbacks and hardcover; and, WHEREAS, the minor subdivision would reclassify the proposed parcels as non-lots of record, subjecting them to all applicable zoning provisions; and, WI-IEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommended approval of the minor subdivision as recommended by staff; and, NOW, TltEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota as follows: The City does hereby grant a minor subdivision of the property pursuant to Section 330:20, Subdivision 1 .B with the following conditions: a. Final grading, drainage and erosion control plan be approved by the City Engineer prior to release of an approved resolution. b. Provide utility and drainage 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. c. One deficient street unit charge in the amount of $1,828.15 shall be paid. d. Park dedication fee of $500 be paid at the time of building permit issuance. 2. This Minor Subdivision is granted for the following new legally described property: PROPOSED PARCEL A: LOT 4 AND THAT PART OF LOT 3 LYING WESTERLY OF THE EASTERLY 60.00 FEET THEREOF, BLOCK 10, MOUND TERRACE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA. PROPOSED PARCEL B: THE EASTERLY 60.00 FEET OF LOT 3, BLOCK 10, MOUND TERRACE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA. o The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. DRAFT MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, MAY 8, 2000 Those present: Chair Geoff Michael; Commissioners: Orvin Burma, Jerry Clapsaddle (excused at 10:15 p.m.), Becky Glister, Cklair Hasse, Michael Mueller, Bill Voss, Frank Weiland, and Council Liaison Bob Brown; Staff present: City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Suthefland, City Engineer John Cameron, and Secretary Sue McCulloch and Diana Mestad. The following public were present: Sue Almquist, Terry Almquist, Cathy Bailey, John Beise, Kristen Beise, Ron Christensen, Steve Coddon, Ken Custer, Robert J. Davis, Cathi Dioszeghy, Tom Dioszeghy, Bruce Dodds, Patti Dodds, Mike Empson, Angela Femanoez, Carlos Femanoez, Jennifer Garder, Martin Garder, Brian Gulrud, Theresa Gulrud, Milton Hentges, Tom Kirk, Linda Kladsrup, Steve Kladstrup, Phil Lansing, Randy Lee, Peter Meyer, Mike Mueller, Bill Netka, Dorothy Netka, Brad Nordgren, Deb Olson, Lowell Olson, Bill Plume, Travis Rapie, Roger Reed, Tom Reese, Jeff Ruhr, P.M. Ruhr, Mary Steen, Tom Turner, Jack Weist, Roger Westman, Dave Willette, Ben Withart. CASE #00-17: MINOR SUBDIVISION; THERESA GUBRUD, 6349 WALNUT LANE, LOT 3 & 4, BLOCK 10, MOUND TERRACE, PID# 14-117-24 32 0065. Voss asked to be excused from any discussions on this matter because of a conflict of interest. Chair Michael excused Voss. Gordon stated the applicant submitted a request for a minor subdivision to create one additional lot from an existing lot of record. The property consists of lots 3 and 4, Block 10 of Mound Terrace. The lot has approximately 48,404 square feet of area as is currently held. As proposed, the property would be split into two lots. Parcel ^ would remain for the existing home and would conform to lot area and width standards for the R-1 zoning district. Structure setbacks are conforming for the existing house and garage. With the minor subdivision, the status of the property as a lot of record changes to a non-lot of record, reducing the allowable hardcover to 30% of the lot area. The total hardcover for parcel A after division is 15.7%. Parcel B as proposed would consist of 14,128 square feet with 60 feet of frontage. The new parcel would also be subject to nonlot of record hardcover provisions of 30% impervious surface, which are indicated to be less than allowed by the submitted survey. All other setback provisions conform to code requirements. DRAFT The City Engineer's report deta'iis utility drainage easement items, grading and drainage and deficient street charges. Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approve the minor subdivision as requested with the following conditions. 1. Final grading, drainage and erosion control plan be approved by the City Engineer prior to release of an approval resolution. 2. Provide utility and drainage easements consistent with the city Engineer's recommendations. 3. Park dedication fee of $500 would be paid at the time of building permit issuance. Burma questioned the $1,800 mentioned in the City Engineer's report. Staff agreed this was appropriate. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Burma, to approve minor subdivision according to staff recommendations. MOTION CARRIED. 7-0, Voss abstaining. Chair Michael stated this case would be heard by the City Council on May 23, 2000 PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. ~n TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP 'DATE: May 8, 2000 SUBJECT: Minor Subdivision OWNER: Brian Gubmd CASE NUMBER: 00-17 HKG FILE NUMBER: 00-5 LOCATION: 6349 Walnut Lane ZONING: Residential District R-1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Low Density Residential BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The applicant has submitted a request for a minor subdivision to create one additional lot from an existing lot of record. The property consists of lots 3 and 4, Block 10 of Mound Terrace. The lot has approximately 48,404 square feet of area as is currently held. As proposed, the property would be split into two lots. Parcel A would remain for the existing home and would conform to lot area and width standards for the R-1 zoning district. Structure setbacks are conforming for the existing house and garage. With the minor subdivision, the stares of the property as a lot of record changes to a non lot of record, reducing the allowable hardcover to 30% of the lot area. The total hardcover for parcel A after division is 15.7%. Parcel B as proposed would consist of 14,128 square feet with 60 feet of frontage. The new parcel would also be subject to non lot of record hardcover provisions of 30% impervious surface, which are indicated to be less than allowed by the submitted survey. All other setback provisions conform to code requirements. The City Engineer's report details utility drainage easement items, grading and drainage and deficient street charges. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approve the minor subdivision as requested with the following conditions. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 p. 2 #00-17 Gubrud Minor Subdivision May 8, 2000 1. Final grading, drainage and erosion control plan be approved by the City Engineer prior to release of an approved resolution. 2. Provide utility and drainage easements consistent with the City Engineer's recommendation. 3. Park dedication fee of $500 be paid at the time of building permit issuance. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 Engineering · Planning · Surveying RECEIVED APR 2 5 2000 0UND PLANNING & INSP. MEMORANDUM DATE: April 24, 2000 TO: Jon Sutherland, Planning and Zoning FROM: John Cameron, City Engineer SUBJECT: Comments City of Mound Minor Subdivision - Gubrud Property Case #00-17 MFRA #12866 The survey submitted with the application shows only a tentative house location and elevations; therefore a final grading and drainage plan will be required when application is made for a building permit. This is one of the older plats in the City, which typically did not provide drainage easements along the lot lines. The proposed drainage and utility easement as shown on the survey need to be provided as part of the minor subdivision. 3. It appears from City utility records that sanitary sewer and water services are both in-place for Parcel B. This should be verified with Public Works. Our records show that these two lots were combined and then assessed only one unit charge when the streets in this area were reconstructed in 1979. If it is the City's desire to continue the policy of collecting deferred unit charges when properties are re-divided and additional building set created, then this property should be charged for one additional unit, or $1,828.15. 15050 23rd Avenue North · Plymouth, Minnesota · 55447 phone 763/476-6010 · fax 763/476-8532 e-mai/: mfra@mfra, com Jon Sutherland, Planning and Zoning April 24, 2000 Page 2 Recommendations 1. Final grading and drainage plan to be approved by the City Engineer at time of building permit application. 2. Provide drainage and utility easements along all new lot lines, five feet wide on side lot lines and ten feet in width along the front-and rear lot lines. 3. One deficient street unit charge in the amount of $1,828.15 shall be paid. sSmain:Wlou 12866:\Correspondence~sutherland4- ! 4 · Rev 12-30-98 RECEIVED APR 1 8 2000 c,ty cea,c, Date: - 2 Distribution: ~: i~:~ City Planner Public Works ~ ' t(~' 0'0 City Engineer Application for MINOR SUBDIVISION OF LAND City of Mound, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Case No. Application Fee: Escrow Deposit: Deficient Unit Charges? Delinquent Taxes? VARIANCE REQUIRED? PAID APR] 8 ZOO0 $75.00 $1,000 Please type or print the following information: PROPERTY INFORMATION EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION ZONING DISTRICT Circle: ~)R-1A R-2 R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3 APPLICANT The applicant is: Xowner other: (M) OWNER (if other than applicant) Name Address SURVEYO~ ENGINEER Phone (H) (W) Address,'~(~}~ ~ V"~V' ~- ~/ (M) Phone (H) (.~ - ~'5~ - ~0 ~ (VV) (M) Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, ( ) no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions· This application must be signed by all owners of the subject property, or an explanation given why this is not the case. Owner's Signature Date Owner's Signature Date RECEIVED OWNER'S NAME: LOTAR~ ~' i:. LOT AREA CITY OF MOUND HARDC*OVER CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) SQ. FT. X 40% = (for Lots of Record) ............................. SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only) .................. · Exlatlng L~.~.'., of Record may have 40 percent coverage 13rovlded that techniques are ub'llzed, as outlined In Zoning Ordinance Sa~on 350:1225, Subd. 6.9,1 {sae.b.a..~,).~ A plan must be submitted end approved by the 9uilding OfltcJal. LENGTH x =_ 14qo DETACHED BUILDINGS (GARAGE/SHED) XTOTAL HOUSE .................................................... X ~ DRIVEWAY, PARKING AREAS, 81DEWALKS, ETC. DECKS O~en decka (114" min. Opening between boards) with · pervloue iurface under are not counted as hardcover. TOTAL DETACHED BUILDINGS ............................... " TOTAL DECK ....................................................... X ~ TOTAL HARDCOVER I IMPERVIOUS SURFACE ................................................... ~l OVER (indicate difference) ........................................................... ~. ....... PREPARED BY ' ~)J~lI1:I L~J~'C~,K. ~ ' Rev 08.2g-g~ ~ 3{~I~lU~ ~.-SUEE IIIKYklOIfl~ ~l ~/ DATE 4--- i 4-" Oo "- RECEWED APR 1~ 2000 LOT AREA L,J I ]~ UI, CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATION5 (IMPERVIOU~ SURFACE COVERN3E) ,i -~,. ~ *" ',,~ '",, ,-~ ..... . 30% = (for 01110~) .............................. , ......... i SQ. FT. X 40% = (for Lots of Record) ............................ , LOT AREA -~SQ. FT. X I S% = (for detached b,ut!dings only) .................. · ExJs~ng La~ of Re~ar~ may hive 40 plrcent ~overage ~ded ~at ~nlquee am u~. ~ ~ln~ In Z~g O~a~ Se~m 3~:1~. 8~ e.B.1 (IN N~). k plan ~t ~ lU~ and Ip~ 6y ~e O~l~g ~al. : - LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT " '"'F ' x 4o ,: X = HOUSE · DETACHED BUILDINGS (GARAGE/SHED) TOTAL DETACHED BUILDINGS ............................... x x DRIVE~AY, PARKING AREAS, 81DEWALKS, ETC. DECKS O~en decks (114' min. Opening between boe~s) wflh l pervk~us lUrfl~e under am n~ ~nt~ ~ h~ver. TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC ........................................ × \~--' .= X ~ UNDER I OVER (Indicate difference) .................................................................... PREPARED BY DATE '-""* ,¢~ ""-' "' '"" '" '--'" '"' -~ RECEIVED · - ~81;,-'g-;- ~ --- --_ _ ,~,,, MOUND PLANNING &/NSf I/ / I / ~ [ Ie~ I ' 1 I ~ / I I~1 i ......... L ' ~ ~ ,'" h/,,,.,~t /i~/~,~ ~ ,. ~'~ ~.~. i~ ~ I I, _.~ ,, ,, ~~~1 ~ I,,, ~___ ~ . '~ --~"~~ ~' ..... T ...... -*1. ,' ~ - '99.48 .-~'.. ~ F ~ ' -' ~ " l O0. o0 -- $ 85°49'30" E N 86°28'23" F (mm) JaM4~ pvpe,mf ei~ &msiII~:r &ad4~ Jfsdmb M id, mB-- ~m~ttimu,~4~d.~ P~RCF, L B P~OPO~I) u~nCOIl~: THERESA' ~ BRIAN GUBRUD SURVEY ON FILET/YES) NO LOT OF RECORD.'? YES / NO YARD .' [ IIOUSE ......... FRONT FRONT SIDE SIDE REAR LAKE TOP OF BLUFF CII'Y OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SItEET DIRECTION ZONING DISTRICT. LOT SIZE./WIDTH: (-~R1 ~o,ooo/6o~"-~B~ ~,soo/o ~ e,ooo/4o n2 20,000/e0 R2 6,000/40 B3 10,000/60 R2 14,000/BO R3 SEE ORD. ~1 30,000/100 I~.QUIRED ] EXISTING/PROPOSED N S E W N S E W N S E W NS E W N S E W N S E W 15' 50' 10' OR 30' EXISTING LOT SIZE:, LOT WIDTH: LOT DEPTH: VARIANCE . / GARAGE, SIIED ..... 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 TOP OF BLUFF 4' OR 6' 4' OR 6' 4' 50' 10' OR 30' ltARDCOVER 30% OR 40% .: . CONI:ORMING? YES / NO / ? ] BY: ]DATED: This Zoning Infmmation Sheet only summarizes a portion of the requirements oullined in the Cily of Mound Zoning Ordinance. For further infornmtion, con,ncr the City of Mound Planning Department at 472-0600. / ~IA~PLE (16) (~4) {~) (12) ~ $ ,,,, -1/ els) c~ CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAY~NOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364;168~7 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 May 18, 2000 TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: SUBJECT: FRAN CLARK, CITY CLERK LICENSE RENEWALs FOR MAY 23 COUNCIL MEETING The following licenses are up for renewal. The license period is May 1, 2000 through April 30, 2001. Approval is contingent upon all required forms, insurance, etc. being submitted. RENEWAL OF WINE LICENSE Al & Alma's Supper Club RENEWAL OF LIOUOR LICENSE & SUNDAY SALE VFW#5113 PUBLIC GATHERING PERMIT Crown College printed on recycled paper DATE: ~¥ 23, 2000 PAYMENT BILLS BILLS ACCOUNTS PAYABLE TOTAL BILLS BATCH # tt0051 $235,222.77 AMOUNT $235,222.77 PAGf 1 AP-C02-O1 PURCHASE JOURNAL CITY OF HOUND VEN2OR INVOICE DUE HOLD ~PRE. NO. INVOICE NF~R DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER A~ A0111 000525 5123/00 5123/00 AIRTOUCH CELLULAR/BELLEVUE VENDOR TOTAL A0349 30350 5/23/00 5/23/00 ANOKA TECHNICAL INSTITUTE VENDOR TOTAL 7.81 04-00 296-9058 BUSINARO, GINO 01-4090-3220 5.43 04-00 590-435! SKINNER, GREG 01-4280-3220 5.43 04-00 590-4351 SKINNER, GREG 73-7300-3220 5.42 04-00 590-435! SKINNER~ GREG 78-?800-3220 30.03 04-00 965-6?89 SUTMERLAN~, JON 01-4190-3220 6.30 04-00 554-6520 WATER 73-7300-3220 6.29 04-00 554-6520 SEWER 78-7800-3220 27.08 04-00 581-2110 PATROL #845 01-4140-3220 30.45 04-00 581-6401 CHIEF HARRELL L 01-4140-3220 2?.08 04-00 581-6404 BLAZER 01-4140-3220 29.44 04-00 581-6440 S~UAD #840 01-4140-32~0 27.88 04-00 581-6441 S~UAD #841 01-4140-3220 27.08 04-00 581-6442 S~UAD #842 01-4140-3220 27.08 04-00 581-6443 SQUAD #843 01-4140-3220 2?.08 04-00 581-6444 SQUAD #844 01-4140-3220 .39 04-00 723-7560 MOUND FIRE 22-4170-3220 .39 04-00 751-3572 EN6INE #1~ 22-4170-3220 1.67 04-00 751-3573 MOUND FIRE 22-4170-3220 7.81 04-00 875-4502 RESCUE TRUCK 22-4170-3220 300.14 JRNL-CD 1010 300.14 2,100.00 10/11/99--i2/04/99 PUMP COURSE 22-4170-4110 2.100.00 JRNL-CD 101. 2100.00 A0460 25572 45.00 TINT BACK WINDOW 78-7800-4200 5/23/00 5/23/00 45.00 JRNL-CD 1010 ~UTO VISIONS VENDOR TOTAL ~5.00 A0470 11206S 195.00 REPAIR WELL #6 73-7300-4200 5/23/00 5/23/00 195.00 JRNL-CD 1010 AUTOMATIC SYSTEMS CO VENDOR TOTAL 195.00 ~0549 31784700 103.31 PROBE TAPS AND RINGS 71-7100-2200 5/23/00 5/23/00 103.31 JRNL-CD 1010 31784800 52.55 MISCELLANEOUS 71-7100-9550 5/23/00 5/23/00 52.55 JRNL-CD 1010 18d52400 2,164.10 LIQUOR 71-7100-95~0 5/23/00 5/23/00 2,164.i0 JRNL-CD iOlO 31~07900 64.81 MISCELLANEOUS 71-7100-9550 5/23100 5/23/00 64.81 JRNL-CD 1010 BELLBOY CORPORATION VENDOR TOTAL 2384.77 B0572 04U403011 -- 53.20 VIDEO CASSETTE (45) 01-4140-2200 5/23/00 5123/00 53.20 JRNL-CD 1010 BUY COMPANY VENDOR TOTAL 53.20 PAGE 2 PURCHASE JOURNAL AP-CO2-01 CITY OF MOUND ~ VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD Nb. INVOICL NHDR DATE DATE ~TATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER S0590 00008124 343.00 REPAIR LEAK SKYLIGHT WEST SIDE 01-4320-3830 5/23/00 5/23/00 343.00 JRNL-CD . ]OlD B & b SHEET METAL AND NO04 YENDO~ TOTAL 343.00 80600 i0038024 31.66 04-00 GARBAGE PICKUP 01-4280-3150 3i.~6 04-00 GARBAGE PICKUP 13-T300-3150 3i.b7 04-00 GARBAGE PICKUP 78-7800-3750 5/23/00 5/23/00 94.99 JRNL-CD 1010 10038025 61.01 04-00 GARBAGE P/CKUP 22-4170-3750 5/23/00 5/23/00 67.0I JRNL-CD 1010 10038079 78.90 04-00 GARBAGE PICKUP 01-4340-3150 5/23/00 5/23/00 78.90 JRNL-CD 1010 10037956 11.76 04-00 GARBAGE PICKUP 71-7~00-3750 5/23/00 5/23/00 17.76 JRNL-CD 1010 10037941 67.07 04-00 GARBAGE PICKUP 01-4280-3750 ~ 5/23/00 5/23/00 61.07 JRNL-CD 1010 CKOWIAK AND SON VENDOR TOTAL 325.73 ~ ~0145 000509 25~.00 SPECIAL TAX REGISTRATION 7£-7~00-4140 5/23/00 5/23/00 250.00 JRNL-CD 1010 ALCO~L,TOBAC,F[~ VENDOR TOTAL 250.00 BUREAU OF C0~59 334530 2.65 FLASHER 01-4340-3810 5123100 5123100 ~.65 JRNL-CD IOlO 01-4340-3810 335641 21.29 BALL MOUNT 2" 5/23/00 5/23/00 ~1.~9 JRNL-CD 1010 334646 46.84 GAS CHARGED LIFT SUPPORT 01-4280-2310 5/~3/00 5/23/00 ~6.84 JRHL-CD lOiO '~ 334522 12.77 POLICE CAR 01-4140-3810 5/23/00 512~100 L2.77 JRNL-CD 1010 CHAMPION AUTO VENDOR TOTAL 8~.55 i~ C093~ 24119 741.00 REEL WITH REWIND ETC. 22-4110-5000 I~ 5/23/00 5123/00 741.00 JRNL-CD 1010 ~ 24398 767.50 HANNAY REEL 22-4170-5000 ~ 5/23/00 5/23/00 767.50 JRNL-CD 1010 SAFETY EQUIP INC VENDOR TOTAL 1508.50 CLAREY'S ~ C09~0 003428 3~.64 SUPPLIES 01-4340-2330 !~ 85.39 SUPPLIES 01-4340-2200 79.86 SUPPLIES 11-7100-2200 5~.78 SUPPLIES 0~-4340-~300 PAGE 3 P U R C H A S E J O U R N A L AP-C02-OL CITY OF MOUND VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD ' ~ PRE NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS A 5/23/00 5/23/00 COAST TO COAST VENDOR TOTAL C0970 61349157 5/23/00 5/23/00 648 37141 5/23/00 5/23/00 61354199 5/23/00 5/23/00 COCA COLA BOTTLING-MIDWEST VENDOR TOTAL C1019 1341 5/23/00 5/23/00 COfICEPT LANDSCAPING, INC. VENDOR TOTAL C1027 CB98366 5/23/00 5/23/00 CONSTRUCTION BULLETIN MAG* VENDOR TOTAL Cl106 132189 5/23/00 5/23/00 CORPORATE EXPRESS DELIVERY VENDOR TOTAL Cl130 B047 CUSTOM FIRE Dl154 662 26 5/23/00 5/23/00 APPARATUS VENDOR TOTAL DAHLHEIMER Dl172 322974 322965 322950 5/23/00 5/23/00 DISTRIBUTING CO VENDOR TOTAL 5/23/00 5/23/00 5/23/00 5/23/00 5/23/00 5/23/00 AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER 4.88 SUPPLIES 81-4350-2200 .28 SUPPLIES 01-42~0-~50 .28 SUPPLIES 73-7300-2250 .29 SUPPLIES 78-7800-2250 365.49 SUPPLIES . 22-4~?0-4100 111.05 SUPPLIES 01-4140-4100 92.65 SUPPLIES 01-4280-4100 82?.59 JRNL-CD iOlO 827.59 136.16 MIX 71-7100-9540 136.16 JRNL-CD 10~0 107.20 MIX 71-7100-9540 107.20 JRNL-CD 1010 121.92 MISCELLANEOUS TAXABLE 71-7100-9550 121.92 JRNL-CD 1010 365.28 425.00 DORCHESTER & STRATFORD REPAIRS 01-4280-4200 425.00 JRNL-CD 101' 425.00 176.70 SEAL COAT ADVERTISE BIDS 27-5800-3510 176.70 JRNL CD 1010 176.70 8.14 04-21-00 DELIVERY CHARGE 81-4350-3210 8.14 JRNL-CD 1010 8.14 20,874.00 PUMP, SPREADER,CUTTER, ETC 22-~170-5000 20,874.00 JRNL-CD 1010 20874.00 312.00 BEER 71-7100-9530 312.00 JRNL-CD 1010 312.00 6,049.0? COMMANDO COATS 22-4170-2270 6,049.07 JRNL-CD 1010 870.32 SENSORS 22-4170-2200 870.32 JRNL-CD 1010 " 345.75 CROWBAR HOLDER 22-4170-2200 345.75 JRNL-CD 1010 PAGE 4 P U R C H A S E J O U R N A L AP-C02-01 CITY OF MOUND INVOICE DUE HOLD DATE DATE STATUS 5/23/00 5/23/00 5/23/00 5/23/00 VENDOR NO. Ir~vOIC[ NttBR 317117 31a539 320248 320636 317125 311504 319335 5/23100 5/23/00 5/23/00 5/23/00 5/23/00 5/23/00 5/23/00 5/23/00 5/23/00 5/23/00 317745 5/23/0D 5/i~/00 319648 5/23/00 5/23/00 320034 5/23100 5/2]/00 320484 5/23/00 5/23/00 320497 5/23/00 5/23/00 321356 5/23/00 5/23/00 DANKO EMERGENCY EQUIPMENT VENDOR TOTAL Di200 5/23100 5/23/00 93581 95222 5/23/00 5/23/00 DISTRIBUTING COMPANY VENDOR TOTAL E1420 620057 5/23100 5123/00 622335 5/23/00 5/23/00 625384 AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER 132.58 BOOTS 73-7300-2240 132.58 JRNL-CD lOiO 736.95 GATE VALVE,PIKE POLE, E~C 22-4170-2200 73~.~ JRN~-CD I010 50.2B EYE SHIELD 22-4170-2200 50.28 JRNL-CD lOIO 4,914.57 AIR MASK 22-4170-2270 4,914.~? JRNL-CD 1010 366.41 GLOVES 22-4170-2270 366.~1 JRNL-CD 1010 53.30 HYDRANT WRENCH 22-4170-2200 53.~0 JRNL-CD 1010 267.95 WRENCH SET, ETC 22-4170-2200 267.95 JRNL-CD lOlO 225.7B MOUNTING BRACKET 22-4170-3820 Z2~.78 JRNL-CD 1010 82.11 MOUNTING BRACKET 22-&170-2200 B2.11 JRNL-CD 1010 53.54 PINCH BAR 22-4170-2200 53.54 JRNL-CD 1010 949.27 WRENCH SET 22-4170-2200 9*~.2r JRNL-¢D 1010 50.92 MOUNTING BRACKET 22-4170-2200 ~0.92 JRNL-CD ~0~0 202.35 POST AND BRACKET 22-4170-2200 202.35 JRNL-CD 1010 15351.15 79~.?0 BEER ?1-?100-9530 794.70 JRNL-CD 1010 754.00 BEER ?1-7100-9530 ?54.00 JRNL-CD 1010 1548.70 94.00 DEER KEGS ?1-Y100-9530 94.00 JRNL-CD lOlO 304.00 DEER 71-7100-9530 304.00 JRNL-CD 1010 179.80 DEER 71-7100-9530 PAGE 5 AP-C02-01 VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD 140. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STAIUS 62~817 626221 627209 5/23/00 5/23/00 5/23/00 5/23/00 5/23/00 5/23/00 5/23/00 5/23/00 627927 5/23/00 5/23/00 627928 5/23/00 5/23/00 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE VENDOR TOTAL E1450 17305 5/23/00 5/23/00 17306 5/23/00 5/23/00 £1{LER5 & ASSOCIATE5 INC VENDOR TOTAL El460 i56293 5/Z]/O0 5/Z3/00 ELK ~]VER CONCRETE VENDOR TOTAL E~487 ~67 5/23/00 5/23/00 ENV]RONHENTAL LANDFORHS~ ] VENDOR TOTAL ESS (ELECTION EQUIPMENT) ~[NDOR TOTAL 5/23/00 5/2~/00 ESS BROS AND SONS ]NC VENDOR TOTAL E~515 728 5/23/00 5/23/00 E-Z RECYCLING INC VENDOR TOTAL F1571 000330 5/23/00 5~23~00 FIRE INSTRUCTORS ASSN OF M VENDOR TOTAL PURCHASE JOURNAL CITY OF MDUND AMOUNT DESCRIPT]ON ACCOUNT NUMBER 179.80 JRNL-CD 1010 1,115.35 BEER 71-7100-9530 1,115.35 JRNL-CD ' 1010 351.00 BEER KEGS 71-7100-9530 351.00 JRNL-CD 1010 101.00 BEER 71-7100-9530 101.00 JRNL-CD 1010 5,724.55 BEER 71-7100-9530 5,724.55 JRNL-CD 1010 48.35 MISCELLANEOUS 71-7100-9550 48.35 JRNL-CD 1010 7918.05 4,560.00 04-00 PROJECT MANAGEMENT 55-5~80-3z00 4,560.00 JRNL-CD lOlO 105.00 04-00 COAST TO COAST/TRUE VALU 55-5880-3100 105.00 JRNL-CD 10 ~665.00 195.78 BASE SLAB ETC. 01-4280-2300 195.?B JRNL-CD . 1010~ 195.78 61.90 REPLACE ROTOR 01-4320-3830 61.90 JRNL-CD 1010 61.90 159.75 DEMONSTRATION KIT 01-4060-5000 159.75 JRNL-CD 1010 159.75 i95.96 GRATE, DUCTLE FRAM 01-4280-4200 195.96 JRNL CD 1010 195.96 6,779~35 04-00 CURSIDE RECYCLING 70-4270-4200 6,779.35 JRNL-CD ~010 6779.35 10.00 2000 UCHBERSMIP DUES 22-4170-4110 10.00 JRNL-CD lOlO 10.00 PAGE 6 P U R C H A S E J O U R N A L AP-C02-OL CITY OF MOUND 5/23/00 5/23/00 VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD NO. INVOICE NM§R DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER F1629 22821 346.00 RECYCLE TI-RES * 70-4270-42i0 5/23/00 5/23/00 346.00 JRNL-CD lOlO iFIRST STATE TIRE RECYCLINe- VENDOR TOTAL 346.00 Fl?20 000501 437.00 04-00 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 01-4140-3100 5/23/00 5/23/00 437.00 JR.L-CD lOZO FRANK MAuDEN & A$SOC VENDOR TOTAL 437.00 G1750 340260 97.19 MATS 01-4320-4210 5/23/00 5/23/00 97.19 JRNL-CD 1010 335660 19.81 MATS 01-4280-2250 19.81 MATS 73-7300-2250 19.80 MATS 76-?800-2250 24.26 UNIFORMS 01-4280-2240 24.26 UNIFORMS 73-7300-2240 24.26 UNIFORMS 78-7800-2240 132.20 JRNL-CD 1010 ~G&K --'" G1800 317247 28.52 04-04-00 MATS 22-4170-2250 5/23/00 5/23/00 28.52 JRNL-CD 1010 326430 27.69 04-18-00 HATS 22-4170-2230 5/23/00 5/23/00 27.69 JRNL-CD lOlO 335643 29.76 05-02-00 MATS 22-4170-2230 5/23/00 5/23/00 29.76 JRNL-CD 1010 335661 38.14 05-02-00 HATS 01-4340-2330 5/23/00 5/23/00 38.14 JRNL-CD 1010 340259 SERVICES 47591 5/23/00 5123/00 VENDOR TOTAL 10.42 HATS 01-4280-2250 10.42 MATS 73-7300-2250. 10.43 MATS 78-7800-2250 ~ 24.26 UNIFORMS 01-4280-2240 24.26 UNIFORMS 73-7300-2240 24.26 UNIFORMS ?8-?800-2240 104.05 JRNL-CD 1010 457.55 26.99 04-03-00 AUTO REPAIR 73-7300-3810 5/23/00 5/23/00 26.99 JRNL-CD 1010 47859 440.10 REPAIR BROKEN REAR SPRING 01-4280-3810 5/23/00 5/23/00 440.10 JRNL-CD lOlO 47818 "397.30 REPAIR FUEL SYSTEM 01-4280-3810 5/23/00 5/23/00 397.30 JRNL-CD 1010 GARY'S DIESEL SERVICE VENDOR TOTAL 864.39 890 000430 A 39.40 06,-00 //5158500 01-4020-2200 PAGE 7 P U R C H A S E J O U R N A L AP-C02-O1 CITY OF MOUND VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD NO. IlIVOIC[ NM~R DATE DATE ~TATUS AF~OUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER 39.40 04-00 #5158500 01-4[40-2200 5/23/00 5/23/00 78.80 JRNL-CD iOlO 000430-B 18.90 04-00 #5158501 01-4320-2200 5/23/00 5/23/00 18.90 JRNL-CD . 1010 000430-C 7.21 04-00 #5158502 01-4280-2200 2.95 04-00 ~5158502 73-7300-2~00 2.94 04-00 ~5158502 78-7800-2200 5/23/00 5/23/00 13.10 JRNL-CD 1010 GLENWOOD [NGLEWOOD VENDOR TOTAL i[0.80 G1905 60499 61.60 04-00 LOCATES 73-7300-31~ 61.60 04-00 LOCATES 78-7800-3125 5/23/00 5/23/00 123.20 JRNL-CD lOlO GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL, INC VENDOR TOTAL 123.20 G19~6 11464 77.51 VEHICLE EMBLEMS 01-4140-3B10 5/23/00 5/23/00 77.5i JRNL-CD 1010 GRAFIX SttOPP£ VENDOR TOTAL 77.~1 G1972 211452 449.22 LIQUOR 71-7100-9510 5/23/00 5/23/00 449.22 JRNL-CD 211453 83.93 MIX 71-7100-9540 5/23/00 5/23/00 83.93 JRNL-CD 1010 211536 210.30 LIOUOR 71-7100-9510. 5/23/00 5/23/00 210.30 JRNL-CD 1010 210711 364.31 WINE 71-7100-9520 5/23/00 5/Z3/00 364.3! JRNL-CD 1010 208043 101.50 LIQUOR 71-7100-9510 5/23/00 5/23/00 101.50 JRNL-CD 1010 208042 762.80 LIOUOR 71-7100-9510 5/23/00 5/2~/00 762.80 JRNL-CD 1010 213668 344.96 WINE 71-7100-9520 5/23/00 5123/00 344.96 JRNL-CD 1010 214378 383.80 LIOUOR 71-7100-9510 S/23/00 5/23/00 383.80 JRNL-CD ~0~0 2i4~79 77.73 MIX 7i-7100-9550 5/23/00 5/23/00 77.73 JRNL-CD 1010 GRIGGS COOPER & COMPANY VENDOR TOTAL 2778.55 G1977 000419-A " 1.58 THRU 04-20-00 LONG DISTANCE 01-4190-3220 .95 THRU 04-20-00 LONG DISTANCE 01-4040-3220 .32 TIIRU 04-20-00 LONG DISTANCE 01-4060-2200 ~ PRI PAGE 8 AP-C02-Oi PURCHASE JOURNAL CITY OF MOUND VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE SIATUS 000419-B 000419-C 000531-A 5123/00 5/23/00 5/23/00 5/23/00 5/23/00 5/23/00 5/23/00 5/23/00 AMOUNT .13 1.44 .69 2.68 ?98.36 806.15 303.92 366.47 413.91 1,08q.30 674.44 21.30 62.88 758.62 DESCRIPTION THRU 04-20-00 THRU 04-20-00 THRU 04-20-00 THRU 04-20-00 THRU 04-20-00 JRNL-CD THRU 04-19-00 THRU 04-19-00 THRU 04-19-00 JRNL-CD THRU 04-19-00 THRU 04-19-00 THRU 04-19-00 JRNL-CD LONG DISTANCE LONG DISTANCE LONG DISTANCE LONG DISTANCE PHONE SERVICE PHONE SERVICE PHONE SERVICE REGULATED NON-REGULATED LONG DISTANCE ACCOUNT NUHBER 73-7300-3220 01-4095-3220 01-4090-3220 01-4340-3220 01-~320-3220 lOlO 01-~280-3220 73-7300-3220 78-7800-3220 1010 01-4140-3220 01-4140-3Z20 01-4140-3220 1010 190.05 THRU 05-01-00 472-3555 22-4170-3220 180.78 THRU 05-01-00 472-3093 71-7100-3220 21.42 THRU 05-01-00 4?2-0646 01-4340-3220 392.25 JRNL-CD 1010 E MINN£SOTA VENDOR TOTAL 3041.32 H2061 DM3 9Bll 20.00 5/23/00 5/23/00 20.00 ~ HAWKINS WATER TREATMENT VENDOR TOIAL 20.00 ~ H2135 20047026 44.70 -- 5/23/00 5/23/00 44.70 i~'"~HENNEPIN CTY. INFO TECH VENDOR TOTAL 44.70 1~7 112139 000501 1,420.60 ,'~ 5/23/00 5/23/00 1,420.60 IIENNEPIN COUNTY SII[RIFF V[NDOR TOTAL 1420.60 CONTAINER CHARGE FOR 4 CYL JRNL-CD 03-00 NETWORK CHARGES JRNL-CD REPAIR TWO PORTABLES JRNL-CD 73-7300-2260 1010 01-4095-3800 1010 22-4170-3820 1010 H2140 000427 413.55 51Z3/00 5/23/00 413.55 ,,~ HENN CO SHERIFFS DEPT VENDOR TOTAL 413.55 ~ H2170 UTILO000080 150.00 5/23/00 5/23/00 150.00 ii~ HENN CO TREASURER VENDOR TOTAL 150.00 i,.,~ 112241 000509-A 4,018.08 5/23/00 5/23/00 4.,018.08 , 000509-B 3,96? .75 -- 5/23/00 5/23/00 3,967.75 02-00 SERVICE BOOKING FEE JRNL-CD JAN FEB MARCH UTILITY PERMITS JRNL-CD HOUND TIF RELATED WORK JRNL-CD 01-4110-4250 1010 73-7300-4220 1010 55-5880-3100 1010 MOUND VISIONS 55-5680-3100 JRNL-CD 1010 PAGE 9 P U R C H A S E J O U R N A L AP-C02-O1 CITY OF MOUND VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION I2309 23646900 43.40 5/23/00 5/23/00 43.40 IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS VENDOR TOTAL 43.40 I2400 5006 75.00 5123100 5/23100 75.00 5091 131.89 5/23/00 5/23/00 131.89 5106 153.00 5/23/00 5/23/00 153.00 ISLAND PARK SKELLY VENDOR TOTAL 359.89 J2429 23779 2,144.00 5/23/00 5/23/00 J R APPLIANCE DISPOSAL INC VENDOR TOTAL 2144.00 J2579 1110274 1,262.30 5/23/00 5/23/00 1,262.30 1107457 120.00 5/23/00 5/23/00 120.00 110 7456 l, 972.80 5/23/00 5/23/00 1,972.80 1107455 3,770.80 5/23/00 5/23/00 3,770.80 111294Z 355.99 5/23/00 5/23/00 355.99 1112943 1,122.85 5/23/00 5/23/00 1,122.85 JOIINSON ~ROTItERS LIgUOR VENDOR TOTAL 8604°?4 J2610 000502 26.90 5/23/00 5/23/00 26.90 000505-A 24.28 5/23/00 . 5/23/00 2&.28 000505-B 17.91 5/23/00 5123100 17.91 000505-C 55.86 S/Z31OO 5/23/00 55.86 JUBILEE FOODS VENDOR TOTAL 124.95 05/10/00 THRU 06/lO/uO COPIER JRNL-CD 04-07-00 INSTALL DRIVE SHAFT JRNL-CD 04-21-00 GLOW PLUG MODULE JRNL-CD 04-24-00 COMPRESSOR REPAIR MOT JRNL-CD RECYCLE APPLIANCES/A.C. JRNL-CD WINE JRNL-CD BEER JRNL-CD WINE JRNL-CD LI gUOR JRNL-CD LIQUOR JRNL-CD WINE JRNL-CD DRIVING TOUR JR N L- C D RECYCLING DAY JRNL-CD RECYCLING DAY JRNL-CD RECYCLING DAY JRNL-CD ACCuUNT NUMDEM Oz-~32u-3buu 1010 01-4340-3820 IOlO 73-7300-3810 1010 01-4280-3810 1010 70-4270-4210 1010 71-7100-9920 lo~ 71-~100-95~0 1010 71-7100-9520 1010 71-7100-9510 1010 71-7100-9510 1010 71-7100-9~0 1010 01-4020-4100 1010 70-4270-4210 1010 70-4270-4210 1010 70-4270-4210 1010 PAGE 10 AP-C02-OI PURCHASE JOURNAL CITY OF MOUND VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD NO. Ir{v01C[ NMBR DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION K2699 32927 S/Z3/O0 5/23/00 32925 KENNEDY & GRAVEN K270B 0217-425207 23 2~m X LUMBER COMPANY L2811 10781 5/23/00 5/23/00 VENDOR TOTAL 5/23/00 5/23/00 VENDOR TOTAL 5/23/00 5/23/00 ~ LARSON PRINTING & GRAPHICS VENDOR TOTAL 5/23/00 5/23/00 L2822 1302186 130 9800 37 ~ LAWSON PRODUCTS, INC. ~ L2851 000501 5123/00 5/23/00 VENDOR TOTAL 5/23/00 5/23100 36.00 04-00 BAILEY ET AL VS CITY 36.00 JRNL-¢D ACCOUNT NUMBER 01-4110-3100 1010 345.00 04-00 HISCELLANEOUS BI%LABLE 55-5880-3100 2,059.50 04-00 REDEVELOPMENT AREA .1 55-SBBO-3LO0 27.50 04-00 CONDEMNATION 55-5880-3100 9.00 04-00 BALBOA PROPERTY ACeUISIT 55-58B0-3100 432.00 04-00 LANGDON DISTRICT AC~UISI 55-5880-3100 550.00 04-00 MOUND MAINSTREET CPD 55-58B0-3100 1,672.00 04-00 MOUND HARDWARE DEVELOPME 55-5880-3100 1~1.00 04-00 POST OFFICE RELOCATION 55-5880-3100 331.62 04-00 MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES 55-5880~3100 5,547.62 JRNL-CD lOlO 5583 8.79 CABINE? 01-4280-2330 8.78 CABINET 73-7300-2330 8.78 CABINET 78-7800~2330 83.50 BARRICADE 01-4280-2300 109.85 JRNL-CD 1010 109.85 1.139.11 WINTER NEWSLETTERS 1,139.11 JRNL-CD 1139.11 01-4020-3500 1010 14.00 TORCHES 01-G280-2200: l&.O0 TORCHES 73-7300-2200' 13.99 TORCHES 78-TB00-2200 41.99 JRNL-CD 1010 119.29 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES 01-42B0-2250 119.29 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES 73-7300-2250 119.28 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES 78-7800-2250 357.86 JRNL-~D 1010 399.85 3.98 02-01-09 THRU 02-01-00 WORK CO 01-~020-3600 6.42 02-01-09 THRU 02-01-00 WORK CO 01-4040-3600 0.06 02 O1 09 TtlRU 02-01-00 WORK CO 01-4090-3600 202.14 02-01-09 THRU 02-01-00 WORK CO 01-4140-3600 10.27 02-01-09 THRU 02-01-00 WORK CO 01-4190-3600 ?~.IB 02-01-09 TIIRU 02-01-00 WORK CO 01-4280-3600 20.28 02-01-09 THRU 02-01-00 WORK CO 01-&3&O-3600 2~5.78 02-01-09 THRU 02-01-00 WORK CO 22-4170-3600 35.55 02-01-09 THRU 02-01-00 WORK CO 7~-7~00-3600 51.08 02-01-09 THRU 02-02-00 WORK CO 73-7300-3600 75.46 02-01-09 THRU 02-01-00 WORK CO 78-7800-3600 73~.00 JRNL-CD 1010 PRE LEAGUE OF MN CITIES INS T* VENDOR TOTAL 73&.00 PAGE li P U R C H A S E J 0 U R N A L AP-C02-OI CITY OF MOUND 1NVOICE DUE HOLD PR DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NuMB£R VENDOR NO. INVOICE NMtSR ~I L2880 000509 000 512 ?I -~ LEONARD dARRELL , L2926 011294 35.75 PTAC TRAINING REIMBURSEMENT 01-4140-4110 5/23/00 5/23/00 35.75 JR~L-CD 1010 106.49 FITNESS SCALE . , 01-4150-2200 5/23/00 5/23/00 106.49 JRNL-CD z0iO VENDOR TOTAL 142.24 5/23/00 5/23/00 LONG LAKE POWER EQUIPMENT VENDOR TOTAL M3016 ?430 5/23/00 5/23/00 7461 5/23100 5/23/00 7463 HARL IN'S TRUCKING M3030 149970 MARK M3080 32542 3284? 33067 33068 33071 5/23/00 5/23/00 5/23/00 5/23/00 VENDOR TOTAL 5/23/00 5/23/00 145754 5/23/00 5/23/00 146355 S/23/00 5/23/00 VII DISTRIBUTOR VENDOR TOTAL 5/23/00 5/23/00 5/23/00 5/23100 5/23/00 5/23100 5/23/00 5/23/00 33072 5/23100 5/23/00 5/23/00 5/~3/00 48.36 BUFFER,FILTER, LABOR, ETC 01-4280-4200 48.36 JRNL-CD 1010 48.36 8.~0 04-17-00 DEL~vERT CHA~GE ?i-F1UU-¥Ouu 8.40 JRNL-CD 1010 106.40 04-~0-00 DELIVERY CHARGE ?l-71uu-goOu 106.40 JRNL-CD 1010 ?.00 04-24-00 DELIVERY CHARGE 71-7100-9~00 7.00 JRNL-CD 1010 177.80 04-27-00 DELIVERY CHARGE 71-7100-~000 177.80 JRNL-CD 10' 299.60 2,353.95 BEER 71-7100-9530 2,353.95 JRNL-CD 1010 2,491.00 BEER 71-7100-9530 2,491.00 JRNL-CD 1010 127.40 BEER 71-7100-9530 127.40 JRNL-CD 1010 4972.35 258.00 03-00 GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATIO 01-2300-1089 258.00 JRNL-CD 1010 306.00 03-00 BEYREIS SUB-DIVISION 01-2300-1090 306.00 JRNL-CD 1010 402.20 04-00 2000 SEAL COAT PROJECT 27-5800-3100 402.20 JRNL-CD 1010 169.00 04-00 WOODLAND POINT LITIGATIO 81-4350-3100 169.00 JRNL-CD 1010 43.00 04-00 CNG SERVICES WATER/SEWER 73-7300-3100 43.00 04-00 CNG SERVICES WATER/SEWER 7B-TBO0-3100 86.00 JRNL-CD 1010 76.50 04-00 CNG SERVICES PARKS DEPAR 01-4340-3100 ?6.50 JRNL-CD 1010 PAGE 12 AP-¢02-OI VENDOR INVOICE I NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE 4~ 33073 ~ 330 74 33076 330 ?~ 330 80 33081 2O 33083 33087 PURCHASE JOURNAL CITY OF HOUND DUE HOLD DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NuMbER 1,222.10 04-00 LANGDON/DOWNTOWN REDEVEL 55-5880-3100 5/23/00 5/23/00 1,222.10 JRNL-CD . . 1010 1,7~4.48 04-00 SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT 01-4190-3100 5/23/00 5/23/00 1,724.48 JRNL-CD 1010 43.00 04-00 STORM WATER UTILITY 01-4280-3100 5/23/00 5/25/00 43.00 JRNL-CD lOlO 699.00 04-00 CNG SERVICES 15 RELOCATI 55-5880-3100 5/23/00 5/23/00 699.00 JRNL-CD lOlO 298.00 04-00 DOWNTOWN TIF DISTRICT $5-5880-3100 5/23/00 5/23/00 298.00 JRNL-CD 1010 1,651.20 04-00 TRUE VALUE DISTRICT 55-56~0-3100 5/23/00 5/23/00 1,651.20 JRNL-CD 1010 1,440.70 04-00 AUDITORS ROAD 55-5880-5100 5/23/00 5/23/00 1,440.70 JRNL-CD 1010 27 33069 33070 330 77 330 78 33082 1,706.10 04-00 WOODLAND POINT 81-4350-3100 5/23/00 5/23/00 1,706.10 JRNL-CD 1010 913.20 04-00 CNG SERVICES BLDG DEPART 01-4190-3100 5/23/00 5/23/00 913.20 JRNL-CD 1010 344.00 04-00 CNG SERVICES P/I 01-41~0-3100 5/23/00 5/23/00 344.00 JRNL-CD 1010 472.00 04-00 BECKER PROPERTY 3 PTS 01-4190-3100 5/23/00 5/23/00 472.00 JRNL-CD 1010 258.00 04-00 5600 LYNWOOD IDS #27? 01-2500-1096 5/23/00 5/23/00 258.00 JRNL-CD 1010 172.00 04-00 5212 LYNWOOD DENBESTE PR 01-2300-1092 5/23/00 5/23/00 172.00 JRNL-CD 1010 330 84 33085 ~ 30 86 33088 33089 MCCOMBS FRANK 86.00 04-00 MENTGES PROPERTY 01-2300-1085 5/23/00 5/23/00 86.00 JRNL-CD 1010 129.00 04-00 REX ALWIN PROPERTY 01-2300-1095 5/23/00 5/23/00 129.00 JRNL-CD 1010 301.00 04-00 SENIOR CITIZEN CENTER 01-2300-1088 5/23/00 5/23/00 301.00 JRNL-CD 1010 129.00 O&-O0 VARIANCE/EASEMENT VACATI 01-4190-3100 5/23/00 5/23/00 129.00 JRNL-CD 1010 5/23/00 5/23/00 ROO5 ASSOCIe VENDOR TOTAL 13068.68 182.20 04-00 GUBRUD PROPERTY 01-2300-1091 182.20 JRNL-CD 1010 PAGE 13 AP-C02-O1 PURCHASE JOURNAL CITY OF MOUND VENDOR INvOICE DUE HOLD NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT M3170 0000703170 5/23/00 5/23/00 M[TROPOLITAN COUNCIL ENVI4 VENDOR TOTAL 29820.00 M3171 000430 1,275.00 5/23/00 5/23/00 1,275.00 METRO WEST INSPECTION SERo VENDOR TOTAL 1275.00 M3250 000602 i43.35 350.27 107.62 49.86 656.96 162.33 92.24 114.37 5/23/00 5/23/00 1,677.00 MINNEGASCO VENDOR TOTAL i677.00 M3255 000428 281.11 5/23/00 5/23/00 281.11 000501 99.72 99.72 99.73 5/23/00 5/23/00 299.17 MINNETOHKA R[~RIG[RATION VCNDOR TOTAL 580.28 M3319 000428 20.00 5/23/00 5/2~/00 ZO.O0 MN DEPT NATURAL RESOURCES VENDOR TOTAL 20.00 M3488 28236 MORRELL & MORRELL, INC. VENDOR TOTAL U3490 000229 5/23/00 5/23/00 000330 5/23/00 5/23/00 MOUND FIRE DEPARTMENT' VENDOR TOTAL M3493 000512 DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER 29,820.00 06-00 WASTEWATER 78-7800-4230 29,820.00 JRNL-CD 1010 1,861.20 1,861.20 1861.20 7,436.75 670.00 1,250.00 9,350.75 8,967.50 670.00 1,250.00 10,887.50 2~244.25 690.00 MARCH,APRIL 2000 BLDG INSPECTI JRNL-CD 03-17-00 THRU 04-17-00 03-17-00 THRU 04-17-00 03-17-00 THRU 04-17-00 03-17-00 THRU 04-17-00 03-17-00 THRU 04-17-00 03-17-00 THRU 04-17-00 03-17-00 THRU 04-17-00 03-17-00 THRU 04-17-00 JRNL-CD REPAIR DRAIN/LIGHT/WALK-IN JRNL-CD C02'S C02'S C02'S JRNL-CD FEE JRNL-CD FEE TO RECYCLE JRNL-CD 02-00 SALARIES 02-00 DRILLS 02-00 MAINTENANCE JRNL-CD 03-00 SALARIES 03-00 DRILLS 03-00 MAINTENANCE JRNL-CD 06-05-00 ADVERTISE DARE OPEN 01-4190-3100 1010 01-4340-3720 01-4340-3720 71-7100-3720 22-4170-3720 01-4320-3720 01-4280-3720 73-7300-3720 78-7800-3720 1010 71-7100-3820 10 01-4280-2330 73-7300-2330 T&-7600-2350 1010 01-4340-3800 1010 70-4270-4210 1010 22-4170-1390 22-4170-1380 22-4170-1380 1010 22-4170-1390 22 4170-1380 22-4170-1380 71-7100-3500 · , PR PAGE 1/, AP-C02-01 VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS 5/23100 5~23~00 MOUND CRIME PREVENTION FUN VENDOR TOTAL N3$Oo 000 NORTHERN N3810 3011308 THERN WATER 17 000310~ N3824 12307 5/23/00 5/23/00 STATES POWER CO VENDOR TOTAL 5/23/00 5/23/00 WORKS SUPPL VENDOR TOTAL 5/23/00 5/23/00 NORTHWEST TECHNICIAL COLLE VENDOR TOTAL 5/23/00 5/23/00 NORW[.~T03893 9L379CORPORATE TRUST S4- VENDON TOTAL 5/23/00 5/23/00 OHJC SIGNAL VENDOR TOTAL P4000 43119903 5/23/00 5/23/00 PEPSI-COLA COMPANY VENDOR TOTAL P4021 609920 5/23/00 5/23/00 603921 5/23/00 5/23/00 PURCHASE JOURNAL CITY OF HOUND AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT ~UHBER 690.00 JRNL-CD 1010 690.00 1,003.03 04-00 2245-3u1-939 uz-4320-JFzu 21.99 04-00 0666-607-223 01-&150-3710 GZZ.&4 04-00 1914-601-425 71-7100-3710 ~,785.31 0/.-00 u217-606-~29 ?8-FBuu-~FIU 467.40 Oq-O0 2184-&07-147 22-4170-3710 197.90 04-00 0047-005-229 01-4340-3710 105.63 04-00 0864-508-832 73-7300-3710 105.62 04-00 0864-508-832 78-7800-3710 1,296.25 04-00 318.35 04-00 0009-604-835 01-4280-3710 5,135.56 04-00 0542-505-000-122 01-4280-3710 10,965.11 JRNL-CD 1010 10965.11 218.56 FUSE,CHARGER,LABOR 73-7300-2300 21B.56 JRNL-CD 1010 218.56 2BO.O0 STATE FIRE SCHOOL MOORHEAD (3) 2~-4170-4110 ?0.00 STATE FIRE SCHOOL MOORHEAD (1) 22-4170-4110 350.00 JRNL-CD 1010 350.00 375.00 12-01-99 THRU 05-31-00 54-5600-6120 375.00 JRNL-CD 1010 375.00 42.28 FLASHING LITE 01-4280-2360 42.28 JRNL-CD 1010 42.28 126.2/. MIX TAXABLE 71-7100-9540 126.24 JRNL-CD 1010 126.2/. 056.30 WINE ?1-7100-~5~0 656.30 JRNL-CD 1010 160.50 MIX ?1-7100-9540 160.50 JRNL-CD 1010 PAGE i5 P U R C H A S E J 0 U R N A L AP-CO2-O1 CITY OF MOUND VENDOR INVOI£E DUE HOLD NO. INVOICE NM~R DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NummE~ 5/23/00 5/23/00 835.80 JRNL-CD 1010 600040 590.35 LIQUOR 71-7100-9510 5/23/00 5/23/00 590.35 JRNL-CD 1010 606041 338.25 WINE 71-7100-9520 5/23/00 5/23/00 338.25 JRNL-CD lOlO 606042 94.00 MIX 71-7100-9550 5/23/00 5/23/00 94.00 JRNL-CD 1010 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS, · VENDOR TOTAL 294?.20 P4038 3012~ 958.66 CIGARETTES ?1-7100-9550 5/23/00 5/23/00 958.66 JRNL-CD lOlO 30130 143.65 CIGARS 71-7100-9550 5/23/00 5/23/00 143.65 JRNL-CD 1010 30198 55.74 CIGARETTES 71-7100-9550 5/23100 5/23/00 55.74 JRNL-CD 1010 303?2 54.00 CIGARS 71-?100-955§ 5/23/00 5/23/00 54.00 JRNL-CD 10' 30373 1,079.01 CIGARETTES 71-?100-9550 5/23/00 5/23/00 1,079.0i JRNL-CD 1010 PINNACLE DISTRIBUTING VENDOR TOTAL 2291.06 P41~0 000515 12.00 06-07-00 ANNUAL LUNCH DEBORD J 01-4140-4110 5123/00 5123/00 12.00 JRNL-CD IOlO PROFESSIONAL LAW ENFORCEME VENDOR TOTAL 12.00 P4118 2580 165.08 SPEAKER FOR IMPALA SQUAD 01-4140-5000 5/23/00 5/23/00 165.08 JRNL-CD 1010 PUBLIC SAFETY EQUIPMENT CO VENDOR TOTAL 165.08 Q4171 632286 O0 1,704.29 WINE 71-7100-9520. 5123100 5~23~00 1,704.29 JRNL-CD 1010 0317&7-00 1~36~.26 LIQUOR ~1-7100-9510 5/23/00 5/23/00 1,364.26 JRNL-CD 1010 831841 O0 3,944.92 LIQUOR 71-7100-9510 5/23/00 5/23/00 3,944.92 JRNL-CD 1010 834160 O0 5,059.&8 LIgUOR 71-7100-9510 5/23/00 5123/00 5,059.48 JRNL-CD 1010 QUALITY WINE & SPIRITS V[NDOR TOTAL ~072.95 R2681 R04001283 19.17 AIR/OXYGEN 22-4170-3900 5/23/00 51Z3/00 19.17 JRNL-CD 1010 PR PAGE 16 P U R C H A S E AP.C02=O1 CITY OF MOUND JOURNAL ? REYI;OLDS WELDING SUPPLY CO VENDOR TOTAL 19.17 o-- R4203 6344 587.58 5/23/00 5/23/00 587.58 ?i ~-~i R & S COLLISION SERVlCES,~, VENDOR TOTAL 587.58 m ,,-Z R4247 000413 150.00 -~ 5/23/00 5/23/00 150.00 42! -4 RIDGEVIEW MEDICAL CENTER VENDOR TOTAL 150.00 ~ R4290 59996 110.89 5/23/00 5/23/00 110.89 59880 i43.21 5/23/00 5/23/00 143.21 60284 82.51 --~ 5/23/00 5/23/00 82.51 ~4 60585 '-- 79.62 '~ 5/23/00 5/23/00 79.62 ~z~ RON'S ICE COMPANY VENDOR TOTAL 416.Z3 ~ S4372 041884 963.07 5/23/00 5/23/00 963.07 ~--~ SHADOW PLASTICS INC. VENDOR TOTAL 963.07 33 ;34I ~ S4381 000420 99.00 -- 5/23/00 5/23/00 99.00 :$? ,~ SHIRLEY HAWKS VENDOR TOTAL 99.00 :~' 54390 000630 2,576.64 ,,,o. _,~_, 5/23/00 5/23/00 2,576.64 :,2[ SHORELINE PLAZA VENDOR TOTAL 2576.64 ~ 54391 2756 792.~! 5/23/00 5/23/00 792.3l i47 SHOREWOOD TREE SERVICE VENDOR TOTAL 792.31 '--~ 54437 5742 74.42 -- 74.42 is, 3 .S. 65 ~ 5/23/00 5/23/00 184.49 ~i .SPECIALTY SCREENING VENDOR TOTAL 18a.49 m.._~.S4448 000630 325.00 · 5/23/00 5/23/00 325.00 VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER WELD RUST LEFT ROCKER JR NL-CD EMT COURSE, VANECEK, EDWARD JRNL-CD 01-4340-3810 1010 22-4170-4110 1010 ICE 71-7100-9550 JRNL-CD 1010 ICE 71-7100-9550 JRNL-CD 1010 ICE 71-7100-9550 JRNL-CD 1010 iCE 71-?100-9550 JRNL-CD 1010 GARBAGE BAGS 01-4340-3750 JRNL-CD ~0~0 04-20-00 EDC MEETING SECRETARY JRNL-CD 06-00 LI&UOR RENTAL SPACE JRNL-CD 2137 GRANDVIEW REMOVE BOXELDER JRNL-CD VEHICLE EMBLEMS VEHICLE EMBLEMS VEHICLE EMBLEMS JRNL-CD 01-4020-3100 1010 71-7100-3920 1010 01-4340-5110 1010 01-4280-2310 01-43&0-2310 01-4140-5810 1010 06-00 DOG KENNEL FEE 01-4140-4270 JRNL-CD 1010 PAGE 17 P U R C H A S E J 0 U R N A L AP-C02-OZ CITY OF MOUND VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD PR NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ALCuuNT NUM~'H SPORTING BREED KENNELS VENDOR TOTAL 54600 152582.1 STREICHER'5 T4720 000505 TENNIS COURT DOCTOR T4730 849 5/23/00 5/23/00 VENDOR TOTAL 5/23/00 5/23/00 VENDOR TOTAL 5/23/00 5/23/00 5/23/00 5/23/00 854 5/23/00 5/23/00 853 851 5/23/00 5/23/00 5/23100 5123/00 5/23/00 5/23/00 848 ~:~ 5/23/00 5/23/00 84? 3_~ 5/23/00 5/23/00 ~i TIlE LAKER VENDOR TOTAL ~ T4760 A68414 ,~ 5/23/00 5/23/00 THOMPSON MOTORS TRUCKS VENDOR TOTAL '~ T4770 191991 5/23/00 5/23/00 -- 5/23/00 5/23/00 -- 192682 !~ 5/23/00 5/23/00 '~ 192 683 "* 5/23/00 5/23/00 325.00 33.53 LAMP, HOLOGEN , 01-4340-3510 33.53 JRNL-CD 1uzu 33.53 200.00 REPAIR COURTS THREE POINTS BLV 01-4340-3820 200.00 JRNL-CD 1010 200.00 44.94 04-29-00 MOUND VISIONS ADDITIO 01-~020-35i0 44.94 JRNL-CD 1010 14.98 04-29-00 NOTICE JOINT MEETING 0i-4190-3510 14.98 JRNL-CD 1010 26.22 04-29-00 ZONING ORDINANCE 01-4191-3510 26.22 JRNL-CD 1010 18.73 04-29-00 REZONING BUSH ROAD 01-2~0§-10B8 18.73 JRNL-CD 10 1~.98 04-29-00 VACATION BUSH ROAD 01-~300-1088 14.98 JRNL-CD 1010 18.73 04-29-00 SdB-DIV CONSOLIDATION 01'~300-1086 18.73 JRNL-CD 1010 44.94 04-29-00 ZONING AMEND APPLICAT 01-2300-109~ 44.94 JRNL-CD lOlO 44.94 04-29-00 VACATION EASEMENT 01-2300-1094 44.94 JRNL-CD 1010 228.46 106.50 SEAT, USED 73-7300-2310 106.50 JRNL-CD 1010 106.50 86.40 MISCELLANEOUS TAXABLE 71-7100-9550 86.40 JRNL-CD 1010 4,7B7.55 BEER 71-7100-9530 4,787.55 JRNL-CD 1010 171.20 MISCELLANEOUS TAXABLE 71-7100-9550 171.20 JRNL-CO 1010 6,182.30 BEER 71-7100-9530 6,~82.30 ~RNL-CD 1010 PAGE 18 AP-Cb2-01 PURCHASE JOURNAL CITY OF MOUND VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD ,'~ NO. 165057 INVOICENM~R DATE DATE STATUS 't 5/23/00 5/23/00 -~ THORPE DISTRIBUTING COMPAN VENDOR TOTAL ~_~1 T4808 12647 5/23/00 5/23/00 -- TIME SAVER OFF SITE SECRE* VENDOR TOTAL ~31 14920 42067 ~ 5/23/00 5/23/00 ~61 TRAFFIC LINES COMPANY VENDOR TOTAL -- T4940 18743 5/23/00 5/23/00 '~ IRI-SIAIE PUMP & CONTROL I VENDOR IOIAL ~.-~: T4951 058488 i~ 059162 5/23/00 5/23/00 ~ _ 5/23/00 5/23/00 TRUE VALUE VENDOR TOIAL .3~ T4985 255022-0 ~ 5/23/00 5/23/00 ._~ 255129-0 5/23/00 5/23/00 ' TWIN CITY OFFIC[ SUPPLY CO V[NDOR TOTAL ~: 05030 6318672 5/23/00 5/2~/00 US FILLER VENDOR IOTAL ~ 05095 000510 I~ 5/23/00 5/23/00 '~. U~ITED STATES POLICE CANIN VENDOR IOTAL AMOUNT DE$CHIPTION 142.00 BEER KEGS 142.00 JRNL-CD 11369.45 388.38 05-05-00 PLANNING MEETING SECR 388.38 JRNL-CD 388.38 81.0~ 81.08 81.08 1,687.24 1,6~7.24 1687.24 64.46 64.46 126.92 ~7.15 17.15 146.07 BLUE CHALK BOX KIT JRNL-CD REPAIR KIT,HOUSING KIT ETC JRNL-CD SHADY GRASS SEED SHADY GRASS SEED JRNL-CD HEAVY OPEN SHOOK JRNL-CD 15.24 OFFICE SUPPLIES 15.24 OFFICE SUPPLIES 15.24 OFFICE SUPPLIES 18.28 OFFICE SUPPLIES 15.24 OFFICE SUPPLIES 5.08 OFFICE SUPPLIES 5.08 OFFICE SUPPLIES 7.61 OFFICE SUPPLIES 7.60 OFFICE SUPPLIES 104.61 JRNL-CD ACCOUNT NUMOER 71-7100-9530 IOiO 01-4190-4200 1010 01-&280-2360 1010 78-7800-3800 1010 01-4340-2300 73-7300-2300 lOIO 01-4340-2200 1010 01-4040-2200 01-4090-2200 01-4140-2200 01-4190-2200 01-4340-2200 01-4280-2~00 71-7100-2200 73-7300-2200 78-7B00-~200 1010 50.84 OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-~140-2200 50.84 JRNL-CD 1010 155.45 1,706.76 SUPPLIES 73-7300-2310 1,706.76 JRNL-CD 1010 1706.76 50.00 2000 DUAL MEMBERSHIP 01-4140-4130 50.00 JRNL-CD 1010 50.00 31.95 06-00 BALBOA PARKIN6 01-4280-4200 PAGE 19 P U R C H A S E J 0 U R N k L AP-C02-01 CITY OF MOUND VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD HO. I~VOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATdS 5/23/00 5/23/00 UhlTED PROPERTIES VENDOR TOTAL W5600 5871 5/23/00 5/23/00 WESTONKA SEWER & WATER VENDOR TOTAL W5648 000503 5/23/00 5/23100 WILLIAM MICHELL COLLEGE O* VENDOR TOTAL W5670 38566 5/23/00 5123100 38091 5/23/00 5/23/00 38619 5/23/00 5/23/00 38618 5/23/00 5/23/00 WILLIAMS TOWING VENDOR TOTAL W5690 18018 5/23/00 5/23/00 18332 5/23/00 5~23~00 18719 5/23/00 5/23/00 WM MUELLER & SONS VENDOR TOTAL X5700 2302 5/23100 5123100 X-PR[SS PROMOTIONS, INC. VENDOR TOTAL 26683 000509 5/23100 5/23/00 MINNESOTA WOMEN IN CITY G* VENDOR TOTAL 26684 000512 5/23/00 5/23/00 PRE AMOUN] DESCRIPTION ACCOUr~T NUMbTER ~ J ]1.95 06-00 BALBOA PARKING 73-7300-4200 31.95 06-00 BALBOA PARK[NG 78-7500-4200 95.85 JRNL-CD i010 95.85 221.40 METER VALVES 73-7300-2300 221.40 JRNL-CD iOiO 221.40 600.00 JUNE 19-2~ INVESTIGATION REGIS 01-4140-4110 600.00 JRNL-CD 1010 600.00 72.50 04=30-00 IMPOUND CHARGE 01-4140-4240 72.50 JRNL-CD 10lO 72.50 05-06-00 IMPOUND CHARGE 01-4140-4240 72.50 JRNL-CD 1010 50.00 05-10-00 IMPOUND CHARGE 01-4140-4240 50.00 JRNL-CD 1010 ~7.50 05-10-00 IMPOUND CHARGE 01-4140-4240 37.50 JRNL-CD 101. 232.50 451.85 BLACKTOP 73-7300-2340 !]6.82 BLACKTOP 27-5800-]340 588.67 JRNL-CD 1010 534.?0 BLACKTOP 73-7~00-2340 318.50 BLACKTOP 27-5800-2340 853.20 JRNL-CD 1010 104.68 BLACKTOP 27-5800-2340 104.68 JRNL-CD 1010 1546.55 695.07 PLASTIC FIRE CHIEFS HAT 22-4170-2280 695.07 JRNL-CD 1010 695.07 25.00 RENEW MEMBERSHIP 01-4040-4130 25.00 JRNL-CD 1010 25.00 .. 297.90 ESCROW REIMBURSEMENT 01-2300-1080 297.90 JRNL-CD 1010 PAGE 20 P U R C N A S E AP-C02-01 CITY OF MOUND VENDOR NO. INVOICE NM~R LILLEHEI, RICHARD INVOICE DUE HOLD DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION VENDOR TOTAL 297.90 TOTAL ALL VENDORS 235,222.77 JOURNAL ACCOUNT NdMBER RESOLUTION #00- A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE REZONING OF PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE R-2 ONE AND TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TO B-1 CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT TO ACCOMMODATE THE GILLESPIE SENIOR CENTER LOCATED AT 2600 BUSH ROAD P & Z CASE # 00-05 WHEREAS, the applicant, Chester Yanik and Associates, have submitted an application on behalf of the Westonka Senior Foundation to rezone property for a new facility which will become the Gillespie Senior Center; and, WHEREAS, the property is guided as Linear District in the City's Comprehensive Plan which allows for this use; and, WHEREAS, the proposed use is consistent with the uses established for the B-1 District; and, WHEREAS, the rezoning of land is legally described as: Lots 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, and the north half of lots 44, 45, and 46, Block 9, MOLrNDS BAY PARK, according to the recoded plat thereof and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota. and That part of Bush Road, formerly known as Langdon Avenue as dedicated in the plat of MOUND BAY PARK, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hermepin County, Minnesota lying east of Commerce Boulevard and west of a line drawn northerly and at right angles to the center line of said Bush Road from the northeast comer of Lot 38, Block 8, said MOUND BAY PARK ;and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 8, 2000, to review the proposal finding the rezoning to be consistent with the proposed development plan for the site and the City's Comprehensive Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended Council approval of the rezoning as requested by the applicant; and, NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota approves the rezoning of the above described property from R-2 One and Two Family Residential District to B-1 Central Business District. All subsequent approvals for development of the property shall be consistent with adopted City Codes and/or as approved by Council Resolution. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember by Councilmember The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: ~dse~nded Mayor Attest: City Clerk ?oning Amendment - #00-05 -- Gordon stated the existing and proposed zoning for the property is provided on sheets ZN1 and 2. The entire property would ultimately be rezoned from current R-l, R-2 and B-1 Districts to a proposed B-1. The senior center would be a permitted use in the B-1 District as a quasi-public use falling somewhere between a public use and a pdvate club or lodge in the use chart. The newly proposed downtown zoning shows the property as Linear Planned Unit Development District. This distdct also allows the senior center as a permitted use. Street/Easement Vacation of Bush Road - #00-06 Gordon stated Bush Road is proposed to be vacated from Commerce Blvd. right-of-way east to the east line of existing lot 38. It is 60 feet right-of-way serving as road access for 4 existing residences and as a utility easement for sanitary sewer, water, and gas mains. As platted the right-of-way extends to the City property east of the property surrounding and including Lost Lake. With the redevelopment of the site, there is no apparent need for the right-of-way in its current form. As proposed, a pdvate ddve will serve the property. Existing public utility services will become private services and continue to serve the property. The City Engineer's report provides additional detail on road and utility service issues. Variances -#00-07 and 19 Gordon stated the site plan shows the location of the senior center on the site, indicating side and rear yard setbacks where variances are requested. When adjacent to a residential district, a building in the B-1 district must maintain a 50 feet separation from the side and rear property lines. The variances indicated in the application are incorrect and should be as follows: Existing/Proposed Required Variance Side Yard 13' 50' 37' Side Yard 23' 50' 27' Rear Yard 16' 50' 34' Parking Stalls 9' x 18' 10' x 20' 1' x 2' Gordon stated with regard to impact on adjacent properties, the south setback is the most cdtical setback as it is adjacent to homes fronting on Bartlett Boulevard. The rear yard and north side yard abut Lost Lake. 8 PLANNING REPORT Hoisin~ton Kocgler Group Inc. TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: May 8, 2000 SUBJECT: Major Subdivision, Zoning Amendment, Street Vacation, and Variances APPLICANT: Chester J. Yanik & Associates CASE NUMBERS: 00-04, 00-05, 00-06, 00-07, and 00-19 ItKG FILE NUMBER: 00-5 LOCATION: 2600 Bush Lake Road ZONING: Residential District R-2 and Central Business District B-1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Linear BACKGROUND: Chester Yanik and Associates have submitted applications on behalf of the Westonka Senior Foundation for a new facility which will become the Gillespie Senior Center. The property is located at the intersection of Commerce and Bush Road and is a redevelopment site requiring the removal of 3 residences. Ultimately the center will be a 12,000 square feet, single story facility to meet the needs of the public it serves. This is a complex project requiring a total redevelopment of the existing area. For purposes of this report, a general discussion is presented, followed by a review of each of the 5 application items. General site plan review The property encompasses about 1.2 acres of land either side of Bush Road. The new facility will be sited on the eastern portion of the site, overlooking Lost Lake. A 62 space parking area is located in front of the building and also provides for drop off traffic and internal circulation. The building is a single story construction with some classic lake home design elements - hip roof, stone details, large windows, eyebrow arches, and accent wall lighting. Parking/circulation - Code requirements for 41 spaces are satisfied as the plan provides 62. As discussed below in the variance discussion, the spaces are proposed to be stripped at 9 feet by 18 feet. A standard 10 feet by 20 feet space will reduce the parking space count by about 6-7 spaces. Driveway aisles meet the 24 feet code maximum at the fight- of-way and provide good internal site circulation. 123 North Third Street, Suit~ 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 p. 2 Gillespie Senior Center May 8, 2000 An existing residence on Bartlett Blvd. currently has access offBush Road. The site plan indicates the driveway will be relocated to allow for continued access. An easement for access purposes should be provided by the applicant to benefit the residence. · Landscaping/screening - The landscaping plan details the type and number of plantings for the project. The planting schedule provided exceeds overstory tree planting minimums and is further supplemented with ornamental and shrub plantings. The plan also includes a few existing trees that will remain. A fence up to 5 feet in height is needed to fulfill parking lot screening requirements fi.om residential districts · Utilities - As discussed in the City Engineer's report. · Grading/Surface Water - The plan indicates site will be graded to provide a high point in fi.ont of the building location, allowing stormwater to flow east and west. The north 2/3"~ of the parking lot will drain to a catch basin which is piped to the storm water pond on the adjacent City property. The drainage fi.om the south 1/3"~ of the parking lot will be picked up and diverted in to the system in Commerce. The drainange plan assumes City approval of the stormwater facility and associated approvals fi.om the MCWD. The City will need access to the storm water pond for maintenance which should be provided in the form of an access easement that could connect to the Lost Lake Greenway. · Off-site relationships - The future Lost Lake Greenway alignment is indicated to show the relationship to the senior center. Major Subdivision - #00-04 The preliminary plat shows the entire site will be replatted as "Gilles'pie Addition Lot 1 Block 1." As platted the site will encompass 1.2 acres (53,770 sf) including that portion of vacated Bush Road. All site plan documentation included in the planets reflects the boundaries of the proposed preliminary plat. Hennepin County may require additional right-of-way upon filing. If required the final plat should indicate this. Also, the document is very confusing and should be cleaned up at the Final Plat to improve readability including standards title, description, and signature areas. 7.orfirlg Amendment - #00-05 Existing and proposed zoning for the property is provided on sheets ZN1 and 2. The entire property would ultimately be rezoned fi.om current R-l, R-2 and B-1 Districts to a proposed B-1. The senior center would be a permitted use in the B-1 District as a quasi-public use falling somewhere between a public use and a private club or lodge in the use chart. The newly proposed downtown zoning shows the property as Linear Planned Unit Development District. This district also allows the senior center as a permitted use. ~qtreet/l:.asement Vacation of Rush Road - #00-06 Bush Road is proposed to be vacated fi.om Commerce Blvd. right-of-way east to the east line of existing lot 38. It is 60 feet right-of-way serving as road access for 4 existing residences and as a utility easement for sanitary sewer, water, and gas mains. As platted the right-of-way extends to the City property east of the property surrounding and including Lost Lake. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 p. 3 Gillespie Senior Center May 8, 2000 With the redevelopment of the site, there is no apparent need for the right-of-way in its current form. As proposed, a private drive will serve the property. Existing public utility services will become private services and continue to serve the property. The City Engineer's report provides additional detail on road and utility service issues. Variances - #00-07 and 19 The site plan shows the location of the senior center on the site, indicating side and rear yard setbacks where variances are requested. When adjacent to a residential district, a building in the B-1 district must maintain a 50 feet separation from the side and rear property lines. The variances indicated in the application are incorrect and should be as follows: ~xisting/Proposed Required Variance Side Yard 13' 50' 37' Side Yard 23' 50' 27' Rear Yard 16' 50' 34' Parking Stalls 9' x 18' 10' x 20' 1' x 2' In regard to impact on adjacent properties, the south setback is the most critical setback as it is adjacent to homes fronting on Bartlett Blvd. The rear yard and north side yard abut Lost Lake. A hardcover variance of 40 pement will be needed. Currently, the code stipulates a 30 percent maximum for newly platted lots. With the approval of the water management plan fi:om the MCWD, the maximum hardcover for this site could be increased to 75 percent. The plan is currently being reviewed. DISCUSSION: Approval of this proposal depends largely on variance approvals for setbacks. Staff has indicated to the applicant that the building could be located in a manner that would not require variances. Siting the building in the rear of the site may have a greater impact on adjacent residences than a location on the front half of the site. This location would also have a better relationship with the street corridor as indicated in the Mound Visions Plan. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the requests with conditions as indicated below. Major Subdivision - Preliminary Plat 1. Determination of additional Commerce Blvd (County Road 110) right-of-way needs. 2. Provide easements for utilities, drainage, and access. Rezoning - approve as requested 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 p. 4 Gillespie Senior Center May 8, 2000 Street/Easement vacation - approve with conditions as provided by the City Engineer and Public Works Variances 1. Approve a parking size variance of 9 feet by 18 feet. 2. Approve a hardcover variance of 40 percent. 3. Staff re~ommellds the Planning Commission discuss the yard setback variances and if findings cannot be adequately supported, deny the request. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 Engineering · Planning · Surveying RECEIVED NAY 0 Jt 200O MOUND PLA.,~h".i'i,JL~ & I~SP. MEMORANDUM DATE: May 3, 2000 TO: FROM: Jon Sutherland, Planning and Zoning John Cameron, City Engineer ~.~. SUBJECT: City of Mound Gillespie Center - Senior Citizen Center Major Subdivision, Zoning Amendment Street Vacation and Variance Case #00-04-07 MFRA #12785 This Eng/neering Report will address only the Major Subdivision and Street Vacation and is a supplement to our report dated March 8, 2000. The drawings reviewed were as follows: Preliminary Plat (dated February 2, 2000 and Revised April 4, 2000), as prepared by Egan Field & Nowak, Inc. Site Plan, Sheet AS 1 (dated April 10, 2000), as prepared by Archnet - The Architectural Network, Inc. Preliminary Grading Plan, Utility Plan and Details, Sheets 1, 2, and 3 (dated April 10, 2000), as prepared by Schoell & Madson, Inc. Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat 1. The preliminary plat drawing is very cluttered since the boundary survey was used as a base. It appears to contain all the necessary information for a preliminary plat. 2. The plat will need to be forwarded to Hennepin County Highway Department for their review. They probably will require additional right-of-way in this area. 15050 23rd Avenue North · Plymouth, Minnesota · 55447 phone 763/476-6010 · fax 763/476-8532 e-maih mfra@mfra, com I%O Jon Sutherland, Planning and Zoning May 3, 2000 Page 2 3. The final plat will need to include all necessary easements such as drainage and utility easements on all lot lines. Site Plan 1. The Site Plan has been revised since our initial review and now contains most of the necessary dimensions. 2. The building setback to the northerly property line is not shown. It scales 13 feet at the narrowest point. 3. Need to identify concrete curb and gutter. Assumption is made that per/meter of parking and drives, including islands will have concrete curb and gutter. 4. The stormwater pond is still shown on City property, which the City will need to acknowledge. We have no problem with this location except for the potential loss of trees. 5. The plan does not allow for any direct access from the County Road sidewalk to the future City trail along the wetlands. Preliminary Grading Plan 1. There is no direct access to the proposed stormwater pond for maintenance, except to cross a landscaped grass area. 2. The only proposed grading shown for the rear portion of the building is at the southeast comer. The final grading plan will need to contain more proposed elevation and contours. o The final plans will need to contain more detail on how the proposed retaining wall along the south side of the driveway will connect to the existing wall on the property to the south. This existing wall protrudes into the County right-of-way and may interfere with sight distance to the south. It appears that the end and some, if not all of the upper tier of the east-west section of this wall could be removed creating a much better situation. Preliminary Utility Plan 1. Ownership of the existing City sanitary sewer main should revert to the property owner, since it will serve only the Senior Center. The proposed six-inch watermain with the hydrant and post indicator valve will be private; however, does the fire department need any type of agreement to allow access to and use of these valves? Jon Sutherland, Planning and Zoning May 3, 2000 Page 3 3. The applicant will be responsible for obtaining all necessary permits fi.om Hennepin County for installation of the watermain and storm sewer. Street Vacation Please refer to letter of March 8, 2000 for comments. s:hmain:XMou 12785:\Corresponden¢¢Xsutherland5-2 DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT Mound Plannina Comrniesio~ Minutes, March 13. 21:X30. MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, MARCH 13, 2000 Those present: Chair Geoff Michael; Commissioners: Orvin Burma, Becky Glister, Cklair Hasse, Bill Voss, Frank Weiland. Absent and excused: Commissioners Michael Mueller and Jerry Clapsaddle, Council Liaison Bob Brown. Staff present: City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jori Sutherland, and Secretary Sue McCulloch. The following public were present: Janice Beise, John Beise, Kristin Beise, Edca Beyreis, Randy Beyreis, Tom Bordwell, Madlyn Byrnes, Linda Kladstrup, Steven Kladstrup, Sharon Cook, Marge Driesser, Tom Driesser, David Dvorak, Mic Gronberg, Jerry Kohls, Ted Lentz, Peter Meyer, Bill Netka, Dorothy Netka, Duane Norberg, Brad Nordgren, Dotty O'Brien, Lowell Olson, Leona Peterson, Larry Peitiorski, Roger Reed, Amy Reese, Tom Reese, Jeff Ritnal, Betty Weiland, Roger Westman, Ben Withhard. GILLESPIE CENTER PROPOSAL (PUBLIC HEARING). CASE # 00-04: MAJOR SUBDIVISION; IN ORDER TO CREATE A LAND MASS ADEQUATE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE WESTONKA SENIOR CITIZEN CENTER; LENGTHY LEGAL, NOTE ATTACHED PRELIMINARY PLAT DATED FEBRUARY 2, 2000. CASE # 00-05: ZONING AMENDMENT; CONVERSION OF AN EXISTING R-2 ZONE TO A B-1 ZONE, MAKING ALL ZONING OF THE PROPERTY CONSISTENT IN ORDER TO ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE WESTONKA SENIOR CITIZEN CENTER; LENGTHY LEGAL, NOTE ATTACHED PRELIMINARY PLAT DATED FEBRUARY 2, 2000. CASE # 00-06: STREET/EASEMENT VACATION; TO CONSOUDATE MULTIPLE PROPERTIES ALLOWING FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE WESTONKA SENIOR CITIZEN CENTER; LENGTHY LEGAL, NOTE ATTACHED PRELIMINARY PLAT DATED FEBRUARY 2, 2000. CASE # 00-07: VARIANCE; HARDCOVER AND PARKING SIZE(?); LENGTHY LEGAL, NOTE ATTACHED PRELIMINARY PLAT DATED FEBRUARY 2, 2000. Chair Michael explained to the public the public headng process. He stated the staff will first present the case, then the Commissioners will ask questions of staff, and finally the case will be opened up for discussions and concerns from DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT Mound Planninp Commission Minutes. March 13. 2000, the public. Chair Michael explained when the public addresses the Commissioners, to state your name, address, and comments. He stated after all comments have been hearU from the public, it will be brought back to the Commissioner level and a decision will be agreed upon by the Commissioners with regard how this case will progress to the City Council. Gordon presented the case. He stated Chester Yanik and Associates have submitted applications on behalf of the Westonka Senior Foundation for a new facility that will become the Gillespie Senior Center. The property is located at the intersection of Commerce and Bush Road and is a redevelopment site requiring the removal of 3 residences. Ultimately the center will be a 12,000 square feet, single story facility to meet the needs of the public it serves. Gordon stated at this time, the submittal information is incomplete, with deficiencies in the major subdivisions, rezoning, street vacation, and variance applications. Gordon informed the Planning Commission the following items are needed: 3. 4. 5. o 10. 11. The Preliminary Plat is set up with survey information and needs to be a formal "Preliminary Plat." Zoning map of site showing existing district boundaries of B-1 and R-2. Proposed zoning map with boundary description. Map indicating the portion of Bush Road to be vacated. Cladfy the statement, "Applicant is not requesting total vacation of ROW" in the application form. Need additional building use information to determine the parking requirements. Need to complete and submit a hardcover calculation sheet. Additional vadance is needed for ddveway width. Need to address why the "on-site" stormwater pond is located off-site on City property. No landscaping plan is provided. Need to address how access will be secured to the garage on adjacent property. Gordon stated given the lack of submittal information, it is difficult for staff to provide an adequate review of the proposal at this time. Staff is generally supportive of the proposal concept but it is not fair to the applicant to provide specific comments at this time. The public headngs have been advertised and the project may be best served by using the agenda time for acquainting the Commission with the proposal. Staff recommends the Planning Commission table the items until a complete submittal is ready for review. DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT Mound Plannino Commission Minutes. March 13. 2000, Gordon stated even with recommendation by staff to table the case, the Planning Commission has three choices. He stated the Planning Commission could (a) review the material proposed make a recommendation on its own after the public headng has occurred, (b) table the matter until additional information is submitted, but still allow the public headng, or (c) choose not to have the public headng and table the case until the next meeting. Gordon stated he would like to see the public hearing go forward tonight and receive their information, but to table the case until a later date. He stated there is quite a bit of information that has not been received for staff to make a recommendation tonight. Voss stated he would appreciate having the public headng go forward tonight. He wanted staff to confirm his opinion that this plan fits well into the City of Mound's Comprehensive Plan. Gordon agreed with ross and stated the plan works quite well with the Comprehensive Plan. Voss stated he would like to see this plan progress to the City Council tonight even though there are deficiencies listed above. He believes these deficiencies to be minor and can be addressed as the project progresses. Weiland agreed with Voss 100 percent and does not see any major problems or concerns that should stop this plan from moving forward to the City Council. He stated he does not want this project held up any longer. Glister stated she would appreciate a recommendation from staff before she makes a final decision in this matter. Chair Michael stated he would have appreciated this plan being presented tonight as a "conceptual idea." He stated without staffs recommendation he would be opposed to consider a final vote for this plan, although he would appreciate seeing the public hearing going forward tonight. He strongly stated he needs the City Engineer's and the City Planner's recommendation before sending this on to the City Council. Voss stated he would like to get the major problems out of the way and at this point he does not see anything that is over burdensome. Gordon stated staff is lacking information regarding the actual legal description of the property, whether Bush Road will be vacated, statements of right-of-way, building use information to determine the parking requirements, and ponding, to name a few. Voss asked staff how could ponding be a concem when Lost Lake is a pond. Gordon stated there are rules the Watershed District requires the City of Mound to follow and the City of Mound needs to figure out how the water from the parking area will be retained, treated and filtered properly before it goes into the surrounding lakes. Gordon further stated an agreement for access on the property has not been decided as well. Gordon stated on a conceptual level the DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT Mound Plannin(~ Commission Minutes. March 13. 2000. plan is acceptable to the City Engineer and City Planner, but they are not comfortable giving a complete recommendation until further information has been obtained. Voss asked the question of whether to table this completely or continue with the public heating. Chair Michael stated in all fairness, he would appreciate headng the applicant and public speak tonight, but after that point to table the case until a recommendation has been presented by staff. MOTION by Voss, seconded by Burma, to table the matter until staff presents a recommendation, but to allow the public hearing to continue. MOTION CARRIED. 6-0. Chair Michael opened the public hearing at 7:55 p.m. Steve Kladstrup, 5668 Bartlett Blvd. Mr. Kladstrup stated he has submitted a seven-page letter to the Commissioners with his concerns, so he would not review his letter tonight completely, but is hopeful the Commissioners will consider his concerns addressed in his letter. Mr. Kladstrup pointed out the location of his home on the conceptual plan. He stated he and his wife would be the closest residents to the project being presented. He stated the project appears to him to be too large and too close to his property that he finds it quite threatening. Although, he suggested the conceptual plan presented tonight has changed from all other plans he has reviewed in the past, and this plan does seem to have changed to their benefit. Mr. Kiadstrup asked what would be located behind the building being proposed. Ted Lentz of Yanik & Associates stated the intent it to have an elevated deck at the grade level that would be about seven feet in height. He further stated the building would comply with the water levels of the City of Mound. Mr. Kladstrup stated the lighting presented would seem rather high up and would bring a lot of light in the back yards of the residents. He further stated he would appreciate some type of buffer zone, with possible 10-foot pine trees for pdvacy as well. Mr. Kladstrup stated he has further concems but will wait until the next Planning Commission meeting when a staff recommendation would be presented. Chair Michael mentioned Commissioner Michael Mueller has submitted written comments about this case. He stated Mueller agreed with the applicant with regard to a buffing requirement, as well as making adjustments, if needed, for the lighting to allow the residents more privacy. DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT Mound Plannin~ Commission Minutes. March 13. 2DI30, ross stated to Mr. Kladstrup he felt this would be the least intrusive building to be built in this location next to his home. He further stated this building would benefit the community greatly. Voss asked Mr. Kladstrup if he does not approve of this type of structure being proposed in this location, than what would be his choice if he was able to choose. Mr. Kladstrup stated he is very excited about the City of Mound's redevelopment project being proposed. He stated his first choice, although, would be to leave the location as a residence area. He further stated he does support the need for a senior citizens center, but he would appreciate his needs as a citizen of Mound being noted as well. Mr. Kiadstrup stated the conceptual plan proposed tonight is the best plan he has seen since this project began. Lowell Olson, Yanik & Associates. Mr. Olson stated this has been a challenge ~work in progress." He stated originally the site location was too small. He noted they needed about 1.3 acres of ground area for a senior citizens center. They then were given this location and later came up with having the parking in the back of the building as opposed to the parking in the front. He stated this conceptual plan presented tonight is the one preferred by him. He explained with regard to the access to the walking path still incomplete, he as well does not have the information to complete his plan, but the intent to connect the pathway is clear. He bdefed on the location of the garage entrance, which at this point seems appropriate. He later stated the parking in the rear would allow the most parking spots available. Mr. Olson stated there is always a balance of impervious surface to green space that needs to be considered as well. Mr. Kladstrup added one more important part in his eyes. He stated the conceptual plan shows 37 feet in the back yard from his lot line to the building lot line, when actually it is only 25 feet. Linda Kladstrup, 5668 Bartlett Blvd. Ms. Kladstrup asked how it is possible to build within 50 feet of a resident's home in a B-1 zoning location. She stated she is aware this is possible with easements when a hardship is involved, but is there a hardship in this case. She stated she would like to see the building in the rear because she would suspect there would be less police supervision in her eyes with the parking in the rear. Jeff Ritnal, 5650 Bartlett Boulevard. Mr. Ritnal stated he has invested time and money to make sure his properties located on Bartlett are up to code with variances. He is a little distraught that his property is not shown on the conceptual plan. He further stated the drainage pond is about 15 feet back from his property line and he is concerned about drainage with this project. He stated he will have further questions after staff has a recommendation for this project. DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT Mound Planning Commission Minutes, March 13. 2000. Chair Michael stated Mr. Ritnai has addressed an important concern, and he is hopeful more of Mr. Ritnal's questions will be answered when the City Engineer and City Planner have completed their recommendation. John Beise, 1665 Eagle Lane. Mr. Beise stated his is on the Park Commission for the City of Mound. He stated he is concerned about his mother's property located on Bartlett where this center is being proposed. Mr. Beise suggested having this building of 1,200 square feet being proposed with ground level and a basement floor, rather than just a ground level. He further stated the plan looks appealing to have the parking in the rear. Mr. Beise stated this is a great community project for the City of Mound and agreed it is probably the least intrusive building for the neighbors. He stated he is concerned about the lower level of the building being leased out to a possible daycare center. He questioned the side yard and rear yard setbacks. Mr. Beise asked who would be maintaining the pond because the pond is located on City property. Mr. Beise suggested continuing this public headng to a later date. Chair Michael stated he does not agree with Mr. Beise to continue the public headng because he does not think it would be fair to the public who are in attendance tonight. Duane Norberg, 6015 Aspen Road. Mr. Norberg stated he is not a property owner abutting to this possible site for the center. He stated the conceptual plan proposed tonight would be a fine addition to the community. He stated the elderly people of Mound need a place to call home. Mr. Norberg stated the setback appears to be 50 feet back as required by the City, not 25 feet back as indicated by Mr. Kladsrup. Mr. Norberg stated he does volunteer work at other senior citizens centers, one being Southshore, and this center being planned looks similar to those he works at and thought it would be appropriate for the needs of the senior citizens in Mound. He stated buildings currently being used in Mound for senior citizens are not conclusive and appropriate. Mr. Norberg further stated the traffic should be minimal in the location. Ms. Kiadstrup restated again the rear of the building proposed and her three- season porch is only separated by 25 feet. She strongly suggested this fact is misrepresented on the conceptual plan. Roger Reed, the Attomey for the senior citizens of Mound, stated the location proposed for the center has always been a semi-commercial area for many years. He stated this is an ideal location. He stated he is aware of a deed from the State of Minnesota stating this property can be used for wetland services. He further stated he would not include the pond for vacation purposes; he would go only up to the property line. DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT Mound Planning Commission Minutes. Mamh 13. 2000, Chair Michael addressed the applicant and stated to him he would appreciate all the comments from the citizens tonight to be reviewed and acted upon accordingly. Mr. Reed stated he would like this property to be tax exempt property. He further stated he appreciates the input from the citizens of Mound and the Commissioners. Ben Withhard, executive director of the senior community services. Mr. Withhard said he operates programs for the senior citizens of the City of Mound. He completely agrees that the proposed center will function well and will meet the needs of the seniors now and in the future. He stated this would be a great benefit for the senior citizens. He stated the public did bring up some good comments the developer should take into consideration. Mr. Kladstrup stated he would appreciate the developer at the next meeting showing the distance between the southwest corner and the southeast corner and the respective shoreline distances. Dotty O'Brien, 5053 Bartlett. Ms. O'Brien stated since the senior citizen building has changed, the attendance has dropped. She stated even though it is adequate, it is still not a home. Ms. O'Brien mentioned even though there are about 600 senior members, only 30 of them currently participate because of the place is not adequate. She stated the seniors are a quiet group and she is hopeful the proposed location of the center will be police patrolled adequately. Chair Michael closed the public hearing at 8:40 p.m. and thanked the public for their attendance. PLANNINO REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. l ln 'TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: March 13, 2000 SUBJECT: Major Subdivision, Zoning Amendment, Street Vacation, and Variances APPLICANT: Chester J. Yanik & Associates CASE NUMBERS: 00-04, 00-05, 00-06, and 00-07 HKG FILE NUMBER: 00-5 LOCATION: 4600 Commerce Blvd. ZONING: Residential District R-2 and Central Business District B-1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Linear BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Chester Yanik and Associates have submitted applications on behalf of the Westonka Senior Foundation for a new facility which will become the Gillespie Senior Center. The property is located at the intersection of Commerce and Bush Road and is a redevelopment site requiting the removal of 3 residences. Ultimately the center will be a 12,000 square feet, single story facility to meet the needs of the public it serves. At this time, the submittal information is incomplete, with deficiencies in the major subdivision, rezoning, street vacation, and variance applications. The following items are needed: · The Preliminary Plat is set up with survey information and needs to be a formal "Preliminary Plat." · Zoning map of site showing existing district boundaries of B-1 and R-2. · Proposed zoning map with boundary description. · Map indicating the portion of Bush Road to be vacated. · Clarify the statement, "Applicant is not requesting total vacation of ROW" in the application form. · Need additional building use information to determine the parking requirements. · Need to complete and submit a hardcover calculation sheet. · Additional variance is needed for driveway width. · Need to address why the "on-site" stormwater pond is located off-site on City property. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax(612) 338-6838 p. 2 Gille. vpie Senior Center March 13, 2000 · No landscaping plan is provided. · Need to address how access will be secured to the garage on adjacent property. Given the lack of submittal information, it is difficult for staff to provide an adequate review of the proposal at this time. Staff is generally supportive of the proposal concept but it is not fair to the applicant to provide specific comments at this ~ne. The public hearings have been advertised and the project may be best served by using the agenda time for acquainting the Commission with the proposal. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission table the' items until a complete submittal is ready for review. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, ~inneapoli~, ]gfinnesota 55401 Engineering · Planning · Surveying IqAR o 9 zeeo I OL)NO PI..ANNIN & INSP. MEMORANDUM DATE: March 8, 2000 TO: Jon Sutherland, Planning and Zoning FROM: John Cameron, City Engineer SUBJECT: City of Mound Gillespie Center- Senior Citizen Center Major Subdivision, Zoning Amendment, Street Vacation & Variance Case #00-tM-07 MFRA #12785 . - This Engineers report will cover the' major Subdivision and street VaCation applicatiOns. · Minor Subdivision - Preliminary Plat The information submitted for the Preliminary Plat review does not meet the requirements contained in Section 330 of the City code; therefore I can only comment on the documents received. Section 330:45, Subdivision 4 requires plans be submitted which show 1) proposed utilities and 2) proposed grading and drainage, neither of which have been included in the plans submitted for our review. Preliminary Plat and Site Plan The Preliminary Plat drawing appears to meet most of the requirements of the City Code. The Site Plan is generally lacking in dimensions, thus critical items such as setbacks, parking stall size, driveway widths, etc. cannot be verified. The proposed stormwater pond is shown outside the development, on City property. It appears a number of significant trees may need to be removed to construct this pond. At the present time, because the city has not adopted their own Stormwater Management Plan, a permit will need to be obtained from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD). Since the development is more then 1/2 acre, but less then eight (8) acres it appears only the BMP's and rate control requirements of Rule N, will apply. This needs to be verified with the MCWD. 15050 23rd Avenue North · Plymouth, Minnesota · 55447 phone 612/476-6010 · fax 612/476-8532 e-mail: mfra@mfra, com Mr. Jon Sutherland March 8, 2000 Page 2 Street Vacation The major point of concern with the proposed street vacation will be the loss of public access to the existing garage on the property at 5680 Bartlett Boulevard. Access easements to Commerce Boulevard will need to be provided for this property. The utility services for the house at 5680 Bartlett Boulevard come from the mains in Bartlett Boulevard. The removal of the four buildings along Bush Road and the proposed development will eliminate the need for the public utilities located in this street. However the existing city lines may be of use in the proposed development. When a utility plan is submitted this issue can be addressed. The future ownership of the northerly 1/2 of the east end of Bush Road should be verified. The preliminary plat shows it as accruing to the owner of Lot 33 (VFW), however since the street was platted entirely within the plat of Mounds Bay Park, ownership of the full width may revert back to the property owner on the south side. The question of access to the future City trail along the Lost Lake wetlands as shown on the Site Plan should be addressed. The vacation of Bush Road would eliminate any direct access from Commerce Boulevard in this area. The next closest City controlled access point is probably east on Bartlett Boulevard approximately 700 feet from the Commerce Boulevard/Bartlett Boulevard intersection. Depending upon the final layout, possibly a trail easement could be granted to the City along the north or south side of the property. s:~ainh-nou 12785~correspondenceksuthertandmemo3-8 Page 1 of 1 KandisHanson From: To: C¢: Sent: Subject: "Dean, John B." <jdean@K,e. nnedy-Graven.com> "Kandis M. Hanson(E-mail) <kandishanson@msn.com> "Pat Meisel (E-mail)" <pat~rneiselwoodhobby.com> Monday, May 22, 2000 10:28 AM Additional information regarding Mayor Meisel's conflict question. Kandis: Pat called me this moming with some follow-up informaUon relaUng to the vote on the Senior Center. Pat informed me that the Meisel's company has a relationship with Westonka Seniors, Inc..('~WC"). WC provides seniors to the company to assemble kits. The company pays WC directly for those serwces. Pat is on the board of a separate organization, Westonka Senior Foundation, Inc. ("WSF"). WSF is the entity which has made the application for the vadous land use approvals covedng the Senior Center. WC and WSF have separate accounts, separate boards (Pat is not on the WC board) and separate tax exemptions. Pat informs me that the financial-business relationship between the company and WC will be unaffected by any action that the council takes on the matters before iL I see no reason to disagree. Consequently, the additional information does not cause me to change my conclusion that no disqualifying conflict exists. John 05/22/2000 MISSION STATEMENT: 'The City of Mound, through teamwork and cooperation, provides, at a reasonable cost, quality services that respond to thc needs of all citizens, fostering a safe, attractive and flourishing community.' AGENDA MOUND PARK AND OPEN SPACE ADVISORY COMMISSION 7:00 P.M. at CITY HALL THURSDAY, MAY 18, 2000 PAGE LANGDON BAY - ROTTLUND HOMES: DISCUSSION OF APPROPRIATE PARKLAND DEDICATION ............................ 2-4 REVIEW: MAJOR SUBDIVISION, ZONING AMENDMENT, STREET VACATION, AND VARIANCES SENIOR CENTER CASE 00434, 00-05, 00-06, 00-07 AND 00-19 ........................... 5-81 3. REVIEW: EASEMENT VACATION AND VARIANCE REQUEST CASE 0012 AND 00-13 ....... 82-142 Mound Environmental Mo u n d, Minnesota Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. Contents Introduction Buildings Signage . 10 Car Parks 15 Open Space '19 Appendix 1 '23 Mound Market Position (Adopted by the City of Mound in August 1991) To take full advantage of our geographic, location, our existing business ¢ommnnity (r~fil, professional & industrial), our unique natural features and our distinctly talented people, the Community of Mound will conduct future economic dev.elopment, business recruitment and enhancement, vi~ml betterment, structural improvement, planning, and downtown promotion according to a recreationaFcultural/sceNc destination market position and development theme. Mound tD~ro~ & Appetmm:e Mode/ In oduc on The Mound Environmental & Appearance Model is based on the Mound Market Position and is intended to carry forth a design vision of downtown Mound. It has been developed by the Mound Visions project under direction of the Economic Development Commi~ion. Through much deliberation, debate and public input the Environmental & Appearance Model has taken form as a guiding document for commercial development and revimlimtion. This document is not an ordinance or a even a guideline but rather a communication tool which allows the City of Mound to explicitly describe a vision of downtown. It, hopefully, promotes creativity and a unique character that will distinguish and unify downtown Mound. The Model draws inspiration from many successful commmlities and shopping districts but mainly from the history of Mound itself. Mound's early days as a Lake Minnetonka resort ~ommunity is a major part of local folklore and is rich in architectural character. It seems only fitting that this be the basis for furore development in Mound: a historic resort hotel architectural theme. You will see by reading the model that the intent is not to recreate what was once in Mound. The intent is to draw from historic character for inspiration in developing a new downtown. One which accommodates modem retail practice yet has an appealing identity of its own. While the Environmental and Appearance Model depicts the detail features, the Downtown Mound COncept Plan is a master plan drawing which illustrates conceptual layout alterations. Downtown Mound Concept Plan: The Downtown Mound Concept Plan was approved as a beginning point for redevelopment by the EDC and City Council in Spring 1992. It calls for fairly dramatic alterations in the way downtown functions and appears. The concept plan has, as its basis, five goals: 1. Provide marketable commercial space. 2. Take full advantage of views, access and use of downtown lakes. 3. Improve pedestrian and vehicular circulation. 4. Maintain "downtown" character as opposed to "suburban" character. 5. Make doing business in downtown Mound easy and enjoyable. Under the plan, businesses would need to be relocated and buildings razed. This may seem like a drastic measure but given the condition of many existing structures and the highly competitive environment among retail centers, it may be the only way for Mound to capture a si~ificant portion of its retail market. The concept plan calls for the following alterations to downtown Mound. the graphic on page 4. See Mound Environmental & Appearance Model RECEIVED of m= of MAY 2 3 2000 ~ ~am~ ~fcC~nn=y - 5080 Winds~ Road ~ $) - Teal Poin~ Development Re: revision of Ieozr to the Plannin/Commiv. ce afar convcr~ous ,.ida c/ty ~aff and xecluCSt for an addendum to ~ Resolution (P & Z Cases 00-12 and $h~ce I am unable to anend ~he memiIlg pica.mc accept this lcucr. I mhmin~d -- leuer (0.%~1~/2000) ~o ~he vacarlou of eascmc~ I We since ~lkcd to house designer ~ Bmpmon and have ~rivod p~nfial conccras for lots 3, 4, $ and ~i which shai~ adjacent back yards wi~h lot 2. Fmdings cd facu - At{. of d~e new houses co dale a~ Teal Potato have house and ~m'uge consuuc~ in one su'ucun~. - None of the cxisdug houses on lo~s 3.4, 5 and 6 are placed near d~ ¢cusctvalion casen~nt so vile issue of whether it is ~0 or 40 f~-m on mou~ loom is a misleading point Ail 4 of d~se houses ~re placed ail additional 30 to 60 fe~t f~'~hcr from thc conservation c,~cllmcnc line and away from the wildlife ~rca. The placement of ~ proFo__~d house lies completely below rl~ lower~ point of the current house on Drummond and die southern exposure deck overlooks ~1 four of thc back yards from a $0 foot elevation having polenlial for reducing thc curren! enjoyment of back y~d privacy of ~ four leks (especially during dae 9 mcnlhs when there are no leaves). - Thc separation of house from $'arag¢ and dine pla~emen! of the house wi~llin 40 feet of thc 'l'cai Bay wedand and nature area couM have si~nifican~ impact on boda ~e wedand habitat and die back yards of ~ 4 adjaceni lots, however, ~is can bc avoided. Additional pmMcms potentially could be consmt bright liih~ing necessary to illumina~ ~h~ clcvamd deck bet~v~n house iud garde for passage (where an ailachcd large would not). Thc point is d~ cun-enily die cxis~g house or, nors Iespec~ each omm's desire fur ~ veiny dark ¢ounuT-like seuin~ and there is no permaneudy ~-quircd back yard lighting. Addirloually ~ house will place house and deck lighting wi_',~i,~ ~0 feci of the w{kllif~ area with potcutiai of making it difficult to see the wedands a~ ulgl~ a.nd red'c~g }.~ benefit for the ~dmals and bir~ who 'rc.mide dicre. Tha placement of die cxi~i~ houses arc mcnskivc m the ~erv~tion of this remource. - Lots 3, 4, 5. and B amount to about $I million in taxable real emte and values arc rising ~tFidly. One of the value points of this area is thc secluded se~ng of the houses. Thc current {:~ck yin-ds of lots 3, 4, 5, and 5 offer a very privaz~ seui~g when you mr, and in each. - Note tha~ lots 7, 8 and 9 of d~c T~I Point Development a~ relatively unaffected since ~hcy ca, not ~ thc proposed new house from their respective lo~ since they are ou dine mouth side of'4~ Romd (across r.h¢ stree0 and have no potential of thru Io.~ of l:~va~y of' their back yaz~. Ra~er r. han burden ~h¢ mcedn$ with whal appears to be a side issue (but an imporuara issue which arises d~ ~ thc vacal:ion of cas¢llleni) I spokl: with Mary Steeu who referred ~ to ~ l:mp~Oll (designer) to discuss ~ lituadon. Both ~M.m. $~ccn and Mr F. mpmon ~eem very sensitive to thc environment and dic preseawazion of exisdni conditious in addition to makin{ ~heir lo~ a serene and "woodsy" aunosphere. Althou{h dmey had act sctcc'~d lighting I a~kcd ~hal ~hey tx: scnskivc io th~ issues raised here and I believe die request -as r~ccived favorably. I requesr~i flma~ soft "downligh~in/" fuuurcs be used for our. side li{h~ng in which cbc Ii/hi sources are hooded from view beyond thc pcri~r~r of lot 2. My ouly concera is thac a posS~I¢ .fumr~ ov~u~r could decide dif~endy and insufll lighting aa would produce glare in dac area. My requ~s~ is thai .Ms. $~ecn be allowcd her variance and what I s~ as a aharmlng a~d exciling addition to r~e area, but due r.o the unique placement of :he house near the wildlife ~m'ea aud in relation lo lois 3.4, 5 and 5 and the separation of house and garage ~ha~ my rcquc~ co have so~ Ii{hi dova~Ligh~.ng F~u.u-e~ used for ou~id¢ Iighting (in which thc ii{hr sources ~r¢ hougcd from view b~yuud th,: perimeter of lot 2) be mdc p~ of~ remolu~iou to a.tm~ the fuu. u~ serenity ~ ~r~ ~. Thank you ~or ~our cousiderahon May 23, 2000 RESOLUTION #00- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT FOR MARK HANUS AT ~.~6 DENBIGH ROAD LOT 1, BLOCK 1,AVALON DOCK SITE # 33525 WHEREAS, the applicant, Mark Hanus, is seeking a Public Lands Permit to install a lawn sprinkler system across the commons known as Stratford Lane; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is on Stratford Lane and abuts the Hanus property at 4446 Denbigh Road; and, WHEREAS, City Code Section 320, requires City Council approval by a four-fifths vote for Construction of any kind on any public way, park or commons, or the alteration of the natural contour of any public way, park, or commons; and, WHEREAS, the Dock and Commons Commission reviewed this request and unanimously recommend approval with conditions; and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: To approve the application for a Lawn Sprinkling System as submitted with the condition that there be no cost to the City, the applicant shall restore the area and notify the Building Official when the work is complete. The foregoing resolution was moved by Counciimember Councilmember The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: and The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Mayor Attest: City ~l~rk DRAFT MINUTES DRAFT MINUTES DRAFT MINUTES DRAFT MINUTES CITY OF MOUND DOCK AND COMMONS ADVISORY COMMISSION MAY 18, 20OO Present were: Chair Jim Funk, Commissioners Mark Goldberg, Gerald Jones, Frank Ahrens, and Greg Eudch. Also present were Park Director Jim Fackler, Councilmember Andrea Ahrens, and Secretary Carla Wirth. Excused: Council Representative Mark Hanus and Dock Inspector Tom McCaffrey. Chair Funk called the meeting to order at 7:33 p.m. 1. MINUTES Motion made by Jones, seconded by Goldberg, to approve the minutes of the April 20, 2000 DCAC meeting as presented. Motion carried unanimously. 2. AGENDA CHANGES Chair Funk noted the requested addition of Permit Request ~.~.~6 Denbigh. [/~4A. PERMIT REQUEST ~.~.~.6 DENBIGH Chair Funk reviewed the permit request of Mark Hanus for a Construction on Public Lands Permit to install a lawn sprinkler system. Ahrens noted the pipe will be buried and staff is recommending approval. Motion made by Ahrens, seconded by Funk, to approve the Construction on Public Lands Permit to Mark Hanus, ~.~.~.(} Denbigh, to install a lawn sprinkler system. Motion carried unanimously. 949-9072 UERSATIL 216 P02 APR 24 '00 13:55 PI, J'B[.IC LAND PI:-RM~I' .AVPI.ICATION DISTRIBUTION: BUILDING OFFICIAL PARK~ DIRECTOR DNR MCWD PUBLIC WORKS DATE RECEIVED DOCK MEETING DATE CITY COUNCIL DATE CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LAND PERMIT - u~, :o=~¢rioo. NOTE: ~0 P£~rr SHALn BE ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF BOAT HOUSF~ OR OTI~R BUILDINGS ON PUBLIC LtuxlD (Civ/Codc Sectio- 320, Subd. l). I PUBLIC LAND MMNTENANCE PERM/T- ~o 320, Subd. 3). I I CONTIN'UATION OF STRU~ - ~u allow ~a exis~i :::roacm~e~t m ~emam i~ a~ 'u is' ¢ouditio- (Ci~ Cod~ S~'r~iou 320, Sub& 3% ':, I LAND .a~LTERATION .'c~:g, ~-shoreliue, ~i~ge. ~Iop¢, ~r:¢s. v¢$¢mUou, fill. e~ (City Code Section 320. Subd. The ~rm:ture or work you are request~g is aa actPdt7 ua publicly o,a~ed k.-ds. Structures like boat houses, pafies, ~eds, etc. ate all NONCONFORM/NG USES. Is L~ t~c iment of the Cit7 to brk~ all these uses Lmo coufotm~-ce wkkh meaas tl~c tho~e structures will at some time in the future have to be removed from the public lauds. ,~11 permits are granted for a llmlted time and ate no~"'lI~f~'ab[~. Sts~'R~a~ COIIS~'UC~,OI~ mtlS~ meet the Sta~e ~ttfldln~ Code whel~ the l~.rmit Jz for new construction, or a new permit is applied for due to chanse in clock ~ice holder. Phone (home) ~172.-' ~-fftO ~ (work) 5'04-37o7 Legal Lo: .~ ~lock Description Su~d. ~v~{ on Pro.:~er:y Dock Sire ~ Shoreline Ty~.e Con~racCor Name ~ o,~ ~ Address ~hone VALUA//ON/PROPOSED COST OF PROJECT (INCLUDING LABOg & MATEPdAL~): ~- /t ' , , · I - 4- 2q-o° {i.r,=t~,,'¢ of Anplicant Date CITY OF MOUND STAFF REPORT 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-O600 FAX (612) 472-0620 DATE: MEETING DATES: TO: FROM: APPLICANT: LOCATION: SUBJECT: May 12, 2000 May 18, 2000 Dock and Commons Commission (D&C) May 23, 2000 City Council Dock and Commons Commission and Applicant Jon Suthedand, Building Official Mark Hanus - 4446 Denbigh Rd Dock Site # 33525 - Stratford Lane Public Land Permit Application To Install a Ground Sprinkler System. Background: The applicant is seeking a Construction on Public Lands Permit as described in the attached application in order to install a lawn sprinkler system. Comment: The applicants request is similar to other cases for lawn sprinkler systems that historically have been approved. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval as requested with the condition that the City would not be responsible for any costs associated with the request, and the applicant shall restore any disturbed areas. JS:rkj 9~9-9072 UERSRTIL ASSOCIATE& INC. 216 PO1 APR 24 '00 13:55 NO'I~: If you do not receive all of the pages In this b~,~i~ion, please call (612) 949-240O. CITY/STATE: TIME SENT/SENT BY: # OF PAGES (INCL COVER) 2 MESSAGE/SUBJECT: Page 1 of 1 KandisHanson From: To: Sent: Subject: "Bruce" <blc~HKGl.,?m> "Mark Hanus (E-mail) <mhanus~ipclink. com> "Kandis Hanson (E-mail)" <kandishanson~}msn.com> Tuesday, May 16, 2000 4:07 PM response to questions Mark, In response to your recent questions. 1. Bill Beard has provided the City with a memo stating that Paul Gamst and Bill Beard are currently the only investors in Mound Main Street Inc. 2. John Cameron is coordinating with the Auditors Road contractor to remove the silt fence. /. The Watershed District granted a variance as part of the canal ermit to the City for a reduced buffer requirement at the greenway in downtown Mound. The permit provides fairly detailed findings for granting the variance. This information will be included in an upcoming info packet to the Council that addresses stormwater plan issues. 05/22/2000 Chester J. Yanik & Associates, Inc. 3701 Shoreline Drive Suite 206 Wayzata. Minnesota 55391 phone 612-471-9199 fax 612-471-9196 February 29, 2000 FAX AND U.S. MAIL Jon Sutherland Building Official City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Subject: The Gillespie Center: Preferred Alternate Site Dear Jon, At 8:00 AM this morning, Ted Lentz and I attmded a special meeting ofthe Westonka Senior Citizen Foundation. The purpose of this meeting was to explain the process for selection of the building si~e as presented to the city of Mound in our appUcation to the planning commission. ~,s the discussion progressed, a very st~ug position wa~ takm ~y various members of the group for the improving the visibility and proxim~:y to Lost Lake. The group left us with tho direction to subm/t to your office for consideration a site plan showing the building positioned fiarther to the east with the parking lot located between Commerce Avmue and the building. We will produce such a drawing and present it to you as soon as possible. We wish to remain on the current timeline and present this site plan as a Preferred Option. If you need any f-u~er information or clarification, please call me. Sincerely, YANIK COMP~S Lowell Olson Project Director Cc: Chester Yanik Sharon Cook file 29-00.doc c:\windows\desktop\gillespie ctr~ltrjon s gillespie ctr alt.sim 2- ? MAJOR SUBDMSION · - City of Mound 5341 Maywoed Road, Mound, MN 55;~64 PLANNING COMM. DATE Mamh 13, 2000 CITY COUNCIL DATE Apri~ t 1,2000 DISTRIBUTION DATE CD'Y PLANNER 2-Z,~'/~ CITY ENGINEER i~ PUBUC WORKS ~ i DNR ~ I nRE DEP^R~M~m ~, ASSESS,NG (/f?u~l~ ~..V) ,t OT.ER: ~M:W~ ,' Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 47243620 CASE NO. TYPE OF APPLICATION SKETCH PLAN REVIEW PRELIMINARY PLAT FINAL PLAT $10/LOT OVER 2 LOTS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: PDA ESCROW DEPOSIT VARIANCE TOTAL Please type or print the following information: PROPERTY INFORMATION EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION A~dress_See attached "Exhibit" C ~h"lO~,~~ Name of Proposed p~at Lot Block Plat ft. Subdivision PID~t zo_ DISTRICT Circle: R-lA R-3 B-2 B-3 APPLICANT The applicant is: owner other Name Chester J. Yanik & Associates, Inc. Address 3701 Shoreline Drive, Wayzata, MN 55391 Phone (612)-471-9199 (Fax) (612)-471-9196 Name OWNER ( If other than Address applicant) Phone (H) Westonka Senior Citizen Center / Reference attached list 'Exhibit B° ON) (M) SURVEYOR/ ENGINEER Name Egan, Field & Nowak, Inc. Address 7415 Wayzata Blvd. Minneapolis, MN 55426 Phone 612-546-6837 Fax 612-546-6839 PAID FEB 1 6 Z000 CiTY OF MOUND $ 2~0 $,,0oo $100 (Revised 10-27-99) Major Subdivision Applicat. fon t LP. Page2 Description of Proposed Use: This site is intended to be developed for the use of the Westonka Senior Citizen Center as a community social services center. Reconfiguring the three properties described in the options in addition to the proposed vacated street into one parcel will allow for a land mass adequate for the construction of a one story building of approximately 12,000 square feet and adequate off street parking. This site will also be capable of meeting the impervious surface limitations as required by the city of Mound and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. 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. This proposed use is likely to produce increased automobile traffic entering and leaving the new parking lot. Parking lot and security lighting will be designed in accordance with the city lighting ordinances. Special attention will be given to shielding neighboring residences from intrusive traffic noise, lighting, and activities. Smoke, odor and air quality issues should not be affected appreciably. 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: $ See attached schedule RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS: NOT APPLICABLE Number of Structures: Number of Dwelling Units/Structure: Lot Area Per Dwelling Unit: sq. ft. Total Lot Area: sq. ft. Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, ( )no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. This application must be signed by all owners of the subject property, or an explanation given why this is not the case. See attached options for property owners signatures. /? Olson Project Manager Print Applicant's Name Applicant's Signature Date (Revfsed 10-27-99) Build · l~e~1 Manag~n~ Chester J. Yanik & Associates, Inc. 3701 Shoreline Drive Suite 206 Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 ~hon¢ 612-4.71-9199 fro: 612-471-9196 February 15, 2000 Jon SutheHand Building Official City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 HAND DELIVERED Subject: Giilespie Center subdivision, rezoning, variance and street vacation applications Dear Jon, Attached are the applications listed above for the proposed Gillespie Center project. We include the following: 1. 2 sets of labels, Exhibit A. '2. 2 certified lists, Exhibit B, as referred to in the application for Street Vacation, Major Subdivision, Zoning Amendment, and Variance. 3. Signed copies of the purchase options, Exhibit C, for the three real estate parcels that make up the basis for this application. 4. The final attachment, Exhibit D, is the just completed survey of these properties including the topography. We have spared no effort in providing as much information as we have available for this application review process. Currently, this project is in the design/development stage. Certain details related to the site plan, impervious surface calculations, and storm water management plan can only be addressed on the basis of schematic drawings that reflect the evolution of the process resulting in the final design of this project. The same is tree of access easements related to adjacent properties and the proposed walking paths surrounding Lost Lake. We believe it is in everyone's interest to identify these items in our next meeting with you, the city planner, and our Architect. h is our intent to maintain a sensitivity to the individual fights of all adjoining property owners as we proceed with the design/development process. All reasonable efforts will be made to insure the minimal intrusion of this Center and its functions on the neighboring properties. c:\windows~lesktop\gillespie ctr~ltr jon s gillespie ctr aPl~ 2- PAGE2 - 02/15/00 We look forward to working with you ~ind other city staffin the design and development of this project. Sincerely, Lowell Olson Project Director Cc: Chester Yanik Sharon Cook file OPTION AGREEMENT In consideration of the sum of Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00), which I have received, I hereby grant to Westonka Senior Foundation an option for three months from this date to purchase my property at 2574 Commerce Boulevard, Mound, legally described as Lot 31, Auditor's Subdivision f~No. 167, Hennepin County, Minnesota for the sum of $ /c,~. dg~'ff' ' . This option may be extended from time to time for up to six addifioC, al months upon paymem of additional option money at the rate of One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) per month by written notice including additional option money mailed to me at 2574 Commerce Boulevard, Mound, Minnesota, 55364. This option may be exercised by written notice mailed on or before the expiration of the option period or any extension. It is understood that Westonka Senior Foundation has permission to immediately conduct soil tests on the property. I/this option is not exercised, any damage done to the property by soil tests will be repaired. If this option is exercised, the closing shall be held at the office of Reed & Pond, Ltd., 5424 Shoreline Boulevard, Mound, Minnesota, 55364, within 90 days after the notice of exercise is mailed. I promise to pay all the usual costs incurred by a seller including furnishing and extending an abstract and paying the deed tax. I will pay any mortgages or liens. I will pay for any levied or pending special assessments. The real estate taxes shall be pro-rated to the date of closing. Option money shall be credited against the sale price. I warrant that I am single and that my title to said property is marketable. In the event that the title is not marketable, I agree to pay for all necessary actions to make the title marketable. ~Y~~I 3701 Shoreline Drive, Suite 206 Y~ Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 ES ~ Development · Design Build · Project Management EXI41~IT "C" OPTION AGREEMENT In consideration of the sum of Five Hundred Dollars ' ($500.00), which we have received, we hereby grant to Westonka Senior Foundation an option for three months from this date to purchase our property at 2600 Commerce Boulevard and 5691 Bush Road, Mound, legally described as the north half of Lots 44,45,46,47 48 & 49, Block 9, Mound Bay Park, Hermepin County, Minnesota for the sum of One Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($I50,000.00). This option may be extended fi.om time to time for up to six additional'months upon payment of additional option money at the rate of One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) per month by written notice including additional option money mailed to us at 4731' Carlow Road, Mound, Minnesota, 55364. This option may be exercised by written notice mailed on or before the expiration of the option period or any extension. It is understood that Westonka Senior Foundation has permission to immediately conduct soil tests on the property. If this option is not exercised, any damage done to the property by soil tests will be repaired. If this option is exemised, the closing shall be held at the office of Reed & Pond, Ltd., 5424 Shoreline Boulevard, Mound, Minnesota, 55364, within 90 days after the notice of exercise ismailed. We promise to pay all the usual costs incurred by a seller including furnishing and extending an abstract and paying the deed tax. We will pay any mortgages or liens. We will pay all levied or pending special assessments. The real estate taxes and rents shall be pro-rated to the date of closing. Option money shall be credited against the sale price. Rental deposits shall be credited to buyer. The buyer shall pay all expenses relating to subdivision including survey, permits etc. The title to said property shall be subject to a lease which expires Dec. 31, 2000 and to a month to month lease. An easement 12 feet in width shall be retained or granted to sellers for driveway access from Commerce Boulevard to the garage on the south half of Lots 44,45 & 46, which serves the home on Lots 4,:5 & 6. Said easement shall provide practical access in a manner to be approved by sellers, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. We warrant that our title to said property is marketable. In the event that the title is not .marketable, we agree to pay for all necessary actions to make the rifle marketable. OPTION AGREEMENT In consideration of the sum of Two Thousand Dollars ($2000.00), which I have received, I hereby grant to Westonlcn Senior Foundation an option for tixree months from this date to Iguchase my pmpetXy at 5667 Bush R~L, Mound, le~ily descn~l as Lots 38,39,40,41,42, & 43, Block 9, Mound Bay ~ Helmepill CollIlty, ]V[innesota for the 511111 of Olle ~ Sev~llty Five Thollsalld Dollars ($175,000.00). This option may be extended from time to lime for up to six additional months upon payment of additional option money at the ra~e Of Two Hunderd FLfty Dollars ($250.00) per month by writte~ notice ingl~g additional option money nmiiod to me at 5667 Bush RtL, Mound, Mn, 55364. This option may be exercised by ~ notice m~ilod on or before the expiration of the option period or any extensiom It is understood that Westonka Senior Foundation has permi.~on to imm~liately conduct soil tests on the property, ffthi.~ option is not exercised, any damage done to the property by soil tests It is understood that Westonica Senior Foundation plans to bulldoze the house and that I may salvage the structure for any/all of its componemx All salvage by thc me, to be done by the clo~ug date. If thi.~ option is exercised, the closing .~hnll be held at the office of Reed & Pond, Ltd., 5424 Shoreline Boulevard, Mound, Minnesota, 55364, withill 120 days al°r~ the notice of~ is mailecL I promi.~e to ~ all the usBal gOStS illolrr~by a seller including furnishing and ex~nding an abstm~ and paying the d~d tax. I will pay any mortgag~ or leins. I will pay all leviod or pending special a.~e~ment~ The real estate taxes shall be pro-ra~ to the date of closin~ Option moi~y ~h~ll be cr~[ited ~onln~t the sale price ~f this option is exe~r~xi within 3 ofthis date I warmm that I am single and that my title to said property is marketable. In the event that the title is not marketable, I agree to Hay for all necessary actions to make. the title marketable. · IIIIIII - ~ · mmmmmmm - · lllllll -~ IIIIIII - -'~ IIIIII [] II · · · · II [] ~ I I III l II III Ill · · · Ill lilliillillZ ~ I_II III · III _ ~ ! III III · III _ ~_ II II IIIIII I · IIIIIIII - ~ · IIIIII · · IIIIIII - ~ II IIIIIIII · · I IIII1~ ~.~ il IIIIIIII I I lilli,~ i LAKE MINNETONKA (26) i ZONING AMENDMENT APPLICATION City of Mound, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone!*472-0600, Faxc 472-0620 Planning Commission Date: March 13, 2000 No. PAID FEB 1 G ;~000 City Council Date: April 11, 2000 Zoning Amendment Fee: $250.00 Distribution: ~_.-ZZ-~) City Planner '~ -ZZ.-0~ Public Works ~--~ Z-~ity Engineer Applicant Name Chester J. Yanik & Associates, Inc. Address 3701 Shoreline Drive, Suite 206, Wayzata, MN 55391 phOne 612-471-9199 Fax 612-471-9196 I__1 AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE It is requested that Section 350: of the Mound Zoning Ordinance be amended as follows: Reason for amendment: I_X_I AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING MAP I ZONING DISTRICT It is requested that the property described below and shown on the attached site plan be rezoned From R-2 Address & Legal of Subject Property to B-1 AddressSee attached options for legal descriptions/addresses. Lot Block Addition PID~ Plat Owner of Subject Site Present Use of Property Name Various, Address Phone Residential use see above. Reason for Amendment Applicant's Signature (Rev. 12-30-98) To make zoning consistent with existing B-f property and proposed use. PAID R~. Application for STREET / EASEMENT VACATION City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 CITY OF MOUND Planning Commission Date: March 13, 2000 City Council Date: Apdl 11, 2000 Application Fee: $250.00 Distribut~n: - City Planner Z - ~ ~oCI~ Minnegasco ii City Engineer t [ Police Dept. I t Public Works ~( Fire Dept Please type or print the followinq information: APPLICANT ADJACENT PROPERTY (APPLICANT'S PROPERTY) Name Chester J Yanik & Associates, Inc. Address 3701 Shoreline Drive, Suite 206 Wayzata, MN 55391 Phone (612)-471-9199 Fax (612)-471-9196 ZONING DISTRICT See attached options for legal descriptions and owners names. EXHIBIT 'C' Name ~f Bu~inm Subdivision (~ ~--~ PID~ Circle: R-1 R-lA R-3 B..2 DESCRIPTION OF STREET TO BE VACATED REASON FOR REQUEST IS THERE A PUBLIC NEED FOR THIS LAND? Bush Road from County 110 (Commerce Street), east to a line extended northerly from the northeast comer of Lot 38, Mound Bay Park addition. NOTE; See attached survey dated: February 2, 2000 To consolidate multiple properties allowing for the development of an adequate site for the construction of the proposed Gillespie Center and its parking and green space as directed by city codes. Future public needs provided for by pathway access easement to remaining Bush Road fight-of-way. Applicant is not requesting total vacation of right of way. Lowell Olson Project Manager Print Applicant's Name p~li~nt'sSignatu~ Date FAX: (g52) 546-6839 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION FOR WESTONKA SENIOR FOUNDATION FEBRUARY 18, 2000 SOUTHERLY PARCEL, LOts ~E), 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, and the north half of lots 44, 45, 46, 47, 48 and 49, Block 9, MOUNDS BAY PARK, according to the recorded plot thereof and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota, and NORTHERLY PARCEL Lot 31, Auditor's Subdivision No. 167. Hennepin County, Minnesota. and PROPOSED BUSH ROAD VACATION PARCEL That part of Bush Road, formerly known as Langdon Avenue as dedicated in the plat of MOUND BAY PARK, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota lying east of Commerce Boulevard and west of a line drawn nertheHy end at dght angles to the center line of said Bush Road from the northeast comer of Lot 58, Block 8, said MOUND BAY PARK. VARIANCE APPLICATION 'CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 4724)620 Application Fee: $100.00 (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) Planning Commission Date: MARCH 13, 2000 Case No. 0 (~-- ~ 1 City Council Date: APRIL 11, 2000 Distribution: ~-?,,~--C~ City Planner ~-?.?..-D{,~ DNR it City Engineer ~ ( Other ~ t Public Works Address SUBJECT PROPERTY LEGAL DESC. Lot See attached "Exhibit C" Block Subdivision PROPERTY OWNER APPLICANT (IF OTHER THAN OWNER) PID# ZONING DISTRICT (~ R-lA ~ R-3 Q Name Westonka Senior Citizen Center Address Phone Name Address Phone Plat~ B-2 B-3 Chester J. Yanik & Associates 3701 Shoreline Drive, Suite 206, Wayzata, MN 55391 612-471-9199 Fax 612-471-9196 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. Detailed description of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): The proposed building for this site will be a 12,000 square foot, single story, mixed use, (office and public areas), commercial type structure, housing offices of various social agencies serving the community. Current plans also include meeting space for public use. lq D Revised 10-26-99 Variance Application, P. 2 Case No. Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): NA All existing structures to be removed SETBACKS: REQUIRED REQUESTED VARIANCE Front Yard: (NSEW) ft ft ft Side Yard: (NSEW) ft ft ft Side Yard: (NSEW) ft ft ft Rear Yard: (NSEW) ft ft ft Lakeside: (NSEW) ft ft ft (NSEW) ft ff ft Street Frontage: ft ft ft Lot Size: sq ft sq ft sq ft Hardcover. sq ff sq ft Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning distdct in which it is located? Yes (), No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use: NA Due to rezoning Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( )too narrow ( )too small ( )drainage ( )too shallow ( )topography ( ) existing situation ( )shape ( )soil ( )other: specify Please describe: Revised f0-26-99 Vmmnce Applk~on, P. 3 Case No. o Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No (X). If yes, explain: Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No (X). If yes, explain: o Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a vadance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (X), No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected. o Comments: Impervious surface issue to be dealt with by development of a storm water management plan. Parking stall width to be 9'. More common current standard. I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Applicant's Signature ~ ~ Date Lowell Olson, Project Manager Revised 10.26-99 MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT - INTEROFFICE MEMO DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Chief, September 7, ~999 Chief Harrell Sgt. Grand Pro~rt~ site on Bush Rd. I have looked at the proposed site on Bush Rd as you requested and can see no negative impact for the police department. Bush Rd. has good access to Commerce Blvd. The proposed center would be the end of the road with the police department not needing to go past the new center's location. Let me know if you need further information. Page i of i M.qE-O?-2000 11:23 6516440366 P. MO~ = MEMORY TR~N~iS~ION STRRT=MRR-O? NO. CI:~'I R~BR/NTWK STATION NPt'IE/ PRGES PRG.NO. TELEPHONE NO. 001 OK END=r'IRE-O? 0~: 55 B~6/005 Nlm, ME To: Phone: From: Date: ~ Please ~meflt [] ~ Rep~ RECEIVED MAR 0 7 ~OUND ?LRPiNIN~ & INS~ I"1 Pl~s~ RRR-O?-2000 11:23 6516~0366 P.02/87 March 6, 2000 To The City Of Mound: REP. roVED MAR 0 7 ZOO0 OU ID PLP NN NG & INS: Regarding the proposed site plan for the new Westonka Senior Citizen Center, we residents of Mound wish to make the following statements and protests: Our names are Steve and Linda Kladstrup. We live at 5668 Bartlett Boulevard in Mound. I, Steve, am a professional software developer, working with a computer mapping company, and my background includes a Master's Degree in International Management, as well as election to Phi Beta Kappa (national honorary) while earning my undergraduate degrees. My wife, Lind&, also is a Masters Degree holder, and is employed by the Chaska School District as the senior teacher in the Spanish Department, which she started in 1984. If our last name looks familiar to any of you, it may be because you remember my oldest brother, Don, who was with WCCO-TV here in the Twin Cities, prior to working as a foreign correspondent with CBS, ABC, and CNN over the course of his career. We ourselves moved to Minnesota back in 1984, seeking a better quality of life, and hoping to build our dreams here. WE CARE ABOUT OUR HOME: Having resided in Mound since 1984, and having resided at 5668 Bartlett Boulevard since 1986, we have made a significant investment, monetarily, physically, and emotionally, in our Mound residence. We do care about its appearance, its economic worth, its resale value, and while dismayed by the amount of litter we've seen off of Bartlett Boulevard and fi.om other directions over the years, we still take pride in maintaining a generally acceptable domicile that fits with the surrounding community. We are also quite aware of the fact that we live in a somewhat historic structure that was part of the Central Business District before Route 15 came to be. We know this, thanks to an old friend, Ed B., who used to live in the big (even older) house next to us. When we first bought our house 13 years ago, it was in need of many interior and exterior improvements. We have slowly but surely been working to improve our house, paying the most ~enfion to improvements on the inside, but with many plans for exterior improvements, and eventually, expansion. Wig PROTEST TIlE PROPOSED DEVELOPlV[ENT SITE AND ASK TRF. CITY TO REJECT IT/RELOCATE IT: The proposed Senior Center site development al Bush Road is of such a MAGNITUDE and PROXIMITY that we have no choice but to protest, inasmuch as said development will severely interrupt and negatively impact our live's largest investment and equity stake, as well as the quality of life that we currmtly enjoy in Mound. We think that the act of putting vehicle traffic and pavement on two sides of a line of residential homes is almost criminal. It effectively cancels our most heartfelt plans, and negates the last 13 year's worth of effort and hard work. Our first and foremost message is: WE STRONGLY REJECT, PROTEST, AND EXPRESS OUR DISAPPOINTMENT AND DISMAY WITH ~ Plt. OPOSED DEV~___T.OPME~T. Its intent is a very good one which we fully support with all our h~rts, but its impl,mentation is flawed and invasive, despite §ood intentions, and even has the appearance of being both selfish and heavy- handed, when seen from the perspective of'the neishboring residences that will be negatively impacted. Wll.I. OILIER BUSINESSES GROW EASTWARD AS A RESULT? Only a few years ago, during a conditional use permit consideration by the City Council regarding the auto repair station on the comer of Commerce and Bartlett, I inquired as to the poss~ility of rezoning taking place in the neighboring residences. The City Planner at that time indicated that k was extremely unlikely. Those words turned out to be empty ones for us because it appears that that very th/ng we feared most is about to happen, in a major way, with little and somewhat understated warning to the residences about tn be impacted. WE ARE VERY CONCERNED .aBOUT THE PRECEDENT THAT THIS PKOPOSED DEVELOPMENT SETS. WE HOPE THAT THE CITY WILL PLEAgF. NOTE THAT DEVELOPMENT OF THE BUSH ROAD SITE DRASTICALLY CHANGES THE GEOGRAPHY AND OPTIONS FOP. DEVELOPMENT OF THE NOKTHEAST CORNEK of Commerce and Bardett Boulevards. As an example, by this action, the City is effectively giving the business interest at the comer (still an auto r~air shop, but under new ownerstfip) no place to grow but eastward, again infringing upon residential neighborhoods, with all the negative impact that will have. PLEASE KNOW THAT, BY THIS ACTION, YOU ARE COMPLETELY CHANGING THE OLD HISTORIC CENTER OF MOUND, ONE THAT HAS BEEN PRIMARILY RESIDENTIAL. WHILE WE STRONGLY SUPPORT THE CITY'S OVERALL VISION OF DEVELOPMENT FOIl. MOUND, WE WOULD ASK THAT YOU REJECT THIS PARTICULAR PLAN, AND THEREBY EXIqlBIT A NOTEWORTHY MEASURE OF COMPASSION FOK THE PEOPLE YOU ARE ABOUT TO IMPACT NEGATIVELY. We aren't inflexible, but we are asking for you, the City, to REJECT the proposed plan, and/or work with us so that we don't lose what precious stake we have in this City and this community. FIXING TItE PLAN: We sinc,,rdy doubt if this is truly possible, but in the event that the said development is already a given and that the City Council feels bound and com~lled, for whatever personal or economic reason~ to squ~ze the Senior Center into formerly residential zones, we believe there are several steps that the City must take in order to provide for the gr~test possible alleviation ofthe negative impact that this developmem will have on nei~boring residences. We respectfully present them here: MORE DISTANCE BETWEEN US AND THEM: In the event that said development is already a given and not subject to debate or rejection, we believe that the City ought to REQUIKE AND ENFORCE a significant buffer zone between said development and the residences bordering on the site The first consideration ought to be DISTANCE, which as measured by the architectural site plan drawn up for the City, is shown to be only 37 feet from the comer of our house. TI-IE PLAN IS IN ERROR, AND THIS MEASUREMENT IS 5qR--~?-2~ 11: 25 65164~0385 P. MISLEADING IN FAVOR OF THE DEVELOPER BECAUSE THE 37 FOOT DISTANCE SHOWN IS NOT THE SHORTEST DISTANCE FROM OUR HOUSE TO THE BORDER, BUT RATHER, IS FROM THE CORNER OF THE MAIN 2-STORY STRUCTURE TO THE NEAREST SURVEYED PROPEKTY CORNER. THE ACTUAL DISTANCE BETWEEN OUR BACK DOOR AND THE PROPERTY LINE IS 25-1/2 FEET. WE PROTEST THIS AS WHOLLY UNACCEPTABLE. IHIS THROWS llVl'O QUESTION THE IN'I~(~RITY AND ACCUI~CY OF THE SURVEYORS AND PLAN AUTHORS, NOT TO MENTION THE PROPOSED PLAN ITSELF. We would find the plan as presented to be ludicrous, if we ween't the proposed victims and the matter so serious. The plan doesn't even show the correct footprints of the homes involved. What else is misrepresented to the City? We also believe that the distance as shown goes against the inter and spirit of the B-lfB-2 zoning standard ora minimum of 50 feet for"side and mar setback if abutting residential district", and WE VICK)ROUSLY REQUEST THE CITY TO CONSIDER THIS FACTOR, either as grounds for outright rejection of the site, or as a reason for seeking a solution that is not so aggressive, heartless, and one-sided. MAKE TH~ PARKING LOT SMALLER. It is simply too big and too close to the people who live here. Scale the project back a bit. We can't believe that anyone considering this matter would trade places with any of us living along this proposed site, faced with this plan. Please. Do unto others... E,~R~N BARRII~.R: We don't want to be victims of increased B-1 traffic on one side and regular street traffic on the other, not to mention the litter (wind- blown and otherwise) that typically accompanies such UafBc. I have a bard enough time keeping my [font yard clean. In addition to rectifying the distance issue, we would request, in the event that said development site is already a given and not subject to debate or rejection, for an earthen barrier (a ridge) of some reasonable height, between the two properties, to exist along the southernmost 150' boundary on the site to be developed (and not on our property). TREE BARRIER: We enjoy the birds that frequent our backyard, and we don't want to look at a parking lot in their place. In addition to the foundational earthen barrier, we would ask, in the event that said development site is already a g/yen and not subject to debate or rejection, for the planting ora double-line of 10' pine trees, planted on or near the ridEe, and offset in order to provide a visual wall to block as much of the parking lot and its lighting as possible. One row ofpines is inadequate, since k will only block 50°,4 of the view. Our preference is for as tall and as thick a barrier as possible. NO PARKING LOT LIGHTING: We don't want to have the night sky and quiet taken away from us. There is nothing like being able to go outside at night and look up at the stars or even the Northern Lights (which we have seen directly overhead ~om our property on more than one occasion). In the everrt that said development site is already a given and not subject to debate or rejection, we would say this: Wc hope that you will no~ havc parking lot lightpolcs. Let there be main building lights. Let there be ground-based lighting. But please, no lights in the sky over our back-yard. Ii'there is any way to negate parking lot light'poles, even with trees, we would plead and plead and plead for it. We would also plead for you to orient all lighting so as to point away from the neighboring residences. APPROPRIATE LINE OF SIGHT AND RELATIVE ELEVATIONS: In the event that said development site is already a given and not subject to debate or rejection, we request that the City give due consideration to the lay of the land, relative to the residences being impacted. What is the relative elevation of the parking lot? Is it above or below the properties concerned? Our property is a sloping one (towards Lost Lake), and our concern is whether car headlights will be below our property, shining into our first floor windows, or shining into our second-story windows. This may be a factor of where the cars are located, along the slope of our property. At one end, our property may be slightly above the lot, while at the other, it may be below it. We request that the City review this and map out a ridge that will be an effective barrier. We currently believe that such a ridge needs to be level (as opposed to sloping), and that it should be built on (and at the elevation of) the site to be developed. In any event, we would like thc chance to consult with a city planner on site if; indeed, it even comes to this. REORIENT ~ PARKING SPACES: Given the current plan drawn up for thc City, we can plainly see thai a buffer zone effectively erases the southernmost row of 13 parking spaces, all of which are currently oriented so ?h~ the car headlights will point directly into our homes. THAT ROW OF PARKING SPACES, AS DRAWN, IS INCONSIDERATE, INTRUSIVE, AND THREATENING TO THE BORDERING RESIDENCES, AND HENCE, A CASE OF POOR PLANNING. Our proposal, in the event tl~t said development is already a given and not subject to debate or rejection, is that you implement the buffer zone along the southern edge, extend the three center rows of parking to the edge of the buffer zone and thereby gain more parking spaces tl~t way. We also believe that those same rows ~II offer more spaces if'the planter and curb space surrounding them is eliminated. Looking at the plan drawn up for the City, we believe that it may be possible to keep as many as 9 or 10 of those 13 spaces, while implememiag the buffer zone as suggested. PLEASE LEAVE ~ PINE TREE: At the western end of the buffer zone described above, there is a nice old 50+' foot pine tree that need not be taken down. It is not in the way, even of the parking lot that has been proposed to the City, with the possible exception of one space on the end, and there does not appear to be any good reason to remove it. In tim event that said development is already a given and not subjea to debate or rejection, we ask that you leave this tree intact. Not only is it grand, but also, it forms an effective part of the buffer zone, since i~ would be between the back of our house and the proposed Senior Center building. 6516440B6G P. SAVE AS MANY OLD TREES AS POSSIBLE: The plan being put forth appears to be removing nearly all of the forest that exists between us and Lost Lake. That represents a decline in our quality of life. Again, in the event that said development is a/ready a g/v~n and not subject debate or rejection, the overall goals of the buffer zone are: · Protecting the privacy of ourselves and other neighboring Mound residents in their own homes. We are quite naturally alarmed about having traffic where there was none, intrusive lighting from both lamppoles and car headlights, thc potential/'or litter, and the potemial for overflow traffic from neighboring establishments. Giving our residences access to the proposed Lost Lake walking path. The ridge and trees could potentially be arranged so as to provide a common pathway for residents to walk down to the Lost Lake w~lklng path without having to tromp through cach other's backyarch, intruding on privacy. There could even be a double ridge with a path in between and trees on the sides. And there migh~ be s~eps put in for the neighboring lot w our west, just south of thc Senior Center. We believe that the walking path will be a positive development for the City of Mound, if implemented with due consideration /'or thc people who live here rather than with a steamroller. To finish, MAKE NO MISTAKE, our primary pica is for thc C/ty to REJECT THIS SITE ALTOGETRF~R AND SEEK ANOTHER. Upon rejection of our primary plea, our secondary plea is to alleviate the proximity and intrusiveness of this site to residential neighbors. As it stand.% it is both fi'ightming and depressing to see this plan as currently laid out. If there is liulc flcxibilky and neighborly concern on ~he pan of those seeking the site development, or if alleviation is simply not possible regarding distance, buffer zone, li~hfin& ~rees, and other issues raised, w the satisfaction of all concerned, WE WOULD STRONGLY ASK ~ C1T~ TO CONSIDER BUYING OUR PROPERTY TOO. This could be for future development, for use as a park, playground, and/or greenway buffer between the expanding business zones and the residences w our eas~ or perhaps even a well-forested one-way exit from thc Senior Center onto Banlet~ Boulevard along the western edge of the property, where there is an old stone wall and natural change in elev~on (this side of the property/is as far away from homeowner/residents as possible). We make this request because the plans as they are being put forth effectively negate our personal visions and hopes for the future, and will cause us to make every attempt to build our dreams elsewhere. If our only option is to exit, we will do so, and we will even do so gracefully, if you, the City, make it possible. MAR-O?-2000 11: 26 6S16440.366 P. W?/O? Lastly, on a persor~l level, we ask your every consideraiion in simply alleviating the Bess that this maxter is causing. We believe this is a matter ofgood intentions dressed in poor (and maybg jus~ oversizexi) ideas. We ask for your professionalism, your citizenship, your honesty, and your wisdom. Respe~lly yours, $668 Bartlett Blvd. Mound, MN 55364-1662 TOTAl_ P. B? ADORES,S: SURVEY ON FH.I~' YES LOT OF RECORD? YF_~ YARD IIOUSR ......... FRONT FROFrT ~iDE SIDE T~ OF BLU~ I DIRECTION I0' OR 3O' ZONING DISTRICT. LOT $1ZE/WI~: RX 7.0,000/E~O RX. ?,Soo/c RXA 6.000/40 :sd, .d, UUO/80 R2 6,000/40 B3 3.0..000/60 R2 X4,000/BO 9~10R,O. XX 30.00Q/X00 [,,,0 [' WIU I ti: VARIANCE GARAGK,~ SHED ..... DETACIIED BUILOINOS FRONT' N S E W FRONT N $ E W SIDE N S E w SIDE N S n W REAR N S E W LAKE N $ E W TOP OF BLUFF 4' OR 6' 4' OR 6' 4' 50' lO' OR 30' ' -t d~ C~y of Moutu CITy OF SURVEY ON FILI~ YES I ~0~ .. .JI~F__ RECORD'/ YES I NO '- YARD I DIRECTION ilOIJ~ ......... - ruoNT . s FRONT /~ S g W LAKE N S E W MOUND - ZONIN~ INi'VRMAIiV,, ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZF. JWIDTH: liL~ ~, 000/40 83 ~(l;OOO/fO P,2 6,000/40 B) 10,000/60' R2 3.4,000/eO ." R3 BBB ORD. Z1 30,000/2.00 I REQUIRED TOP OF BLUFF ~0' 10'OR]I}' EXISTING lOT SIZE: LOI WID'i 14: LOT DEi'I H: YARIANL~ . G~G~n 811ED ..... DETACliED BUILDINOS FRONT' N S E W FRONT N S E W SIDE N $ E W SIDE N S E W REAR N S E W LAKE N $ E W TOP O~ BLUFF ~[[R~v~R ~o~ oK a0~ ~,~FORMINO? YES I NO I ? This Zoni~ Information Shee~ only summarize~ 4'OR 6' 4' OR 6' 4' ~0' 10' OR 30' DATED:. ~be req~irementt outlined in the Ci,y of Mound Zoni~ Onllnance. For fu~her information, contact Ihe C~ of Mmmd ' 4. GENEIt&L ZONinG LNFOI~LATION SIIEEF Date of eurvey Lo*: of Record? ¥ no__ (frontoge on in l~proved SmblLc ozroe~) / FRONT IPI~OHT; SIDEi SO' ~me~nured fro~ O.H.W.I NO ,'RON',; N " ' It SIDE; EXISTING ]~D/OR PROPOSED SETBACKS~ PRINCIPAL 14UILDXNG ~SHOPJ ~ 44 I / -?..'.:" %. B'3':ESSOKY BVILD I1~ 4' OF &' 4' SO' fl~.mlure~ from O,N.V.~ ~f~SSOR¥ BUILDII~ I · L% I I O -'% ~ I J-., I OF RfiCORD? YF~ ! NO YARD IIOI.~E ......... F,.:,.T SIDE SIDE REAR LAKE DIRECTll }N N S E~W~ N~.~E W N S E W TOP OF BLUFF ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH: R3 REQUIRED 6,000/40 82 20,000/80 6,000140 83 10,000/60 24,000/80 S~ ORD. Il 30,000/100 I0 LOR ~0' LO'[ DFJ,) fH: YARIANC~ GARA(;F.~ SIIED ..... OR OTllER DETACIIEr) FRONT N S E w FRONT N S E w SIDE N S ~. W SIDE N s E W REAR N 5 E W LAKE N S E W TOP OF BLUFF BUll.DINGS 4' OR 6' 4' OR 6' 4' .SO' 10' OR 30' CII'Y OF M()UND - ZONING INFORMA'FION SIIEE'I' jADDRE. SS: SURVEY ON FILE? YES / NO LOT OF RECORD? Y-ES / NO YARD I lOUSE ......... FRONT FRO~ SIDE SIDE REAR TOF OF BLUFF I}IR E(..TI( IN I N S E W N S E W N S E W N S E W N S t:. W N S :. W ZONING DISTRICT, lOT SIZE/WIDTH: e~ lo.ooo/(o BI ?.$00/O ~lA ~,000/40 n2 20,O00/eO (~ 14,ooo/,o~'°°°/(u } n3 xo,ooo/6o R3 SEE OhO. x~ 30.000/~00 REQUIRED ] J~I~J'IN~/PROPOS~.D !~' 10' OR 30' EXISTING LOT SIZE:. ].,01 WIDi 11: L,Oi' DJ~P i ti: VA RIA NCj' GARAGE, SIIED ..... Di'.-TACllED mlIIJ)INGS FRONT N S E W FRONT N $ E W' .SIDE N $ E W SIDE N S E W RI.:AR N S E W LAKE N $ E W i'OP OF RI.UFF 4' OR 6' 4' OR 6' 4' ~0' I0' OR 30' ltARDCOVER 30% OR 40% · CONFORMING? YES / NO I ? J UY: J DATED: Thi.~ Zoning Infmm~llm] Shccl only s~mmatJzcs n ~n of Ille vequJrcmcnt~ oullincd in Ibc City of MouIid Zoning Ot4jnnnc~. Fol' ~ infomlalJon, co.act lite City of Mound Planning Dcpartmcm at 472-0600.~ ~.~ ~ -- - · ,'k'~ O', I m ~""CEIVED Ar~ 1 2 2000 PLANNING & VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 PAID /~P,q 1 ~. 2000 CITY OF/'v~OIJKiD Application Fee: $100.00 (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) Planning Commission Date: MAY 8th, 2000 Case No. (~- l ~__ City Council Date: June 13, 2000 Distribution: Address City Planner City Engineer Public Works DNR SUBJECT PROPERTY LEGAL DESC. Lot See attached "Exhibit C" Block Subdivision PID~ Plat~ PROPERTY OWNER ZONING DISTRICT (~ R-lA ~ R-3 ~ Name Westonka Senior Citizen Center Address Phone APPLICANT Name (IF OTHER Address THAN Phone OWNER) B-2 B-3 Chester J. Yanik & Associates 3701 Shoreline Drive, Suite 206, Wayzata, MN 55391 612-471-9199 Fax 612-471-9196 Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property?. (x) yes, ( ) no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. PREVIOUS SUBMISSION MARCH 13 th, PARKING STALL WIDTH, NO ACTION Detailed description of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stodes, type of use, etc.): The proposed building for this site will be a 12,000 square foot, single story, mixed use, (office and public areas), commercial type structure, housing offices of various social agencies serving the community. Current plans also include meeting space for public use. /5% Revised 10-26-99 Vmtm~e Application, P. 2 Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning distdct in which it is located? Yes (), No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): NA All-existing structures to be removed SETBACKS: REQUIRED REQUESTED VARIANCE Front Yard: (N_,SI~ 30 ft 0 ff 0 ft Side Yard: ~..I~I~EW) 50 ft 23 ft 27 ft Side Yard: [I~S EW) 30ft Off Oft Rear Yard: (~~ 30 ft 15 ft 15 ft Lakeside: (NSEW) N/A ft ft ff (NSEW) NIA ft ff ff Street Frontage: NIA ft ft ft Lot Size: N/A sq ft sq ft sq ft Hardcover. N/A sq ft sq ft Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning distdct in which it is located? Yes (), No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use: NA Due to rezoning Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( )too narrow ( )too small ( )too shallow (X)topography (X)drainage (X)shape ( )soil ( ) existing situation ( )other. specify Please describe: Revised 10-26-99 V~ri~nc. Applicatio., P. 3 Case No. Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No (X). If yes, explain: Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No (X). If yes, explain: o Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a vadance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (X), No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected. Comments: The developer recognizes the significance of this variance and has tried to minimize it's impact by creating a dense buffer zone in the landscape plan. I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be requirp~ by law. Applicant's Signature ~~ ~ Date~iP~L 1'2, ~Oo~ Lowell Olson, Project Manager Revised 10-26-99 /q95 Sent by: YANTK C0MPANTES 0124719196 04/05100 14:33 Job 252 Pa~--6/7 CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) PROPERTY ADOEESS: OWNER'S NAME: LOT AREA 55 , 072 LOT AREA 0 LOT AREA 0 Wm.~.Tonk~ Sr. C{ tj ~.~p Fol~ndation SO. FT. X 30% - (for aH lots) ....................................... SO. FT. X 40% = (for Lots of Record) ............................. i SC). FT, X 15% = (for detached buildings only) .................. [~' 0 RT,VT) 16.522 0 ' Extshn9 Lots of Record may have 40 percen! coverage provided that techniques are utilizee, as oui'lin~Jd in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225, Subd. 6.B. ! (see back), A plan must I)e submitted a~d approved by the 0uildinca Off[oa; LENGTH WIDTH :SC FT HO,JSE __120.0" x 1 ~O,.Q.".. = 12.000 X ~ TCTAL HCUSE .............................................. 12,000 DETACHED B[JIL DINGS (GARAGE:SHEO) __N/A x ...... NJ_A_ _ = N/A TOTAL DETACHED BUILDINGS ............................... DRIVEWAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. 75,7~ X .1 = 95,74~ X = TOTAL DRIVEWAY. ETC ........................................ DECKS Open ~ecks (1/-~' ,~,. Openi,~g be["~,een board,~) ~ a per~io~ surface und~ are not ~.?1 .n,, __ x 19.0'.t... = x 456 456 ~ TOTAL OTHER . N/A__ TOTAL HARDCOVER i IMPERVIOUS SURFACE ................................................... UNDER /OVER (indicate~l~) PREPARED BY DATE 04-11-00 .-- '13 rn Z ::13 I'" _ ,,:,!!., ,,..,, :..~ !i~ - ~ ~ ~,; , .-. ~ i'ii~,;;il %~.~~J ' ii1'", _ .,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,, · .,!g ii! !~- ;.. .. i~ f !111111111' , / ,! ! I~ IIIIIIIII1' I ARCHNET Slillwaler, MN 55082 RECEIVED APR '~ 2 ZOO0 MOUND PLANNING & INSP. Phone: 6511430-0606 Fax: 651/4300180 City of Mound Advisory Planning Commission Request for Additional Information Resubmitted Package for the Oillespie Sr. Center Attn: Planning Commission City of Mound Prepared by: The Architectural Network 1961 Greeley St. S. Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 (651) 430-0606 Phone (651.) 430-0180 Fax Archnet Commission # 00124 By Michael F. Diem, AIA, NCARB ARCHNET Sheet Soulh Slillwater, MN 55082 Amhi~ecture Planning - Inte'i0r De~dgn Construction Management Mound Advisory Planning Commission Mound, Minnesota Re: Response to the request for additional information The following items and responses are based on the comments fi'om the attached request for additional information. Item No. ] The Preliminary Plat is set up with survey information and needs to be a formal "Preliminary Plat" Response: Plans have been reviewed and altered by a licensed Civil Engineer, Please see Exhibit "4" . Item No. 2 Zoning map of site showing existing district boundaries of B-I and R-2. Respome: Accurate Zoning Maps have been supplied to us by the city, in which we have created existing zoning drawings and new zoning drawings, Please see Exhib/t "ZNI" Item No. 3 Proposed zoning with boundary description. Response: Accurate Zoning Maps have beeh supplied to us by the city, in which we have created existing zoning drawings and new zoning drawings, Please see Exhibit Item No. 4 Map Indicating the portion of Bush Road to be vacated. Response: Original Surveyor to Redraw the Preliminary Plat provided from his office to dearly indicate the portion of Bush Road to be vacated. Please see Preliminary Plat: Giilespie addition prepared by Egan, Field & Nowak Item No. 5 Clarify the Statement "Applicant is not Requesting total Vacation of ROW' in the application form. Response: From Applicant Lowell Olson - YANIK COMPANIES The request for street easement / vacation included the statement "Applicant is not requesting total vacation of the ROW". The intent of this statement reflects the acknowledgement that although Bush Road continues much farther to the east, there was no need for any more of the right of way than that which is described in Preliminary Plat: Gillespie Addition ARCHNET Slillwater, MN 55082 Item No. 5 Item No. 6 It~zn No. 7 No. 8 Item No. 9 Ptanning - In~erior Design Continued. The intent of the applicant was to ask the city to vacate only as much as would be required to accommodate the construction of the building and site plan as described in Exhibit "ASI' The Fem-inin~ right of way would continue to be city property intended to be included in the planed Lost Lake walking path or other public use. Public access would be addressed by means of a walking easement whose location is yet to be determined YANIK COMPANW, S Lowell Oison Need additional building use information to determine the parking requirements. Resuonse: Architectural site plan has been altered to accommodate for adequate parking and lists the building information for parking requirements. Please see Exhibit "ASl' Need to complete and submit a hardcover calculation sheet. Resuome: Architect to provide a completed Hardcover Calculation Sheet, Please see Attached. Additional Variance is needed for driveway width. Response: Actual variance applied for was parking stall width & length, No further action has been taken from the city. Need to address why the "on-site" stormwater pond is located ofF-site on City property, Response: The property with the building size and required parking does not allow for the storm water pond. It is om* understanding this land to the east of our project is suitable and avahble for this purpose. ARCI4NET ~luaro H Crc, cloy Slmet Soulh S~wa~, MN 55O82 Item No. 10 Item No. 11 Planning - Interior Design Phone: 651143041606 Fax: 6511430-0180 No Landscaping plan is provided. Response: Landscape plan has been designed, Please see Exhibit "LS1' Need to address how access will be secured to the garage on adjacent property. Respome: Please see Exhibit "ASI" Sincerely, Michael F. Diem, AIA, NCARB Principal RESOLUTION #00- A RESOLUTION APPROVING A STREET AND EASEMENT VACATION FOR A PORTION OF BUSH ROAD TO ACCOMMODATE THE GILLESPIE SENIOR CENTER LOCATED AT 2600 BUSH ROAD P & Z CASE # 00-06 WHEREAS, the applicant, Chester Yanik and Associates, have submitted an application on behalf of the Westonka Senior Foundation to a vacate portion of Bush Road for a new facility which will become the Gillespie Senior Center; and, WHEREAS, Bush Road currently bisects the proposed property, creating north and south halves that will not accommodate the development proposal; and, WHEREAS, the vacation of Bush Road is legally described as: That part of Bush Road, formerly known as Langdon Avenue as dedicated in the plat of MOUND BAY PARK, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota lying east of Commerce Boulevard and west of a line drawn northerly and at right angles to the center line of said Bush Road bom the northeast corner of Lot 38, Block 8, said MOUND BAY PARK ;and, WHEREAS, the development proposal will remove the existing homes which have access bom Bush Road, thus removing the need for a public access to these properties; and, WHEREAS, existing public utilities in the Bush Road right-of-way will revert to private services as proposed in the development plan, thus removing the need for utility easements in the existing Bush Road; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 8, 2000, to review the proposal finding that Bush Road would no longer be needed for public purposes as proposed by development plan for the site; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended Council approval of the vacation as requested by the applicant; and, NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota approves the vacation of Bush Road as described above. 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: Mayor Attest: City Clerk ?oning Amendment - ~00-05 Gordon stated the existing and proposed zoning for the property is provided on sheets ZN1 and 2. The entire property would ultimately be rezoned from current R-l, R-2 and B-1 Districts to a proposed B-l. The senior center would be a permitted use in the B-1 District as a quasi-public use falling somewhere between a public use and a private club or lodge in the use chart. The newly proposed downtown zoning shows the property as Linear Planned Unit Development District. This distdct also allows the senior center as a permitted use. Street/l=asement Vacation of Bush Road - f~00-06 Gordon stated Bush Road is proposed to be vacated from Commerce Blvd. right-of-way east to the east line of existing lot 38. It is 60 feet fight-of-way serving as road access for 4 existing residences and as a utility easement for sanitary sewer, water, and gas mains. As platted the right-of-way extends to the City property east of the property surrounding and including Lost Lake. With the redevelopment of the site, there is no apparent need for the fight-of-way in its current form. As proposed, a pdvate ddve will serve the property. Existing public utility services will become pdvate services and continue to serve the property. The City Engineer's report provides additional detail on road and utility service issues. Variances -~:)0-07 and 19 Gordon stated the site plan shows the location of the senior center on the site, indicating side and rear yard setbacks where variances are requested. When adjacent to a residential district, a building in the B-1 district must maintain a 50 feet separation from the side and rear property lines. The variances indicated in the application are incorrect and should be as follows: Fxisting/Proposed Required Variance Side Yard 13' 50' 37' Side Yard 23' 50' 27' Rear Yard 16' 50' 34' Parking Stalls 9' x 18' 10' x 20' 1' x 2' Gordon stated with regard to impact on adjacent properties, the south setback is the most critical setback as it is adjacent to homes fronting on Bartlett Boulevard. The rear yard and north side yard abut Lost Lake. 8 PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koc$1er Group Inc. TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: May 8, 2000 SUBJECT: Major Subdivision, Zoning Amendment, Street Vacation, and Variances APPLICANT: Chester J. Yanik & Associates CASE NUMBERS: 00-04, 00-05, 00-06, 00-07, and 00-19 tIKG FILE NUMBER: 00-5 LOCATION: 2600 Bush Lake Road ZONING: Residential District R-2 and Central Business District B-1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Linear BACKGROUND: Chester Yanik and Associates have submitted applications on behalf of the Westonka Senior Foundation for a new facility which will become the Gillespie Senior Center. The property is located at the intersection of Commerce and Bush Road and is a redevelopment site requiring the removal of 3 residences. Ultimately the center will be a 12,000 square feet, single story facility to meet the needs of the public it serves. This is a complex project requiring a total redevelopment of the existing area. For purposes of this report, a general discussion is presented, followed by a review of each of the 5 application items. General site plan review The property encompasses about 1.2 acres of land either side of Bush Road. The new facility will be sited on the eastern portion of the site, overlooking Lost Lake. A 62 space parking area is located in firont of the building and also provides for drop off traffic and internal circulation. The building is a single story construction with some classic lake home design elements - hip roof~ stone details, large windows, eyebrow arches, and accent wall lighting. Parking/circulation - Code requirements for 41 spaces are satisfied as the plan provides 62. As discussed below in the variance discussion, the spaces are proposed to be stripped at 9 feet by 18 feet. A standard 10 feet by 20 feet space will reduce the parking space count by about 6-7 spaces. Driveway aisles meet the 24 feet code maximum at the right- of-way and provide good internal site circulation. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax(612) 338-6838 p. 2 Oille.~pie Senior Center May 8, 2000 An existing residence on Bartlett Blvd. currently has access off Bush Road. The site plan indicates the driveway will be relocated to allow for continued access. An easement for access purposes should be provided by the applicant to benefit the residence. · Landscaping/screening - The landscaping plan details the type and number of plantings for the project. The planting schedule provided exceeds overstory tree planting miniraums and is further supplemented with ornamental and shrub plantings. The plan also includes a few existing trees that will remain. A fence up to 5 feet in height is needed to fulfill parking lot screening requirements from residential districts · Utilities - As discussed in the City Engineer's report. · Grading/Surface Water - The plan indicates site will be graded to provide a high point in front of the building location, allowing stormwater to flow east and west. The north 2/3"a of the parking lot will drain to a catch basin which is piped to the storm water pond on the adjacent City property. The drainage from the south 1/3~ of the parking lot will be picked up and diverted in to the system in Commerce. The drainange plan assumes City approval of the stormwater facility and associated approvals from the MCWD. The City will need access to the storm water pond for maintenance which should be provided in the form of an access easement that could connect to the Lost Lake Greenway. · Off-site relationships - The future Lost Lake Cn'eenway alignment is indicated to show the relationship to the senior center. Major Subdivision - g00-04 The preliminary plat shows the entire site will be replatted as "Gillespie Addition Lot 1 Block 1." As platted the site will encompass 1.2 acres (53,770 sf) including that portion of vacated Bush Road. All site plan documentation included in the planets reflects the boundaries of the proposed preliminary plat. Hennepin County may require additional right-of-way upon filing. If required the final plat should indicate this. Also, the document is very confusing and should be cleaned up at the Final Plat to improve readability including standards title, description, and signature areas. Zoning Amendment - #00-05 Existing and proposed zoning for the property is provided on sheets ZN1 and 2. The entire property would ultimately be rezoned from current R-l, R-2 and B-1 Districts to a proposed B-1. The senior center would be a permitted use in the B-1 District as a quasi-public use falling somewhere between a public use and a private club or lodge in the use chart. The newly proposed downtown zoning shows the property as Linear Planned Unit Development District. This district also allows the senior center as a permitted use. Street/l~asement Vacation of Bush Road - #00-06 Bush Road is proposed to be vacated from Commerce Blvd. right-of-way east to the east line of existing lot 38. It is 60 feet right-of-way serving as road access for 4 existing residences and as a utility easement for sanitary sewer, water, and gas mains. As platted the right-of-way extends to the City property east of the property surrounding and including Lost Lake. 123 North Third Street, Suit~ 100, Minnealx)lia, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 p.$ Gillespie Senior Center May 8. 2000 With the redevelopment of the site, there is no apparent need for the right-of-way in its current form. As proposed, a private drive will serve the property. Existing public utility services will become private services and continue to serve the property. The City Engineer's report provides additional detail on road and utility service issues. Variances - #00-07 and 19 The site plan shows the location of the senior center on the site, indicating side and rear yard setbacks where variances are requested. When adjacent to a residential district, a building in the B-1 dislrict must maintain a 50 feet separation fi.om the side and rear property lines. The variances indicated in the application are incorrect and should be as follows: Existing/Proposed Requirel:l Variance Side Yard 13' 50' 37' Side Yard 23' 50' 27' Rear Yard 16' 50' 34' Parking Stalls 9' x 18' 10' x 20' 1' x 2' In regard to impact on adjacent properties, the south setback is the most critical setback as it is adjacent to homes fronting on Bartlett Blvd. The rear yard and north side yard abut Lost Lake. A hardcover variance of 40 percent will be needed. Currently, the code stipulates a 30 percent maximum for newly platted lots. With the approval of the water management plan from the MCWD, the maximum hardcover for this site could be increased to 75 percent. The plan is currently being reviewed. DISCUSSION: Approval of this proposal depends largely on variance approvals for setbacks. Staff has indicated to the applicant that the building could be located in a manner that would not require variances. Siting the building in the rear of the site may have a greater impact on adjacent residences than a location on the fi.ont half of the site. This location would also have a better relationship with the street corridor as indicated in the Mound Visions Plan. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the requests with conditions as indicated below. Major Subdivision- Preliminary Plat 1. Determination of additional Commerce Blvd (County Road I 10) fight-of-way needs. 2. Provide easements for utilities, drainage, and access. Rezoning- approve as requested 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 p. 4 Gillespie Senior Cent~ May 8, 2O0O Street/Easement vacation- approve with conditions as provided by the City En~neer and Public Works Variances 1. Approve a parking size variance of 9 feet by 18 feet. 2. Approve a hardcover variance of 40 percent. 3. Staff r~..omm~ the Planning Commi.~ion discuss the yard setback variances and if f~ndlngs cannot be adequately supported, deny the request. 123 North Third St.-et, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 3380800 Fax (612) 3386838 Engineering * Planning · Surveying RECEIVED HAY 0 ZOO0 MOUND PL. .tVi u & INSt. MEMORANDUM DATE: May 3, 2000 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Jon Sutherland, Planning and Zoning John Cameron, City Engineer ~. City of Mound Gillespie Center - Senior Citizen Center Major Subdivision, Zoning Amendment Street Vacation and Variance Case g00-04-07 MFRA #12785 This Engh~eering Report will address only the Major Subdivision and Street Vacation and is a supplement to our report dated March 8, 2000. The drawings reviewed were as follows: Preliminary Plat (dated February 2, 2000 and Revised April 4, 2000), as prepared by Egan Field & Nowak, Inc. Site Plan, Sheet AS 1 (dated April 10, 2000), as prepared by Archnet - The Architectural Network, Inc. Preliminary Grading Plan, Utility Plan and Details, Sheets 1, 2, and 3 (dated April 10, 2000), as prepared by Schoell & Madson, Inc. Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat 1. The preliminary plat drawing is very cluttered since the boundary survey was used as a base. It appears to contain all the necessary information for a preliminary plat. 2. The plat will need to be forwarded to Hennepin County Highway Department for their review. They probably will require additional right-of-way ia this area. 15050 23rd Avenue North · P~ymouth, Minnesota · 55447 phone 763/476-6010 · fax 763/476-8532 e-mail: mfra~mfra, com Jon Sutherland, Planning and Zoning May 3, 2000 Page 2 3. The final plat will need to include all necessary easements such as drainage and utility easements on all lot lines. Site Plan 1. The Site Plan has been revised since our initial review and now contains most of the necessary dimensions. 2. The building setback to the northerly property line is not shown. It scales 13 feet at the narrowest point. 3. Need to identify concrete curb and gutter. Assumption is made that perimeter of parking and drives, including islands will have concrete curb and gutter. 4. The stormwater pond is still shown on City property, which the City will need to acknowledge. We have no problem with this location except for the potential loss of trees. 5. The plan does not allow for any direct access from the County Road sidewalk to the future City trail along the wetlands. Preliminary Gradin~ Plan 1. There is no direct access to the proposed stormwater pond for maintenance, except to cross a landscaped grass area. 2. The only proposed grading shown for the rear portion of the building is at the southeast comer. The final grading plan will need to contain more proposed elevation and contours. The final plans will need to contain more detail on how the proposed retaining wall along the south side of the driveway will connect to the existing wall on the property to the south. This existing wall protrudes into the County right-of-way and may interfere with sight distance to the south. It appears that the end and some, if not all of the upper tier of the east-west section of this wall could be removed creating a much better situation. Preliminary Utility Plan 1. Ownership of the existing City sanitary sewer main should revert to the property owner, since it will serve only the Senior Center. The proposed six-inch watermain with the hydrant and post indicator valve will be private; however, does the fire department need any type of agreement to allow access to and use of these valves? Son Sutherland, Planning and Zoning May 3, 2000 Page 3 3. The applicant will be responsible for obtaining all necessary permits from Hermepin County for installation of thc watcrmain and storm sewer. Street Vacation Please refer to letter of March 8, 2000 for comments. s:~main:kMou 12785:\Corr~pondencek~uthcrlandS-2 DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT Mound Plannina Commission Minutes, March 13. 2000, 'MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, MARCH 13, 2000 DRAFT Those present: Chair Geoff Michael; Commissioners: Orvin Burma, Becky Glister, Cklair Hasse, Bill Voss, Frank Weiland. Absent and excused: Commissioners Michael Mueller and Jerry Clapsaddle, Council Liaison Bob Brown. Staff present: City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Suthedand, and Secretary Sue McCulloch. The following public were present: Janice Beise, John Beise, Kristin Beise, Efica Beyreis, Randy Beyreis, Tom Bordwell, Madlyn Byrnes, Linda Kladstrup, Steven Kladstrup, Sharon Cook, Marge Ddesser, Tom Driesser, David Dvorak, Mic Gronberg, Jerry Kohls, Ted Lentz, Peter Meyer, Bill Netka, Dorothy Netka, Duane Norberg, Brad Nordgren, Dotty O'Bden, Lowell Olson, Leona Peterson, Larry Peitiorski, Roger Reed, Amy Reese, Tom Reese, Jeff Ritnal, Betty Weiland, Roger Westman, Ben Withhard. GILLESPIE CENTER PROPOSAL (PUBLIC HEARING). CASE # 00-04: MAJOR SUBDIVISION; IN ORDER TO CREATE A LAND MASS ADEQUATE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE WESTONKA SENIOR CITIZEN CENTER; LENGTHY LEGAL, NOTE ATTACHED PRELIMINARY PLAT DATED FEBRUARY 2, 2000. CASE # 00-05: ZONING AMENDMENT; CONVERSION OF AN EXISTING R-2 ZONE TO A B-1 ZONE, MAKING ALL ZONING OF THE PROPERTY CONSISTENT IN ORDER TO ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE WESTONKA SENIOR CITIZEN CENTER; LENGTHY LEGAL, NOTE ATTACHED PRELIMINARY PLAT DATED FEBRUARY 2, 2000. CASE # 00-06: STREET/EASEMENT VACATION; TO CONSOUDATE MULTIPLE PROPERTIES ALLOWING FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE WESTONKA SENIOR CITIZEN CENTER; LENGTHY LEGAL, NOTE ATTACHED PRELIMINARY PLAT DATED FEBRUARY 2, 2000. CASE # 00-07: VARIANCE; HARDCOVER AND PARKING SIZE(?); LENGTHY LEGAL, NOTE ATTACHED PRELIMINARY PLAT DATED FEBRUARY 2, 2000. Chair Michael explained to the public the public headng process. He stated the staff will first present the case, then the Commissioners will ask questions of staff, and finally the case will be opened up for discussions and concerns from DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT Mou~d Plannm Commissim Minutes. March 13. 3:X30, the public. Chair Michael explained when the public addresses the Commissioners, to state your name, address, and comments. He stated after all comments have been heard from the public, it will be brought back to the Commissioner level and a decision will be agreed upon by the Commissioners with regard how this case will progress to the City Council. Gordon presented the case. He stated Chester Yanik and Associates have submitted applications on behalf of the Westonka Senior Foundation for a new facility that will become the Gillespie Senior Center. The property is located at the intersection of Commerce and Bush Road and is a redevelopment site requiring the removal of 3 residences. Ultimately the center will be a 12,000 square feet, single story facility to meet the needs of the public it serves. Gordon stated at this time, the submittal information is incomplete, with deficiencies in the major subdivisions, rezoning, street vacation, and variance applications. Gordon informed the Planning Commission the following items are needed: 3. 4. 5. o 10. 11. The Preliminary Plat is set up with survey information and needs to be a formal ~Preliminary Plat." Zoning map of site showing existing district boundaries of B-1 and R-2. Proposed zoning map with boundary description. Map indicating the portion of Bush Road to be vacated. Clarify the statement, "Applicant is not requesting total vacation of ROW" in the application form. Need additional building use information to determine the parking requirements. Need to complete and submit a hardcover calculation sheet. Additional vadance is needed for ddveway width. Need to address why the "on-site" stormwater pond is located off-site on City property. No landscaping plan is provided. Need to address how access will be secured to the garage on adjacent property. Gordon stated given the lack of submittal information, it is difficult for staff to provide an adequate review of the proposal at this time. Staff is generally supportive of the proposal concept but it is not fair to the applicant to provide specific comments at this time. The public hearings have been advertised and the project may be best served by using the agenda time for acquainting the Commission with the proposal. Staff recommends the Planning Commission table the items until a complete submittal is ready for review. DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT Mound Ptannin~ Commi~ion Minutes. Mamh 13. 2000. Gordon stated even with recomrhendation by staff to table the case, the Planning Commission has three choices. He stated the Planning Commission could (a) review the material proposed make a recommendation on its own after the public headng has occurred, (b) table the matter until additional information is submitted, but still allow the public headng, or (c) choose not to have the public headng and table the case until the next meeting. Gordon stated he would like to see the public hearing go forward tonight and receive their information, but to table the case until a later date. He stated there is quite a bit of information that has not been received for staff to make a recommendation tonight. Voss stated he would appreciate having the public heating go forward tonight. He wanted staff to confirm his opinion that this plan fits well into the City of Mound's Comprehensive Plan. Gordon agreed with ross and stated the plan works quite well with the Comprehensive Plan. Voss stated he would like to see this plan progress to the City Council tonight even though there are deficiencies listed above. He believes these deficiencies to be minor and can be addressed as the project progresses. Weiland agreed with Voss 100 percent and does not see any major problems or concerns that should stop this plan from moving forward to the City Council. He stated he does not want this project held up any longer. Glister stated she would appreciate a recommendation from staff before she makes a final decision in this matter. Chair Michael stated he would have appreciated this plan being presented tonight as a "conceptual idea." He stated without staff's recommendation he would be opposed to consider a final vote for this plan, although he would appreciate seeing the public heating going forward tonight. He strongly stated he needs the City Engineer's and the City Planner's recommendation before sending this on to the City Council. Voss stated he would like to get the major problems out of the way and at this point he does not see anything that is over burdensome. Gordon stated staff is lacking information regarding the actual legal description of the property, whether Bush Road will be vacated, statements of right-of-way, building use information to determine the parking requirements, and ponding, to name a few. Voss asked staff how could ponding be a concern when Lost Lake is a pond. Gordon stated there are rules the Watershed Distdct requires the City of Mound to follow and the City of Mound needs to figure out how the water from the parking area will be retained, treated and filtered properly before it goes into the surrounding lakes. Gordon further stated an agreement for access on the property has not been decided as well. Gordon stated on a conceptual level the DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT' DRAFT DRAFT Mound PlanninQ Commi~ien Minutes. March 13. 3303. plan is acceptable to the City Engineer.and City Planner, but they are not comfortable giving a complete recommendation until further information has been obtained. Voss asked the question of whether to table this completely or continue with the public hearing. Chair Michael stated in all fairness, he would appreciate hearing the applicant and public speak tonight, but after that point to table the case until a recommendation has been presented by staff. MOTION by Voss, seconded by Burma, to table the matter until staff presents a recommendation, but to allow the public hearing to continue. MOTION CARRIED. 6-0. Chair Michael opened the public hearing at 7:55 p.m. Steve Kladstrup, 5668 Bartlett Blvd. Mr. Kladstrup stated he has submitted a seven-page letter to the Commissioners with his concerns, so he would not review his letter tonight completely, but is hopeful the Commissioners will consider his concerns addressed in his letter. Mr. Kiadstrup pointed out the location of his home on the conceptual plan. He stated he and his wife would be the closest residents to the project being presented. He stated the project appears to him to be too large and too close to his property that he finds it quite threatening. Although, he suggested the conceptual plan presented tonight has changed from all other plans he has reviewed in the past, and this plan does seem to have changed to their benefit. Mr. Kladstrup asked what would be located behind the building being proposed. Ted Lentz of Yanik & Associates stated the intent it to have an elevated deck at the grade level that would be about seven feet in height. He further stated the building would comply with the water levels of the City of Mound. Mr. Kladstrup stated the lighting presented would seem rather high up and would bring a lot of light in the back yards of the residents. He further stated he would appreciate some type of buffer zone, with possible 10-foot pine trees for privacy as well. Mr. Kladstrup stated he has further concerns but will wait until the next Planning Commission meeting when a staff recommendation would be presented. Chair Michael mentioned Commissioner Michael Mueller has submitted written comments about this case. He stated Mueller agreed with the applicant with regard to a buffing requirement, as well as making adjustments, if needed, for the lighting to allow the residents more privacy. DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT Mound Planning Commission Minutes. Mamh 13. 2000. Voss stated to Mr. Kladstrup he felt this would be the least intrusive building to be built in this location next to his home. He further stated this building would benefit the community greatly. Voss asked Mr. Kladstrup if he does not approve of this type of structure being proposed in this location, than what would be his choice if he was able to choose. Mr. Kladstrup stated he is very excited about the City of Mound's redevelopment project being proposed. He stated his first choice, although, would be to leave the location as a residence area. He further stated he does support the need for a senior citizens center, but he would appreciate his needs as a citizen of Mound being noted as well. Mr. Kladstrup stated the conceptual plan proposed tonight is the best plan he has seen since this project began. Lowell Olson, Yanik & Associates. Mr. Olson stated this has been a challenge "work in progress." He stated originally the site location was too small. He noted they needed about 1.3 acres of ground area for a senior citizens center. They then were given this location and later came up with having the parking in the back of the building as opposed to the parking in the front. He stated this conceptual plan presented tonight is the one preferred by him. He explained with regard to the access to the walking path still incomplete, he as well does not have the information to complete his plan, but the intent to connect the pathway is dear. He briefed on the location of the garage entrance, which at this point seems appropriate. He later stated the parking in the rear would allow the most parking spots available. Mr. Olson stated there is always a balance of impervious surface to green space that needs to be considered as well. Mr. Kladstrup added one more important part in his eyes. He stated the conceptual plan shows 37 feet in the back yard from his lot line to the building lot line, when actually it is only 25 feet. Linda Kladstrup, 5668 Bartlett Blvd. Ms. Kiadstrup asked how it is possible to build within 50 feet of a resident's home in a B-1 zoning location. She stated she is aware this is possible with easements when a hardship is involved, but is there a hardship in this case. She stated she would like to see the building in the rear because she would suspect there would be less police supervision in her eyes with the parking in the rear. Jeff Ritnal, 5650 Bartlett Boulevard. Mr. Ritnal stated he has invested time and money to make sure his properties located on Bartlett are up to code with variances. He is a little distraught that his property is not shown on the conceptual plan. He further stated the drainage pond is about 15 feet back from his property line and he is concerned about drainage with this project. He stated he will have further questions after staff has a recommendation for this project. DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT Mound Planning Commission Minutes. March 13. 2000. Chair Michael stated Mr. Ritnal I~as addressed an important concern, and he is hopeful more of Mr. Ritnal's questions will be answered when the City Engineer and City Planner have completed their recommendation. John Beise, 1665 Eagle Lane. Mr. Beise stated his is on the Park Commission for the City of Mound. He stated he is concerned about his mother's property located on Bartlett where this center is being proposed. Mr. Beise suggested having this building of 1,200 square feet being proposed with ground level and a basement floor, rather than just a ground level. He further stated the plan looks appealing to have the parking in the rear. Mr. Beise stated this is a great community project for the City of Mound and agreed it is probably the least intrusive building for the neighbors. He stated he is concerned about the lower level of the building being leased out to a possible daycare center. He questioned the side yard and rear yard setbacks. Mr. Beise asked who would be maintaining the pond because the pond is located on City property. Mr. Beise suggested continuing this public headng to a later date. Chair Michael stated he does not agree with Mr. Beise to continue the public headng because he does not think it would be fair to the public who are in attendance tonight. Duane Norberg, 6015 Aspen Road. Mr. Norberg stated he is not a property owner abutting to this possible site for the center. He stated the conceptual plan proposed tonight would be a fine addition to the community. He stated the elderly people of Mound need a place to call home. Mr. Norberg stated the setback appears to be 50 feet back as required by the City, not 25 feet back as indicated by Mr. Kladsrup. Mr. Norberg stated he does volunteer work at other senior citizens centers, one being Southshore, and this center being planned looks similar to those he works at and thought it would be appropriate for the needs of the senior citizens in Mound. He stated buildings currently being used in Mound for senior citizens are not conclusive and appropriate. Mr. Norberg further stated the traffic should be minimal in the location. Ms. Kladstrup restated again the rear of the building proposed and her three- season porch is only separated by 25 feet. She strongly suggested this fact is misrepresented on the conceptual plan. Roger Reed, the Attorney for the senior citizens of Mound, stated the location proposed for the center has always been a semi-commercial area for many years. He stated this is an ideal location. He stated he is aware of a deed from the State of Minnesota stating this property can be used for wetland services. He further stated he would not include the pond for vacation purposes; he would go only up to the property line. DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT Mound Planning Commission Minutes. March 13. 2D00. DRAFT Chair Michael addressed the al:;~)iicant and stated to him he would appreciate all the comments from the citizens tonight to be reviewed and acted upon accordingly. Mr. Reed stated he would like this property to be tax exempt property. He further stated he appreciates the input from the citizens of Mound and the Commissioners. Ben Withhard, executive director of the senior community services. Mr. W~d~hard said he operates programs for the senior citizens of the City of Mound. He completely agrees that the proposed center will function well and will meet the needs of the seniors now and in the future. He stated this would be a great benefit for the senior citizens. He stated the public did bdng up some good comments the developer should take into consideration. Mr. Kladstrup stated he would appreciate the developer at the next meeting showing the distance between the southwest comer and the southeast comer and the respective shoreline distances. Dotty O'Bden, 5053 Bartlett. Ms. O'Brien stated since the senior citizen building has changed, the attendance has dropped. She stated even though it is adequate, it is still not a home. Ms. O'Brien mentioned even though there are about 600 senior members, only 30 of them currently participate because of the place is not adequate. She stated the seniors are a quiet group and she is hopeful the proposed location of the center will be police patrolled adequately. Chair Michael closed the public hearing at 8:40 p.m. and thanked the public for their attendance. PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. Ill[]. 'TO: Mound Council, Planning commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: March 13, 2000 SUBJECT: Major Subdivision, Zoning Amendment, Street Vacation, and Variances APPLICANT: Chester J. Yanik & Associates CASE NUMBERS: 00-04, 00-05, 00-06, and 00-07 llKG FILE NUMBER: 00-5 LOCATION: 4600 Commerce Blvd. ZONING: Residential District R-2 and Central Business District B-1 COMPREHENSIVE PLA.N: Linear BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Chester Yanik and Associates have submitted applications on behalf of the Westonka Senior Foundation for a new facility which will become the Gillespie Senior Center. The property is located at the intersection of Commerce and Bush Road and is a redevelopment site requiring the removal of 3 residences. Ultimately the center will be a 12,000 square feet, single story facility to meet the needs of the public it serves. At this time, the submittal information is incomplete, with deficiencies in the major subdivision, rezoning, street vacation, and variance applications. The following items are needed: · The Preliminary Plat is set up with survey information and needs to be a formal "Preliminary Plat." · Zoning map of site showing existing district boundaries of B-1 and R-2. · Proposed zoning map with boundary description. · Map indicating the portion of Bush Road to be vacated. · Clarify the statement, "Applicant is not requesting total vacation of ROW" in the application form. · Need additional building use information to determine the parking requirements. · Need to complete and submit a hardcov~ calculation sheet. · Additional variance is needed for driveway width. · Need to address why the "on-site" stormwater pond is located off-site on City property.' 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, 1Minm~apolis, Minn~aOta 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 p. 2 Gillea'pie $~nior Center March 13, 2000 No landscaping plan is provided. Need to address how access will be secured to the garage on adjacent property. Given the lack of submittal information, it is difficult for staff to provide an adequate review of the proposal at this time. Staff is generally supportive of the proposal concept but it is not fair to the applicant to provide specific comments at this time. The public hearings have been advertised and the project may be best served by using the agenda time for acquainting the Commission with the proposal. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission table the' items until a complete submittal is ready for review. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401' (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 Engineering · Planning · Surveying FRA °:. REcEIVF- IlAR o 9 2006 MOl)NO e NtllN5 & INSP ME M 0 R A ND UM DATE: March 8, 2000 TO: Jon Sutherland, Planning and Zoning FROM: John Cameron, City Engineer SUBJECT: City of Mound Gillespie Center - Senior Citizen Center Major Subdivision, Zoning Amendment, Street Vacation & Variance Case #00-04-07 ' ' MFRA #12785 ' ' ."- This Engineers report will cover the'major Subdivision and sweet Vacation applications/ .... Minor Subdivision - Preliminary Plat The information submitted for the Preliminary Plat review does not meet the requirements contained in Section 330 of the City code; therefore I can only comment on the documents received. Section 330:45, Subdivision 4 requires plans be submitted which show 1) proposed utilities and 2) proposed grading and drainage, neither of which have been included in the plans submitted for our review. Preliminary Plat and Site Plan The Preliminary Plat drawing appears to meet most of the requirements of the City Code. The Site Plan is generally lacking in dimensions, thus critical items such as setbacks, parking stall size, driveway widths, etc. cannot be verified. The proposed stormwater pond is shown outside the development, on City property. It appears a number of significant trees may need to be removed to construct this pond. At the present time, because the city has not adopted their own Stormwater Management Plan, a permit will need to be obtained from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD). Since the development is more then 1/2 acre, but less then eight (8) acres it appears only the BMP's and rate control requirements of Rule N, will apply. This needs to be verified with the MCW'D. 15050 23rd Avenue North · Plymouth, Minnesota o 55447 phone 612/476-6010 · fax 612/476-8532 e-mail: mfraOmfra, corn Mr. Jon Sutherland March 8, 2000 Page 2 Street Vacation The major point of concern with the proposed street vacation will be the loss of public access to the existing garage on the property at 5680 Bartlett Boulevard. Access easements to Commerce Boulevard will need to be provided for this property. The utility services for the house at 5680 Bartlett Boulevard come fi.om the mains in Bartlett Boulevard. The removal of the four buildings along Bush Road and the proposed development will eliminate the need for the public Utilities located in this street; However the existing city lines may be of use in the proposed development. When a utility plan is submitted this issue can be addressed. The future ownership of the northerly 1/2 of the east end of Bush Road should be verified. The preliminary plat shows it as accruing to the owner of Lot 33 (VFW), however since the street was platted entirely within the plat of Mounds Bay Park, ownership of the full width may revert back to the property owner on the south side. The question of access to the future City trail along the Lost Lake wetlands as shown on the Site Plan should be addressed. The vacation of Bush Road would eliminate any direct access from Commerce Boulevard in this area. The next closest City controlled access point is probably east on Bartlett Boulevard approximately 700 feet fi.om the Commerce Boulevard/Bartlett Boulevard intersection. Depending upon the final layout, possibly a trail easement could be granted to the City along the north or south side of the property. s:~rnain~-nou 12785k:orrespondenccksu~herlandrn~rno3-8 Chester J. Yanik & Associates, Inc. 3701 Slloleli~ Driw Sui~ 2O6 Waylay. lvlinnesota 55391 phone 612-471-9199 f~ 612~71-91~ February 29, 2000 FAX AND U.S. M~II. Jon Sutherland Building Official REGEIVEU city of Monnd 5341 Maywood Road MAR 0 2000 Mound, MN 55364 MOUNO PL tlt lNb & INSb. Subject: The Gillespie Center:. Preferred Alternate Site Dear Jon, At 8:00 AM this mowing, Ted Lentz and I attended a special meeting ofthe Westonka Senior Citizen Foundation. The purpose of this meeting was W explain the process for selection of the building site as presented to the city of Mound in our application to the pl~nning commission. ~As the discussion progressed, a very s~g position wa~ taken l~y various members of the group for the improving the visibility and proximity to Lost Lake. The group left us with the direction to submit to your office for consideration a site plan showing the building positioned further to the east with the parking lot located between Commerce Avenue and the building. We will produce such a drawing and present it to you as soon as possible. We wish to remain on the emmet timeline and present this site plan as a Preferred Ol~ion. If you need any further infolmation or clarification, please call me. Sincerely, YANIK COMPANIES Lowell Olson Project Director Cc: Chester Y:anilc Sharon Cook file c:\winckm~kiesktop\gil]espie ctrqtr ion s ~espie ctr altsite 2- tl ¢ !_9 C llllllll~' I PLANNING COMM. DATE March 13, 2000 CITY COUNCIL DATE April 11,2000 DISTRIBUTION ~ PLANNER CITY ENGINEER PUBUC WORKS DNR MAJOR SUBDMSION · :. City of Mou~ 5;341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax:. 4'/2-O~20 CASE NO. SKETCH eLAN REVIEW PREUMINARY PLAT FINAL PLAT $1Ofl.OT OVER 2 LOTS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: PDA ESCROW DEPOSIT VARIANCE TOTAL Please type or pdnt the followin;j information: INFORMATION Address_See attached "Exhibit" EXISTING Name of Proposed plat LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lot Subdivision ZONING O ~--~ DISTRICT Circle: R-lA R-3 APPUCANT The applicant is: owner other Name Chester J. Yanik & Associates, Inc. Address 3701 Shoreline Drive, Wayzata, MN Phone (612)-471-9199 (Fax) (612)-471-9196 Name Westonka Senio~ Citizen Center / Reference attached list 'Exhibit B' OWNER ( if other than Address applicant) Phone (H) ON) (M) Block Plat # B-2 B-3 PID~ SURVEYOR/ ENGINEER Name Egan, Field & Nowak, Inc. Address 7415 Wayzata Blvd. Minneapolis, MN 55426 Phone 612-546-6837 Fax 61 PAID FEB 1 CITY OF MOUND $ 260 $,,.o $100 (Revised 10-27-99) Major Subdivision Appacation z-z.z-co Description of Proposed Use: This site is intended to be developed for the use of the Westonka Senior Citizen Center as a community social services center. Reconflguring the three properties described in the options in addition to the proposed vacated street into one parcel will allow for a land mass adequate for the construction of a one story building of approximately 12,000 square feet and adequate off street parking. This site will also be capable of meeting the impervious surface limitations as required by the city of Mound and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. 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. This proposed use is likely to produce increased automobile traffic entering and leaving the new parking lot. Parking lot and secudty lighting will be designed in accordance with the city lighting ordinances. Special attention will be given to shielding neighboring residences from intrusive traffic noise, lighting, and activities. Smoke, odor and air quality issues should not be affected appreciably. 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: $ See attached schedule RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS: NOT APPLICABLE Number of Structures: Number of Dwelling Units/Structure: Lot Area Per Dwelling Unit: sq. ft. Total Lot Area: sq. ft. Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, ( )no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. This application must be signed by all owners of the subject property, or an explanation given why this is not the case. See attached options for property owners signatures. Lowell Olson r',,"-"'7 Project Manager Print Applicant's Name Ai3plicant's Signature Date Chester J. Y~nik & Associates, Inc. 3701 5ho~ Drive $~t~ Wayzata, l~Sinn~sOta 5~391 phone 612-471-9199 fax 612-471-9196 February 15, 2000 Jon Sutherland Building Official City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 DELIVERED Subject: Gillespie Center subdivision, rezoning, variance and s~xeet vacation applications Dear Ion, Attached are the applications listed above for the proposed Gillespie Center project. We include the following: 1. 2 sets of labels, Extffbit A. 2. 2 certified lists, Exhibit B, as referred to in the application for Street Vacation, Major Subdivision, Zoning Amendment, and Variance. 3. Signed copies of the purchase options, Extubit C, for the three real estate parcels that make up the basis for this application. 4. The final attachment, Exhibit D, is the just completed survey of these properties including the topography. We have spared no effort in providing as much information as we have available for this application review process. Currently, this project is in the design/development stage. Certain details related to the site plan, impervious surface calculations, and storm water management plan can only be addressed on the basis of schematic drawings that reflect the evolution of the process resulting in the final design of this project. The same is true of access easements related to adjacent properties and the proposed walking paths surrounding Lost Lake. We believe it is in everyone's interest to identify these items in our next meeting with you, the city planner, and our Architect. It is our intent to maintain a sensitivity to the individual rights of all adjoining property owners as we proceed with the design/development process. All reasonable efforts will be made to insure the ll~ininlal intrusion of this Center and its functions on the neighboring properties. c:\windows~dcsleop\gillcspie ct~ltr.ion s gillespic err apps 2- PAGE 2 - 02/15/00 We look forward to working with you ~nd other city staff in the design and development of this l~'oject. Sincerely, Lowell Olson Project Director Cc: Chester Yan/k Sharon Cook file OPTION AGREEMENT In consideration of the sum of Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00), which I have received, I hereby grant to Westonka Senior Foundation an option for three months from this date to purchase my property at 2574 Commerce Boulevard, Mound, legally described as Lot 31, Auditor's Subdivision f~No. 167, Hennepin County, Minnesota for the sum of $ ~'~. ~ ' . This option may be extended from time to time for up to six additional months upon payment of additional option money at the rate of One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) per month by written notice including additional option money mailed to me at 2574 Commerce Boulevard, Mound, Min, esota, 55364. This option may be exercised by written notice mailed on or before the expiration of the option period or any extension. It is understood that Westonka Senior Foundation has permission to immediately conduct soil tests on the property. If this option is not exercised, any damage done to the property by soil tests will be repaired. If this option is exercised, the closing shall be held at the office of Reed & Pond, Ltd., 5424 Shoreline Boulevard, Mound, Minnesota, 55364, within 90 days after the notice of exercise is mailed. I promise to pay all the usual costs incurred by a seller including furnishing and extending an abstract and paying the deed tax. I will pay any mortgages or Hens. I will pay for any levied or pending special assessments. The real estate taxes shall be pro-rated to the date of closing. Option money shall be credited against the sale price. I warrant that I am single and that my title to said property is marketable. In the event that the tide is not marketable, I agree to pay for all necessary actions to make the title marketable. jI 3701 Shoreline Drive, Suite 206 Wayzata, Minnesota 5S391 Development * Design Build * PF~ject Management EXHIBIT "C" OPTION AGREEMENT In consideration of the sum of Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00), which we have received, we hereby grant to Wes'tonka Senior Foundation an option for three months from this date to purchase our property at 2600 Commerce Boulevard and 5691 Bush Road, Mound, legally described as the north half of Lots 44,45,46,47 48 & 49, Block 9, Mound Bay Park, Hermepin County, Minnesota for the sum of One Hundred Filly Thousand Dollars ($150,000.00). This option may be extended from time to time for up to six additional'months upon payment of additional option money at the rate of One Hundred Dollars ($I00.00) per month by written notice including additional option money mailed to us at 4731' Carlow Road, Mound, Minnesota, 55364. This option may be exercised by written notice mailed on or before the expiration of the option period or any extension. It is understood that Westonka Senior Foundation has permission to immediately conduct soil tests on the property. If this option is not exercised, any damage done to the property by soil tests will be repaired. If this option is exercised, the closing shall be held at the office of Reed & Pond, Ltd., 5424 Shoreline Boulevard, Mound, Minnesota, 55364, within 90 days atter the notice of exercise ismailed. We promise to pay all the usual costs incurred by a seller including furnishing and extending an abstract and paying the deed tax. We will pay any mortgages or liens. We will pay all levied or pending special assessments. The real estate taxes and rents shall be pro-rated to the date of closing. Option money shall be credited against the sale price. Rental deposits shall be credited to buyer. The buyer shall pay all expenses relating to subdivision including survey, permits etc. The title to said property shall be subject to a lease which expires Dec. 31, 2000 and to a month to month lease. An easement 12 feet in width shall be retained or granted to sellers for driveway access from Commerce Boulevard to the garage on the south half of Lots 44,45 & 46, which serves the home on Lots 4,5 & 6. Said easement shall provide practical access in a manner to be approved by sellers, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. We warrant that our title to said property is marketable. In the event that the 1/fie is not .marketable, we agree to pay for all necessary actions to make the title marketable. OPTION AGREEMENT In consideration of the sum of Two Tho,,~nd~ Doliars ($2000.00), which I have received, ! hereby g;ra~ to W,"~-~ Senior Fotmdatio. aa optioa for three mo.th,: f~om ~ date to purchase my properV7 at 5667 Bush Rd., Mound, legalty descnt~ as Lo~s 38,39,40,41,42, & 43, Block 9, Mom~cl Dollars ($175,000.00). This ol~ion may be ~ f~m time to time for up to six additional zn~nth~ upon payment of aflditiar~! olXion money a~ the role of Two I-hnderd FLfty Dollars ($230.00) Mn, 55364. This olXion may be excrdscd by wr/tt,~ notic~ m~ilcd on or before the c~pix~ion ~the option pcriod or any ex.sion. k is undersWod tb~ W_~__onl~ S~nior Foundation plans ~o b~ld~z¢ the house and thru I may salva~ ~he slructm~ for any/ail of ils componen~ All salva~ by the me, to be done by. the If this option is e.x~ised, the clo~ing shall be he, Id aI the office of Reed & Pond, Ltd., 5424 Shoreline Boulevard, Mound, 1Wmneso~ 55364, within 120 days after the notice of exev:ise is re:ailed. I promlr, e to pay all the usual costs ~lzz~;by a seller induding furn~hinS and e~te~linE an abstract and paying the deed tax. I will pay any morocco, s or lei,.~. I will pay all levied or pending ~ ass~,'.,~. TI~ real esm~ mxcs ,~h.n b~ ~ to the da~ ofclo~ing Option money ~:hnll be credited ~in~ the sale price if this option is exetc/sed within 3 mo~th-~ I warrant ~h~t I am sin~e and th~ my rifle to said pwpe~ is ~le. In the event that the rifle is not markzh~ole, I agree to pay for all necessary actions to muim th~ rifle mark=huble. ~ IIIIIII · IIIIIII I IIIIIII !!i lllllll i· · III · · III III · · - 111 111 i111111 ~ III III · III - III III i III ~ [ 111 [ I IIIIII · III · II!111 · IIIIIIII · · llllllll · lllllll [[ III IIIIIIII · · : Ii111 IIIIIIII · · IIIIII1~:.. -~ ~NNETONF, A (.co ' M~NN~'oNKA · q ~ ' ~ IIIIIIIIII~ ZONING AMENDMENT APPLICATION · - City of Mound, 5.341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone!~472-0600, Fa.x: 472-0620 Planning Commission Date: March 13, 2000 No. PAID FEB 1 $ ZOO0 Ca~~N~ City Council Date: April 11, 2000 Distribution: ~-.-~--[-t~ City Planner ~--~ ~--~:~ity Engineer Public Wort[s Zoning Amendment Fee: $250.00 Applicant Name Chester J. Yanik & Associates, Inc. Address 3701 Shoreline Drive, Suite 206, Wayzata, MN 55391 Phone 612-471-9199 Fax 612-471-9196 I.--I AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE It is requested that Section 350: of the Mound Zoning Ordinance be amended as follows: Reason for amendment: I_X_I AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING MAP I ZONING DISTRICT It is requested that the property described below and shown on the affached site plan be rezoned From R-2 Address & Legal of Subject Property to B-1 AddressSee attached options for legal descrfptionsladdresses. Lot Block Addition PID~ Plat Owner of Subject Site Name Various, Address Phone Present Use of Property Residential use see above. .. Reason for Amendment Applicant's Signature To make zoning consistent with existing B-f property and proposed use. Lowell Olson, Project Manager /""_ .~_V,~r~ &f.l,,~D,~.. ~.,L~~R~.L~ ~ r~ PAID Application for STREET / EASEMENT VACATION City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 FEB 1 6 ZOO0 CITY OF MOUND Planning Commission Date: March 13, 2000 City Council Date: Apdl 11, 2000 Appfication Fee: ~;:~50.00 Distribution: :~- ~'~-,'~;~ City Planner ! ~ City Engineer I t Public Works Minnegasco Police Dept Fire Dept GTE ~ ~-~ ~ ~ Other Please type or pdnt the followina information: APPLICANT Name Chester J Yanik & Associates, Inc. Address 3701 Shoreline Drive, Suite 206 Wayzata, MN 55391 Phone (612)-471-9199 Fax (612)-471-9196 ADJACENT PROPERTY (APPLICAN'I~S PROPERTY) ZONING DISTRICT See attached options for legal descriptions and owners names. EXHIBIT "C" Subdivision Circte: R-1 R-lA ~ R-3 ~,~ DESCRIPTION OF STREET TO BE VACATED REASON FOR REQUEST IS THERE A PUBLIC NEED FOR THIS LAND? Bush Road from County 110 (Commerce Street), east to a line extended noC, hedy from the northeast comer of Lot 38, Mound Bay Park addition. NOTE; Se~_ attached sur~ey dated: February 2, 2000 To consolidate multiple properties allowing for the development of an adequate site for the construction of the proposed Gillespie Center and its parking and green space as directed by city codes. Future public needs provided for by pathway access easement to remaining Bush Road right-of-way. Applicant is not requesting total vacation of right of way. Lowell Olson Project Manager Print Applicant's Name ~pli~nt's Signatu~-~m Date PROPERTY DESCRIPTION FOR WESTONKA SENIOR FOUNDATION FEBRUARY 18, 2000 SOUTHERLY PARCEL. LOts 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 4;3, and the north half of lots 44, 45, 46, 47, 48 and Block 9, MOUNDS BAY PARK, according to the recorded plat thereof end situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota. and NORTHERLY PARCEL Lot 31, Auditor's Subdivision No. 167. Hennepin County, Minnesota. =nd PROPOSED BUSH ROAD VACATION PARCEl_ That part of Bush Road, formerly known as Lengdon Avenue as dedicated in the picrl: of MOUND BAY PARK, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota lying east of Commerce Boulevard and west of a line drown northerly and et right angles to the center line of said Bush Rood from the northeast comer of Lot 38, Block 8. said MOUND BAY PARK. VARIANCE APPUCATION 'CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Application Fee: $100.00 (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) Planning Commission Date: MARCH 13, 2000 Case No. 0 City Council Date: APRIL 11, 2000 Distribution: ~-?-?--C~::) City Planner I, City Engineer t [ Public Works Address DNR Other SUBJECT PROPERTY LEGAL DESC. Lot See attached "Exhibit C" Block Subdivision PID# Plat~ PROPERTY OWNER ZONING DISTRICT (~ RI1A (~ R-3 Q Name Westonka Senior Citizen Center Address Phone APPLICANT Name (IF OTHER Address THAN Phone OWNER) B-2 B-3 Chester J. Yanik & Associates 3701 Shoreline Drive, Suite 206, Wayzata, MN 55391 612-471-9199 Fax 612-471-9196 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. Detailed description of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): The proposed building for this site will be a 12,000 square foot, single story, mixed use, (office and public areas), commercial type structure, housing offices of various social agencies serving the community. Current plans also include meeting space for public use. ~ Revised 10-26-99 V~dsnce Application, P. 2 Case No. 0(~ "'0"~ Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): NA All existing structures to be removed SETBACKS: REQUIRED REQUESTED VARIANCE Front Yard: (NSEW) ft ft ft Side Yard: (NSEW) ft ft ft Side Yard: (NSEW) ff ff ft Rear Yard: (NSEW) ft ft ft Lakeside: (NSEW) ff ff ft (NSEW) ff ff ff Street Frontage: ff ff ft Lot Size: sq ft sq ft sq ft Hardcover. sq ft sq ft Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use: NA Due to rezoning o Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( )too narrow ( )too small ( )drainage ( )too shallow ( )topography ( ) existing situation ( )shape ( )soil ( )other:. specify Please describe: Case No. Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No (X). If yes, explain: Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No (X). If yes, explain: o Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (X), No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected. Comments: Impervious surface issue to be dealt with by development of a storm water management plan. Parking stall width to be 9'. More common current standard. I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Applicant's Signature ~ ~j,_L Date Lowell Olson, Project Manager Revved 10-26-99 MDUND POLICE DEPARTMENT - INTEROFFICE MEMO DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Chief, September 7, ~999 Chief Harrell Sgt. Grand I have looked at the proposed site on Bush Rd as you requested and can see no negative impact for the police department. Bush Rd. has good access to Commerce Blvd. The proposed center would be the end of the road with the police department not needing to go past the new center's location. Let me know if you need further information. Page i of i MOD[ = MEMORY F~L~ [NO.= 112 ~T'RRT=I'IRR-O? ~'r~T ION I'q~:4~/ PI:4OES PRG. NO. TELEPt,O4E I~. ~1 OK · 6124~2~ EHD-MRR-'~7 ~:$$ T~= Jc:,~ ~TK~d-~,~ From: Phone: . ~t~ ~-0~1~ Date: RECEIVED MAR 0 7 ZOOO MOUND ?L~tlllIN~ & IN$~ Please March 6, 2000 To The City Of Mound: MAR 0 7 ZOO0 Keg~&ng the proposed site plan for the new Westonka Senior Citizen Center, we residents of Mound wish to make the following statements and protests: Our names are Steve and Linch Kladstrup. We live ax 5668 Bartlett Boulevard in Mnund. I, Steve, ~m a professional soitware developer, working with a computer mapping company, and my b~ckground includes a Master's Degree ia Intemztion~l Mazmgemen~ as well as election to Phi Beta Kappa (national honorary) while earning my undergraduate de~rees. My wife, LiMa, also is a Masters I~ree holder, and is employed by the Chaska School Dislfict as the senior teacher in the Spanish Depmmnent, which she started in 1984. If' our last name looks familiar tn any of you, it may be because you rerncmber my oldest brother, Don, who was with WCCO-TV here in the Twin Cities, prior to working as a foreign correspondent with CBS, ABC, and CNN over the course of his career. We ourselves moved to Minnesota back in 1984, seeking a be'tier quality of life, and hoping to build our dreams here. WE CA.RE A.BOUT OUR HOMIi: Having resided in Mound since 1984, and having resided at 5668 BartI~ Boulevard since 1986, we have made a significant invemnent, monetarily, physically, and emotionally, in our Mound residence. We do care about its appearance, its economic worth, its resale value, and while dismayed by the amount of litter we've seen off of Bardett Boulevard and From other dh'ections over the years, we still r,~ke pride in maintaining a generally acceptable domicile that fits with the surrounding community. We are also quite aware of the ~act that we live in a somewhat historic structure that was part of the Central Business District before Route 15 came to be. We know this, thanks to an old ~riend, Ed B., who used to live in the big (even older) house next to us. When we first bought our hous~ 13 years ago, it was in need of many interior and exterior improvements. We have slowly but rarely been working to improve our house, paying the most altention to improvements on the inside, but with many plans for exterior improvements, and eventually, expansion. WE PROTEST ~ PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SITE AND ASK THW. CITY TO RE,IECT IT/RELOCATE IT: The proposed Senior Cm~er site development ax Bush Road is of such a MAGNITUDE and PROXIMITY that wc have no choice but to protest, inasmuch as said development will severely interrupt and negatively impact our live's largest investment and equi~ sr~.ke, as well as the quality of life that we currently enjoy in Mound. We think that the act of putlir~ vehicle traffic and pavement on two sides ora line of residential homes is almost criminal, h effectively canals our most heartfelt plans, and negates the last 13 ye. ar's worth of effort and hard work. Our ~ and foremost rn~.~sage is: WE STRONGLY REII~CT, PROTEST, AND EXPKESS OUR. DISAPPOIN-rME~ AND DISMAY WITH TIlE PttOPOSI:-D DtlVELOPMENT. Its intent is a very good one which wc fully support with all our h~arts, but its impl~rnentation is flawed and invasive, despite l~ood intemions, and even bas the appearance of being both selfish and heavy- h~nded, when seen From the perspective of the neighboring residences that will be negatively impacted. VST!.L OTHER BUSINESSES GROW EASTWARD AS A RESULT? Only a few years ago, during a conditional use permit consideration by the City Council regarding the auto repair station on the comer of Commerce and Bartlett, I inquired as to thc poss~ility of re. zoning taking place in the neighboring residences. The City Planner at that time indicated that it was extremely unlikely. Those words turned out to be empty ones for us because it appears that tim very thing we feared most is about ~o happen, in a major way, with little and somewhat understat~l warning to the residences about to be impacted. WE ARE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE PRECEDENT THAT THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SETS. WE HOPE THAT THE CITY WILL PLEA.gE NOTE THAT DEVELOP~ OF THE BUSH ROAD SITE DRASTICALLY CHANGES THE GEOGRAPHY AND OPTIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE NORTHEAST COKNEK of Commerce and Banlcu Boulevards. As an example, by this action, the City is effectively giving the business interest at the comer (still an auto repair shop, but under new ownership) no place to grow but ~ again infi4nging upon residential neighborhoods, with all the negative impact that will have. PLEASE KNOW THAT, BY THIS ACTION, YOU ARE COMPLETELY CHANGING THE OLD HISTORIC CENTER OF MOUND, ONE THAT HAS BEEN PRIMAKILY RESIDEN'ITAL. WI-rH.E WE STKONGLY SUPPOKT TH~ CITY'S OVEP~I L VISION OF DEVELOPMENT FOR MOUND, WE WOULD ASK THAT YOU REJECT THIS PARTICULAR PLAN, AND THEKEBY EXIql~IT A NOTEWORTHY MEASUKE OF COMPASSION FOK THE PEOPLE YOU AKE ABOUT TO IMPACT NEGATI-VF-!.Y. We aren't inflexible, but we arc asking for you, the City, to REJECT the proposed plan, and/or work with us so that we don't lose what precious stake we have in this City and this community. FIXING THE PLAN: We sincerely doubt if this is truly possible, but in the event tha~ the said development is alr~_dy a given and that the City Council feels bound and compelled, for whatever l~rsonal or economic reasons, to squ~ze the Senior Center into formerly residential zones, we believe there are several steps that the City must take in order to provide for the greatest possible alleviation ofthe negative impact that this development will have on neighboring residences. We respectfully present them here: MORE DISTANCE BETWEEN US AND TI:I'E~M: In the event that said development is already a given and not subject to debate or rejection, we believe tim the City ough~ to KEQUIKE AND ENFORCE a significant buffer zone ~ s~id development and the residences bordering on the site~ The first consideration ought to be DISTANCE, which as measured by the architectural site plan drawn up for the City, is shown to be only 37 feet from the comer of our house. THE PLAN IS IN ERROR, AND THIS MEASUP, EMENT IS lVIISI..EA.I::)]2~O, ~ FAVOR OF THE DEVELOPER BECAUSE THE 37 FOOT DISTANCE SHOWN IS NOT THE SHORTEST DISTANCE FROM OUK HOUSE TO THE BORDER, BUT RATHER, IS FROM THE CORNER OF THE MAIN 2-STORY STRUCTURE TO THE-NEAREST SURVEYED PROPERTY CORNER. THE ACTUAL DISTANCE BETWEEN OUR BACK DOOR AND THE PROPERTY LI~ IS 25-1/2 FEET, WE PROTEST THIS AS WHOLLY UNACCEPTABLE, ~ THROWS INTO QUESTION THE INTEGRITY AND ACCURACY OF THE SURVEYORS AlVD PLAN ALrrHORS, NOT TO MENTION THE PROPOSED PLAN ITSELF. We would find the plan as presented to be ludicrous, ifwe weren't the proposed victims and the matter so serious. The pl~ do~n't even show the correct footprints of' the homes involved, What ~ is misr~pr¢~nt~ to the City? We also believe that the distance as shown goes against thc intent and spirit of thc B-l/B-2 zoning ganc~d ora minimum of ~0 fe~t for 'side and r~ar setback if abutting residential district", and WE VIGOROUSLY REQUEST THE CITY TO CONSIDER THIS FACTOR, eklm' as grounds for outright rejection of the site, or as a reason for ~eeking a solution that is not so aggressive, heartless, and one-sided. MAKE THE PARKING LOT SMALLER. h is simply too big and too close to the tmople who live here. Scale the project back a bit. We can't believe that anyone considering this matter would trade places with any of us living along this proposed site, faced with this plan, Please. Do unto others... EARTHEN BARRI'F-R: We don't want to be victims of increased B-1 traffic on one side and r~gular street traffic on the other, not to mention the Ertter (wind- blown and otherwise) that typically accompanies such traffic. I have a hard enough time keeping my from yard clean. In addkion to r~g the distance issue, we would request, in the event that said developmenI site is already a given and not subject to debate or rejection, for an earthen barrier (a ridge) of some reasonable height, between the two properties, to exist along the southernmost 150' boundary on the ske to be developed (and not on our property). TRF.~ BARR~R: We enjoy the birds that frequent our back-yard, and we don't want to look at a parking tot in their place. In addition to the foundational earthen barrier, we would ask, in the event that said development site is already a given and not subject to debate or rejection, for the planting of a double-line of 10' pine trees, planted on or near the ridge, and offset in order to provide a visual wall to block as much of'tbe parking lot and its lighting as possible. One row ofpines is inadequate, since it will only block 50% of'the view. Our preference is for as tall and as thick a barrier as poss~le. NO P.i,RKLNG LOT LIGBTING: We don't want to have the night sky and quiet taken away from us. There is nothing like being able to go outside at night and look up at the stars or even the Northern Lights (which we have seen directly overhead from our property on more than one occasion). In the event that said development site is already a given and not subject to debate or rejection, we would say this: We hope that you will not have parlcin$ lot lightpoles. Let there be main building lights. Let there be ground-based lightin~ But please, no lights in the sky over our backyard. If there is any way to negate parking lot light'poles, even with Irees, we would plead and plead and plead for it We would also plead for you to oriem all lighting so as to point away from the neighboring r~sid~nces. APPROPRIATE LINE OF SIGHT AND RELATIVE ELEVATIONS: In the event that said development site is already a given and not subject w debate or rejection, we request tha the City give due consideration to the lay of the land, relative to the residences being impaaed. What is the relative elevation of the parking lot? Is it above or below fl'le properties concerned? Our prop~'ty is a sloping one (towards Lost Lake), and our concern is whether car headlights will be below our property, shining imo our first floor windows, or shining into our second-story windows. This may be a factor of where the cars are located, along the slope of our property. At one end, our property may be slightly above the lot, while at the other, it may be below it. We request that the City review this and map out a ridge that will be an effective barrier. We currently believe thai such a ridge needs to be level (as opposed to sloping), and ~Mt it should be built on (and at the elevation of) the site to be developed. In any event, we would like the chance to consult with a city planner on site if, indeed, it even comes to this. REORIENT Till:. PARKING SPACES: Given the current plan drawn up for the City, we can plainly see that a buffer zone effectively erases ',he southernmost row of 13 parking spaces, all of which are currently oriented so ~ the car headlights will point directly into our homes. THAT ROW OF PARKING SPACES, AS DRAWN, IS INCONSIDERATE, INTRUSIVE, AND THREA~G TO THE BORDERING RESIDENCES, AND HENCE, A CASE OF POOR PLANNING. Our proposal, in the event that said development is already a given and not subject to debate or rejection, is that you implement the buffer zone along the southern edge, extend the three center rows of parking to the edge of the buffer zone and thereby gain more l~rking spaces that way. We also believe that those same rows will offer more spaces ii'the planter and curb space surrounding them is eliminaled. Looking al the plan drawn up for the Ck'y, we believe that it may be possible to keep as many as 9 or 10 of those 13 spaces, while impleme,~_i~ the buffer zone as suggested. PLEASE LEAVE TIFI:. PINE TREE: At the western ~nd of the buffer zone described above, there is a nice old 50*' foot pine tree that need not be taken down. It is not in the way, even of the parking lot that has been proposed to the City, with the possible exception of one space on the end, and there does not appear to be any good reason to remove k. In the event that said development is already a given arid not subjec~ lo debate or rejection, we ask t~ you leave this tree intact Not only is i~ grand, but also, it forms an effective part of the buffer zone, since it would be between the back of our house and the proposed Senior Center building. {,pR-{a?-29~ 11:25 6si6a,4i~6 P.l~;,'g? SAVE AS MANY OLD TREES AS POSSIBLE: The plan being put forth appears to be removing nearly all of the forest that exists between us and Lost Lake. That represents a decline in our quahty of life. · A~ain, in the event that said development is already a given and not subject to debatc or rejection, the overall goals of the buffer zone are: · Protecting the pFiYicy of ourselves and other neighboring Mound ruident3 in the. iF own homes. We are quite naturally alarmed about having u'aific where there was none, intrusive Ughfing from both Ismppoles and car headli!~hm, the poteniial for litter, and the potential for overflow uaffic from neighboring establishments. Giving om' residences access to the proposed Lost Lake walking path. The ridge and ~ees could potentially be arranged so as to provide a common paihway for residents to walk down to ~he Lost Lake w.~;.$ path without having to tromp through each other's backyards, inwading on privacy. There could even be a double ridge with a path in between and trees on the sides. And there might be steps put in for the neighboring lot to our west, just south of'the Senior Center. We believe that the walking path will be a positive developmen~ for the City of Mound, if implemented with due ¢ousiderafion for the people who live here rather than with a steamroller. To finish, MAKE NO MISTAKE, our primary pl~a is for the C/ty to REJECT THIS S1TE ALTOGETHER AND SEEK ANOTHER. Upon rejection of our primary plea, our secondary plea is to alleviate the proximity and intrusiveness of this she to residential neighbors. As i~ s~ands, it is both frightening and depressing to see this plan as currently laid out. If there is linc flcm'bility and neighborly concern on dm pan of those seeking the site development, or if alleviation is simply not poss~le regarding distance, buffer zone, lishfirls, frees, and other issues raised, u) the satisfaction of all concerned, WE WOULD STRONGLY ASK TRTI~ crrlr' TO CONSIDER BUYING OUR PROPERTY TOO. This could be for future development, for use as a park, playground, and/or greenway buffer between the expanding business zones and the residences w our cast, or perhaps even a well-forested one.way exit from the Senior Center onto Bartlett Boulevard along the western edge of the property, where there is an old stone wall and natural change in elevation (this side of the property is as far away from homeowner/residents as possible). We make this request because the plans as they are being put forth effectively negate our personal visions and hopes for thc future, and will cause us to make every attempt to build our dreams elsewhere. If our only option is to exit, we will do so, and we will even do so gracefully, if you, the City, make it poss~lc. * Lasdy, on a personal level, we ask your every consld~ in simply alleviating the stre~.q thet this miner is ca,,P~g- We believe this is a ma:t'tcr of~xxl intentions dressed in poor (and maybe just 0vn'sized) ideas. 'We ask for your professionalism, your ci 'tlzenship, your honesty, and your wisdom. yours, -S~eve and Linde Khdsu'up 566~ Bartlett Blvd. Mound, ~ 55:3~$-1662 ADDRESS: SURYEY ON FILGT YES ! ( LOT OF RECORD? YES ! NO IIOUS[ ......... ~0~ -N S E W SlOE ~ S E W ~An a~ ~ w ~B NSEW T~ OF R2 R2 R3 ZONING DGTRICT. LOT SIZE/WlD'II~: [ EXISTIN~ LOT ~ · 10,000/60 ~ ~,500/C G,O~/40 6,000/40 14,000/00 [.01 WIU 1 H: [.,XJ l DEl'iH: lO* OR GARAG~q ~tlED ..... DETAOTED BUll. DINGS FRONT' [ N S E W SIDE 14 $ E W SIDE N S E W REAR N S B W L,AK~ N S E W TOP C~ BLUFF HARDCOVER 30% OR 40% YES I NO I ? 1BY: CONFORMIN07 4' OR 6' 4' ~0' lO' OR 30' Tlds Zonin[ Infonnadon She~ only summari:l~q · portion of ~ teqd~.nenls mldined b die City of Mound .~.. !~' · .-... SURVEY ON __I.~__ R~CORI~/ YFJ I NO !!0~1 ......... ~0~ SIDE ~R ~B CITY OF MOUND - ZONING ZONING DIRECTION /.S E w SEW N S E W TOP OF BLUFF ~,000/40 ~1 10,000/~0' 14.O00/~0 '~.- LOI D~iH: 8BBORO. Zl 3O.OOOllOO JE73STING/l'ROl"C)S~D GARAGE. ~JF..D ..... DGTACllED BUILDINOS FRONT* N S E W FRONT N S E W SIDE N S E W SIDE N S E W REAR N $ E W LAKE N $ E W TOP OF BLUFF 30~ OR 40,~ 'l'~b ~mtin[ Information Shee! oKIy summarizes · PlanninB !~ at 4724.~00. 4' OR 6' 4' OR 6' 4' ~0' 10' OR 30' IDATED: the requirements oudincd in the City ~)f Mound Zon~ ~. For fanhe~ information, comacl ~be C~ of Mound · % I~ '"C ',,.4 d cn C~ u~ G -ENEIgU. ?.ONI~IG INFOI~'IATION $IIF..E'T - ~ J (s~. IPr. i ISJ. I"t.! "" Date of' survey . Lot. ot~ ReC:Q~? yes.~ ~ ? ExJ. st.J. ncj Jot. #J,dt.h 3 ~ / , Depth 71/"~ ' q"L,O0 .x,.,,,,,. ,o,,,/o,, ,,,o,o.,,, s,',.,,~,,., 0'~ FR~h'T: N S , W ~t !1 S II W o f~F.. · ¢~c~ --, · ·" "-' '"" YES -24 4' Of' 4' SO' f Wi ~,A"'q~d I .Lq* I t.-, I O I t.-, CITY OF M()UND - ZONING INFORMATION SHEET RECORD? YES I NO YARD IIOUSE ......... SIDE SIDE ~KE DIRKC'Ii(IN I ZONINO DI.~IUCT, LOT SIT..E~iDTH: TOP OF BLUFF R1 N S E W ~0' 6,000/40 B2 20,000/80 &,000/40 n3 20,00o/&0 14,000/~ m 01~. Zl 30,000/100 I0 ~OK ~0' lO[ DF~ [14: YARIANC~ GARA(;F_., SIIE'I} ..... OR OTIIER DETACIIE?) FRONT N S E W FRONT N S E W SIDE N $ E W SIDE N S E W REAR N S E W LAKE N S [". w TOP OF BLUFF BUILDIN¢~ 4' OR 6' 4' OR 6' 4' ~0' !0' OR 30' _/ADDR 'F..S$: SURVEY ON FILE? YF.5 I NO LOT OF RECORD? Y~ I NO YARI) ~ I10~$~ ......... ~0~ FRO~ S1DE SIDE REAR TOP OF ~I.UFF UI R£CTI()N J N S E W N S E W N S E W N S E W N S ~:. W N S :. W ZONING DL~TRICr. LOT ~ZF./WIOTN: R1 lO.o00/&O B~ 9,$00/0 R~A s. ooo/4o B,2 20,O00/eO ooo/,o 14,000/SO ) R3 SgB (~.D, Zl 30.O00/XO0 REQUIRED I ~STll~aJlSltOl~S~J} !:~' ~0' I0' OR 30' EXISTING LOT SIZE:. LOi WIDilI: L,O l DEJ' i VARIANCK GARAGE, SUED ..... DI:-FACIIED BUILOIN(L~; FRONT N S E W FRONT N S E W SIDE N S E W SIDE N S E W RI:.AR N S E W LAKE N S E W FOP OF III.UFF 4' OR 6' 4' OR 6' 4' :~0' 10' OR 30' =CEIVED VARIANCE APPUCATION 2000 CiTY OF MOUND mor~ 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 ~UUNL, r~LANN]NG & .',,.,,-. Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 4724)620 PAID /1PR I ~. 2000 CITY OF MOUND Application Fee: $100.00 (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) Planning Commission Date: MAY 8m, 2000 Case No. ~(~)- l ~ City Council Date: June 13, 2000 Distribution: Address City Planner City Engineer Public Works ~, I}-00 DNR SUBJECT PROPERTY LEGAL DESC. Lot See attached "Exhibit C" Block Subdivision PID~ Plat~ PROPERTY OWNER ZONING DISTRICT (~ R-lA (~ R-3 ~ Name Westonka Senior Citizen Center Address Phone APPLICANT Name (IF OTHER Address THAN Phone OWNER) B-2 B-3 Chester J. Yanik & Associates 3701 Shoreline Drive, Suite 206, Wayzata, MN 55391 612-471-9199 Fax 612-471-9196 Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? (x) yes, ( ) no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. PREVIOUS SUBMISSION MARCH 13 th, PARKING STALL WIDTH, NO ACTION Detailed description of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stodes, type of use, etc.): The proposed building for this site will be a 12,000 square foot, single story, mixed use, (office and public areas), commercial type structure, housing offices of various social agencies serving the community. Current plans also include meeting space for public use. Revised 10-26-99 Vmlm~e Appl~ P. 2 Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): NA Ail existing structures to be removed SETBACKS: REQUIRED REQUESTED VARIANCE Front Yard: (N$1~ 30 ft 0 ff 0 ft Side Yard: (1~1~~ 50 ff 23 ft 27 ft Side Yard: (~~r--V) 30 ft 0 ft 0 ft Rear Yard: 30 ft 15 ft 15 ft Lakeside: (NSEW) N/A ff ft ff (NSEW) N/A ff ff ff Street Frontage: N/A ff ft ft Lot Size: N/A sq ff sq ft sq ft Hardcover. NIA sq ff sq ff Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use: NA Due to rezoning o Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( )too narrow ( )too small ( )too shallow (X)topography (X)drainage (X)shape ( )soil ( ) existing situation ( )other. specify Please describe: Revised f0-26-gg Case No. o Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No (X). If yes, explain: Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes ( ),. No (X). If yes, explain: o Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a vadance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (X), No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected. Comments: The developer recognizes the significance of this variance and has tried to minimize it's impact by creating a dense buffer zone in the landscape plan. I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may ~q~ b.~ law. Applicant's Signature ~.(~,J.~ ~,.~ Date ~(~L ~'~, ~b0(~ Lowell Olson, Project Manager Revised 10-26-99 Sent by: YAN[K C0MPANZES 6124719196 04105/00 14:33 Job 252 Pa~,~lT. CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS (IMPErvIOuS SURF^C~ COVERAC~) PROPERTY ADOES$: OWNER'S NAME: LOT AREA 55,072 ~mm~r~ RT.V~ W~Ton~a Sr. ~ttj~n Foundation ..... SO. FT. X 30% - (~r all Iota) ....................................... { ! 6.5 2 2 ....... LOT AREA 0 LOT AREA 0 S0. FT. X 40% = (for Lots of Recoil) ............................. i SQ. FT. X 15% = (fo~ detached buildings only} .................. I__ 0 ......... · Ex~hng Lots of Record may hav~ 40 pe~:~t cover-age pro~ed ~ ~n~u. ~e u~i~. as oufine mn Zonmn~ Ordinance S~ ~0:1~5. Su~. 6.B. { (see b~). A ~n ~ ~ ~~ ~d ~p~d by ~e ~uildin~ Ofl[c,a{ LENGTH WIDTH SC FT -O,JSE __12o.0" x 1D.Q.._0"_ = 12.000 X ~ TOTAL HCUSE .............................................. 12,000 DETACHED BUlL DINGS N/A X N/A = N/A X = TOTAL DETACHED BUILDINGS ............................... N/A , , DRIVEWAY. PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. X X I DECKS Open ~ed~s (~/4' ~.. Opemn~ be~ee~ bom'dm) w~m a per~{~ ~e undM are n~ ~ftt~ ~ ~ar~ver. 21 O,, _ X . 19.0 ..... = 456 X = X = TOTAL DECK ....................................................... 456 ~ N/A TOTAL HAi~DCOVER i IMPERVIOUS SUI~=ACE ................................................... UNDER i OVER PREPARED BY DATE n~ !1 O0 ..- I c~?O I:? [ IIIIIIIIII~ Ii' \ jl / t ARC T RECEIVED APR ~ 2 2000 MOUND PL/~NNING & INSP. Conelnx:Uon II) ~, ,.~t City of Mound Advisory Plvnning Commission Request for Additional Information gesu~ Package for the Gilles'pie Sr. Center Attn: Planning Commission City of Mound Prepared by:. The Architectural Network 1961 Greeley St. S. Stillwater, l~mm~ 55082 (65 l) 430-0606 Phone (650 430-0180 Fax ,au-ci'met Commission # 00124 By Michael F. Diem, AIA, NCARB 0 0 0 ARCHNET Ptlnning - Intemr Design Constf,___,,~,~_ M~g~ ,.e~t Phone: 6511430-0606 Fax: 6,5114304180 Mound Advisory Plannipg Commission Mound, Minnesota Re: Response to the request for additional information The following items and responses are based on the comments from the attac, h~ request for additional information Item No. I The Preliminary Plat is set up with survey information and needs to be a formal "Preliminary Plat~ R~i~m~: Plans have been reviewed and altered by a lieeused Civil Engineer, Please see Exhibit "4" ' Item No. 2 Zoning map of site showing existing district boundaries of B-1 and R-2. ResDo~e: Accurate Zoning Maps have been supplied to us by the city, in which we have created existing zoning drawings and new zoning th-.. ~ Please see Exhibit "ZNI' Item No. 3 Proposed zoning with boundary descriptiom Resuouse: Accurate Zoning Maps have been supplied to us by the city, in which we have created existing zoning drawings and new zoning drawings, Please see Exhibit "ZN2' Item No. 4 Map Indicating the portion of Bush Road to be vacated. Responm Original Surveyor to Redraw the Prelimin-ry Plat provided from his office to dearly indicate the portion of Bush Road to be vacated. Please see Preliminlry Plat: G.'llespie addition prepared by Egan, Field & Nowak Item No. 5 Clarify the Statement "Applicant is not Requesting total Vacation of ROW" in the application form. Response: From Applicant Lowdl Olson- YANIK COMPANIES The request for street easement / vacation induded the statement "Applicant is not requesting total vacation of the ROW". The intent of this statement reflects the acknowledgment that although Bush Road continues much farther to the east, there wu no need for any more of the right of way than that which is described in Prelimin-ry Plat: C_~llespie Addition ARCHNET Sou 55082 Phone: 6511~ Fax: 6511430-0180 Item No. 5 Item No. 6 Item No. 7 Item No. 8 Item No. 9 The intent of the applicant was to ask the city to vacate only as much as would be required to accommodate the construction of the building and site plan as described in Exhibit "ASI' The rem-it~i~g right ofway would continue to be city property intended to be induded in the planned Lost Lake walking path or otheF public use. Public access would be addressed by means of a walking easement whose location is yet to be determined YANIK COMPANIES Lowell Olson Need additional building use information to determine the parking reqtfirements. Response: Architectural site plan has been altered to accommodate for adequate parking and lists the buiJdi-g information for parking requirements. Please see Exhibit "ASI' Need to complete and submit a hardcover calculation sheet. ResDome: Architect to provide a completed Hardcover Calculation Sheet, lqease see Attached. Additional Varianc~ is needed for driv~vay width. Resuonse: Actual variance applied for was parking stall width & length, No further action has been taken from the city. Need to address why the "on-site" stonnwater pond is located off-site on City property. ' Resuonse: The property with the building size and required parking does not allow for the storm water pond. It is our understanding this land to the east of our project is suitable and available for this purpose. ARCHNET Item No. 10 Item No. 11 No I.~ndscaping plan is provided. Need to address how access will be secured to the gma~ge on =4jst"~.~ property. Res~oase: Hease see Exhibit "AS1'~ Sincerely, Michael F. Diem, AIA, NCARB Principal RESOLUTION #00- A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE GILLESPIE ADDITION PRELIMINARY PLAT AND VARIANCES FOR THE GILLESPIE SENIOR CENTER LOCATED AT 2600 BUSH ROAD WHEREAS, the applicant, Chester Yanik and Associates, have submitted applications on behalf of the Westonka Senior Foundation for a new facility which will become the Gillespie Senior Center. The property encompasses approximately 1.2 acres and is located at the intersection of Commerce and Bush Road. The project will require redevelopment of site removing 3 existing residences and vacating the street to accommodate a 12,000 square feet building, parking lot and other site improvements; and, WHEREAS, the Preliminary Plat has been reviewed under Chapter 462 of the Minnesota State Statue and as defined by City Code Section 330:00. All proceedings have been duly conducted thereunder; and, WHEREAS, the Preliminary Plat includes 1.2 acres of land described as: SOUTHERLY PARCEL Lots 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, and the north half of lots 44, 45, 46, 47, 48 and 49, Block 9, MOIUNDS BAY PARK, according to the recoded plat thereof and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota. and NORTHERLY PARCEL Lot 31, Auditor's Subdivision No. 167. Heimepin County, Minnesota. and PROPOSED BUSH ROAD VACATION PARCEL That part of Bush Road, formerly known as Langdon Avenue as dedicated in the plat of MOUND BAY PARK, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota lying east of Commerce Boulevard and west of a line drawn northerly and at right angles to the center line of said Bush Road from the northeast comer of Lot 38, Block 8, said MOUND BAY PARK ;and, WHEREAS, the site plan proposes a 62 space parking area is located in fi:ont of the building and also provides for drop off traffic and internal circulation. Parking spaces are proposed to be stripped at 9 feet by 18 feet. Driveway aisles meet the 24 feet code maximum at the fight-of-way. Driveway access to an adjacent garage will be provided through the site; and, WHEREAS, the proposed landscaping plan meets code requirements for planting numbers, varieties, and sizes; and, WHEREAS, the proposed drainage plan will route storm water to existing facilities in County Road 110 and a proposed storm water pond located east of the site on City property; and, WHEREAS, as proposed the project would relinquish the need to maintain Bush Road as a public street as it would no longer serve as access to the existing residences. Public utilities within the public right-of-way would be reclassified to a private status and the easement would serve no public purpose; and, WHEREAS, the proposed building location will require variances in addition to hardcover and parking stall size as indicated below: Existing/Proposed Required Variance Side Yard 13' 50' 37' Side Yard 23' 50' 27' Rear Yard 16' 50' 34' Parking Stalls 9' x 18' 10' x 20' 1' x 2' Hardcover 38,196 sf 16,522 sf 21,674 sf ; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, on May 8, 2000, held a public hearing pursuant to Section 330:00 of the Mound City Code of Ordinances, to consider the approval of the Preliminary Plat for the Gillespie Addition Major Subdivision as described above; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and City Council have studied the practicability of the preliminary plat, taking into consideration the requirements of the City, topography, 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 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 physical characteristics of the site are suitable for the type of development contemplated subject to the conditions imposed herein, and the proposed subdivision as conditioned is consistent with the existing land use in the area and the furore downtown redevelopment goals as stated in the City's Comprehensive Plan; and, WHEREAS, adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and other necessary facilities as required by the City subdivision regulations are being provided; and, WHEREAS, said plat is in all respects consistent with the City's Comprehensive 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; and, WHEREAS, at the Planning Commission has recommended Council approval of the preliminary plat and variances with conditions; and, NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota approves the Preliminary Plat and variances for the Gillespie Addition with the following conditions: 1. Determination of County Road 110 right-of-way needs by Hennepin County at the time of the Final Plat. 2. Provide easements for utilities and drainage on the final plat. 3. Approve a parking size variance of 9 feet by 18 feet 4. Approve a hardcover variance of 40 percent. 5. The south side yard setback be not less than 31 feet. 6. Provide a berm with tree plantings on the south side of the building to be reviewed and approved by Staff. 7. Redesign the entry wall on the south side of the driveway to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 8. Provide an easement to the City property east of the site for access to the storm water pond. 9. Provide an access easement for future access to the Greenway Trail. 10. The City Engineer review and approve the drainage plan. 11. The developer shall be responsible for the installation of private utilities. The utilities 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. 12. The Developer shall secure and provide copies to the City's Building Official of all required and reviews and permits from the 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. 13. 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. 14. 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. 15. The Developer shall secure and provide the City with a copy of a stormwater permit from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District prior to the City releasing the final plat. 16. The MPCA's Best Management Practices shall be applied to the development and subsequent management of the property. 17. The developer obtain a construction on public lands permit as stated in Section 320. BE IT RESOLVED that such execution of the certificate upon said plat by the Mayor and City Manager shall be conclusive showing 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: Mayor Attest: City Clerk Developm~t · Design Build · Project Management May l6,2000 Chester J. Yanik & A~ociates, Inc. 3701 Sltoreline Drive Suite 206 Wayzata, Minnesola 55391 phone 952471-9199 far 952471-9196 Mayor Meisel and City Council Members City of Mound PO Box 70 Mound, MN 55364 Re: The GiHesnie Center, Case O's 00-04. 00-05, 00-06, 00-07, 00-19 Dear Mayor Meisel and City Council Members, At the May 8t~ Planning Commission meeting, the public and the Planning Commission continued its review of applications 00-04, 00-05, 00-06, 00-07 and 00-19. At the conclusion of the public heating for the applications listed above, a vote was unanimously passed forwarding these applications to the City Council recommending approval with several additional conditions. Although well imentioned, some of these conditions may be very difficult to accomplish and therefore we request that the Council reconsider them at this time for the following reasons: Condition 1: This condition requires that the building be moved eight (8) feet north. Our engineers advise that this request will cause substantial problems due to the existing contours and elevations of the neighboring property. The topography drops very abruptly to an elevation of only one to two feet above the water level of Lost Lake at the intersection of the lot lines on the northeast comer of the site. This abrupt decline becomes an even larger obstacle when it occurs so close to the building footprim. With only five feet remaining to the north property line, excavation and construction of the building becomes very difficult. As the building footprint is moved to the north, the distance separating the building comer and the water's edge of Lost Lake diminishes. We anticipate the soil conditions also will deteriorate. The building location illustrated on the site plan reflects the reasonable balance achievable for separation and privacy for ~ residents conditions.0516, doc c:\gillespie senior center\council PAGE 2 - 05/16/00 Condition 2: Condition 3: Condition 4: to the south and topography and soil conditions to the north. We request that the Councit reconsiderthis suggested revision and permit the site plan to remain as dctailc~l by the Archit¢~t. We developed our landscape plan by recogrfizing the need to respect the neighbor's privacy to the south. We concentrated plantings and trees in the area separating this new building from the neighboring prop~ies. The trees that have been specified are of the size and type that have the highest transplant survival rate and optimum growth rate so as to establish an effective screen as soon as possible. The condition to provide an earth berm on which to plant these trees may not be the most practical approach to achieving greater screening of the building due to existing storm water run off conditions from all properties. Creation of a berm on the property line separating the residences along Bartlett Boulevard and the Gillespie Center may prevent normal storm water run off. The rear yards of these residences currently drain to the north and east. This pattern must continue. The final design of the storm water management plan and the engineering of the detention pond, which must be submitted and approved by the City prior to construction, will be the determining factors in deciding if the berm is possible. The Senior Foundation has agreed to access easements to the proposed Lost Lake walking path and the proposed detention pond. It has always been the intent to provide these easements once the building location was determined and the routing options for these easements became evident. Both condition 1 and 2 will impact where these access easements may go. We request that the Council explore the proposed design and have its City Engineer determine along with our engineer the best solution to this concern. The condition to reconfigure the retaining wall on the adjacent service station property to minimize sight line obstructions is dearly understood. We will contact the property owner and seek permission to modify the existing wall and blend it into our own site line to minimize any sight line obstruction. We are proceeding with this plan in good faith and assuming we will find this neighboring property owner to be amenable to this modification. The City, however, should not hold the Gillespie Center responsible for this modification if the owner does to not agree to the reconfiguration. The Council denied our variance application for modification for parking stall size. It is our request that the Council reconsider this issue due to the multiple uses anticipated for this building (i.e. larger senior workshops, special events including weddings and charitable events). The loss of six PAGE 3 - 05116100 parking spaces could cause substantial hardship. Every available parking space within the lot as well as off site will be at a premium. For this reason, the request for nine-foot wide parking stalls is a wise and prudent request. Please accept this letter as our request to carefully reconsider the impact these conditions impose on this project. We thank the Council and Planning Commissioners for their continued strong support shown for our Mound seniors. Sincerely, Lowell Olson Project Director cc. Chester Yanik Sharon Cook Roger Reed Jerry Pietrowski Ben Withhart Roger Westman Mound Pl.nning Commission Minu~es. M.v 8. 2000 DRAFT certain ~re~s of ~e dowmown, which because of their u~n forum, will not be ~ble to achieve ~he 75 percen~ ~hreshold. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the variance as request. Mueller asked if by passing this vadance on to City Council, would the Planning Commission be stating this meets all the zoning requirements of the proposed or current zoning of the pedestrian district. Gordon stated by having reviewed what is proposed and looking at page 50 of the packets, the design guidelines do meet what is expected in the pedestrian district. Brown stated the City Council drove up to Maple Grove and the facades blended in real well with the real two-story buildings. He stated this was a well done project. Voss noted, though, there was 100 percent hardcover involved. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Brown, to move the variance according to staff recommendation. MOTION CARRIED. 9-0. Chair Michael stated this case will be presented to the City Council on May 23, 2000. CASE #00-04: MAJOR SUBDIVISION; CHESTER J. YANIK & ASSOCIATES, LENGTHY LEGAL, NOTE ATTACHED PRELIMINARY PLAT DATED FEBRUARY 2, 2000, IN ORDER TO CREATE A LAND MASS ADEQUATE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE WESTONKA SENIOR CITIZEN CENTER. PUBLIC HEARING. Gordon stated Chester Yanik & Associates have submitted applications on behalf of the Westonka Senior Foundation for a new facility that will become the Gillespie Senior Center. The property is located at the intersection of Commerce and Bush Road and is a redevelopment site requiring the removal of 3 residences. Ultimately the center will be a 12,000 square feet, single story facility to meet the needs of the public it serves. This is a complex project requiring a total redevelopment of the existing area. General site plan review Gordon stated the property encompasses about 1.2 acres of land either side of Bush Road. The new facility will be sited on the eastern portion of the site, overlooking Lost Lake. A 62 space parking area is located in front of the building and also provides for drop off traffic and internal circulation. The building is a single story construction with some classic lake home design elements - hip roof, stone details, large windows, eyebrow arches, and accent wall lighting. The following items were discussed regarding the facility. Mound Planning Commission Minutes. Mav 8. 2000 DRAFT Parking/circulation - Code requirements for 41 spaces are satisfied as the plan provides 62. As discussed below in the variance discussion, the spaces are proposed to be stripped at 9 feet by 18 feet. A standard 10 feet by 20 feet space will reduce the parking space count by about 6-7 spaces. Driveway aisles meet the 24 feet code maximum at the right-of-way and provide good intemal site circulation. An existing residence on Bartlett Boulevard currently has access off Bush Road. The site plan indicates the driveway will be relocated to allow for continued access. Gordon stated an easement for access purposes should be provided by the applicant to benefit the residence. Landscaping/screening - The landscaping plan details the type and number of plantings for the project. The planting schedule provided exceeds over-story tree planting minimums and is further supplemented with ornamental and shrub plantings. The plan also includes a few existing trees that will remain. A fence up to 5 feet in height is needed to fulfill parking lot screening requirements from residential districts. 3. Utilities - Gordon stated this has been discussed generously in the City Engineer's report. Grading/Surface Water - The plan indicates site will be graded to provide a high point in front of the building location, allowing stormwater to flow east and west. The north 2/3"~ of the parking lot will drain to a catch basin which is piped to the storm water pond on the adjacent City property. The drainage from the south 1/3"~ of the parking lot will be picked up and diverted in to the system in Commerce. The drainage plan assumes City approval of the stormwater facility and associated approvals from the MCWD. The City will need access to the storm water pond for maintenance which should be provided in the form of an access easement that could connect to the Lost Lake Greenway. 5. Off-site relationships - The future Lost Lake Greenway alignment is indicated to show the relationship to the senior center. Major Subdivision - #00-04 Gordon stated the preliminary plat shows the entire site will be replatted as "Gillespie Addition Lot 1 Block 1." As platted the site will encompass 1.2 acres (53,770 sf) including that portion of vacated Bush Road. All site plan documentation included in the planets reflects the boundaries of the proposed preliminary plat. Hennepin County may require additional right-of-way upon filing. If required the final plat should indicate this. Gordon further stated the document is very confusing and should be cleaned up at the Final Plat to improve readability including standards title, description, and signature areas. PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. i ln TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: May 8, 2000 SUBJECT: Major Subdivision, Zoning Amendment, Street Vacation, and Variances APPLICANT: Chester J. Yanik & Associates CASE NUMBERS: 00-04, 00-05, 00-06, 00-07, and 00-19 HKG FILE NUMBER: 00-5 LOCATION: 2600 Bush Lake Road ZONING: Residential District R-2 and Central Business District B-1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Linear BACKGROUND: Chester Yanik and Associates have submitted applications on behalf of the Westonka Senior Foundation for a new facility which will become the Gillespie Senior Center. The property is located at the intersection of Commerce and Bush Road and is a redevelopment site requiring the removal of 3 residences. Ultimately the center will be a 12,000 square feet, single story facility to meet the needs of the public it serves. This is a complex project requiring a total redevelopment of the existing area. For purposes of this report, a general discussion is presented, followed by a review of each of the 5 application items. General site plan review The property encompasses about 1.2 acres of land either side of Bush Road. The new facility will be sited on the eastern portion of the site, overlooking Lost Lake. A 62 space parking area is located in front of the building and also provides for drop off traffic and internal circulation. The building is a single story construction with some classic lake home design elements - hip roof, stone details, large windows, eyebrow arches, and accent wall lighting. Parking/circulation - Code requirements for 41 spaces are satisfied as the plan provides 62. As discussed below in the variance discussion, the spaces are proposed to be stripped at 9 feet by 18 feet. A standard 10 feet by 20 feet space will reduce the parking space count by about 6-7 spaces. Driveway aisles meet the 24 feet code maximum at the right- of-way and provide good internal site circulation. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 p. 2 Gillespie Senior Center May 8, 2000 An existing residence on Bartlett Blvd. cun'ently has access off Bush Road. The site plan indicates the driveway will be relocated to allow for continued access. An easement for access purposes should be provided by the applicant to benefit the residence. · Landscaping/screening - The landscaping plan details the type and number of plantings for the project. The planting schedule provided exceeds overstory tree planting minimums and is further supplemented with omamental and shrub plantings. The plan also includes a few existing trees that will remain. A fence up to 5 feet in height is needed to fulfill parking lot screening requirements fi.om residential districts · Utilities - As discussed in the City Engineer's report. · Grading/Surface Water - The plan indicates site will be graded to provide a high point in front of the building location, allowing stormwater to flow east and west. The north 2/3~ of the parking lot will drain to a catch basin which is piped to the storm water pond on the adjacent City property. The drainage fi.om the south 1/3~ of the parking lot will be picked up and diverted in to the system in Commerce. The drainange plan assumes City approval of the stormwater facility and associated approvals fi.om the MCWD. The City will need access to the storm water pond for maintenance which should be provided in the form of an access easement that could connect to the Lost Lake Greenway. · Off-site relationships - The future Lost Lake Greenway alignment is indicated to show the relationship to the senior center. Major Subdivision - #00-04 The preliminary plat shows the entire site will be replatted as "Gillespie Addition Lot 1 Block 1." As platted the site will encompass 1.2 acres (53,770 sO including that portion of vacated Bush Road. All site plan documentation included in the planets reflects the boundaries of the proposed preliminary plat. Hennepin County may require additional right-of-way upon filing. If required the final plat should indicate this. Also, the document is very confusing and should be cleaned up at the Final Plat to improve readability including standards title, description, and signature areas. Zoning Amendment - #00-05 Existing and proposed zoning for the property is provided on sheets ZN1 and 2. The entire property would ultimately be rezoned fi.om current R-l, R-2 and B-1 Districts to a proposed B-1. The senior center would be a permitted use in the B-1 District as a quasi-public use falling somewhere between a public use and a private club or lodge in the use chart. The newly proposed downtown zoning shows the property as Linear Planned Unit Development District. This district also allows the senior center as a permitted use. Street/g. asement Vacation of Bush Road - #00-06 Bush Road is proposed to be vacated fi.om Commerce Blvd. right-of-way east to the east line of existing lot 38. It is 60 feet right-of-way serving as road access for 4 existing residences and as a utility easement for sanitary sewer, water, and gas mains. As platted the right-of-way extends to the City property east of the property surrounding and including Lost Lake. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax(612) 338-6838 p. $ GiIlespie Senior Center May $, 2000 With the redevelopment of the site, there is no apparent need for the fight-of-way in its current form. As proposed, a private drive will serve the property. Existing public utility services will become private services and continue to serve the property. The City Engineer's report provides additional detail on road and utility service issues. Variances - #00-07 and 19 The site plan shows the location of the senior center on the site, indicating side and rear yard setbacks where variances are requested. When adjacent to a residential district, a building in the B-1 district must maintain a 50 feet separation from the side and rear property lines. The variances indicated in the application are incorrect and should be as follows: l:.xisting/Proposed Required Variance Side Yard 13' 50' 37' Side Yard 23' 50' 27' Rear Yard 16' 50' 34' Parking Stalls 9' x 18' 10' x 20' 1' x 2' In regard to impact on adjacent properties, the south setback is the most critical setback as it is adjacent to homes fronting on Bartlett Blvd. The rear yard and north side yard abut Lost Lake. A hardcover variance of 40 percent will be needed. Currently, the code stipulates a 30 percent maximum for newly platted lots. With the approval of the water management plan from the MCWD, the maximum hardcover for this site could be increased to 75 percent. The plan is currently being reviewed. DISCUSSION: Approval of this proposal depends largely on variance approvals for setbacks. Staff has indicated to the applicant that the building could be located in a manner that would not require variances. Siting the building in the rear of the site may have a greater impact on adjacent residences than a location on the front half of the site. This location would also have a better relationship with the street corridor as indicated in the Mound Visions Plan. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the requests with conditions as indicated below. Major Subdivision - Preliminary Plat 1. Determination of additional Commerce Blvd (County Road 110) right-of-way needs. 2. Provide easements for utilities, drainage, and access. Rezoning - approve as requested 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 p. 4 Gille. vpie Senior Center May 8, 2000 Street/Easement vacation - approve with conditions as provided by the City Engineer and Public Works Variances 1. Approve a parking size variance of 9 feet by 18 feet. 2. Approve a hardcover variance of 40 percent. 3. Staff recommends the Planning Commission discuss the yard setback variances and if findings cannot be adequately supported, deny the request. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax(612) 338-6838 Engineering · Planning · Surveying RECEIVED NAY 0 ~t 2000 MOUND "' MEMORANDUM DATE: May 3, 2000 TO: FROM: Jon Sutherland, Planning and Zoning John Cameron, City Engineer ~ SUBJECT: City of Mound Gillespie Center - Senior Citizen Center Major Subdivision, Zoning Amendment Street Vacation and Variance Case #00-04-07 MFRA #12785 This Engineering Report will address only the Major Subdivision and Street Vacation and is a supplement to our report dated March 8, 2000. The drawings reviewed were as follows: Preliminary Plat (dated February 2, 2000 and Revised April 4, 2000), as prepared by Egan Field & Nowak, Inc. Site Plan, Sheet AS 1 (dated April 10, 2000), as prepared by Archnet - The Architectural Network, Inc. Preliminary Grading Plan, Utility Plan and Details, Sheets 1, 2, and 3 (dated April 10, 2000), as prepared by Schoell & Madson, Inc. Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat 1. The preliminary plat drawing is very cluttered since the boundary survey was used as a base. It appears to contain all the necessary information for a preliminary plat. 2. The plat will need to be forwarded to Hennepin County Highway Department for their review. They probably will require additional right-of-way in this area. 15050 23rd Avenue North . Plymouth, Minnesota · 55447 phone 763/476-6010 · fax 763/476-8532 e-mail: mfra@mfra, com Jon Sutherland, Planning and Zoning May 3, 2000 Page 2 3. The final plat will need to include all necessary easements such as drainage and utility easements on all lot lines. Site Plan 1. The Site Plan has been revised since our initial review and now contains most of the necessary dimensions. 2. The building setback to the northerly property line is not shown. It scales 13 feet at the narrowest point. 3. Need to identify concrete curb and gutter. Assumption is made that perimeter of parking and drives, including islands will have concrete curb and gutter. 4. The stormwater pond is still shown on City property, which the City will need to acknowledge. We have no problem with this location except for the potential loss of trees. 5. The plan does not allow for any direct access from the County Road sidewalk to the future City trail along the wetlands. Preliminary Gradine Plan 1. There is no direct access to the proposed stormwater pond for maintenance, except to cross a landscaped grass area. 2. The only proposed grading shown for the rear portion of the building is at the southeast comer. The final grading plan will need to contain more proposed elevation and contours. The final plans will need to contain more detail on how the proposed retaining wall along the south side of the driveway will connect to the existing wall on the property to the south. This existing wall protrudes into the County right-of-way and may interfere with sight distance to the south. It appears that the end and some, if not all of the upper tier of the east-west section of this wall could be removed creating a much better situation. Preliminary Utility Plan 1. Ownership of the existing City sanitary sewer main should revert to the property owner, since it will serve only the Senior Center. The proposed six-inch watermain with the hydrant and post indicator valve will be private; however, does the fire department need any type of agreement to allow access to and use of these valves? ! Jon Sutherland, Planning and Zoning May 3, 2000 Page 3 3. The applicant will be responsible for obtaining all necessary permits fi.om Hennepin County for installation of the watermain and storm sewer. Street Vacation Please refer to letter of March 8, 2000 for comments. s 5main :XMou 12785 :\Correspondence~sutherland5-2 DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT Mound Planning Commission Minutes. March 13, 2000. MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, MARCH 13, 2000 DRAFT Those present: Chair Geoff Michael; Commissioners: Orvin Burma, Becky Glister, Cklair Hasse, Bill Voss, Frank Weiland. Absent and excused: Commissioners Michael Mueller and Jerry Clapsaddle, Council Liaison Bob Brown. Staff present: City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, and Secretary Sue McCulloch. The following public were present: Janice Beise, John Beise, Kristin Beise, Edca Beyreis, Randy Beyreis, Tom Bordwell, Marilyn Byrnes, Linda Kladstrup, Steven Kladstrup, Sharon Cook, Marge Driesser, Tom Driesser, David Dvorak, Mic Gronberg, Jerry Kohls, Ted Lentz, Peter Meyer, Bill Netka, Dorothy Netka, Duane Norberg, Brad Nordgren, Dotty O'Brien, Lowell Olson, Leona Peterson, Larry Peitiorski, Roger Reed, Amy Reese, Tom Reese, Jeff Ritnal, Betty Weiland, Roger Westman, Ben Withhard. GILLESPIE CENTER PROPOSAL (PUBLIC HEARING). CASE # 00-04: MAJOR SUBDIVISION; IN ORDER TO CREATE A LAND MASS ADEQUATE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE WESTONKA SENIOR CITIZEN CENTER; LENGTHY LEGAL, NOTE ATTACHED PRELIMINARY PLAT DATED FEBRUARY 2, 2000. CASE # 00-05: ZONING AMENDMENT; CONVERSION OF AN EXISTING R-2 ZONE TO A B-I ZONE, MAKING ALL ZONING OF THE PROPERTY CONSISTENT IN ORDER TO ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE WESTONKA SENIOR CITIZEN CENTER; LENGTHY LEGAL, NOTE ATTACHED PRELIMINARY PLAT DATED FEBRUARY 2, 2000. CASE # 00-06: STREET/EASEMENT VACATION; TO CONSOUDATE MULTIPLE PROPERTIES ALLOWING FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE WESTONKA SENIOR CITIZEN CENTER; LENGTHY LEGAL, NOTE ATTACHED PRELIMINARY PLAT DATED FEBRUARY 2, 2000. CASE # 00-07: VARIANCE; HARDCOVER AND PARKING SIZE(?); LENGTHY LEGAL, NOTE ATTACHED PRELIMINARY PLAT DATED FEBRUARY 2, 2000. Chair Michael explained to the public the public hearing process. He stated the staff will first present the case, then the Commissioners will ask questions of staff, and finally the case will be opened up for discussions and concerns from DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT Mound Planning Commission Minutes. March 13, 2000. the public. Chair Michael explained when the public addresses the Commissioners, to state your name, address, and comments. He stated after all comments have been heard from the public, it will be brought back to the Commissioner level and a decision will be agreed upon by the Commissioners with regard how this case will progress to the City Council. Gordon presented the case. He stated'Chester Yanik and Associates have submitted applications on behalf of the Westonka Senior Foundation for a new facility that will become the Gillespie Senior Center. The property is located at the intersection of Commerce and Bush Road and is a redevelopment site requiring the removal of 3 residences. Ultimately the center will be a 12,000 square feet, single story facility to meet the needs of the public it serves. Gordon stated at this time, the submittal information is incomplete, with deficiencies in the major subdivisions, rezoning, street vacation, and variance applications. Gordon informed the Planning Commission the following items are needed: 3. 4. 5. 10. 11. The Preliminary Plat is set up with survey information and needs to be a formal "Preliminary Plat." Zoning map of site showing existing district boundaries of B-1 and R-2. Proposed zoning map with boundary description. Map indicating the portion of Bush Road to be vacated. Clarify the statement, "Applicant is not requesting total vacation of ROW" in the application form. Need additional building use information to determine the parking requirements. Need to complete and submit a hardcover calculation sheet. Additional variance is needed for driveway width, Need to address why the "on-site" stormwater pond is located off-site on City property. No landscaping plan is provided. Need to address how access will be secured to the garage on adjacent property. Gordon stated given the lack of submittal information, it is difficult for staff to provide an adequate review of the proposal at this time. Staff is generally supportive of the proposal concept but it is not fair to the applicant to provide specific comments at this time. The public headngs have been advertised and the project may be best served by using the agenda time for acquainting the Commission with the proposal. Staff recommends the Planning Commission table the items until a complete submittal is ready for review. c ,/oo DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT Mound Planning Commission Minutes, March 13. 2000. Gordon stated even with recommendation by staff to table the case, the Planning Commission has three choices. He stated the Planning Commission could (a) review the material proposed make a recommendation on its own after the public hearing has occurred, (b) table the matter until additional information is submitted, but still allow the public hearing, or (c) choose not to have the public hearing and table the case until the next meeting. Gordon stated he would like to see the public hearing go forward tonight and receive their information, but to table the case until a later date. He stated there is quite a bit of information that has not been received for staff to make a recommendation tonight. Voss stated he would appreciate having the public hearing go forward tonight. He wanted staff to confirm his opinion that this plan fits well into the City of Mound's Comprehensive Plan. Gordon agreed with Voss and stated the plan works quite well with the Comprehensive Plan. Voss stated he would like to see this plan progress to the City Council tonight even though there are deficiencies listed above. He believes these deficiencies to be minor and can be addressed as the project progresses. Weiland agreed with Voss 100 percent and does not see any major problems or concerns that should stop this plan from moving forward to the City Council. He stated he does not want this project held up any longer. Glister stated she would appreciate a recommendation from staff before she makes a final decision in this matter. Chair Michael stated he would have appreciated this plan being presented tonight as a "conceptual idea." He stated without staff's recommendation he would be opposed to consider a final vote for this plan, although he would appreciate seeing the public hearing going forward tonight. He strongly stated he needs the City Engineer's and the City Planner's recommendation before sending this on to the City Council. Voss stated he would like to get the major problems out of the way and at this point he does not see anything that is over burdensome. Gordon stated staff is lacking information regarding the actual legal description of the property, whether Bush Road will be vacated, statements of right-of-way, building use information to determine the parking requirements, and ponding, to name a few. Voss asked staff how could ponding be a concern when Lost Lake is a pond. Gordon stated there are rules the Watershed District requires the City of Mound to follow and the City of Mound needs to figure out how the water from the ~. parking area will be retained, treated and filtered propedy before it goes into the surrounding lakes. Gordon further stated an agreement for access on the property has not been decided as well. Gordon stated on a conceptual level the DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT Mound Planning Commission Minutes, March 13. 2000. plan is acceptable to the City Engineer and City Planner, but they are not comfortable giving a complete recommendation until further information has been obtained. Voss asked the question of whether to table this completely or continue with the public hearing. Chair Michael stated in all faimess, he would appreciate hearing the applicant and public speak tonight, but after that point to table the case until a recommendation has been presented by staff. MOTION by Voss, seconded by Burma, to table the matter until staff presents a recommendation, but to allow the public hearing to continue. MOTION CARRIED. 6-0. Chair Michael opened the public hearing at 7:55 p.m. Steve Kladstrup, 5668 Bartlett Blvd. Mr. Kladstrup stated he has submitted a seven-page letter to the Commissioners with his concerns, so he would not review his letter tonight completely, but is hopeful the Commissioners will consider his concems addressed in his letter. Mr. Kladstrup pointed out the location of his home on the conceptual plan. He stated he and his wife would be the closest residents to the project being presented. He stated the project appears to him to be too large and too close to his property that he finds it quite threatening. Although, he suggested the conceptual plan presented tonight has changed from all other plans he has reviewed in the past, and this plan does seem to have changed to their benefit. Mr. Kladstrup asked what would be located behind the building being proposed. Ted Lentz of Yanik & Associates stated the intent it to have an elevated deck at the grade level that would be about seven feet in height. He further stated the building would comply with the water levels of the City of Mound. Mr. Kladstrup stated the lighting presented would seem rather high up and would bring a lot of light in the back yards of the residents. He further stated he would appreciate some type of buffer zone, with possible 10-foot pine trees for privacy as well. Mr. Kladstrup stated he has further concerns but will wait until the next Planning Commission meeting when a staff recommendation would be presented. Chair Michael mentioned Commissioner Michael Mueller has submitted written comments about this case. He stated Mueller agreed with the applicant with regard to a buffing requirement, as well as making adjustments, if needed, for the lighting to allow the residents more privacy. DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT Mound Planning Commission Minutes, March 13, 2000. Voss stated to Mr. KladStrup he felt this would be the least intrusive building to be built in this location next to his home. He further stated this building would benefit the community greatly. Voss asked Mr. Kladstrup if he does not approve of this type of structure being proposed in this location, than what would be his choice if he was able to choose. Mr. Kladstrup stated he is very excited about the City of Mound's redevelopment project being proposed. He stated his first choice, although, would be to leave the location as a residence area. He further stated he does support the need for a senior citizens center, but he would appreciate his needs as a citizen of Mound being noted as well. Mr. Kladstrup stated the conceptual plan proposed tonight is the best plan he has seen since this project began. Lowell Olson, Yanik & Associates. Mr. Olson stated this has been a challenge "work in progress." He stated originally the site location was too small. He noted they needed about 1.3 acres of ground area for a senior citizens center. They then were given this location and later came up with having the parking in the back of the building as opposed to the parking in the front. He stated this conceptual plan presented tonight is the one preferred by him. He explained with regard to the access to the walking path still incomplete, he as well does not have the information to complete his plan, but the intent to connect the pathway is clear. He briefed on the location of the garage entrance, which at this point seems appropriate. He later stated the parking in the rear would allow the most parking spots available. Mr. Olson stated there is always a balance of impervious surface to green space that needs to be considered as well. Mr. Kladstrup added one more important part in his eyes. He stated the conceptual plan shows 37 feet in the back yard from his lot line to the building lot line, when actually it is only 25 feet. Linda Kladstrup, 5668 Bartlett Blvd. Ms. Kladstrup asked how it is possible to build within 50 feet of a resident's home in a B-1 zoning location. She stated she is aware this is possible with easements when a hardship is involved, but is there a hardship in this case. She stated she would like to see the building in the rear because she would suspect there would be less police supervision in her eyes with the parking in the rear. Jeff Ritnal, 5650 Bartlett Boulevard. Mr. Ritnal stated he has invested time and money to make sure his properties located on Bartlett are up to code with variances. He is a little distraught that his property is not shown on the conceptual plan. He further stated the drainage pond is about 15 feet back from his property line and he is concerned about drainage with this project. He stated he will have further questions after staff has a recommendation for this project. DRAFT DRAFT DP, AFl' DP, AFT DRAFT DRAFT Mound Planning Commission Minutes. March 13. 2000. Chair Michael stated Mr. Ritnal has addressed an important concern, and he is hopeful more of Mr. Ritnars questions will be answered when the City Engineer and City Planner have completed their recommendation. John Beise, 1665 Eagle Lane. Mr. Beise stated his is on the Park Commission for the City of Mound. He stated he is concerned about his mother's property located on Bartlett where this center is being proposed. Mr. Beise suggested having this building of 1,200 square feet being proposed with ground level and a basement floor, rather than just a ground level. He further stated the plan looks appealing to have the parking in the rear. Mr. Beise stated this is a great community project for the City of Mound and agreed it is probably the least intrusive building for the neighbors. He stated he is concemed about the lower level of the building being leased out to a possible daycare center. He questioned the side yard and rear yard setbacks. Mr. Beise asked who would be maintaining the pond because the pond is located on City property. Mr. Beise suggested continuing this public headng to a later date. Chair Michael stated he does not agree with Mr. Beise to continue the public hearing because he does not think it would be fair to the public who are in attendance tonight. Duane Norberg, 6015 Aspen Road. Mr. Norberg stated he is not a property owner abutting to this possible site for the center. He stated the conceptual plan proposed tonight would be a fine addition to the community. He stated the elderly people of Mound need a place to call home. Mr. Norberg stated the setback appears to be 50 feet back as required by the City, not 25 feet back as indicated by Mr. Kladsrup. Mr. Norberg stated he does volunteer work at other senior citizens centers, one being Southshore, and this center being planned looks similar to those he works at and thought it would be appropriate for the needs of the senior citizens in Mound. He stated buildings currently being used in Mound for senior citizens are not conclusive and appropriate. Mr. Norberg further stated the traffic should be minimal in the location. Ms. Kladstrup restated again the rear of the building proposed and her three- season porch is only separated by 25 feet. She strongly suggested this fact is misrepresented on the conceptual plan. Roger Reed, the Attorney for the senior citizens of Mound, stated the location proposed for the center has always been a semi-commercial area for many years. He stated this is an ideal location. He stated he is aware of a deed from the State of Minnesota stating this property can be used for wetland services. He further stated he would not include the pond for vacation purposes; he would go only up to the property line. DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT Mound Planning Commission Minutes. March 13. 2000. Chair Michael addressed the applicant and stated to hir~ he would appreciate all the comments from the citizens tonight to be reviewed and acted upon accordingly. Mr. Reed stated he would like this property to be tax exempt property. He further stated he appreciates the input from the citizens of Mound and the Commissioners. Ben Withhard, executive director of the senior community services. Mr. Withhard said he operates programs for the senior citizens of the City of Mound. He completely agrees that the proposed center will function well and will meet the needs of the seniors now and in the future. He stated this would be a great benefit for the senior citizens. He stated the public did bring up some good comments the developer should take into consideration. Mr. Kladstrup stated he would appreciate the developer at the next meeting showing the distance between the southwest corner and the southeast corner and the respective shoreline distances. Dotty O'Brien, 5053 Bartlett. Ms. O'Brien stated since the senior citizen building has changed, the attendance has dropped. She stated even though it is adequate, it is still not a home. Ms. O'Brien mentioned even though there are about 600 senior members, only 30 of them currently participate because of the place is not adequate. She stated the seniors are a quiet group and she is hopeful the proposed location of the center will be police patrolled adequately. Chair Michael closed the public headng at 8:40 p.m. and thanked the public for their attendance. PLANNING RI:PORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. 'TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: March 13, 2000 SUBJECT: Major Subdivision, Zoning Amendment, Street Vacation, and Variances APPLICANT: Chester J. Yanik & Associates CASE NUMBERS: 00-04, 00-05, 00-06, and 00-07 HKG FILE NUMBER: 00-5 LOCATION: 4600 Commerce Blvd. ZONING: Residential District R-2 and Central Business District B-1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Linear BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Chester Yanik and Associates have submitted applications on behalf of the Westonka Senior Foundation for a new facility which will become the Gillespie Senior Center. The property is located at the intersection of Commerce and Bush Road and is a redevelopment site requiring the removal of 3 residences. Ultimately the center will be a 12,000 square feet, single story facility to meet the needs of the public it serves. At this time, the submittal information is incomplete, with deficiencies in the major subdivision, rezoning, street vacation, and variance applications. The following items are needed: · The Preliminary Plat is set up with survey information and needs to be a formal "Preliminary Plat." · Zoning map of site showing existing district boundaries of B- 1 and R-2. Proposed zoning map with boundary description. · Map indicating the portion of Bush Road to be vacated. · Clarify the statement, "Applicant is not requesting total vacation of ROW" in the application form. · Need additional building use information to determine the parking requirements. · Need to complete and submit a hardcover calculation sheet. · Additional variance is needed for driveway width. · Need to address why the "on-site" stormwater pond is located off-site on City property. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 p. 2 Gillespie Senior Center March 13, 2000 · No landscaping plan is provided. · Need to address how access will be secured to the garage on adjacent property. Given the lack of submittal information, it is difficult for staff to provide an adequate review of the proposal at this time. Staff is generally supportive of the proposal concept but it is not fair to the applicant to provide specific comments at this time. The public hearings have been advertised and the project may be best served by using the agenda time for acquainting the Commission with the proposal. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission table the' items until a complete submittal is ready for review. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 Engineering Planning · Surveying HAR 0 5 ZOOO MOUND PLkNNINL & INSP. MEMORANDUM DATE: March 8, 2000 TO: Jon Sutherland, Planning and Zoning FROM: John Cameron, City Engineer SUBJECT: City of Mound Gillespie Center - Senior Citizen Center Major Subdivision, Zoning Amendment, Street Vacation & Variance Case #00-04-07 MFRA #12785 _ This Engineers report will cover the major Subdivision and Street vacation applicatiOns. Minor Subdivision - Preliminary Plat The information submitted for the Preliminary Plat review does not meet the requirements contained in Section 330 of the City code; therefore I can only comment on the documents received. Section 330:45, Subdivision 4 requires plans be submitted which show 1) proposed utilities and 2) proposed grading and drainage, neither of which have been included in the plans submitted for our review. Preliminary Plat and Site Plan The Preliminary Plat drawing appears to meet most of the requirements of the City Code. The Site Plan is generally lacking in dimensions, thus critical items such as setbacks, parking stall size, driveway widths, etc. cannot be verified. The proposed stormwater pond is shown outside the development, on City property. It appears a number of significant trees may need to be removed to construct this pond. At the present time, because the city has not adopted their own Stormwater Management Plan, a permit will need to be obtained from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD). Since the development is more then 1/2 acre, but less then eight (8) acres it appears only the BMP's and rate control requirements of Rule N, will apply. This needs to be verified with the MCWD. 15050 23rd Avenue North · Plymouth, Minnesota · 55447 phone 612/476-6010 . fax 612/476-8532 e-mail: mfra@mfra, com Mr. Jon Sutherland March 8, 2000 Page 2 Street Vacation The major point of concern with the proposed street vacation will be the loss of public access to the existing garage on the property at 5680 Bartlett Boulevard. Access easements to Commerce Boulevard will need to be provided for this property. The utility services for the house at 5680 Bartlett Boulevard come from the mains in Bartlett Boulevard. The removal of the four buildings along Bush Road and the proposed development will eliminate the need for the publiC utilities located in this street; However the existing city lines may be of use in the proposed development. When a utility plan is submitted this issue can be addressed. The future ownership of the northerly 1/2 of the east end of Bush Road should be verified. The preliminary plat shows it as accruing to the owner of Lot 33 (VFW), however since the street was platted entirely within the plat of Mounds Bay Park, ownership of the full width may revert back to the property owner on the south side. The question of access to the future City trail along the Lost Lake wetlands as shown on the Site Plan should be addressed. The vacation of Bush Road would eliminate any direct access from Commerce Boulevard in this area. The next closest City controlled access point is probably east on Bartlett Boulevard approximately 700 feet from the Commerce Boulevard/Bartlett Boulevard intersection. Depending upon the final layout, possibly a trail easement could be granted to the City along the north or south side of the property. s:hmainh-nou 12785\correspondence~sutherlandmemo3-8 Development · Design Build · Projec~ Management Chester J. Yanik & Associates, Inc. 3701 Shoreline Drive Suite 206 Wayzata. IVlinneeoota 55391 phone 612-471-9199 fax 612-471-9196 February 29, 2000 Jun Sutherland Building Official City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 FAX AND U.S. MAIL Subject: The Gillespie Center: Preferred Alternate Site Dear Jori, RECEIVEI' MAR 0 Z 2000 MOUND PL NNtNt ii INSP. At 8:00 AM this morning, Ted Lentz and I attended a special meeting of the Westonka Senior Citizen Foundation. The purpose of this meeting was to explain the process for selection of the building site as presented to the city of Mound in our application to the planning commission. ~s the discussion progressed, a very st~6ng position wa-~ taken I~y various members of the group for the improving the visibility and proximity to Lost Lake. The group left us with the direction to submit to your office for consideration a site plan showing the building positioned further to the east with the parking lot located between Commerce Avenue and the building. We will produce such a drawing and present it to you as soon as possible. We wish to remain on the current timeline and present this site plan as a Preferred Option. If you need any further reformation or clarification, please call me. Sincerely, YANIK COMPANIES Lowell Olson Project Director Cc: Chester Yanik Sharon Cook file 29-00.doc c:\windowsktesktop\gillespie ctr~ltr jun s gillespie ctr altsite 2- t! MAJOR SUBDI¥1SlON City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 PLANNING COMM. DATE March 13, 21300 CITY COUNCIL DATE April 11,2000 DISTRIBUTION CiTY PLANNER CITY ENGINEER PUBMC WORKS DNR FIRE DEPARI'M/ENT ASSESSING (,~~j'~ C~,J~V) OT.ER: ~'~ DA r~ TYPE OF APPLICATION SKETCH PLAN REVIEW PRELIMINARY PLAT FINAL PLAT $1 Q/LOT OVER 2 LOTS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: PDA ESCROW DEPOSIT VARIANCE TOTAL Please type or print PROPERTY INFORMATION EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION ZONING DISTRICT APPLICANT OWNER ( If other than applicant) the following Information: Subject Address_See attached "Exhibit" Block Plat# B-2 B-3 PID~ Name of Proposed plat Lot Subdivision Circle: O R-lA ~--~ R-30 The applicant is: owner other [ eve~j~[~ Name Chester J. Yanik & Associates, Inc. Address 3701 Shoreline Drive, Wayzata, MN 55391 Phone (612)-471-9199 (Fax) (612)-471-9196 Name Address Phone (H) (W) (M) Westonka Senior Citizen Center / Reference attached list 'Exhibit B' SURVEYOR/ ENGINEER Name Egan, Field & Nowak, Inc. Address 7415 Wayzata Blvd. Minneapolis, MN 55426 Phone 612-546-6837 Fax 612-.546-6839 PAID FEB i 6 2000 CITY OF MOUND $ 250 $1,000 $100 (Revised 10-27-99) Major Subdivision Application Page2 Description of Proposed Use: This site is intended to be developed for the use of the Westonka Senior Citizen Center as a community social services center. Reconfiguring the three properties described in the options in addition to the proposed vacated street into one parcel will allow for a land mass adequate for the construction of a one story building of approximately 12,000 square feet and adequate off street parking. This site will also be capable of meeting the impervious surface limitations as required by the city of Mound and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. 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. This proposed use is likely to produce increased automobile traffic entering and leaving the new parking lot. Parking lot and security lighting will be designed in accordance with the city lighting ordinances. Special attention will be given to shielding neighboring residences from intrusive traffic noise, lighting, and activities. Smoke, odor and air quality issues should not be affected appreciably. 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: $ See attached schedule RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS: NOT APPLICABLE Number of Structures: Number of Dwelling Units/Structure: Lot Area Per Dwelling Unit: sq. ft. Total Lot Area: sq. ft. Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, ( )no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. This application must be signed by all owners of the subject property, or an explanation given why this is not the case. See attached options for property owners signatures. Lowell Olson r',,7--"~ Project Manager ~ ~ ' - Print Applicant's Name Applicant's Signature Date (Revised 10-27-99) Development · Design Build · Project Manageme~ Chester J. Yanik & Associates, Inc. 3701 Shoreline Drive Suite 206 Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 phone 612-471-9199 fax 612-471-9196 February 15, 2000 Jon Sutherland Building Official City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 HAND DELIVERED Subject: Gillespie Center subdivision, re. zoning, variance and street vacation applications Dear Jori, Attached are the applications listed above for the proposed Gillespie Cemer project. We include the following: 1. 2 sets of labels, Exhibit A. 2. 2 certified lists, Exhibit B, as referred to in the application for Street Vacation, Major Subdivision, Zomg Amendment, and Variance. 3. Signed copies of the purchase options, Exhibit C, for the three real estate parcels that make up the basis for this application. 4. The final attachment, Exhibit D, is the just completed survey of these properties including the topography. We have spared no effort in providing as much information as we have available for this application review process. Currently, this project is in the design/development stage. Certain details related to the site plan, impervious surface calculations, and storm water management plan can only be addressed on the basis of schematic drawings that reflect the evolution of the process resulting in the final design of this project. The same is true of access easements related to adjacent properties and the proposed walking paths surrounding Lost Lake. We believe it is in everyone's interest to identify these items in our next meeting with you, the city planner, and our Architect. It is our iment to maintain a sensitivity to the individual fights of all adjoining property owners as we proceed with the design/developmem process. All reasonable efforts will be made to insure the minimal intrusion of this Center and its functions on the neighboring properties. 940.d~ c:\windows\desktop\gillespie ctr~ltr jon s gillespie err apps 2- PAGE2 - 02/15/00 We look forward to working with you and other city staff in the design and development of this project. Sincerely, Lowell Olson Project Director Cc: Chester Yanik Sharon Cook file JazZ5' /fi// OPTION AGREEMENT In consideration of the sum of Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00), which I have received, I hereby grant to Westonka Senior Foundation an option for three months from this date to purchase my property at 2574 Commerce Boulevard, Mound, legally described as Lot 31, Auditor's Subdivision o~No. 167, Hennepin County, Minnesota for the sum of $ /'c~'~. (ZC'Ff . This option may be extended from time to time for up to six additiof~al months upon payment of additional option money at the rate of One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) per month by written notice including additional option money mailed to me at 2574 Conunerce Boulevard, Mound, Minnesota, 55364. This option may be exercised by written notice mailed on or before the expiration of the option period or any extension.' It is understood that Westonka Senior Foundation has permission to immediately conduct soil tests on the property. If this option is not exercised, any damage done to the property by soil tests will be repaired. If this option is exercised, the closing shall be held at the office of Reed & Pond, Ltd., 5424 Shoreline Boulevard, Mound, Minnesota, 55364, within 90 days after the notice of exercise is mailed. I promise to pay all the usual costs incurred by a seller including furnishing and extending an abstract and paying the deed tax. I will pay any mortgages or liens. I will pay for any levied or pending special assessments. The real estate taxes shall be pro-rated to the date of closing. Option money shall be credited against the sale price. I warrant that I am single and that my title to said property is marketable. In the event that the title is not marketable, I agree to pay for all necessary actions to make the title marketable. 3701 Shoreline Drive, Suite 206 Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 ES ~ Development · Design Build · Project Mnnngement EXHmlT "C" OPTION AGREEMENT In consideration of the sum of Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00), which we have received, we hereby grant to Westonka Senior Foundation an option for three months from this date to purchase our property at 2600 Commerce Boulevard and 5691 Bush Road, Mound, legally described as the north half of Lots 44,45,46,47 48 & 49, Block 9, Mound Bay Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota for the sum of One Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($150,000.00). This option may be extended from time to time for up to six additional ~ months upon payment of additional option money at the rate of One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) per month by written notice including additional option money mailed to us at 4731 Carlow Road, Mound, Minnesota, 55364. This option may be exercised by written notice mailed on or before the expiration of the option period or any eXtension. It is understood that Westonka Senior Foundation has permission to immediately conduct 'soil tests on the property. If this option is not exercised, any damage done to the property by soil tests will be repaired. If this option is exercised, the closing shall be held at the office of Reed & Pond, Ltd., 5424 Shoreline Boulevard, Mound, Minnesota, 55364, within 90 days after the notice of exemise ismailed. We promise to pay all the usual costs incurred by a seller including furnishing and extending an abstract and paying the deed tax. We will pay any mortgages or liens. We will pay all levied or pending special assessments. The real estate taxes and rents shall be pro-rated to the date of closing. Option money shall be credited against the sale price. Rental deposits shall be credited to buyer. The buyer shall pay all expenses relating to subdivision including survey, permits etc. The title to said property shall be subject to a lease which expires Dec. 31, 2000 and to a month to month lease. An easement 12 feet in width shall be retained or granted to sellers for driveway access from Commerce Boulevard to the garage on the south half of Lots 44,45 & 46, which serves the home on Lots 4,5 & 6. Said easement shall provide practical access in a manner to be approved by sellers, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. We warrant that our rifle to said property is marketable. In the event that the title is not marketable, we agree to pay for all necessary actions to make the tire marketable. Connie L. Meyer January!~', 2000 OPTION AGREEMENT In consideration of the sum of Two Thousand Dollars ($2000.00), which I have received, I hereby grant to Westonka Senior Foundation an option for three months from this date to purchase my property at 5667 Bush Rd., Mound, leLraily described as Lots 38,39,40,41,42, & 43, Block 9, Mound Bay Park, Henncpm County, Minnesota for thc sum of One Hundred Seventy Five Thousand Dollars ($175,000.00). This option may be cxtcnded from time to time for up to six additional monthn upon payment of additional option money at the rate of Two Hunderd Fifty Dollars ($250.00) per month by written notice including additional option money mailed to me at 5667 Bush Rd., Mound, Mn, 55364. This option may be exercised by written notice mailed on or before the expiration of the option period or any extension. It is understood that Westonka Senior Foundation has permission to immediately conduct soft tests on the property. If this option is not exercised, any damage done to the property by soil tests It is understood that Westonim Senior Foundation plans to bulldoze the house and that I may salvage the stracture for any/all of its components. All salvage by the me, to be done by the closing date. If this option is exercised, the closing shall be held at the office of Reed & Pond, LtcL, 5424 Shoreline Boulevard, Mound, Minnesota, 55364, within 120 days after the notice of exercise is mailed. I promise to pay all the usual costs incur~ by a seller including furnishing and extending an abstract and paying the deed tax. I will pay any mortgages or leins. I will pay all levied or pending special assessments. The real estate taxes shall be pro-rated to the date of closing, Option money shall be credited against the sale price ff this option is exercised within 3 month~ of this date I warrant that I am single and that nay title to said property is marketable. In the event that the title is not marketable, I agree to pay for all neces~y actions to ma~ the title marketable. · IIIIIII - ~ · nlnlnnn - ~ Illll Ill I~ IIIIII · IIIIII IIIIIIII IIIIIIII III · · I llI III III ·II~ ~ III .~_ · · IIIIIII1[ · · IIIIIII L ~ · · IIIIIII.'~_L~ ~ · [] IIIIII!"~!~ I I I I I I~ IIIIIIII · · IIIII IIIIIIII · · IIIII IIIIIIII · · IIIII IIIIIIII · · IIIII IIIIIIII · · IIIII IIIIIIII · · IIIII IIIIIIII · · · · IIIIIII - · · IIIIIII ;~ LAKE MINNETONKA BARTLETT BLVD (CO RD NO 125) .o ' 4oi4o i4oi (9) i 3 (14) MINNETONKA ZONING AMENDMENT APPLICATION City of Mound, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Planning Commission Date: March 13, 2000 No. PAID FEB I 6 Z000 5 City Council Date: April 11, 2000 Distribution: ~..-:Z [- it) City Planner Public Works Zoning Amendment Fee: $250.00 Engineer 2-Z~-t:~ DNR Applicant Name Chester J. Yanik & Associates, Inc. Address 3701 Shoreline Drive, Suite 206, Wayzata, MN 55391 Phone 612-471-9199 Fax 612-471-9196 I__1 AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE It is requested that Section 350: of the Mound Zoning Ordinance be amended as follows: Reason for amendment: I_X_I AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING MAP I ZONING DISTRICT It is requested that the property described below and shown on the attached site plan be rezoned From R-2 Address & Legal of Subject Property to B-1 AddressSee attached options for legal descriptions/addresses. Lot Block Addition PID~ Plat Owner of Subject Site Present Use of Pronertv Name Various, Address Phone Residential use see above. Reason for Amendment Applicant's Signature (Rev. 12-30-98) To make zoning consistent with existing B-f property and proposed use. Lowell Olson, Project Manager PAID Rev. 12-30-98 Application for STREET / EASEMENT VACATION City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Planning Commission Date: March 13, 2000 Case No. FEB ! $ ZOO0 CITY OF MOUND City Council Date: Apdl 11, 2000 Application Fee: ~250.00 Distribution: ~.- ~'~,'~ City Planner it City Engineer t { Police Dept. 1,1 GTE I[ Public Works ~( Fire Dept ~,'~ ~ Other Please type or print the followin~ information: Name Chester J Yanik & Associates, Inc. APPLICANT Address 3701 Shoreline Drive, Suite 206 Wayzata, MN 55391 Phone (612)-471-9199 Fax (612)-471-9196 Adjocent address See attached options for legal descriptions and owners names. EXHIBIT "C" ADJACENT PROPERTY Name of Business (APPLICANT'S PROPERTY) Lot Block Subdivision (~ ~ PID~ ZONING Circle: R-1 R-lA R-3 B-2 DISTRICT Plat~ DESCRIPTION OF STREET TO BE VACATED REASON FOR REQUEST IS THEREA PUBLIC NEED FOR THIS LAND? Bush Road from County 110 (Commerce Street), east to a line extended northerly from the northeast comer of Lot 38, Mound Bay Park addition. NOTE; See_ attached survey dated: February 2, 2000 ~f- ~p~/_~. [:>L ~'~- To consolidate multiple properties allowing for the development of an adequate site for the construction of the proposed Gillespie Center and its parking and green space as directed by city codes. Future public needs provided for by pathway access easement to remaining Bush Road right-of-way. Applicant is not requesting total vacation of dght of way. Lowell Olson Project Manager Print Applicant's Name Date FIELD I NOWAK, INC._J'Ee 2~1; SURVEYORS ~ #~ Phone: (952) ~7 FAX: (952) 546~39 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION FOR WESTONKA SENIOR FOUNDATION FEBRUARY 18, 2000 SOUTHERLY PARCEL. LOts 38, 59, 40, 41, 42, 4.5, and the north half of lots 44, 45, 46, 47, 48 and 49, Block 9, MOUNDS BAY PARK, according to the recorded plat thereof and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota. and NORTHERLY PARCEL Lot 51, Auditor's Subdivision No. 167. Hennepin County, Minnesota. PROPOSED BUSH ROAD VACATION PARCEL. That part of Bush Road, formedy known as Langdon Avenue as dedicated in the plat of MOUND BAY PARK, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota lying east of Commerce Boulevard and west of a line drawn northeHy and at right angles to the center line of said Bush Rood from the northeast comer of Lot 38, Block 8, said MOUND BAY PARK. VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 534t Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Application Fee: $100.00 (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) Planning Commission Date: MARCH 13, 2000 Case No. 0 0- ~ ~ City Council Date: APRIL 11, 2000 Distribution: ~-?.?-~C~ City Planner ~' City Engineer I t Public Works Address DNR Other SUBJECT PROPERTY LEGAL DESC. Lot See attached "Exhibit C' Block Subdivision PID# Plat~ PROPERTY OWNER ZONING DISTRICT (~ R-lA (~ R-3 Q Name Westonka Senior Citizen Center Address Phone APPLICANT Name (IF OTHER Address THAN Phone OWNER) B-2 B-3 Chester J. Yanik & Associates 3701 Shoreline Drive, Suite 206, Wayzata, MN 55391 612-471-9199 Fax 612-471-9196 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. o Detailed description of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stodes, type of use, etc.): The proposed building for this site will be a 12,000 square foot, single story, mixed use, (office and public areas), commercial type structure, housing offices of various social agencies serving the community. Current plans also include meeting space for public use. Revised 10-26-99 Variance Application, P. 2 Case No. Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning distdct in which it is located? Yes (), No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): NA All existing structures to be removed SETBACKS: REQUIRED REQUESTED (or existing) VARIANCE Front Yard: (NSEW) ft ft ft Side Yard: (NSEW) ft ft ft Side Yard: (NSEW) ft ff ft Rear Yard: (NSEW) ft ft ft Lakeside: (NSEW) ft ft ft (NSEW) ff ff ff Street Frontage: ft ft ft Lot Size: sq ft sq ft sq ff Hardcover: sq ft sq ft Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use: NA Due to rezoning Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( )too narrow ( )too small ( )drainage ( )too shallow ( )topography ( ) existing situation ( )shape ( )soil ( )other: specify Please describe: Revised 10-26-99 V=n~nce Application, P. 3 Case No. Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No (X), If yes, explain: Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No (X). If yes, explain: Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (X), No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected. Comments: Impervious surface issue to be dealt with by development of a storm water management plan. Parking stall width to be 9'. More common current standard. I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. . /-~ Applicant's Signature ~ ~ Date Z- (~ - 0(3 Lowell Olson, Project Manager Revised 10-26-99 MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT - INTEROFFICE MEMO DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Chief, September 7, 1999 Chief Harrell Sgt. Grand Propert~ site on Bush Rd. I have looked at the proposed site on Bush Rd as you requested and can see no negative impact for the police department. Bush Rd. has good access to Commerce Blvd. The proposed center would be the end of the road with the police department not needing to go past the new center's location. Let me know if you need further information. Page 1 o~ 1 MAR-O?-R000 11:23 6516~0B66 P.01/07 FIL~ NO.= NO. COM I:::LBBR/NTMK STATION TELEPHONE NO. 001 OK · 6124720628 END=MAR-8? 89:~ P~GES PRB.NO. PROGRAM NP, ME TO: ~:~ ~~.~ From: Phone." , (~. ~J-~7..- 0_~1~ Date: RECEIVED MAR 0 7 MOUND PLRNNtNLi & INS~ Review 0 IM~ ~ment I'! Ple~e Repl~ [] Please Re,."~le MAR-B?-RI~O 11:23 6516~40366 P.O./El'? March 6, 2000 To The City Of Mound: RE:r:p:~\IEP MAR 0 7 ZOO0 MOUND PLANNING & iNS; Regarding the proposed site plan for the new Wcstonka Senior Citizen Center, we residents of Mound wish to make the following statements and protests: Our names are Steve and Linda Kladstrup. We live at 5668 Bartlett Boulevard in Mound. L Steve, am a professional software developer, working with a computer mapping company, and my background includes a Master's Degree in International Management, as well as election to Phi Beta Kappa (national honorary) while earning my undergraduate degrees. My wife, Linda, also is a Masters Degree holder, and is employed by the Chaska School District as the senior teacher in the Spanish Department, which she started in 1984. If our last name looks familiar to any of you, it may be because you remember my oldest brother, Don, who was with WCCO-TV here in the Twin Cities, prior to working as a foreign correspondent with CBS, ABC, and CNN over the course of his career. We ourselves moved to Minnesota back in 1984, seeking a better quality of life, and hoping to build our dreams here. WE CARE ABOUT OUR HOME: Having resided in Mound since 1984, and having resided at 5668 Bartlett Boulevard since 1986, we have made a significant investment, monetarily, physically, md emotionally, in our Mound residence. We do care about its appearance, its economic worth, its resale value, and while dismayed by the amount of litter we've seen off of Bartlett Boulevard and from other directions over thc years, we still take pride in maintaining a generally acceptable domicile that fns with the surrounding community. We are also quite aware ofthc fact that we live in a somewhat historic structurc that was pan of the Central Business District before Route 15 came to be. We know this, thanks to an old friend, Ed B., who used to live in the big (even older) house next to us, When we first bought our house 13 years ago, it was in need of many interior and exterior improvements. We have slowly but surely been working to improve our house, paying the most attention to improvements on the inside, but with many plans for exterior improvements, and eventually, expansion. WE PROTEST THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SITE AND ASK TNF. CITY TO REXECT IT/RELOCATE IT: Thc proposed Senior Center site development aI Bush Road is of such a MAGNITt~E and PROXIMITY that we have no choice but to protest, inasmuch as said developmenI will severely interrupt and negatively impact our live's largest investment and equity s~ake, as well as the quality of life that we currently enjoy in Mound. We think that the act of putting vehicle traffic and pavement on ~wo sides ora line ofresiden6al homes is almost criminal. It effectively cancels our most heartfelt plans, and negates the last l:~ year's worth of effort and hard work. Our first and foremost message is: WE STRONGLY REJECT, PROTEST, AND EXPRESS OUR. DISAPPOINTMElCr AND DISMAY ~-07-2000 11:2~ 5515aa03~ P.03/07 I,VITH TIlE PROPOgED DIlVI::I-OPMENT. Its intent is a very good one which we fully support with all our hearts, but its implementation is flawed and invasive, despke good intentions, and even has the appearance of being both selfish and heavy- handed, when seen from the perspective of the neighboring resident, es that will be negatively impacted. WILL OTHER BUSINESSES GROW EASTWARD AS A RESULT? Only a few years ago, during a conditional use permit consideration by thc City Council regard/rig the auto r~pair station on the comer of Commerce and Bartlett, I inquired as lo thc poss~ility of rezoning taking place in the neighboring r~sidences. The City Planner at that time indicated that k was extremely unlikely. Those words wrned out to be empty ones for us beca~ase it appears that thai very thing we feared most is about to happen, in a major way, with little and somewhat understated warning to the residences about to be impacted. WE ARE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE PRECEDENT THAT THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPME'NT SETS. WE HOPE THAT THE CITY WILL PLEASE NOTE THAT DEVELOPMENT OF THE BUSH ROAD SITE DRASTICALLY CHANGES THE GEOGRAPHY AND OPTIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE NORTHEAST COKNER of Commerce and Banloa Boulevards. As an example, by this action, the City is effectively §tying the business interest at the comer {still an auto repair shop, but under new ownership) no place to grow but eastward, again infringin§ upon residential neighborhoods, with all the negative impact that will have. PLEASE KNOW THAT, BY THIS ACTION, YOU ARE COMPLETELY CHANGING THE OLD HISTORIC CENTER OF MOUND, ONE THAT HAS BEEN PRIMARILY RESIDENTIAL. WHII.E WE STRONGLY SUPPORT THE CITY'S OVERALL VISION OF DEVELOPMENT FOR MOUND, WE WOULD ASK THAT YOU REJECT Tiffs PARTICULAR PLAN, AND THEREBY EXHIBrI' A NOTEWORTHY MEASURE OF COMPASSION FOR THE PEOPLE YOU ARE ABOUT TO IMPACT NEGATIVELY. We aren't inflexible, but we ar~ asking for you, the City, to REJECT the proposed plan, and/or work with us so that we don't lose what precious stake we have in this City and this community. FIXING THE PLAN: We sincerely doubt if this is truly possible, but in the event that the said development is already a given and that the City Council feels bound and compelled, for whatever personal or economic reasons, to squeeze the Senior Center into formerly residential zones, we believe there are several steps that the City must take in order to provide for the greatest possible alleviation of the negative impact that this development will have on neighboring residences. We respectfully present them here: MORE DISTANCE BE'IWEEN US AND THEM: In the event that said development is already a given and not subject to debate or rejection, we believe that the City ought to REQUIRE AND ENFORCE a significant buffer zone between said development and the residences bordering on the site. The first consideration ought to be DISTANCE, which as measured by the architectural site plan drawn up for the City, is shown to be only 37 feet fi.om the comer of our house. THE PLAN IS IN ERROR, AND THIS MEASUREMENT IS M~R-O?-2000 11:2S 6S16440366 P.04/07 1VHS! FADING IN FAVOR OF TH~ DEVELOPER BECAUSE THE 3 7 FOOT DISTANCE SHOWN IS NOT THE SHORTEST DISTANCE FROM OUR HOUSE TO THE BORDEI~ BUT RATHER, IS FROM THE CORNER OF THE MAI]q 2-STORY STKUC'R3RE TO THE NEAREST SURVEYED PROPERTY CORNER. THE ACTUAL DISTANCE BETWEEN OUR BACK DOOR AND THE PROPERTY LINE IS 25-1/2 FEET. WE PROTEST THIS AS WHOLLY UNACCEPTABLE. THIS THROWS INTO QUESTION THE INTEGRITY AND ACCURACY OF THE SURVEYORS AND PLAN AUTHORS, NOT TO ~ON THE PROPOSED PLAN ITSELF. We would find the plan as presented to be ludicrous, if we weren't the proposed victims and the maker so serious. The plan doesn't even show the correct footl~-ints of the homes involved. IArhat else is misrepresented to the City? We also believe that the distance as shown goes against thc intc~t and spirit of the B-l/B-2 zoDin~ s~n~d ora minimum of S0 feet lot"side and rear setbac~ if abutting residential district", and WE VIGOROUSLY REQUEST THE CITY TO CONSIDER THIS FACTOR, either as grounds for outright rejection of the site, or as a reason for seeking a solution that is not so aggressive, heartless, and one-sided. MAKE THE PARKING LOT SMALLER. It is simply too big and too close to the people who live here. Scale the project back a bit. We can't believe that anyone considering this matter would trade places with any of us living along this proposed site, faced with this plan. Please. Do unto others... EARTHEN BARRrF-R: We don't want to be victims of increased B-1 traffic on one side and regular street traffic on the other, not to mention the litter (wind- blown and otherwise) that typically accompanies such traffic. I have a hard enough time keeping my ~.ont yard clean. In addition to rectifying the distance issue, we would request, in the event that said development site is already a given and not subject to debate or rejection, for an earthen barrier (a ridge) of some reasonable height, between the two properties, to ex/st aloo. g the southernmost 150' boundary on the site to be developed (and not on our property). TREE BARRIER: We enjoy the birds that frequent our backyard, and we don't want to look at a parking lot in their place. In addition to the foundational earthen barrier, we would ask, in the event that said development site is already a given and not subject to debate or rejection, for the planting of a double-line of 10' pine trees, planted on or near the ridge, and offset in order to provide a visual wail to block as much of the parking lot and its lighting as possible. One row of pines is inadequate, since it will only block 50% of the view. Our preference is for as tall and as thick a barrier as possible. NO PARKING LOT LIGHTING: We don't want to have the night sky and quiet taken away fi.om us. There is nothing like being able to go outside at night and look up at the stars or even the Northern Lights (which we have seen directly overhead from our property on more than one occasion). In the event that said M~R-O?-2000 11:26 6516~40366 P.06/07 development site is already a given and not subject '~o deba~e or rejection, we would say this: We hope that you will noX have parking lox lightpoles. Let there be main building lights. Let the. re be ground-based lighting. But please, no lights in the sky over oar backyard. If there is any way to negate parking lot lighrpoles, even with trees, we would plead and plead and plead for it. We would also plead for you to orient all lighting so as to poirrt away from the neighboring residences. APPROPRIATE LINE OF SIGHT AND RELATIVE ELEVATIONS: In the event that said development site is already a given and not subject to debate or rejection, we request that the City give due consideration to the lay of the land, relative to the residences being impacted. What is the relative elevation of the parking lot? Is it above or below the properties concerned? Our property is a sloping one (towards Lost Lake), and our cone, em is whether car headlights will be below our property, shining into oar first floor windows, or shining into our second-story windows. This may be a factor of where the cars are located, along the slope of our property. At one end, our property may be slightly above the lot, while at the other, it may be below it. We request that the City review this and map out a ridge that will be an effective barrier. We currently believe that such a ridge needs to be level (as opposed to sloping), and that it should be built on (and at the elevation of) the site to be developed. In any event, we would like the chance to consult with a city planner on site if, indeed, it even comes to this. REORIENT TWr. PARKING SPACES: Given the current plan drawn up for the City, we can plainly see that a buffer zone effectively erases the southernmost row of 13 parking spaces, all of which are currently oriented so that the car headlights will point directly into our homes. THAT ROW OF PARKING SPACES, AS DRAWN, IS INCONSIDERATE, INTRUSIVE, AND THREATENING TO THE BORDERJNO RESIDENCES, AND HENCE, A CASE OF POOR PLANNING. Our proposal, in the event that said development is already a given and not subject to debate or rejection~ is that you implement the buffer zone along the southern edge, extend the three center rows of parking to the edge of the buffer zone and thereby gain more parking spaces that way. We also believe that those same rows will offer more spaces if the planter and curb space surrounding them is eliminated. Looking ax the plan drawn up for ff~e City, we believe that it may be possible to keep as many as 9 or 10 of those 13 spaces, while impleme~i,g the buffer zone as suggested. PLEASE LEAVE ~ PINE TREE: At the western end of the buffer zone described above, there is a nice old 50+' foot pine tree that need not be taken down. It is not in the way, even of the parking lot that has been proposed to the City, with the possible excelxion of one space on the end, and there does not appear to be any good reason to remove it. In the event that said development is already a given and not subject to debate or rejection, we ask thru you leave this tree intact. Not only is it grand, but also, it forms an effective part of the buffer zone, since k would be between the back of our house and ~e proposed Senior Center building. MAR-O?-2000 11:25 6516440366 P.85/87 SAVE AS MA.NY OLD TREES AS POSSIBLE: The plan being put forth appears to be removing nearly all of the forest that exists between us and Lost Lake. That represents a decline in our quality of life. Again, in the event that said development is already a given and not subject to debate or rejection, the overall goals of the buffer zone are: · Protecting the privacy of ourselves and other neighboring Mound residents in their own homes. We are quite naturally alarmed about having traffic where there was none, intrusive lighting from both lamppoles and car headlights, the potential for litter, and the potential for overflow traffic from neighboring establishments. Giving our residences access to the proposed Lost Lake wnlking path. The ridge and trees could potentially be arranged so as to provide a common p~thway for residents to walk down to the Lost Lake walking path without having to tromp through each other's backyards, intruding on privacy. There could even be a double ridge with a path in between and trees on the sides. And there might be steps put in for thc neighboring lot to our west, just south of the Senior Center. We believe that the walking path will be a positive development for the City of Mound, if implemented with due consideration for thc people who live here rather than with a steamroller. To finish, MAKE NO MISTAKE, our primary plea is for the City to REJECT THIS SITE ALTOGETHER AND SEEK ANOTHER. Upon rejection of our primary plea, our secondary plea is to alleviate the proximity and intrusiveness of tiffs she to residential neighbors. As h stands, it is both frighter6ng and depressing to see this plan as currently hid out. If there is little flexibility and neighborly concern on the part of those seeking the site dcvclopmcnt, or if alleviation is simply not possible regarding dista_uce, buffer zone, lighting, trees, and other issues raised, to the satisfaction of all concerned, WE WOULD STRONGLY ASK ~ CITY TO CONSH)ER BUYING OUR PROPERTY TOO. This could be for future development, for use as a park, playground, and/or greenway buffer between the expanding business zones and the residences to our east, or perhaps even a well-forested one-way exit from thc Senior Center onto Bartlett Boulevard along the western edge of the property, where there is an old stone wall and natural change in elevation (this side of the property is as far away from homeowner/residents as possible). Wc make this request because the plans as they are being put forth effectively negate our personal visions and hopes for thc future, and will cause us to make every attempt to build our dreams elsewhere. If our only option is to exit, we will do so, and we will even do so gracefully, if you, the City, make it possible. MA~-07-2000 11:~6 6~16~40B66 P.07/07 Lastly, on a personal level, we ask your every consideration in simply alleviating the stress fl~at this matter is causing. We believe this is a matter of good intentions dressed in poor (and maybe just oversized) ideas. We ask for your professionalism, your citizenship, your honesty, and your wisdom. Respectfully yours, and Linda Kladstmp 5668 Bartlett Blvd. Mound, MN 55364--1662 TOTAL P. 07 ADDRESS: SURVEY ON FILL~ YES I ( LOT OF RECORD? YEX / NO YARD [ DIRECTION .oust ......... ~oNT . s ~'w~ ~0~ -N S E W SIDE ~ S E W ~AR N~ ~ W ~KH N S E W TOP OF nLU~ R2 R2 R3 REQUIR.ED ZONING DISTRICT. LOT ~ZE/WIDTH: [ EXISTING LOT SIZE:, XO.OOO/60 ~ ~.500/C G.000/40 ~..d. UO0/80 6,000/40 B3 ~0.,000/60 Z4,000/80 8~B ORD. ZZ 30,000/~00 LOI DEFi H: 10' OR 30' GARAGE~ SHED ..... DETACIIEU BUILDINGS FRONT' N S E W FRONT N $ E W SIDE N S E w SIDE N $ E w REAR N S E W fL~J(E N S E W TOP OF BLUFF I"IARDCOVER 30% OR 40% CONF~RMINO7 YES I NO I ? [ BY: 4' OR 6' 4' OR 6' 4' ~0' 10' OR 30' JDATED: 4 CITY SURVEY ON FILE? YES I FRONT /~ S E W SIDE N S E W TOP OF BLUFF OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SIIEET ZONING DISTRICT. LOT SIZE/WII}TH: a~A 6,000/40 n2~u;0o0/e0 n2 ;.ooo/¢o !!3 10,000/~0' ~2 ~,ooo/eo , · .,. n'~ sgg on~. x~- 30. ooo/:too EXISTING LOT SIZE: · LOi' WID1 H: LOT DE¥! H: GAR&GI~ BHEO ..... DETACllED BUILDINOS FRONT' N S E W FRONT N $ E W SIDE N S E W SID[~ N S E W REAR N S E W LAKE N $ E W TOP OF BLUFF 30% OR 40~'~ 4' OR6' 4' OR 6' 4' ~0' 10' OR 30' This Zoning Information Sheet only mmmat~zel i pj~,~the requirements outlined in the City .of Mound Zonin~ O~di.ance. For fmther information, contact the City of Mound ' 472-0600. /'~-/ Survey on £11e? yee__ no.~ Required Lot .ldth:~r(~3 / PRINCI P~ BUI~I~ ..., .:% SIDE~ N ~ / ~ARs N S E M 25' Z~Y~S NORS t TtOO Of~6 ,,ON,, . , .' , SO' /me&iu£ed from O.N.#.! Date of survey · Lot of Record? yem.~ no, (frontage on an Lmproved public , Depth / FROKY; N S ~ W REARt N S ~ LAJ~S NOP. E I &CCESSOKY BUIU}ZNG 4' Or &' 4' Or &' 4' SO' CMelured ttom EXZS?~NQ ~I)/OR PROPOSED SETBACKS: PRINCIPRL BUILDING I%CL'~SSORY BUILDII~ FRONT t FRONTs SIDEs P. EAR t L~.~SNON~ s TJ~I~SNOKK s '-24 (12) ,," (49) NO ?~XLL THE PROPOS1~D INPROV~NTS NO C Lo i~ 0 ~'1 I 0 ! I 0 0 I h~ I OF RECORD? YES / NO YARD IlOUSE ......... SIDE SIDE REAR LAKE CITY OF M~)UND - ZONING INFORMATION SHEET ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH: TOP OF RLUFF DIRECTI( )N N S E~W~ N~,~E W w N S E W R1A 6,000/40 B2 20,000/80 R2 6,000/40 B3 10,000/60 R2 14,000/80 R3 SEE ORD. X1 30,ooo/1oo REQUIRED ] EXI.~ING/PROPO.qED 50' I0 ,OR 30' LOT DEP'I'H: VARIANCE (;ARA(;E~ SIIED ..... OR OTiIER DETACllE;) FRONT N S E W FRONT N S E W SIDE N S E W SIDE N S E W REAR N S ii W LAKE N S I~ W TOI~OF BLUFF BUILDINGS 4' OR 6' 4' OR 6' 4' 50' 10' OR 30' IIARDCOVER OS O ' This Zoning Information Sheet only summ~izes a per~"~.~..~ ~' the re,:uireme~ ~tli~ in ~e City of M~ ~ng ~di~. For fu~ Jnformfi~, ~n~ct the City of M~ Planning ~psrtment at 472-~. CII'Y (}!: M(}UND - ZONING INFORMATION SIIEET _jADDR .E55: SURVEY ON FILE? YES I NC) LOT OF RECORD? YES t NO YARD HOUSE ......... FRONT FRONT SIDE SIDE REAR LAKE TOP OF BLUFF DI REL'TI{ IN I N S E W N S E W NS E W NS E W N S T.~ W N S ~ W ZONING DISTRICT. LOT SIZE/WIDTH: R! 10,o00/60 nl %S00/0 R~A 6,000/40 B2 20.000/80 ~ 14,ooo/8o6'°°°/4u } B3 lo,ooo/6o R3 SEB ORD. ZZ 30,000/100 REQUIRED [ E~I~rl/~/~IPROPOSED 15' I0' OR 30' EXIXTING LOT SIZE:, LOi* WIDi'It: LO 1' DF.,P 1 ti: VARIANCE GARAGE, SIIED ..... DI:'TACIIED IIIIIIJ)IN{;S FRONT N S E W FRONT N S E W SIDE N S E W SIDE N S E W RF. AR N S E W LAKE N S E W FOP OF IH.tIFF 4' OR 6' 4' OR6' 4' 10' OR 30' ItARDCOVER 30% OR 40% ' CONFORMING? YES / NO / ? ]BY: ]DATED: a ~ m of Ihe tequiremems outlined in Ibc thy of Mound Zoning OrdJmnce. For futlber information, conlac! ~ City of Mound Zoning Infmmalion ,~heel only Planning Depatlment al 472-0600. . . . ¥~ ~,:-~;~"~'.,' ..... ~..~- 1 ;~ c CEIVED VARIANCE APPLICATION AF~ 1 2 2000 CITY OF MOUND ~,~ 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN $~364 IVIUUI~L) r'LANNING & ,,~r. Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 PAID CITY OF MOUND Application Fee: $100.00 (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) Planning Commission Date: MAY 8th, 2000 Case No. ~(~- l ~ City Council Date: June 13, 2000 Distribution: ~-'~' I~: OZ.) ,'~- (~-o-~ Address City Planner City Engineer Public Works DNR SUBJECT PROPERTY LEGAL DESC. Lot See attached "Exhibit C' Block Subdivision PID# Plat~ PROPERTY OWNER ZONING DISTRICT (~ R-lA (~ R-3 ~ Name Westonka Senior Citizen Center Address Phone APPLICANT Name (IF OTHER Address THAN Phone OWNER) B-2 B-3 Chester J. Yanik & Associates 3701 Shoreline Drive, Suite 206, Wayzata, MN 55391 612-471-9199 Fax 612-471-9196 Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? (x) yes, ( ) no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. PREVIOUS SUBMISSION MARCH 13 th, PARKING STALL WIDTH, NO ACTION Detailed description of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stodes, type of use, etc.): The proposed building for this site will be a 12,000 square foot, single story, mixed use, (office and public areas), commercial type structure, housing offices of various social agencies serving the community. Current plans also include meeting space for public use. Revised 10-26-99 Variance Application, P. 2 Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot ama, etc.): NA All existing structures to be removed SETBACKS: REQUIRED REQUESTED (or existing) VARIANCE Front Yard: (N~S~ 30 ff 0 ft 0 ff Side Yard: ~..I~I~_W) 50 ft 23 ft 27 ft Side Yard: Lh~S~ 30ft Oft Oft Rear Yard: (~~ 30 ft 15 ft 15 ft Lakeside: (NSEW) N/A ft ft ft (NSEW) N/A ff ff ff Street Frontage: N/A ft ft ft Lot Size: N/A sq ft sq ft sq ft Hardcover: N/A sq ft sq ft Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use: NA Due to rezoning o Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( )too narrow ( )too small ( )too shallow (X)topography (X)drainage (X) shape ( )soil ( ) existing situation ( )other: specify Please describe: Revised 10-26-99 v,,fi~nce Applicat~n. P. 3 Case No. Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No (X). If yes, explain: Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No (X). If yes, explain: Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (X), No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected. Comments: The developer recognizes the significance of this variance and has tried to minimize it's impact by creating a dense buffer zone in the landscape plan. I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be requir~l by law. Applicant's Signature ~~ ~ Date/~L 1'7_, ~00~ Lowell Olson, Project Manager Revised 10-26-99 Sent by: YANIK COMPANIES 6124719196 04/05/00 14:33 Job 252 Pa~r~/7- CITY OF MOUND HAIRDCOVER CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) PROPERTY ADOESS: OWNER'S NAME: LOT AREA 55 , 072 SQ. FT. RT,V'D Sr. Cl ~.~ ?47.D Foundation ............ X 30% = (for a~ lots) ....................................... I 1 6,5~Z__ .......... LOT AREA 0 LOT AREA__ 0 ' 0 · SO. FT. X 40% = (for Lots of Record) ............................. SQ. FT, X 15% = (for detached buildings only) .................. L_ ...... .0. "Extshng Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques ere utilizer% as ourlin¢,-~ rn Z. omnG Ordinance Section 350:1225, Subd. 6.B. 1 (see beck), A plan must be submitted and approved by the 8uildin90ffioa; LENGTH WIDTH SC Fr' MOUSE __.. 12 0. o" x . lo0.4..Ol'_. = 12,0.00 T©TAL HC'USE .............................................. 12,000 DETACHED B[Jl[ DINGS (GARAGE:SHED) __.N / A × ____N_Zj_~~_ = N lA X = DRIVEWAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. TOTAL DETACHED BUILDINGS ............................... 25,74~ X __~_ = ?~,740 - X = DECKS Open ~),;r~te0 :~ h~rd~ver. TOTAL DRIVEWAY. ETC ........................................ ___71.0" ...... X 19.0~,~. ...... = 456 ...... X = __Z_5~.7_4D ........ TOTAL DECK ....................................................... 456 N/A TOTAL HARDCOVER i IMPERVIOUS SURFACE ................................................... UNDER i OVER (indica~e~~e} PREPARED BY 38,196...: ['7;'-;'J;. ............... DATE n4-11-00 ....... It il, / i Z t \ ARCHNET y Square 961 Greeley Slmet Soulh Stillwater, MN 55082 RECEIVED APR 12 2000 MOUND PLANNING & ~a-c;hi~ect'~e Planning - In~eior Deagn Construction Management Phone: 6511430-0606 Fax: 65114304)180 Email: archnelmn@aol.com City of Mound Advisory Planning Commission Request for Additional Information Resubmitted Package for the Gillespie Sr. Center Attn: Planning Commission City of Motmd Prepared by: The Architectural Network 1961 Greeley St. S. Sfillwater, Minnesota 55082 (651) 430-0606 Phone (651) 430-0180 Fax Archnet Commission # 00124 By Michael F. Diem, AIA, NCARB ARCHNET THE ARCHITECTURAL NEIWORK. INC. ~reeley ~luare 1961 Greeley Street ~uth Sfillwater, MN 55082 Mound Advisory Planning Commission Mound, Minnesota Architecture Planning - Interior Design Construction Management Phone: 6511430-0606 Fax: 6511430-0180 Email: archnetmn@aol.com Re: Response to the request for additional information The following items and responses are based on the comments from the attached request for additional information. Item No. 1 The Preliminary Plat is set up with survey information and needs to be a formal "Preliminary Plat" Resoonse: Plans have been reviewed and altered by a licensed Civil Engineer, Please see Exhibit "4" ' Item No. 2 Zoning map of site showing existing district boundaries of B-1 and R-2. Response: Accurate Zoning Maps have been supplied to us by the city, In which we have created existing zoning drawings and new zoning drawings, Please see Exhibit "ZNI' Item No. 3 Proposed zoning with boundary description. Response: Accurate Zoning Maps have beeh supplied to us by the city, In which we have created existing zoning drawings and new zoning drawings, Please see Exhibit "ZN2' Item No. 4 Map Indicating the portion of Bush Road to be vacated. Response: Original Surveyor to Redraw the Preliminary Plat provided from his office to clearly indicate the portion of Bush Road to be vacated. Please see Preliminary Plat: Gillespie addition prepared by Egan, Field & Nowak Item No. 5 Clarify the Statement "Applicant is not Requesting toud Vacation of ROW' in the application form. Response: From Applicant Lowell Olson - YANIK COMPANIES The request for street easement / vacation included the statement "Applicant is not requesting total vacation of the ROW". The intent of this statement reflects the acknowledgement that although Bush Road continues much farther to the east, there was no need for any more of the right of way than that which is described in Preliminary Plat: Gillespie Addition ARCHNET ley Square 1961 Greeley Slmet Soulh Slillwater, MN ,55082 Architecture Planning -Ir~erior Design ConskuctJon Management Phone: 6511430-0606 Fax: 6511430-0180 Email: archnetmn@aol.com Item No. 5 Continued. The intent of the applicant was to ask the city to vacate only as much as would be required to accommodate the construction of the building and site plan as described in Exhibit "ASI" The remaining fight of way would continue to be city property intended to be included in the planned Lost Lake walking path or other public use. Public access would be addressed by means of a walking easement whose location is yet to be determined YANIK COMPANIES Lowell Oison Item No. 6 Need additional building use information to determine the parking requirements. Resoonse: Architectural site plan has been altered to accommodate for adequate parking and lists the building information for parking requirements. Please see Exhibit "AS1' Item No. 7 Need to complete and submit a hardcover calculation sheet. Resoonse: Architect to provide a completed Hardcover Calculation Sheet, Please see Attached. Item No. 8 Additional Variance is needed for driveway width. Resuonse: Actual variance applied for was parking stall width & length, No further action has been taken from the city. Item No. 9 Need to address why the "on-she" stormwater pond is located off-site on City property. Resoonse: The property with the building size and required parking does not allow for the storm water pond. It is our understanding this land to the east of our project is suitable and available for this purpose. ARCHNET Greeley Square 1961 Greeley Slmet Soulh Slillwater, MN 55082 Architecture Planning - Interior Design Construction Management Phone: 6511430-0606 Fax: 6511430-0180 Email: archnetmn@aol.com Item No. 10 Item No. 11 No Landscaping plan is provided. Resoonse: Land~eape plan has been designed, Please see Exhibit "LSI' Need to address how access will be secured to the garage on adjacent property. Resoonse: Please see Exhibit "ASI' Sincerely, Michael F. Diem, AIA, NCARB Principal :.-i ~'~,~'" :~:' ?onina Amendment. GO-OS Gordon stated the existing and proposed zoning for the property is provided on sheets ZN1 and 2. The entire property would ultimately be rezoned from current R-l, R-2 and B-1 Districts to a proposed B-1. The senior center would be a permitted use in the B-1 Distdct as a quasi-public use falling somewhere between a public use and a private club or lodge in the use chart. The newly proposed downtown zoning shows the property as Linear Planned Unit Development District. This district also allows the senior center as a permitted use. Street/Easement Vacation of Bush Road - #00-06 Gordon stated Bush Road is proposed to be vacated from Commerce Blvd. right-of-way east to the east line of existing lot 38. It is 60 feet right-of-way serving as road access for 4 existing residences and as a utility easement for sanitary sewer, water, and gas mains. As platted the right-of-way extends to the City property east of the property surrounding and including Lost Lake. With the redevelopment of the site, there is no apparent need for the right-of-way in its current form. As proposed, a private ddve will serve the property. Existing public utility services will become private services and continue to serve the property. The City Engineer's report provides additional detail on road and utility service issues. Variances - #4:)0-07 and 19 Gordon stated the site plan shows the location of the senior center on the site, indicating side and rear yard setbacks where variances are requested. When adjacent to a residential district, a building in the B-1 district must maintain a 50 feet separation from the side and rear property lines. The variances indicated in the application are incorrect and should be as follows: Fxisting/Proposed Re(;iuired Variance Side Yard 13' 50' 37' Side Yard 23' 50' 27' Rear Yard 16' 50' 34' Parking Stalls 9' x 18' 10' x 20' 1' x 2' Gordon stated with regard to impact on adjacent properties, the south setback is the most critical setback as it is adjacent to homes fronting on Bartlett Boulevard. The rear yard and north side yard abut Lost Lake. 8 Mound Planning Commission Minutes. Mav 8. 2000 DRAFT A hardcover variance of 40 percent will be needed. Currently, the code stipulates a 30 percent maximum for newly platted lots. With the approval of the water management plan from the MCWD, the maximum hardcover for this site could be increased to 75 percent. The plan is currently being reviewed. Gordon stated approval of this proposal depends largely on vadance approvals for setbacks. Staff indicated to the applicant that the building could be located in a manner that would not require variances. Siting the building in the rear of the site may have a greater impact on adjacent residences than a location on the front half of the site. This location would also have a better relationship with the street corridor as indicated in the Mound Visions Plan. Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the requests with conditions as indicated below: Major Subdivision - Preliminary Plat 1. Determination of additional Commerce Blvd (County Road 110) right-of-way needs. 2. Provide easements for utilities, drainage, and access. Rezoning - approve as requested. Street/Easement vacation - approve with conditions as provided by the City Engineer and Public Works. Vadances 1. Approve a parking size variance of 9 feet by 18 feet. 2. Approve a hardcover vadance of 40 percent. 3. Staff recommends the Planning Commission discuss the yard setback variances and if findings cannot be adequately Supported, deny the request. Weiland asked if the B-1 District is going to basically increase from what currently exists. Gordon agreed with Weiland. Burma questioned the parking stall sizes and would rather have them be 10 x 20 than what is being requested by the developer. Gordon stated the developer is probably maximizing the spots at the location, because if the spots would be 10 x 20 in size, there would still be enough parking available for this building. Burma further stated by having the stalls 10 x 20 in size this would allow for ease in getting in and out of your vehicle. Brown agreed and further stated it would seem more 9 Mound Planning Commission Minutes. Mav 8. 2000 DRAF appropriate to have the bigger spots because the site being proposed is a senior citizens building. Gordon stated staff would like to have the building meet the setbacks for the B-1 district to protect residential properties to the south. Weiland stated by allowing the 10 x 20 stalls, the developer is losing only 6 spots. He stated having larger spots would be beneficial to everyone. Voss stated on a statewide basis, parking stalls are becoming smaller throughout. Burma reaffirmed that because the developer is over the required amount of spots, that they could make the spots further apart and allow for more ease with the citizens at the center. Mueller suggested discussing the street easement vacation and would appreciate any input the City Engineer has in this regard to this subdivision. Mueller asked the City Engineer if it is certain the senior citizens building, being that it is a pdvate building, would be handling their utilities. The City Engineer agreed. Mueller stated that the City would retain parameter lines in this case, though, and the City Engineer agreed with this as well. Mueller asked if there would be access to the trail system around Lost Lake and at this point, nothing has been defined according to the City Engineer. Mueller asked if the City does pass preliminary plats effectively removing the ability of the property owner to get to their property. Cameron stated there has to be an easement and this can be done on the preliminary. He further stated this cannot be allowed on the plat because Hennepin County will not allow this to happen. A separate document would need to be recorded. Chair Michael opened the public hearing opened at 9:00 p.m. Steve Kladstrup, 5668 Bartlett Boulevard. Mr. Kladstrup would like this area to stay residential. He is one of the pdvate owners located next to this possible senior citizens development. He is concemed about the grading shown and how this will affect his home. Cameron stated the developer needs to have the grading in final form before getting his permit through the City. He further stated there cannot be more runoff towards his house. Brown stated Kladstrup's house has a natural drain into the Lost Lake area because he used to own this property. Brown suggested Mr. Beise's property might be affected by the runoff. lO Mound Planning Commission Minutes. Mav 8. 2000 DRAFT Mr. Kladstrup asked what would be the height of the trees and the spacing between the trees that would be planted in the back of his house. He further stated he would appreciate keeping as much pdvacy as possible in his back yard. Mr. Kladstrup suggested having a berm which would give some height to the back of his yard that may help with the car lights going by and have pdvacy in his windows of his home. Gordon stated there would be Black Hills spruce on his property and the minimum would be a six-foot tree required by City code. Gordon stated the code requires proper screening between a B-1 and residential property. Mr. Kladstrup recommended the Planning Commission have the trees spaced to form a solid look in his backyard, and to allow a minimum of 10-foot trees, along with a berm with some height to allow pdvacy. He further requested that if the trees that get planted do die, that they are replanted in a timely manner to replace those that may die. Gordon stated the closest point from the proposed senior citizens building to Mr. Kladstrup is approximately 23 feet. Chair Michael asked if the Planning Commission could demand 10 foot trees for planting. Gordon stated this type of statement could be attached as a condition before the site is approved. Jeff Ritnow, 5646 Bartlett Boulevard. Mr. Ritnow stated he likes the design of the senior citizen building but is concerned about the grading. Cameron stated there is a natural drainage system in this location where the water tends to go towards the pond. He stated there are a couple of contours around the building where there may be some concern. Mueller suggested there are some contours that may pose a problem with runoff. Cameron stated the final design would need to be improved because lots 11 and 12 may be concerned when there is runoff. The City Engineer further stated the big concern is only the building runoff because the parking runoff will be picked up in the sewer system. Cameron suggested making a swale so it could not go to the north on Mr. Kladstrup's property. Burma is concerned that a berm might not be appropriate because of the drainage concerns that already exist. Cameron suggested this issue needs to be addressed in the final design. Clapsaddle suggested the 10 feet retaining wall be removed and made into something that would be better for site distance. Cameron agreed with Clapsaddle and further 11 Mound Planning Commission Minutes. May 8. 2000 DRAFT suggested having it regraded and pull back the bottom of the wall to open up the site. Cameron further suggested the sidewalk being rebuilt to fit code, John Beise, 1665 Eagle Lane. Mr. Beise stated he would making some statements on behalf of himself as well as his mother who lives in the furthest east house on the site at 5628. He stated he is impressed with the plan being proposed. His biggest concern is storm water management being put on city owned property. He further stated he is concerned about the ponding because of the location of his Mom's property. Chair Michael asked about setting precedence of having the storm water management involved on private property. The City Engineer is neither for or against this idea. He further stated his big concern is the loss of trees at this site. Sutherland stated he has discussed with Greg Skinner that if the Minnehaha Watershed District does not clean out this area, then the City would perform this duty. He further stated it would be less of a hassle to have the City clean this area and have it part of the City's responsibilities. Cameron stated a bigger concern is access to the pond. He expressed concern with how the City equipment would be able to get to the pond to clean it. Mr. Kladstrup stated his last concem was lighting. Gordon stated the City code would not allow more than a one-foot candle on the property which would be a Iow lighting allowance. Chair Michael closed the public hearing at 9:29 p.m. Mueller stated he likes the plan of the senior citizens building. He stated he would be equally concerned if this site was going in his backyard. Mueller suggested the 23 feet distance from the building to the Kladstrup's property appears to be too close. He is concerned about the berm idea because of drainage issues in this location, although, he suggested drainage ditches might be the solution. Mueller would appreciate seeing evergreens on the top of the berm. Mueller also was concerned about the maintenance of the pond and if this cost of maintaining it should be assessed back to the neighbors. Clapsaddle asked about sound control in this neighborhood. Gordon stated the sound control would be through the Minnesota Pollution Control. Clapsaddle is also concerned what the future would hold for this area if the building would some day be owned by another individual and get replaced with something else. Mueller suggested moving the building more north to accommodate a more livable situation for the neighbors. Brown suggested allowing a 6-foot variance on the north side of the building which would give more room to the property owners. Gordon stated this would help 12 accommodate the 50 foot variance, and allowing a berm on this site would help the property owners as well. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Clapsaddle, to approve the Senior Citizens Center according to staff recommendations and the following conditions: 1. Hardcover of 40 percent; 2. Setback to the south being no less than 31 feet total; 3. A berm with trees that meet a landscape criteria for screening as provided by the applicant; 4. Retaining wall be dealt with adequately according to City Engineer's report; 5. Access easement to provide for maintenance of ponding; 6. Access provided to the proposed trail system; and 7. Drainage to be approved by the City Engineer. Discussion. Clapsaddle asked if the erosion plan is automatically required. Cameron stated the erosion and drainage plan would be required. Lowell Olson, Chester Yanik & Associates. Mr. Olson stated with the following motion at hand, there are some concerns that need to be addressed. He stated access to the pond would be a problem if the building gets moved further to the north. He further mentioned the soil conditions on this property are bad, especially to the northeast and southeast sections. With regard to the planting issues, the trees need to be spaced according so they have an area to grow and mature. Mr. Olson explained the south side of the building does have a natural slope and there could be a potential for ponding in the furthest southeast comer. Glister stated she is comfortable with the motion and mentioned easing up on the 23- foot setback would be appropriate. Burma asked Mr. Olson if moving the delivery location for the site could be moved further north. Mr. Olson stated this could be possible. Mr. Olson is concerned about the soil conditions for the building itself. Mr. Olson stated with the way the motion is presented concerning the retaining wall along the curb, it cannot be changed because of site conditions. AMENDED MOTION by Mueller to move the curb cut further north to allow for a reasonable site line. 13 Mound Plannina Commission Minutes. Mav 8. 2000 Clapsaddle would not second the motion so it died for lack of a second. DRAFT He stated he would like to leave the motion as presented because this is a situation that should be able to be worked out amongst the City and the developer. Brown stated there would be a problem with the trading post where there is trail parking. He stated there is a problem with the site line that needs to be changed. Mueller suggested moving the access all the way to the north. Mr. Olson stated the access has to be provided to the owner to the south to his garage. Mr. Olson stated if the access would be changed, it would make a very long access to the owners to the south of the property. Mueller asked what is the grade from the handicapped parking from north to south. Mr. Olson stated this would be three feet. Clapsaddle suggested rather than changing the access, to fix the problem at hand to include a no parking sign posted on Commerce to allow for proper access for the Senior Citizens Center. Clapsaddle stressed again to allow the City and the developer to work out some of these issues on their own. Gordon mentioned another issue that needs to be discussed with the motion on the floor. He stated the reduction of the setback from 13 to 5 feet would cause property ownership issues. Gordon stated the VFW owns a section of the property there and the City would not have access to the back of the pond without securing an easement with the VFVV. Mueller suggested again that the City and the VFW should be able to work out this problem as well. Burma agreed and would also appreciate the developers working with the City regarding the screening issue as well. ll4t"~TI/'~kl /"ADDICn 0_11 /; :.' .C.': '": ,?onin~j Amendment - f~00-05 Gordon stated the existing and proposed zoning for the property is provided on sheets ZN1 and 2. The entire property would ultimately be rezoned from current R-l, R-2 and B-1 Districts to a proposed B-l. The senior center would be a permitted use in the B-1 District as a quasi-public use falling somewhere between a public use and a private club or lodge in the use chart. The newly proposed downtown zoning shows the property as Linear Planned Unit Development District. This district also allows the senior center as a permitted use. Street/;asement Vacation of Bush Road - f~00-06 Gordon stated Bush Road is proposed to be vacated from Commerce Blvd. right-of-way east to the east line of existing lot 38. It is 60 feet right-of-way serving as road access for 4 existing residences and as a utility easement for sanitary sewer, water, and gas mains. As platted the right-of-way extends to the City property east of the property surrounding and including Lost Lake. With the redevelopment of the site, there is no apparent need for the right-of-way in its current form. As proposed, a private drive will serve the property. Existing public utility services will become private services and continue to serve the property. The City Engineer's report provides additional detail on road and utility service issues. ! [V=riances -f~O0-07 and 19 Gordon stated the site plan shows the location of the senior center on the site, indicating side and rear yard setbacks where variances are requested. When adjacent to a residential district, a building in the B-1 district must maintain a 50 feet separation from the side and rear property lines. The variances indicated in the application are incorrect and should be as follows: Fxisting/Proposed Re(;luired Vadance Side Yard 13' 50' 37' Side Yard 23' 50' 27' Rear Yard 16' 50' 34' Parking Stalls 9' x 18' 10' x 20' 1' x 2' Gordon stated with regard to impact on adjacent properties, the south setback is the most critical setback as it is adjacent to homes fronting on Bartlett Boulevard. The rear yard and north side yard abut Lost Lake. 8 Mound Plannin~ Commission Minutes. Mav 8. 2000 DRAFT A hardcover variance of 40 percent will be needed. Currently, the code stipulates a 30 percent maximum for newly platted lots. With the approval of the water management plan from the MCWD, the maximum hardcover for this site could be increased to 75 percent. The plan is currently being reviewed. Gordon stated approval of this proposal depends largely on variance approvals for setbacks. Staff indicated to the applicant that the building could be located in a manner that would not require variances. Siting the building in the rear of the site may have a greater impact on adjacent residences than a location on the front half of the site. This location would also have a better relationship with the street corridor as indicated in the Mound Visions Plan. Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the requests with conditions as indicated below: Major Subdivision - Preliminary Plat 1. Determination of additional Commerce Blvd (County Road 110) right-of-way needs. 2. Provide easements for utilities, drainage, and access. Rezoning - approve as requested. Street/Easement vacation - approve with conditions as provided by the City Engineer and Public Works. Variances 1. Approve a parking size vadance of 9 feet by 18 feet. 2. Approve a hardcover variance of 40 percent. 3. Staff recommends the Planning Commission discuss the yard setback variances and if findings cannot be adequately Supported, deny the request. Weiland asked if the B-1 District is going to basically increase from what currently exists. Gordon agreed with Weiland. Burma questioned the parking stall sizes and would rather have them be 10 x 20 than what is being requested by the developer. Gordon stated the developer is probably maximizing the spots at the location, because if the spots would be 10 x 20 in size, there would still be enough parking available for this building. Burma further stated by having the stalls 10 x 20 in size this would allow for ease in getting in and out of your vehicle. Brown agreed and further stated it would seem more 9 Mound Planning Commission Minutes. May 8. 2000 DRAFT appropriate to have the bigger spots because the site being proposed is a senior citizens building. Gordon stated staff would like to have the building meet the setbacks for the B-1 district to protect residential properties to the south. Weiland stated by allowing the 10 x 20 stalls, the developer is losing only 6 spots. He stated having larger spots would be beneficial to everyone. Voss stated on a statewide basis, parking stalls are becoming smaller throughout. Burma reaffirmed that because the developer is over the required amount of spots, that they could make the spots further apart and allow for more ease with the citizens at the center. Mueller suggested discussing the street easement vacation and would appreciate any input the City Engineer has in this regard to this subdivision. Mueller asked the City Engineer if it is certain the senior citizens building, being that it is a pdvate building, would be handling their utilities. The City Engineer agreed. Mueller stated that the City would retain parameter lines in this case, though, and the City Engineer agreed with this as well. Mueller asked if there would be access to the trail system around Lost Lake and at this point, nothing has been defined according to the City Engineer. Mueller asked if the City does pass preliminary plats effectively removing the ability of the property owner to get to their property. Cameron stated there has to be an easement and this can be done on the preliminary. He further stated this cannot be allowed on the plat because Hennepin County will not allow this to happen. A separate document would need to be recorded. Chair Michael opened the public headng opened at 9:00 p.m. Steve Kladstrup, 5668 Bartlett Boulevard. Mr. Kladstrup would like this area to stay residential. He is one of the private owners located next to this possible senior citizens development. He is concemed about the grading shown and how this will affect his home. Cameron stated the developer needs to have the grading in final form before getting his permit through the City. He further stated there cannot be more runoff towards his house. Brown stated Kiadstrup's house has a natural drain into the Lost Lake area because he used to own this property. Brown suggested Mr. Beise's property might be affected by the runoff. 10 Mound Planning Commission Minutes. Mav 8. 2000 DRAFT Mr. Kladstrup asked what would be the height of the trees and the spacing between the trees that would be planted in the back of his house. He further stated he would appreciate keeping as much privacy as possible in his back yard. Mr. Kladstrup suggested having a berm which would give some height to the back of his yard that may help with the car lights going by and have privacy in his windows of his home. Gordon stated there would be Black Hills spruce on his property and the minimum would be a six-foot tree required by City code. Gordon stated the code requires proper screening between a B-1 and residential property. Mr. Kladstrup recommended the Planning Commission have the trees spaced to form a solid look in his backyard, and to allow a minimum of lO-foot trees, along with a berm with some height to allow privacy. He further requested that if the trees that get planted do die, that they are replanted in a timely manner to replace those that may die. Gordon stated the closest point from the proposed senior citizens building to Mr. Kladstrup is approximately 23 feet. Chair Michael asked if the Planning Commission could demand 10 foot trees for planting. Gordon stated this type of statement could be attached as a condition before the site is approved. Jeff Ritnow, 5646 Bartlett Boulevard. Mr. Ritnow stated he likes the design of the senior citizen building but is concerned about the grading. Cameron stated there is a natural drainage system in this location where the water tends to go towards the pond. He stated there are a couple of contours around the building where there may be some concern. Mueller suggested there are some contours that may pose a problem with runoff. Cameron stated the final design would need to be improved because lots 11 and 12 may be concerned when there is runoff. The City Engineer further stated the big concern is only the building runoff because the parking runoff will be picked up in the sewer system. Cameron suggested making a swale so it could not go to the north on Mr. Kladstrup's property. Burma is concerned that a berm might not be appropriate because of the drainage concerns that already exist. Cameron suggested this issue needs to be addressed in the final design. Clapsaddle suggested the 10 feet retaining wall be removed and made into something that would be better for site distance. Cameron agreed with Clapsaddle and further 11 suggeSted having it' regraded and pull back the bottom of the wall to open up the site. Cameron further suggested the sidewalk being rebuilt to fit code. John Beise, 1665 Eagle Lane. Mr. Beise stated he would making some statements on behalf of himself as well as his mother who lives in the furthest east house on the site at 5628. He stated he is impressed with the plan being proposed. His biggest concern is storm water management being put on city owned property. He further stated he is concerned about the ponding because of the location of his Mom's property. Chair Michael asked about setting precedence of having the storm water management involved on private property. The City Engineer is neither for or against this idea. He further stated his big concern is the loss of trees at this site. Sutherland stated he has discussed with Greg Skinner that if the Minnehaha Watershed Distdct does not clean out this area, then the City would perform this duty. He further stated it would be less of a hassle to have the City clean this area and have it part of the City's responsibilities. Cameron stated a bigger concern is access to the pond. He expressed concern with how the City equipment would be able to get to the pond to clean it. Mr. Kladstrup stated his last concem was lighting. Gordon stated the City code would not allow more than a one-foot candle on the property which would be a Iow lighting allowance. Chair Michael closed the public headng at 9:29 p.m. Mueller stated he likes the plan of the senior citizens building. He stated he would be equally concerned if this site was going in his backyard. Mueller suggested the 23 feet distance from the building to the Kladstrup's property appears to be too close. He is concerned about the berm idea because of drainage issues in this location, although, he suggested drainage ditches might be the solution. Mueller would appreciate seeing evergreens on the top of the berm. Mueller also was concemed about the maintenance of the pond and if this cost of maintaining it should be assessed back to the neighbors. Clapsaddle asked about sound control in this neighborhood. Gordon stated the sound control would be through the Minnesota Pollution Control. Clapsaddle is also concerned what the future would hold for this area if the building would some day be owned by another individual and get replaced with something else. Mueller suggested moving the building more north to accommodate a more livable situation for the neighbors. Brown suggested allowing a 6-foot vadance on the north side of the building which would give more room to the property owners. Gordon stated this would help 12 Mound Planning Commission Minutes. May 8. 2000 DRAFT accommodate the 50 foot variance, and allowing a bonn on this site would help the property owners as well. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Clapsaddle, to approve the Senior Citizens Center according to staff recommendations and the following conditions: 1. Hardcover of 40 percent; 2. Setback to the south being no less than 31 feet total; 3. A berm with trees that meet a landscape criteria for screening as provided by the applicant; 4. Retaining wall be dealt with adequately according to City Engineer's report; 5. Access easement to provide for maintenance of ponding; 6. Access provided to the proposed trail system; and 7. Drainage to be approved by the City Engineer. Discussion. Clapsaddle asked if the erosion plan is automatically required. Cameron stated the erosion and drainage plan would be required. Lowell Olson, Chester Yanik & Associates. Mr. Olson stated with the following motion at hand, there are some concerns that need to be addressed. He stated access to the pond would be a problem if the building gets moved further to the north. He further mentioned the soil conditions on this property are bad, especially to the northeast and southeast sections. With regard to the planting issues, the trees need to be spaced according so they have an area to grow and mature. Mr. Olson explained the south side of the building does have a natural slope and there could be a potential for ponding in the furthest southeast comer. Glister stated she is comfortable with the motion and mentioned easing up on the 23- foot setback would be appropriate. Burma asked Mr. Olson if moving the delivery location for the site could be moved further north. Mr. Olson stated this could be possible. Mr. Olson is concerned about the soil conditions for the building itself. Mr. Olson stated with the way the motion is presented concerning the retaining wall along the curb, it cannot be changed because of site conditions. AMENDED MOTION by Mueller to move the curb cut further north to allow for a reasonable site line. 13 Mound Plannin~ Commission Minutes. May 8. 2000 Clapsaddle would not second the motion so it died for lack of a second. DRAFT He stated he would like to leave the motion as presented because this is a situation that should be able to be worked out amongst the City and the developer. Brown stated there would be a problem with the trading post where there is trail parking. He stated there is a problem with the site line that needs to be changed. Mueller suggested moving the access all the way to the north. Mr. Olson stated the access has to be provided to the owner to the south to his garage. Mr. Olson stated if the access would be changed, it would make a very long access to the owners to the south of the property. Mueller asked what is the grade from the handicapped parking from north to south. Mr. Olson stated this would be three feet. Clapsaddle suggested rather than changing the access, to fix the problem at hand to include a no parking sign posted on Commerce to allow for proper access for the Senior Citizens Center. Clapsaddle stressed again to allow the City and the developer to work out some of these issues on their own. Gordon mentioned another issue that needs to be discussed with the motion on the floor. He stated the reduction of the setback from 13 to 5 feet would cause property ownership issues. Gordon stated the VFW owns a section of the property there and the City would not have access to the back of the pond without securing an easement with the VFW. Mueller suggested again that the City and the VFW should be able to work out this problem as well. Burma agreed and would also appreciate the developers working with the City regarding the screening issue as well. CITY RESOLUTION NO. 00- RESOLUTION APPROVING HRA BUSINESS SUBSIDY AGREEMENT WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Mound (the "HRA") has entered into a Contract for Private Redevelopment with Ray Mar Properties, Inc. (the "Redeveloper"), calling for the redevelopment of certain lands within the City of Mound; and WHEREAS, the Contract calls for the providing of economic assistance by the I-IRA to the Redeveloper which meets the definition of "business subsidy" as that term is used in Minnesota Statutes, Sections 116J.993 through 116J.994 (the "Act"); and WHEREAS, the Act requires the approval by the City Council of the I-IRA business subsidy agreement as a precondition to the making of a business subsidy; and WHEREAS, pursuant to notice as required by the Act, the City has held its public heating on the approval of the HRA business subsidy agreement. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of the City of Mound that the HRA business subsidy agreement found in Article X of the Contract and attached hereto as Exhibit A is hereby approved. Dated: Attest: Pat Meisel, Mayor Fran Clark, City Clerk IBD-180649vl MU195-7 Exhibit A PROPOSED AGREEMENT Ray Mar Properties. Inc. Business Subsidy At, reement. The provisions of the Ray Mar Properties, Inc. Business Subsidy Agreement are incorporated in Article X of the Contract for Private Redevelopment between the Mound Homing and Redevelopment Authority and Ray Mar Properties, Inc.. ARTICLE X Business Subsidy Act Requirements Section 10.1. Compliance with Business Subsidy Provisions. The parties agree and represent to each other as follows: (a) Unless the context clearly indicates otherwise, the terms used in this article shall have the meanings given then in this Agreement and in the Business Subsidy Act. (a) The subsidy provided to the Redeveloper pursuant to this Agreement consists of the exchange of the HRA Exchange Parcel to the Redeveloper for the Redeveloper Exchange Parcel, representing a subsidy with an estimated fair market value of $ 0; the Loan in an amount of $250,000 at an interest rate which is below market. The Redevelopment Property is located within the HRA's Tax increment financing district. (b) The public purposes of the subsidy are to promote redevelopment of downtown Mound, generate spin-off development and redevelopment in downtown Mound, increase net jobs in the City and the State, and increase the tax base of the City and the State. (c) The goals for the subsidy are to secure construction of the Minimum Improvements on the Redevelopment Property; to maintain the Minimum Improvements as an office, service and retail facility for at least five years as described in clause (f) below; and to create the jobs and wage levels in accordance with Section 10.2 of this Agreement. (d) If the goals described in clause (c) above are not met, the Developer must make the payments to the HRA described in Section 10.3 of this Agreement. (e) The subsidy is needed because the cost of acquiring the Redevelopment Property at fair market value plus the cost of the Minimum Improvements makes redevelopment of the Redevelopment Property financially infeasible without public assistance. (f) The operation of the Minimum Improvements as an office, service and retail facility must continue for at least five years after the date of issuance of the Certificate of Completion. JBD-18027~vi MU195-7 (g) The Redeveloper does not have a parent corporation. (la) The Redeveloper has not received, and does not expect to receive fmancial assistance fi:om any other grantor as defined in the Business Subsidy Act in connection with purchase of the Redevelopment Property or construction of the Minimum Improvements. Section 10.2. Job and Wage Goals. Within two years after the earlier of the date of issuance of the Certificate of Completion or the date a business occupies the Redevelopment Property (the "Compliance Date"), the Developer shall cause to be created at least 0.5 new full-time equivalent job on the Redevelopment Property, including jobs retained where the loss was imminent and demonstrable, and shall cause the wages for the 0.5 employee to be no less than 100 % of the federal minimum wage, exclusive of benefits. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, if the wage and job goals described in this Section 10.2 are met by the Compliance Date, those goals are deemed satisfied despite the Redeveloper's continuing obligations under Sections 10. l(f) and 10.4. The HRA may, after a public hearing, extend the Compliance Date by up to one year, provided that nothing in this Section 10.2 will be construed to limit the HRA's legislative discretion regarding this matter. If the Compliance Date is measured fi.om the date of occupancy of a portion of the Minimum Improvements by a business and the HRA expects other businesses to occupy portions of the Minimum Improvements, the HRA may assign other Compliance Dates to such other businesses. Section 10.3. Remedies. If the Developer fails to meet the goals described in Section 10.1 (c), the Developer shall repay the HRA within one year upon written demand from the HRA a pro rata share of the amount of the subsidy granted by this Agreement and interest on said amount at the implicit price deflator as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 275.50, subd. 2, accrued fi.om the date of issuance of the Certificate of Completion to the date of payment. For purposes of this Section 10.3, the amount which the Redeveloper must repay within one year to the HRA, is the present value of the unpaid balance of the Loan. The term pro rata share means percentages calculated as follows: (i) if the failure relates to the number of jobs, the jobs required less the jobs created, divided by the jobs required; (ii) if the failure relates to wages, the number of jobs required less the number of jobs that meet the required wages, divided by the number of jobs required; (iii) if the failure relates to maintenance of the office, service and retail facility in accordance with Section 10.1(f), 60 less the number of months of operation as an office, service and retail facility (where any month in which the facility is in operation for at least 15 days constitutes a month of operation), commencing on the date of the Certificate of Completion and ending with the date the facility ceases operation as determined by the HRA, divided by 60; and (iv) if more than one of clauses (i) through (iii) apply, the sum of the applicable percentages, not to exceed 100%. JBD- ! 80279v 1 MU!95-7 Nothing in this Section 10.3 shall be construed to limit the I-IRA's remedies under Article IX hereof. In addition to the remedy described in this Section 10.3 and any other remedy available to the I-IRA for failure to meet the goals stated in Section 10.1(c), the Redeveloper agrees and understands that it may not a receive a business subsidy from the HRA or any grantor as defined in the Business Subsidy Act for a period of five years from the date of the failure or until the Redeveloper satisfies its repayment obligation under this Section 10.3, whichever occurs fn'st. Section 10.4. Reports. The Redeveloper must submit to the HRA a written report regarding business subsidy goals and results by no later than March 1 of each year, commencing March 1, 2001 and continuing until the later of (i) the date the goals stated Section 10.1(c) are met; (ii) 30 days after expiration of the five-year period described in Section 10.1(f); or (iii) if the goals are not met, the date the subsidy is repaid in accordance with Section 10.3. The report must comply with Section 116J.994, subdivision 7 of the Business Subsidy Act. The HRA will provide information to the Redeveloper regarding the required forms. If the Redeveloper fails to timely file any report required under this Section 10.4, the I-IRA will mail the Redeveloper a warning within one week after the required filing date. If, after 14 days of the postmarked date of the warning, the Redeveloper fails to provide a report, the Redeveloper must pay to the I-IRA a penalty of $100 for each subsequent day until the report is filed. The maximum aggregate penalty payable under this Section 10.4 is $1,000. Section 10.5. Hearing. Payment of the business subsidies is contingent upon approval following the hearings provided for in the Business Subsidy Act. JBD-180279vl MU195-7 NOTI~I~ OF PUBUC I:i~ARING CITY OF MOUND COUNTY OF tlENNEPIN STATE OF MINNtlSOTA NOTICE IS HERE. BY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Mound (thc "City'"), County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, v, ill hold a public hearing on May 23, 2000, az approximately 7:30 pm at the City Council Chambers in the Mound City Hall, 5341 kiaywood Koad, Mound, Minnesota, regarding a proposed business subsidy to be granted by the City m Ray Mar Properties Inc. a.k.a Mound Family Hardware Store, (the "Recipient') under Minnesota Stalutes, Sections ] 16.1.993 through 116.1'.994. The proposed subsidy involves tax increment financing assistance to facilitate development by the Recipient of a retail cent~r including a hardware s~ore in the CJ~. Information about the proposal business subsidy and a copy of the draft business subsidy agreement are available for inspection at City Hall during regular business hours. All im~rested persons may appear at the hearing and present r~eir views orally or prior to the meeting in writing. BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA City Clerk hem- ,,ol ~ie,,$ sull~s.,,,,ed c H :n ARTERED 470 Pillsbury Center 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis MN 55402 (612) 337-9300 telephone (612) 337-9310 fax http://www, kennedy-graven.com JOHN B. DEA~ Attorney at Law Direct Dial (612) 337-9207 Email: jdean~kennedy~graven.com May 12, 2000 Kandis Hanson Administrator City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 John Waldron Waldron Law Offices 1951 Concordia Street Wayzata, MN 55391-9320 Re: Mound Family Hardware Our File No. MU195-7 Dear Ms. Hanson and Mr. Waldron: Enclosed is Sid Inman's opinion regarding the "but for" analysis of the Mound Family Hardware develooment project. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to give me a call. Respectfully yours, ]o~B. Dean YBD:gak inclosure JBD-180380vl MU195-7 CC: FROM: DATE: ii.E: ME M O RAND UM- BYFAX John Dean'- Kennedy and Graven ~' ' lira Prosser - Ehlers & Associates Inc. Sid Inman - Ehlers & Associates Inc. May 8, 2000 Mound Family Hardware Project Review As per your request, I have reviewed Financial information provided to me for the Mound Family Hardware Project, I reviewed a "Expense and Financial C_mide For An Expanded Store" document. That was prepared by TmServ Corporation, an advisor to the store. The document contained "Sources and Uses" of the operation and a five year operation projection. It is my opinion that based on the information provided to me that thc level of tax increment requested is needed and at that the amount of tax increment is at a re~.~onable level. Please let me know if you have other questions or comments. N ;'~Minn:sot~Moond~HARDWA~-i~ ¥ [EW.wgd from the desk of: Sid Inrush, CIPFA Vioe President/Financial Advisor Ehlers and Associates, Inc. 3060 Center Pointe Drive Rosevllle, MN 55113 (612) 697-8507 FAX: (612) 697-8555 ~IT~ ¢OtU~CIL (:ITT OF J~OUBD Business Subsidy Criteria 1 o PURPOSE 1.01 The purpose of this document is to establish the City Council's (hereinafter refereed to as CC) criteria for granting of businees subsidies, as defined in Minnesota Statutes 116J.993, Subdivision 3, for private development. This criteria 8hall bo used as a guide in processing and reviewing applications requesting business subsidies. 1.02 The criteria set fo~h in this document are guidelines only. The CC reserves the right in its discretion to approve business subsidies that vary from the criteria stated herein if the CC determines that the subsid~ nevertheless serves a public purpose. 1.03 The CC may amend this document at any time. Amendments to these criteria are subject to public hearing requirements pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 116J.993 through I i 6J. 994. 2. STATUTORY LAMATIONS 2.01 In accordance with the Business Subsidy Criteria, Business Subsidy requests must comply with applicable State Statutes. The CC of Mound's ability to grant business subsidies is governed by the limitations established in Minnesota Statutes 116J.993 through 116J.994. 3. PUBLIC POLIC"/ REDUIREMENT 3.01 Ail business subsidies must meet a public purpose other than increasing the tax base. Job retention may only be used as a public purpose in cases where job loss is imminent and demonstrable 4. BUSINESS SUBSIDY APPROVAL CRITERIA 4.01 All new projects approved by the CC of Mound should meet the following minimum approval criteria. However, it should not be presumed that a project meeting these criteria will automatically be approved. Meeting these criteria creates no contractual rights on the par~ of any potential developer. 4.02 The business subsidy shall be provided within applicable state legislative restrictions, debt limit guidelines, and other appropriate financial requirements and policies. 4.03 The project must be in accord with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinances, or required changes to the plan and Ordinances must be under active consideration by the CC at the time of approval. 4.04 Business subsidies will not be provided to projects that have the financial feasibility to proceed without the benefit of the subsidy. In effect, business subsidies will not be provided solely to broaden a developer's profit margins on a project. Prior to consideration of a business subsidy request, the CC may 1 4.05 4.06 4.07 4.08 4.09 4.10 under~ake an independent underwriting of the project to help ensure that the request for assistance is valid. Prior to approval of a business subsidies financing plan, the developer shall provide any required market and financial feasibility studies, appraisals, soil boring, information provided to private lenders for the project, and other information or data that the CC or its financial consultants may require in order to proceed with an independent underwriting. Any developer requesting a business subsidy should able to d~nstrate past successful general development capability as well as specific capability in the type and size of development proposed. The developer must retain ownership of the project at least long enough to co=plete it, to stabilize its occupancy, to establish the project management, and to initiate repayment of the business subsidy, if applicable. A recipient of a business subsidy must make a comm4tmen= to continue operations at the site where the subsidy is used for at least five years after the benefit date. Any business subsidy will be the lowest possible level and least amount of time necessary, after the recipient maximizes the use of private debt and equity financing first. Recipients of any business subsidy will be required to meet wage and job goals determined by the CC on a case-by-case .basis, giving consideration to the nature of the development, the purpose of the subsidy, local economic conditions and similar factors. 5.01 5.02 5.03 TAX IICREMENT PROJECT EVALUATIOR CRITERIA Ail tax increment requests will be evaluated under the general criteria in Section I to 4 and the specific criteria in this Section.. Changes in local markets, costs of construction, and interest rates may cause changes in the amounts of Tax Increment subsidies that a given project may require at any given time. Some criteria, by their very nature, must remain subjective. However, wherever possible 'bencbm-rk# criteria have been established for review purposes. The fact that a given proposal meets one or more 'benchmark' criteria does norm. an that it is entitled to funding under this policy, but rather that the CC is in a position to proceed with evaluations of (and comparisons between) various business subsidy requests, using uniform standards whenever possible. Following are the evaluation criteria that will be used by the CC of Mound Ail business subsidy requests should optimize the private development potential of a site. B. All business subsidy requests should obtain the highest possible private to public financial investment ratio. The CC establishes a benchmark ratio of 3 parts private to I par~ public funding for manufacturing/warehouse projects. Housing and retail/commercial projects shall be reviewed on an individual basis. C. All business subsidy requests should create or retain the highest feasible number of jobs on the site at the highest feasible wages. D. Ail business subsidy requests should create the highest possible ratio of property taxes paid before and after redevelopment. Given the different assessment circumstances in the City, this ratio will vary widely. However, under normal circumstances, the CC will expect at least a 1:2 ratio of taxes paid before and after redevelopment. E. Business subsidy requests should normally not be used to support speculative industrial, commercial, and office projects. In general, speculative projects are defmed as those projects which have letters of intent or pre-leasing for less than 50% of the available leasable space. F. Ail business subsidy requests will be reviewed to determine the feasibility to provide the CC with equity participation in new developments (through a share of the profits), or to treat the business subsidy as a second mortgage with fixed payments. G. Ail business subsidy requests involvin~ displacement of low and moderate income residents should g~ve specific attention to the re-housing needs of those residents. Normally, this should be done as a part of the business subsidy. Adequate solutions to these re-housing needs will be required as a matter of public policy. H. Ail business subsidy requests will need to meet the "but for" test. Business subsidies will not be granted unless the need for the CC's economic participation is sufficient that, without that assistance the project could not proceed in the manner as proposed. I. Business subsidies will not be used when the developer's credentials, in the sole judgement of the CC, are.inadequate due to past track record relating to: completion of projects, general reputation and/or bankruptcy, or other problems or issues considered relevant by the CC. J. Business subsidies will not be used to support projects that place demands on City services, or other capital or operating expenditures, that exceed the average City expenditures for similar facilities. Consideration will be given to the total public costs that are required to support the project, including offsite facilities costs that are required. K. Business subsidies will not normally be used for p~ojects that would generate significant environmental problems in the opinion of the local, state, or federal governments. 612-3386838 HOISINGTON KOEGLER 321 P02 MAY 19 '00 12:08 Creative Solu~ioa~ t'o~ L~nd Planning ~nd DeMlln Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. MEMO May 19,2000 To: Kandis Hanson, City Manager City of Mound CC: Jim Presser, Redevelopment Coordinator John Cameron, City Engineer Loren Gordon, City Planner From: Bru~ Chamberlain Mound Visions Coordinator Re: Response to comments received regarding True Value development. As you know, Staff has received comments from two parties regarding the proposed True Value development in Mound. City Staffand the Mayor met with Mike Mueiler Sr., Phil Lansing, and Michael Mueller Jr. earlier this week to discuss concerns they, as abutting property ox, reefs, have. I also talked with John Royer earlier in the week about a concern he has. Before addressing the specific concerns raised, I would like to provide a brief overview of the rationale behind the site design ofthe project and frankly, all redevelopment efforts that are currently underway. Market and survey data gathered early in the Mound Visions history suggested that far less than half of the community's retail dollars were being spent in Mound. Residents did not frequent downtown because it was visually unappealing, lacked a critical mass of shopping and entertainment needs and desires, was disjointed, and difficult to shop. This information compounded with the fact that downtown Mound will never be the most "convenient" shopping location for the community led to the determh~ation that promoting typical suburban-style development would not be enough to turn the course of downtown. Expecting people to essentially go out of their way to frequent downtown Mound would require a unique approach. In 1992, the City of Mound adopted the Downtown Concept Plan and the Environmental and Appearance Model as guides for future redevelopment. The Mound Vision suggests changing the course of downtown Mound with very bold but very strategic initiatives. They include celebrating the lakes, weaving recreation into the downtown experience, creating a highly pedestrian-friendly atmosphere, increasing the intensity of downtown and diversifying the downtown exl~rience. The strategy suggests, fu-sr~ that the City invest significantly in enhancing downtown intYastructure, especially unique recreational and pedestrian amenities. The strategy also suggests that accommodating the pedestrian shopper is equally important to accommodating the auto shopper. This means placing building facades at the sweet, providing on-street parking with overflow parking to the rear of buildings, creating a highly attractive and comfortable 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, MN 55401.1659 Ph (612) 338-0500 1~ (612) 338-6838 ~ ) t~/.~ 612-3386838 HOISINGTON KOEGLER 321 P03 MAY lB '00 12:09 Mcmo- Kandis Hanson May lg, 2000 Page 2 streetscape and creating an uninterrupted retail shopping loop along downtown streets. Please keep in mind that we all recognize the need for auto-oriented, convenience shopping. That is why the Mound zoning code revisions currently underway create the Pedestrian District with requirements suggested above. But, the code also provides for Destination Districts allowing a more typical suburban-style retail development pattern. The City has been working toward development of a new Mound Family Hardware store for over a year. Formulating thc project's site plan was based on the Coast to Coast District Concept created in 1998. That concept suggests following the Mound Vision by placing the buildings at the street, reintroducing on-street parking to Commerce Boulevard, providing convenience parking directly adjacent to the rear of new development, and developing a district-wide municipal parking facility on the site. The first concern raised by the panics mentioned has to do with the location of property lines suggested in the plat. You can see that Outlot A of the plat allows for a future building with a maximum depth of 80 feet (typical contemporary retail buildings are 50-70 feet deep) to be built directly adjacent to the north side of the True Value building. The plat also provides for a small area of parking owned by the developer adjacent to the north side of the True Value building over which there would be a City parking easement. The concern raised is that the ownership and parking easement arrangement would not allow a building directly adjacent to True Value of the same depth as the True Value store (I80 feet). This is purposeful, It will be crucial in all districts of downtown that the walk from backyard parking to the streetscape is convenient, pleasant and relatively short. Developing only the True Value store at the greater depth does not diminish the connection between back and front because it is only a portion of the block. Developing the entire block with a building depth of 1 g0 feet would create a significant disconnection between the street and convenience parking causing the development to function like a strip mall that backs up to Commerce Boulevard rather than a street-oriented development that has convenience parking in the rear. Does this limit the building square footage on the site north of True Value? Yes. Is this limitation in the best interest ofdowntown's future success and will it ultimately lead to a higher value building being built adjacent to True Value? Staff feels strongly that the answer is "yes". The second concern raised is in regard to the parking lot striping plan suggested in the True Value site plan. The plan suggests restriping some of the Mueller/Lansing parking lot in order to help the entire lot function in unison. Staff recommends that the True Value site plan should function within the existing parking lot layout on the Mueller/Lansing property unless there is agreement among the two parties to change the striping plan. Access between the Mueller/Lansing lot and the municipal lot developed as pan of the True Value project is assured through the CBD parking program. If Mueller/Lansing opt out of the program and restrict parking on their site, access between the front and back of True Value would still be possible via City and True Value property. 61~-~868~8 HOISIN~TON KOEGLER ~1 P04 MAY 19 '00 1~:09 Memo - Ktnclis Hanson Ma), i 9, 2OO0 P~e 3 Thc third issue raised is the impact new development will have on convcnicnc~ packing (Mueller/La_l~slng parking lot) for the John's Variety and Pets block. Staff agrees that this will be an issue. Since the Mound 'Vision for the Pedest~an District provides clear direction and rationale for placing buildings at the street with convenience parking behind; the way to address the issue is to evaluate parking options behind the John's Variety and Pets block. Staff first spoke with a business owner in this block regarding the issue at the first business breakfast a year ago. She proceeded to collect prope~y information at City Hall and indicated that she would organize the businesses a.qd property owners on thc block to develop a solution to the parking dilemma. Staff has not yet heard from the group. I hope this adequately addresses the concerns raised to date. If the Council has questions or needs further clarification, I will be present at the May 23 meeting. M:L~OUND~99.24LDOCb'~lod_qu~.doc RESOLUTION #00- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND GRANTING PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR MOUND VISIONS 1sa' ADDITION MAJOR SUBDIVISION P & Z CASE #00-24 WHEREAS, the co-applicants, Ray Mar Properties and the City of Mound, have submitted and are seeking approvals for a Preliminary and Final Plat, Mound Visions 1st Addition, under Chapter 462 of the Minnesota State Statue and as defined by City Code Section 330:00. All proceedings have been duly conducted thereunder; and, WHEREAS, the development is located in the B-1 Central Business Zoning District which requires a minimum of 7,500 sq. fi. lot area; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, on May 8, 2000, held a public hearing pursuant to Section 330:00 of the Mound City Code of Ordinances, to consider the approval of the Preliminary Plat for Mound Visions 1st Addition Major Subdivision located on property described as follows and shown on the attachment: KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That the City of Mound, a Minnesota municipal corporation, fee owner of the following described property situated in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota to wit: That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 13, Township 117, Range 24, lying Southerly of the South line of Lot 46, "Koehler's Addition to Mound", Lake Minnetonka, according to the recorded plat thereof, and its Easterly extension, Easterly of the East line of the West 33.00 feet of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 13, West of the East line of Lot 38, said "Koehler's Addition to Mound", Lake Minnetonka and its Southerly extension, and Northerly of the following described line: Commencing at the Southwest comer of said Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence on an assumed bearing of North along the West line of said Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, 814.87 feet to the point of beginning; thence North 84 degrees 42 minutes 00 seconds East 566.40 feet to the intersection with the Southerly extension of the East line of Lot 38, said "Koehler's Addition to Mound", Lake Minnetonka; thence Southerly along said extension 5.02 feet; thence North 84 degrees 42 minutes 00 seconds East 233.55 feet to the intersection with said Southerly extension of the West line of the East 17.40 feet of said Lot 33, said 17.40 feet being measured along the most Southerly line of which lies between the Southerly extension of the East line of Lot 38, said "Koehler's Addition to Mound", Lake Mirmetonka, and a line drawn parallel with and 317.00 feet West, measured at right angles to said East line of said Lot 38, and its Southerly extension. and Ray Mar Properties, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, fee owner of the following described property situated in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota to wit: Lots 38 and 39, Koehlefs Addition to Mound except the Northerly 20 feet thereof. and The Northerly 96 feet of Burlington Northern right of way, nmning through the Southwest Quarter of Southwest Quarter of Section 13, Township 117 North, Range 24, West of the 5th Principal Meridian, which lies between the Southerly extension of the East line of Lot 38, "Koehler's Addition to Mound", Lake Mirmetonka and the line drawn parallel with and 317 feet West measured at right angles to said East line of Lot 38 and its Southerly extension thereof. Have caused the same to be surveyed and platted as MOUND VISIONS 1 ST ADDITION. ; and, WHEREAS, the City Council, on May 23, 2000, held a public hearing pursuant to Section 330:00 of the Mound City Code of Ordinances, to consider the approval of the Preliminary and Final Plat for Mound Visions 1st Addition Major Subdivision located on property as described above; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and City Council have studied the practicability of the preliminary and final plat, taking into consideration the requirements of the City, topography, 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 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 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 existing land use in the area and the future downtown redevelopment goals as stated in the City's Comprehensive Plan; and, WHEREAS, adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and other necessary facilities as required by the City subdivision regulations are being provided; and, WHEREAS, said plat is in all respects consistent with the City's Comprehensive 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; and, WHEREAS, at the Planning Commission has recommended Council approval of the subdivision with 7 to 2 vote finding the subdivision and land transfer is consistent with the general planning goals as stated in the Comprehensive Plan; and, NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota approves the Preliminary and Final Plat for Mound Visions 1st Addition with the following 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 buildings shall be only as provided on the City's Zoning regulations, or as modified by official action of the City Council. o The developer shall be responsible for the installation of private utilities. The utilities 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. The Developer shall secure and provide copies to the City's Building Official of all required and reviews and permits from the 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. 4. The City Attorney shall examine title to the property and shall render a title opinion to the city showing the ownership status of the property prior to filing. o 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. 6. The MPCA's Best Management Practices shall be applied to the development and subsequent management of the property. BE IT RESOLVED that such execution of the certificate upon said plat by the Mayor and City Manager shall be conclusive showing 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: Mayor Attest: City Clerk ! JjJl I · I © Z MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, MAY 8, 2000 Those present: Chair Geoff Michael; Commissioners: Orvin Burma, Jerry Clapsaddle (excused at 10:15 p.m.), Becky Glister, Cklair Hasse, Michael Mueller, Bill Voss, Frank Weiland, and Council Liaison Bob Brown; Staff present: City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Suthedand, City Engineer John Cameron, and Secretary Sue McCulloch and Diana Mestad. The following public were present: Sue Almquist, Terry Almquist, Cathy Bailey, John Beise, Kdsten Beise, Ron Christensen, Steve Coddon, Ken Custer, Robert J. Davis, Cathi Dioszeghy, Tom Dioszeghy, Bruce Dodds, Patti Dodds, Mike Empson, Angela Fernanoez, Carlos Fernanoez, Jennifer Garder, Martin Garder, Brian Gulrud, Theresa Gulrud, Milton Hentges, Tom Kirk, Linda Kladsrup, Steve Kladstrup, Phil Lansing, Randy Lee, Peter Meyer, Mike Mueller, Bill Netka, Dorothy Netka, Brad Nordgren, Deb Olson, Lowell Olson, Bill Plume, Travis Rapie, Roger Reed, Tom Reese, Jeff Ruhr, P.M. Ruhr, Mary Steen, Tom Turner, Jack Weist, Roger Westman, Dave Willette, Ben Withart. CASE #00-24: MAJOR SUBDIVISION; RAY MAR PROPERTIES, MOUND FAMILY HARDWARE, 2250 COMMERCE BOULEVARD, MOUND VISIONS 1sT ADDITION, PID# PENDING. PUBLIC HEARING. Gordon presented the case. He stated the property involved pertains to the True Value site located by Commerce Boulevard and Glenwood Avenue. He demonstrated what property was currently owned by the Dodds and what property was owned by the City and how the swapping would occur. He stated the Dodds would be located in Lot 1 with entrances to the building from the rear. He stated the retail would be located in the front, and a loading dock would be stationed on the property as well. Gordon stated after the swap of land, the City would still own Outlot A, as well as the right-of-way. He mentioned Outlot B is the property the City would then acquire which would be used for parking. Gordon mentioned the City Engineer is present for questions regarding his report concerning the plat. Gordon stated there would be a future paved parking lot in this location and utilities would be directed from Commerce. Mueller asked what the current and proposed Lynwood Boulevard right-of-way is and how it is demonstrated on the diagram. Cameron stated the double-dash is the existing curb and right-of-way on the plat. Gordon stated the proposed Lynwood would be at the 60 foot notation on the plat and the County has shown this location where the alignment would be. DRAFT Mueller asked if the Mound visions Plan demonstrates the buildings would be adjacent and not separated. Gordon stated at the north wall of True Value Store there would be buildings built up to future Lynwood Lane. Mueller asked if there were future buildings being proposed by others at this time. Gordon stated nothing has been proposed. Gordon stated the Outlot location is being kept to use possibly in the future to secure parking. Mueller asked what the width of Outlot A is and Cameron stated it is 14 feet. Mueller asked if this was side enough for a curb cut. Cameron stated it is wide enough for a paper access but not wide enough for a curb cut. Cameron stated the City it keeping this site open because of future building sites. Mueller asked how access for the 20 parking stalls on the north side of the building has been decided. Cameron stated access from the existing parking lot from the north is in private ownership in the interim. Clapsaddle asked if all cross-easements have been obtained to allow temporary access on these property sites. Cameron stated the City Attorney is working on this project. Gordon stated to allow for parking for the Dodds, the City lot would have to be temporary considered until the development of this site next to the Dodds would be in place. Gordon stated we are planning for future development and there is a plat that has been approved, but not filed, on this property to consider this location for parking. Clapsaddle is very concerned about access for parking near this site. Brown suggested since access would come off of Commerce, why not eliminate 10 parking spots near the north side, which would now have access and parking would then be guaranteed. Gordon stated this is now planned for the far turn and not the near turn. He stated a lot will happen on this property before November 1,2000, but this is a possibility that could be investigated. Brown stressed again to get access by eliminating 10 parking stalls, which would allow a drive through, and then move this drive through in the future if need be. He stated if there is any hesitation not to pass this project along, this may be a solution. Gordon stated it might be just a matter of a striping plan for future development. Clapsaddle asked about the grading issues for the project concerning parking. Gordon stated grading was done as shown because there will be a temporary gravel parking lot set up and ponding will be planned in the future at this location as well. Chair Michael opened the public headng at 8:10 p.m. D AFT Mike Mueller, 2240 Commerce Property. Mr. Mueller suggested having the proposed hardware store be built up against the lot line so his structure would be right next to it as well. Gordon stated the plat is shown in this fashion because the entire parcel is being platted. He stated the boundary line follows existing ownership by the City and the Dodds. Gordon stated Mr. Mueller would have to purchase this property from the City and the Dodds and the plat would have to be modified. Mueller asked why Outlot A could not be moved back further than what is shown. Gordon stated Outlot A would become a buildable area in the future transferred to other uses later. Chair Michael suggested Mr. Mueller buy the property from the City and the Dodds if he would like the designation of the buildings changed. He further stated this project might not make the most sense, but it does need to get voted on. Chair Michael closed the public hearing at 8:16 p.m. Burma stated this is the first case presented to the Planning Commission regarding the downtown site and he wanted to make sure precedence on hardcover is not being set so what follows in the future could be different. Chair Michael asked would it not have occurred to individuals to have confronted the Dodds and Mr. Mueller before a plat was drawn up to find out what would work best for all concerned. Gordon stated the bigger picture of what is going to happen needs to be considered. Gordon demonstrated what the future downtown project is working towards. He further showed where the parking area and storm water ponding are being suggested for the future. Mueller asked from the drawing, if the buildings drawn do not necessarily preclude the size of the buildings that will be built. Gordon stated this is an idea of relationships and is not an exact configuration. Voss asked if the proposed layout of the building could be moved closer to the south line of the property. Gordon stated this is not possible because of the utility box situated in the corner on the south side. Clapsaddle stated this is the first project that has been presented to the Planning Commission and he is not at all impressed. He further stated the parking situation has not been planned well. MOTION by Voss, seconded by Weiland, to approve the major subdivision according to staff recommendations. D, AFT Discussion. Gordon mentioned the transfer of the City property to the Dodds and the Dodds property to the City would be consistent with the general planning goals of municipal platting rules according to the City of Mound. Mueller stated this is not a good plat. He is concerned about the traffic right-of- ways, access, utilities and if this is really a good subdivision. He further stated this subdivision might only make it more difficult in the future when other projects are reviewed by the Planning Commission. Mueller asked if passing this major subdivision, would it also be passing other features that the downtown is presenting. Gordon stated it would not. MOTION CARRIED. 7-2, Mueller and Chair Michael voting nay. Chair Michael stated this case would be heard in front of the City Council on May 23, 2000. CASE #00-25: VARIANCE; RAY MAR PROPERTIES, BRUCE DODDS, MOUND FAMILY HARDWARE, MOUND VISIONS 1ST ADDITION, PIDr8 PENDING. Gordon presented the case and stated the applicant is seeking a hardcover variance to build a new commercial building. The requested vadance is listed below. Existing/Proposed Required Variance Hardcover 28,741 sf 9414 sf 19,327 sf Gordon stated the property is located within the B-1 Central Business District which requires 30 percent hardcover at this time. Upon approval of the City's Surface Water Management Plan by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, all commercial and industrial properties will be allowed up to 75 percent hardcover outright. The parcel as proposed would have 91 percent hardcover. With the redevelopment of the downtown, surface water will be handled by combinations of on-site and City storm water ponds. In this area, stormwater will be treated by City ponding facilities. These City ponding areas will offset open space for certain areas of the downtown, which because of their urban forum, will not be able to achieve the 75 percent threshold. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the vadance as request. DRAFT Mueller asked if by passing this"variance on to City Council, would the Planning Commission be stating this meets all the zoning requirements of the proposed or current zoning of the pedestrian district. Gordon stated by having reviewed what is proposed and looking at page 50 of the packets, the design guidelines do meet what is expected in the pedestrian district. Brown stated the City Council drove up to Maple Grove and the facades blended in real well with the real two-story buildings. He stated this was a well done project. Voss noted, though, there was 100 percent hardcover involved. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Brown, to move the variance according to staff recommendation. MOTION CARRIED. 9-0. Chair Michael stated this case will be presented to the City Council on May 23, 2000. PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: May 8, 2000 SUBJECT: Variance Request APPLICANT: Brace Dodds CASE NUMBER: 00-25 I-IKG FILE NUMBER: 00-5 LOCATION: 2250 Commerce Blvd. ZONING: B-1 Central Business District COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Pedestrian District BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking a hardcover variance to build a new commercial building. The requested variance is listed below. Existing/Proposed Required Variance Hardcover 28,741 sf 9414 sf 19,327 sf The property is located within the B-1 Central Business District which requires 30 percent hardcover at this time. Upon approval of the City's Surface Water Management Plan by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, all commercial and industrial properties will be allowed up to 75 percent hardcover outfight. The parcel as proposed would have 91 percent hardcover. With the redevelopment of the downtown, surface water will be handled by combinations of on- site and City storm water ponds. In this area, stormwater will be treated by City ponding facilities. These City ponding areas will offset open space for certain areas of the downtown, which because of their urban form, will not be able to achieve the 75 percent threshold. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the variance as request. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax(612) 338-6838 Engineering · Planning · Surveying RECEIVED MAY 0 2000 MOUND PLANNING & JNSP. MEMORANDUM DATE: May 3, 2000 TO: Jon Sutherland, Planning and Zoning FROM: John Cameron, City Engineer SUBJECT: Mound Family Hardware Major Subdivision and Hardcover Variance. Case #00-24 & 25. MFRA #12544 General A land exchange between the Mound Family Hardware (the Dodds) and the City of Mound requires that this unplatted property go through the City's platting process. To expedite the process, we have prepared the preliminary plat drawings and a site plan which is a composite of information from the applicant's builder and City information. This project will be done in phases over the next few years with the construction of the new Hardware Store on Dot 1 scheduled for this year. Upon completion of the new facility, the City will take ownership of the old Coast to Coast building and demolish it. The area will be graded and a gravel parking lot installed as shown on the site plan. A more complete Site Plan and Grading, Drainage and Erosion Plan will need to be submitted by the Dodd's Builder/Engineer before any permits can be issued. The City will also need to provide a final Demolition and Restoration Plan for Outlot B. Utilities New sanitary sewer and watermain services sized to accommodate the new building will need to be installed from the City mains in County Road 110. Plans for this work will need to be included with the other final plans submitted by the Dodd's. They will also be responsible for obtaining all necessary permits from Hennepin County. 15050 23rd Avenue North · Plymouth, Minnesota · 55447 phone 763/476-6010 ° fax 763/476-8532 e-mail: mfra@mfra, com I I I Jon Sutherland, Planning and Zoning May 3, 2000 Page 2 Access and Parking The final plans will need to show how the new bituminous parking area will match into the existing parking lot to the north. The southerly entrance to County Road 110 will be eliminated, but the north entrance can remain functional until the remainder of this area is developed. As previously mentioned, once the City has removed the old Coast to Coast building, a temporary gravel parking lot will be provided on Outlot A as shown on the site plan. s:Xmain~nou 12544\correspondenceXsutherland5-1 Application for MAJOR SUBDIVISION City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road. Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 427-0607, Fax: 472-0620 RECEiYEI} rtAY PLANNING COMM. DATE May 8, 2000 CASE NO. 00-24 CITY COUNCIL DATE: May 23, 2000 DISTRIBUTION DA TE TYPE OF APPLICATION CITY PLANNER 5.1.00 SKETCH PLAN REVIEW CITY ENGINEER 5.1.00 PRELIMINARY PLAT FINAL PLAT PUBLIC WORKS 5.1.00 PARKS 5.1.00 $10/LOT OVER 2 LOTS DNR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: PDA FIRE DEPARTMENT ESCROW DEPOSIT ASSESSING VARIANCE OTHER: TOTAL Please type or print the following information: PROPERTY INFORMATION Subject Address To be assi(~ned Name of Proposed Plat Mound Visions 1= Addition 000 FEE $ 200 $150 $ 250 $1,000 $100 EXISTING Lot 1 Block LEGAL DESCRIPTION Subdivision PID~t Plat # ZONING DISTRICT B-1 APPLICANT OWNER (if~herthan applican~ SURVEYO~ ENGINEER The applicant is: Name Address Phone (H) __owner other:._X Joint aol;)lication City of Mound and Ray Mar Prol;)erties 5341 Maywood Road and 2250 Commerce Blvd, 472-0607 and 472-5028(W) Name Address Phone (H) Name Address Phone (H) City of Mound and Rav Mar Properties (w) MFRA 15050 23~ Avenue North, Plymouth. MN 55447 (W) 476-6010 (M) (M) (M) Major Subdivision ApplicaO'on Page 2 Description of Proposed Use: True Value Hardware store and City parking lot 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. Proposed use is the first project of the Mound Visions program which will revitalize the downtown and surrouding area. The existing Coast to Coast hardware store will be relocated to Lot 1 and become a True Value hardware store. Outlot A and B will be used for parking at this time. Outlot A is planned to be replatted in the future to accommodate businesses that would locate on the parcel north of the True Value store. The new store will double the size of the existing store, and will bring more traffic. Parking will be handled on-site and on adjacent City property. 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: $ 850,000 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS: Number of Structures: Number of Dwelling Units/Structure: Lot Area Per Dwelling Unit: sq. ft. Total Lot Area: sq. ft. Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? (X) yes, ( ) no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. Use of the property in the City's downtown parking sharing program. This application must be signed by all owners of the subject property, or an explanation given why this is not the case. City of Mound/Ray Mar Properties Print Applicant's Name Applicant's Signature May 3. ~000 Date City of Mound/Ray Mar Properties Print Owner's Name Owner's Signature May 3. 2000 Date Print Owner's Name Owner's Signature Date * The City of Mound and Ray Mar Properties have entered into an agreement for the development of this property. RECEIVED NAY 0 1 2000 MOUND PLANNING &/NSF. (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Distribution: VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0607, Fax: 472-0620 ~A~ 0~?_000 Application Fee: $100,00 CIT~ :.,3UND .~~ ~,~?-0~0 CaseNo.[~0-~.~ - - Ci~ Planner ~' I · Q ~ DNR Ci~ Engineer ~' ~ 'OU ~ Public Wo~s ~ Other SUBJECT PROPERTY LEGAL DESC. Address ~'~ Ir~ , Lot Block Subdivision ,,¢7¢o~ ~ PID# ZONING DISTRICT Plat'CC R-1 R-lA R-2 R- 3 (~'"~ B-2 B-3 PROPERTY OWNER Name Phone (M) APPLICANT Name ,~/Z,.!Cc"- (IF OTHER Address ~,,'2.1 THAN Phone OWNER) (H)'~/?7---5-'c7-'~ ON) ,-/'7?_- i o°1~ (M) Has an application ever be.e/n 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 resolutidn's. 2. Detailed description of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stodes, type of use, etc.): /7, oe~o ~<,~ 4'T rtcr,c_.o,,.~rzc 5T~- / ~~ Revised 02-04-00 Variance Application, P, 2 Case No. bO" '~-5 Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk. and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes ~r~, No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): SETBACKS: REQUIRED REQUESTED VARIANCE (or existing) Front Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft. Side Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft. Side Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft. Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft. Lakeside: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft. : (NSEW) ft. ft. ft. Street Frontage: ft. ft. ff. LotSize: '~11::5~ I sqft sqft sqft Hardcover: ~sq ft sq ft sq ft Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use: o Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil ( ) too small ( ) drainage ( ) existing situation ( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify - Please describe: Revised 02-04-00 ~adance Application, P. 3 Case NO'. Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), Noir" If yes, explain: / Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No (~j:' If yes, explain: Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a vadance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (), No {~[. If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? 9. Comments: I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Owner's Signature ~-~.~~"/~-~ Date ,~'"'- ,/- gO Applicant's Signature Date ~'"-,/- ~0 Revised 02-04.00 612-J3868~0 HO]$]NOT~ KOEOLER 198 P05 PROPER'~ADDESS: OWNER'S NAME: OITY OF MOUN~ HARDC OVF..R CALCULATIONS SURFACE COVERAO~ LO'r' AREA LOT AREA LOTAREA ~11~{ Sa. FT. X3O%= (for all lots) ....................................... SQ. FT, X 40% = (for Lots of Record) ............................. SO. FT. X 15% = (for detached buiklin§s oniy) .................. S.B. ~ (a~ ~a~), A ;lan mu3~ LEN~ WlO~ 8Q HOUSE : T~TAL ~$~ ....................................... DETAG.ED ~UILD~N~3 ~ ..... - X ' I'OT,~J,. DECK ............................................ X DECKS O~n deck: (114" min. TOTAL. OTHER ................................................. TOTAL HARDCOVEI~. / IMPEi~VIOU$ SURFACE .......................................... UNDER/iV~ {indioetc difference) ................................................................. PREPAR. ED BY Rev DATE .......... 'Il ,I, ~, ". '-' I .-..il ~4__",u tt~ J J ~ .. ~ ~.~'I' - . - ~ ~.~ -.' '~'~ ..... ',~ .. '..,'"'".., - ~ '. -. ",": i · ~..,1.~.~..~ : ,.:~.:.,, . ..:.,' ~-.,.~,..~,: .... .,..,,',, ,-. ..-...~ , .' ~'. ,. .... -. . .. . .- . - .~ ,'. . ~ ,.... -. , .i I Z~ .L ¥ '! d 0 I. I. '0 N 'H '¥ 'g '3 'H ..m_..¢h: ~_ ~5 .... ~ 3N~9 INOI, T'I3 CAS E # 00-24 / 00-25 SURVEY PLEASE CONSULT FULL-SIZE HANDOUT CIFY OF MOUND -. ZONING INFORMATION SttEET , Q~ ~'-, LO SIZE/WIDTH: ~ ..... ~J~- B1 ~, 5OO/~ SURVEY ON FILE? YES ~ NO AIR ~,000/40 ~ ox ~u,UUU/80 LOT OF RECORD? YES I NO YARD ' ] DIRECTION IIOUSE ......... FRONT N S E W FRONT N $ E W SIDE N S E W SIDE N S E W REAR N S E W LAKE N S E W TOP OF BLUFF EXISTING LOT SIZE: LDT WIDTH: R2 6,000/40 B3 10,000/60 R2 14,000/80, -,~ : ........ r,:~ LOT DEPI'H: ........... ~:~:,. ~ ~::~,~ ~,,2: ~../'~P REQUIRED ] EXIST~NG/PROPO$£D VARIANCE 15' 50' I0' OR 30' GARAGE, SliED ..... 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 lOP OF BLUFF 4' OR 6' 4' OR 6' 4' 30' 10' OR 30' "^R'COVER ~o~ oR CONFORMING? YES ! NO ! ? lB,,': l DATED: This 7~ning Infmmation Shcc~ only su~ari~s a ~rtion of fl~e t~iremcn~ oullimd in tim Cily of Mou~ Zoning ~diname, For ~r~r info~tion, contact ~e City of MouM Planning ~pa~unem al 472-1~. RESOLUTION # 00- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A HARDCOVER VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2250 COMMERCE BLVD., LOT 1 BLOCK 1 MOUND VISIONS IsT ADDITION P & Z CASE #00-25 WHEREAS, the applicant, Bruce Dodds, has requested a variance to hardcover to build a new retail commercial building on the property located at 2250 Commerce Blvd.; and, WHEREAS, the requested variance is as follows: Existing/Proposed Required Variance Hardcover 28,741 sf 9414 sf 19,327 sf ; and, WHEREAS, the property is being transferred from the City of Mound to Ray Mar Properties, owned by the applicant, as a part of the development of the Mound Visions 1st Addition subdivision; and, WHEREAS, the newly created lot is similar in size to the properties in the area and is consistent with the Mound Visions revitalization plan for the downtown area; and, WHEREAS, as part of the Pedestrian District identified in the City's Comprehensive Plan, this area will have an urban form that will have hardsurfacing which is above the City's current requirement of 30 percent hardcover at this time. WHEREAS, upon approval of the City's Surface Water Management Plan by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, all commercial and industrial properties will be allowed up to 75 percent hardcover. The parcel as proposed would have 91 percent hardcover; and, WItEREAS, with the redevelopment of the downtown, surface water will be handled by combinations of on-site and City storm water ponds. In this area, stormwater will be treated by City ponding facilities. These City ponding areas will offset open space for certain areas of the downtown, which because of their urban form, will not be able to achieve the 75 percent threshold. wmv~REAS, the Staff and the Planning Commission have reviewed the request and recommended that the Council approve the variance as requested by the applicant; and, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. This variance is approved for the following property: LOT 1 BLOCK1 MOUND VISIONS 1sv ADDITION I ' itl Ii RESOLUTION #00- A RESOLUTION APPROVING A 10 FEET CONSERVATION EASEMENT VACATION AT 5104 DRUMMOND ROAD, LOT 2, BLOCK 1, TEAL POINTE P & Z CASE #00-13 WHEREAS, the applicant, Mary Steen, has submitted an application to a vacate 10 feet of the existing 50 feet conservation easement in order to construct a home; and, WHEREAS, the existing conservation easement was established as part of the platting of the development to protect the existing vegetation and slope to provide a buffer between the marsh and home site; and, WHEREAS, the applicant has designed a home that will be located outside the existing 50 feet conservation easement. Construction and grading activity will however, impact the adjacent perimeter of the house; and, WHEREAS, the vacation of the southwesterly 10 feet of the easement will allow the home to be constructed as proposed without impacting the area within the conservation easement; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public heating to review the request and recommended Council approval of the vacation as requested by the applicant; and, NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota approves the vacation of the conservation easement as requested. 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: Mayor Attest: City Clerk RESOLUTION # 00- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE FRONT YARD VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A RESIDENCE AT 5104 DRUMMOND ROAD, LOT 2, BLOCK 1, TEAL POINTE P & Z CASE #00-12 WHEREAS, the applicant, has requested a front and side yard variance construct a residence on the property at 5104 Drummond Road. The associated variances are as follows: Existing/Proposed Required Variance Front Yard 13.6 fi 20 ft 6.5 fi Side Yard 3.5 fi 10 fi 6.5 fi ; and, WHEREAS, the property is located within the R-1 Single Family Residential District which requires a lot area of 10,000 square feet, a 20 feet front yard setback and a 10 feet side yard setbacks for non lots of record. Hardcover coverage is 1932 sq. ft. which is under the 3030 sq. ft. allowed; and, WHEREAS, the proposed deck would encroach 6.5 feet into the front yard setback. The northwest comer of the garage would have an 18 feet setback from the property line with the southwest comer conforming to the 20 feet requirement; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommended that the Council approve the variance as revised; and, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The City does hereby approve the variance with the following conditions: a. The north side yard shall have a 10 feet setback. b. The conditions of Resolutions #95-13 and #97-61 shall continue to remain in force. 2. This variance is approved for the following legally described property as stated in the Hennepin County Property Information System: LOT 2, BLOCK 1, TEAL POINTE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA. DRAFT MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, MAY 8, 2000 Those present: Chair Geoff Michael; Commissioners: Orvin Burma, Jerry Clapsaddle (excused at 10:15 p.m.), Becky Glister, Cklair Hasse, Michael Mueller, Bill Voss, Frank Weiland, and Council Liaison Bob Brown; Staff present: City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Suthedand, City Engineer John Cameron, and Secretary Sue McCulloch and Diana Mestad. The following public were present: Sue Almquist, Terry Almquist, Cathy Bailey, John Beise, Kristen Beise, Ron Christensen, Steve Coddon, Ken Custer, Robert J. Davis, Cathi Dioszeghy, Tom Dioszeghy, Bruce Dodds, Patti Dodds, Mike Empson, Angela Femanoez, Carlos Fernanoez, Jennifer Garder, Martin Garder, Brian Gulrud, Theresa Gulrud, Milton Hentges, Tom Kirk, Linda Kladsrup, Steve Kladstrup, Phil Lansing, Randy Lee, Peter Meyer, Mike Mueller, Bill Netka, Dorothy Netka, Brad Nordgren, Deb Olson, Lowell Olson, Bill Plume, Travis Rapie, Roger Reed, Tom Reese, Jeff Ruhr, P.M. Ruhr, Mary Steen, Tom Turner, Jack Weist, Roger Westman, Dave Willette, Ben Withart. CASE #00-13: STREET VACATION/EASEMENT; MARY STEEN, 5104 DRUMMOND ROAD; LOT 2, BLOCK 1, TEAL POINTE, IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING, PID# 25-117-24 12 0232. PUBLIC HEARING. Gordon stated the applicant is seeking a front and side yard variances and vacation 10 feet of a conservation easement to build a new house on the vacant property. The requested setback variance is to allow the deck/landing area of the proposed garage to encroach into the front setback. A second variance is requested for the deck on the north side of the house. The variances requested are listed below. Existing/Proposed Required Variance Front Yard 13.5' 20' 6.5' Side Yard 3.5' 10' 6.5' Gordon stated a 50 feet conservation easement is located along the rear of the property and continues on adjacent lots 1 and 3. The proposed vacation is to allow for the construction of the house. The north corner is located at the easement line. The additional 10 feet will provide room for grading and impact during construction. Gordon stated the property is located within the R-1 Single Family Residential District which requires a lot area of 10,000 square feet, a 20 feet front yard setback and a 10 feet side yard setbacks for non lots of record. All code D AFT requirements are conforming except the front yard setback. Hardcover coverage is 193;' sq. ft. which is under the 3030 sq. ft. allowed. The Teal Pointe subdivision was approved as a Planned 'Development Area (PDA) in 1995, via Resolution #95-13 and a 1997 amendment. Included in approvals are a number of conditions that guide its development. Specifically for lot 2 the following apply: 1. A 20 feet variance from the required 60 feet street frontage minimum 2. Lot width variance of 6 feet 3. Bluff impact/area variance to allow development of the property 4. Bluff setback variance 5. A master plan, tree inventory, erosion mitigation, and landscaping plan detailing tree and ground cover replacement 6. Sanitary sewer service is to be provided by individual lift pumps Staff stated the property has adequate buildable area and lot width to allow this house plan to be constructed without granting variances or vacating a portion of the conservation easement. Therefore, staff cannot find reason to support the applicant's case of practical difficulty. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend Council deny the variances and easement vacation as requested Weiland strongly encourages information for each case to be included in the packet for the Commissioners to review before the meeting. Burma stated the information omitted from our packet and delivered this evening could not have been prevented given the deadline for the packets and the date of the information. Mueller further stated the people of Mound might not receive notification of the upcoming meeting until Friday, which is the same time the Planning Commission receives their notice, thus not allowing them time to get the information in the packet. Glister stated it is hard to act on information received last minute, but she does respect the timeframe the citizens do have to submit information conceming a case, all the way up to the last minute right before the case is presented. Chair Michael opened the public hearing 10:18 p.m. Mr. James McCanney, 5080 Windsor road. Mr. McCanney was not present, but he did submit a one-page letter dated May 5, 2000, to the Planning Commission explaining his reasons for denial of the applicant's request. DI AFT Mary Steen, 4036 37m Avenue North, #105, Robbinsdale. Ms. Steen stated she is the owner of the property. Ms. Steen distributed a detailed outline for the Commissioners to follow regarding her case. She stated her architect, as well as she, has found out the whole Teal Pointe subdivision has been through a lot of endeavors. She stated she would like to modify the lot but keep the lot in its natural beauty state. She stated the balcony that she would like to build does not touch the ground and it is supported by the house. If the conversation easement would be approved, she would be sharing the open space. She further stated she would not be removing any trees. She stated the corner of the house would be within the setback requirement. Ms. Steen mentioned lots 4-9 have had their easements pushed back as well. Mike Empson, 4036 37th Avenue North, #105, Robbinsdale. Mr. Empson stated he is the architect involved with this property. Mr. Empson presented his credentials to the Commissioners and stated he is well-qualified with designs of property. He stated the handout demonstrates where the future decks are located. He stated the house is very compact that is being proposed. He stated water mitigation is an issue on the property and the separation from the garage and the house would alleviate some of the struggle. Mr. Empson further stated by moving the house, which staff is recommending, that would be jeopardizing the mitigation in the area. He stated for topography reasons the house was rotated. He mentioned the elevation mark would be about 20 feet off the ground. Mr. Empson stated the house would be a great addition to the neighborhood and to the City of Mound. Robert Davis, 9973 Valley View, Eden Prairie. Mr. Davis does not understand why the City cannot approve this proposal. He stated the plat has already approved easements on 6 out of the 9 lots. He further stated Ms. Steen's lot is small and it is only about 1/3 buildable which would be the hardship. Mr. Davis would like the City to consider the conservation easement from 50 feet to 40 feet. He would like the City to consider changing the garage front yard easement to 20 feet on one comer to 18 feet. He stated there is a private public road on this property and only one person would be using this access. He further stated there are only minor modifications for this case. Peter Meyer, 5748 Sunset Road. Mr. Meyer recommends denial of this easement according to Shoreline Management Ordinance. He stated a house of this size would not be able to be built on a lot this size today. Chair Michael closed the public hearing at 10:40 p.m. Brown commented that the balcony could cause problems in the future when other owners to this property move in. He stated a new owner might want to put a porch on the balcony, and then a three-season porch, and then a deck. He stated with this scenario, it is hard to ignore the balcony would cause some infringement in the future. DRAFT Mueller stated he was opposed to the platting of the Teal Pointe lots originally. Although, since the City Council approved these lots to be buildable, an owner needs to be creative. He mentioned this house does not meet all of the zoning and subdivision requirements, and it does not affect any public right-of-way. Mueller asked staff if the conservation easement is currently 40 feet on 6 of the existing 9 lots. Gordon agreed and it was amended in 1997, except for these three lots. Mueller stated he would approve the easement, although, he is opposed to the deck on the north side of the house. Brown agreed with Mueller. MOTION by Brown to deny staff's recommendation and allow the applicant to build a home as presented on the above-mentioned property, with the exception of the deck to the north. Gordon stated staff recommended the applicant to allow to build with all the setbacks on the property, consisting of a 13.6 front yard, 3.5 side yard, and a 40 foot easement. Gordon further stated since the deck attaches the garage and house, this is considered an attached garage and the walkway is elevated. Brown withdrew the motion for lack of a second. Chair Michael asked staff where should the applicant put the house. Gordon stated the house would work with the site, but there are variances that need to be decided and hardships need to be found. Chair Michael asked the applicant if the house would be moved, what additional costs would incur. Mr. Empson stated the additional costs would be a new engineer drawing. Mr. Davis stated he does not understand the denial. He stated the applicant is only asking for a 2 foot variance for the comer of the garage, to rotate it and to line it up with the neighbors house. He does not agree that this is a 13 foot setback. He further stated 66 percent of the houses in the neighborhood have already received their easement. Mueller stated he would like to point out good things on the property which include 2,000 feet of hardcover, the drainage system is well received, and there have been extensive planning techniques by the applicants. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Brown, to allow the ability to build the plan as shown, without the deck to the north; vacate 10 feet of the conversation easement to keep it in balance with the 6 out of 9 lots, and call a variance for the landing in the front yard with no more hardcover in the plan but than what is presented. Discussion. DRAFT Mueller stated his findings of fact include zero frontage, no public right-of-way, and not a lot of traffic to deal with in this location. MOTION FAILED due to a 4/4 vote. (Brown, Hasse, Glister, Mueller - aye, Voss, Weiland, Michael, Burma - nay). MOTION by Voss, seconded by Weiland, to deny the variances and easement vacation according to staff recommendations. Discussion: Weiland stated he is confident the applicant can come up with a plan to build a house on this lot without the variances and easement being requested. Voss stated we are not stopping the applicant from building a home. He does not see the hardships or practical difficulties with this lot. Mueller stated this is an extreme case for topography difficulties. Burma is assured the house could be pulled over and put in a different spot. He only has seen an economic hardship for the applicant. Brown stated the other 6 cases were allowed 40-foot conversation easements and a precedent has been started. Mueller stated in the other 6 cases, the lots were 37 feet deep, as well as this lot, and they received their conservation easement. Suthedand referred to previous minutes on pages 159-163. He stated the existing house on lot 3 was issued and can came through the City by a developer with the name of Gabriel Jabor, who inherited the three parcels, and he did not want to build case homes on these lots, but rather conventional homes, and staff supported this notion. Staff further felt there was enough land to build a house on the remaining three lots without disturbing the conversation easement. Jay Larson, lives on Teal Pointe. He is speaking on behalf of him and other neighbors that live on lots 7, 8, and 9. He stated does not have any problems with the esthetics of the home. He further stated it was very difficult to build on Teal Pointe and there were additional costs to plan for a home. He restated these lots were approved by the City of Mound as buildable lots. He stated having a financial hardship with this location is, in his eyes, a suitable hardship and the easement should be granted. Randy Lee, owns lot 9 at Teal Pointe. He stated there are definite hardships with the conservation easement at 40 feet. He is impressed with the planning that DRAFT has been done to try and build an acceptable house on this lot with regard to civil engineering work and soil testing. He would like to see this case approved. Mueller stated there is practical difficulty and this house should be granted because of the well-researched plan. Brown called the question. MOTION DENIED. 3-5 (Michael, Voss, Weiland - aye; Brown, Hasse, Glister, Mueller, Burma - nay). MOTION by Brown, seconded by Mueller, to extend the Planning Commission work rules until 12:00. MOTION CARRIED. 7-1 (Glister voting nay). MOTION by Burma, seconded by Brown, to allow the ability to build the plan as shown, without the deck to the north; vacate 10 feet of the conversation easement to keep it in balance with the 6 out of 9 lots; and call a variance for the landing in the front yard with no more hardcover in the plan but than what is presented. Discussion. Burma stated there seems to be a hardship in this case because of a particular consideration other than those that have been afforded in the same area. MOTION CARRIED. 5-3 (Voss, Weiland and Michael voting nay). Chair Michael stated this case will be heard by the City Council on May 23, 2000. CASE #00-12: VARIANCE; MARY STEEN, 5104 DRUMMOND ROAD, LOT 2, BLOCK 1, TEAL POINTE, IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING, PID #25-117-24 12 0232. See discussions from Case #00-13 above: TO: Planning Commission of the City of Mound ~ From: James McCanney 5080 Windsor Road (lot 5) Teal Point Develop~/~ Date: 05/05/2000 Re: Cause for denial of request to vacate conservation easement/~r proposed house at Drummond Road RECEIVED Since I am unable to attend the meeting please accept this letter. There are numerous problems with the proposed "Tree House" layout an~ this lot by the p~r~ design that do not meet the limitations set for ~NNIN commission's previous meetings in which the use of the lot was a (due to the severe angle and dimensions of the lot as well as the impact on the wetlands and the Teal Point Development in ~eneral). Also, any "hardship" should be considered as of the June 9, 1997 planning meeting when the original setbacks were already given unusually large variances to accommodate a ~traditional family house" (such as the existing new house on Drummond) in which the house and garage are one structure located within 10 feet of Drummond Road. The existin~ 7 new houses at Teal Point have garage & house incorporated in one structure. The 50 foot conservation easement implies a 10 foot variance during construction to allow machines to work around the house which will return to 50 feet when construction is completed. Variance to 40 feet will only give 30 feet (10 yards) to the water wetland durin~ construction and this area on lot 2 is extremely steep. So in reality no machines would be able to work there without residue and possibly the machines slidin~ into the conservation area and water. The request for vacation of the conservation easement ignores the fact that the road setbacks for lots 1, 2 and 3 were already varied from 20 to 10 feet to allow a "traditional family house" to be built at the top of the hill and with a single deck "extending no more than 8 feet from the house rear" (page 68 of the June 1997 planning commission meeting that approved use of the lot). The vacation request (inherent in the housin~ plan) asks that you further reduce the 10 foot road setback. This is understandable given the steep grade immediately off of Drummond Road, however, the proposed housin~ complex of detached garage, patios and decks and the house span the entire lot of over 80 feet and as a result exceeds the lot dimensions extendin~ into the conservation easement area. Given that there is only one direction for water drainage this in practice exceeds the 30% coverage rule (covered surface to lot size). The point is that the only type of house ever approved by the planning commission for this lot is a house similar to the one already built on Drummond Road which incorporates the house and garage in one structure within 10 feet set back of the road. The adjacent 3 lots (Lots 3, 4 and 5) have their houses set back by an additional 30 to 50 feet from the water in addition to the 50 foot conservation easement, so the requested variance from the conservation easement is far out of line with the other houses' placement. The upper side of the proposed house lies below the lowest level of the existing house on Drummond (lot 3). This is not a placement due to a hardship. The crux of the issue lies in the proposed variance from the original planning commission decision to require ~traditional family houses" on lots 1, 2 and 3. Allowing a novelty house design with this level of impact on the wetland and conservation easement will create a form factor (and therefore property value) dilemma for the other houses of. the Teal Point Development which have followed the initial plan. Other items: ]) The back yards of lots 3,4 and 5 will not be available for emergency removal of equipment that are unable to get out of lot 2 lower level. PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. iml I IH TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: April 10, 2000 SUBJECT: Easement Vacation and Variance Request OWNER: Mike Empson - 9975 Valley View Rd., Eden Prairie CASE NUMBER: 00-12 and 00-13 ttKG FILE NUMBER: 00-5 LOCATION: 5104 Drummond Road ZONING: Residential District R- 1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking a fi.ont and side yard variances and vacation 10 feet of a conservation easement to build a new house on the vacant property. The requested setback variance is to allow the deck/landing area of the proposed garage to encroach into the front setback. A second variance is requested for the deck on the north side of the house. The variances requested are listed below. Existing/Proposed Required Variance Front Yard 13.5' 20' 6.5' Side Yard 3.5' 10' 6.5' A 50 feet conservation easement is located along the rear of the property and continues on adjacent lots 1 and 3. The proposed vacation is to allow for the construction of the house. The north comer is located at the easement line. The additional 10 feet will provide room for grading and impact during construction. The property is located within the R-1 Single Family Residential District which requires a lot area of 10,000 square feet, a 20 feet front yard setback and a 10 feet side yard setbacks for non lots of record. All code requirements are conforming except the front yard setback. Hardcover coverage is 1932 sq. ft. which is under the 3030 sq. ft. allowed. The Teal Pointe subdivision was approved as a Planned Development Area (PDA) in 1995, via 123 North Third Stxeet, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 p. 2 gO0-12 and 00-13 - 5104 Drummond Road Variance Request May 8, 2000 Resolution #95-13 and a 1997 amendment. Included in approvals are a number of conditions that guide its development. Specifically for lot 2 the following apply: · A 20 feet variance fi:om the required 60 feet street frontage minimum · Lot width variance of 6 feet · Bluff impact/area variance to allow development of the property · Bluff setback variance · A master plan, tree inventory, erosion mitigation, and landscaping plan detailing tree and ground cover replacement · Sanitary sewer service is to be provided by individual lift pumps DISCUSSION: The property has adequate buildable area and lot width to allow this house plan to be constructed without granting variances or vacating a portion of the conservation easement. Therfore, staff cannot find reason to support the applicant's case of practical difficulty. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council deny the variances and easement vacation as requested. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 MEMORANDUM Hoisington Koegler /IP/ 0 ooo Group Inc. To: Jon Sutherland, Mound Building Official From: Loren Gordon, City Planner Date: April 5, 2000 Subject: 5104 Drummond Road - Survey information I have reviewed the variance and easement vacation applications for the property located at 5104 Drummond Road and have found the following inadequacies on the survey: · The contours shown on the site plan and the survey are not consistent. The survey is to be used as the basis for establishing building setbacks and preparing the building plan sets. As noted in below items, a number of other plans will be required upon building permit approval which will need an accurate survey from which to work. · The location of the garage and stairway/deck is not clearly indicated on the survey. One survey indicates a garage setback that is parallel to the front property line. A second survey shows a slight rotation of the garage that brings the northwest comer closer to the front property line. Additionally, the building plan set shows a 4 feet 6 inch landing and stair area projecting past the front of the garage. An updated survey is needed showing accurate sittings of the garage and deck along with corresponding setbacks from property lines. · The site plan also indicates a future deck wrapping around the north comer of the proposed home. It is not indicated on the survey. It appears it would be within the required 10 feet sideyard setback and the 50 feet easement which would not be permitted without a variance. There is no mention of this in the variance application. · As indicated on the survey, the basement floor elevation indicates an elevation of 956 feet which would require approximately 2+ feet of fill on the north comer of the house and the conservation easement. The site plan however, indicates there will not be a need for fill. Consistency is needed between the two for an accurate depiction of the grade situation. Also the site contours appear to be different on the site plan and survey. This should also be updated to reflect the actual site conditions. · There are two Resolutions filed with the property that spell out a number of conditions of development - Resolution #95-13 and #95-61. Some of these conditions are applicable to the 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 p. 2of2 Memo to Jon Suthcrland - 5104 Drummond Road April $, 2000 survey requirements, notably revised item #16. Until these issues can be addressed and reflected on the survey, the item will not be scheduled for Planning Commission review. Please call me with any further questions. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 RFCFIVEI~ APR 1 3 2000 MOUND PL~Nh~G & IN~ GTE Telephone Operations 2378 Wilshire Boulevard Mound, MN 55364 To whom it may concern, GTE has reviewed the easement vacation applied for by Mary Steen concerning Teal Point in Mound,Mn. We have determined that reducing the consen/ation easement in question from 50 feet to 40 feet will have no material impact on GTE's operations in this vicinity. Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention. Please do not hesitate to contact us should a similar situation arise. Designer-Access Design GTE Infrastructure Provisioning Application for STREET I EASEMENT VACATION City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0607, Fax: 472-0620 Planning Commission Date: ~--//(::::)- ~ (-~ City Council Date: Distributions, / 7 City Planner ,~" 1-7 Minnegasco ~, I '? City Engineer ~, I ? Police Dept. 5' / '7 Public Works ~' I'7 Fire Dept. Please type or print the following information: APPLICANT Adjacent Address ADJACENT PROPERTY Name of Business (APPLICAN'FS PROPERTY) Lot Subdivision ~'~ R-la R-2 R-3 8-1 B-2 B-3 ZONING Circle: DISTRICT Block PI1~f DESCRIPTION OF STREET TO BE VACATED REASON FOR REQUEST IS THERE A PUBLIC NEED FOR THIS LAND? Print AppRcant s Name Applicant'~);~nature Case No. Application Fee: $250.00 ~' / 7 NSP ~ ~, GTE ~<~-/? Other Plat Date Print Applicant's Name [Re~sed 02~34-00) Applicant's Signature Date I am requesting that the conservation easement ~ha~ currently crosses my property be reduced from 50 to 40 feet. The easement restricts my ability to make full use of the buildable area (within the setbacks). A change to 40 feet is consistent with other lots in the Teal Pointe development that have similar circumstances. RECEIVED APR 2 8 2000 MOUND PLANNiNL~ & iIVSF VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0607, Fax: 472-0620 (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: City Planner City Engineer Public Works SUBJECT Address PROPERTY Lot ~, LEGAL Block 1 DESC. Subdivision PII~ F~o~ ZONING DISTRICT R-1 C R-lA ~ R-2 R-3 B-1 Application Fee: Case Nof~'~/~ DNR Other Plat~ B-2 B-3 PROPERTY OWNER APPLICANT Name (IF OTHER Address THAN Phone OWNER) (H) (W) (M) Has an application ever been made for zoning, wri~rtc-~, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? 'j~4,es, ( ) no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. Detailed description of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): Variance Application, P. 2 Case No. ~ Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): SETBACKS: REQUIRED REQUESTED VARIANCE (or existing) Front Yard: (~I,,S E(~ ~ ft. ft. ~ ~ ft. Side Yard: ((]~a,E W ) I~ ft. ft. .~, ~ ff. Side Yard: (N{~_ W) I~ ft. ft. ft. Rear Yard: (N)~ ~'{3 ft. ft. ft. Lakeside: ( NSEW ) ft. ft. ft. · (NSEW) ft. ft. ft. Street Frontage: ~O ft. ft. ft. Lot Size: l~t ~t) sq ft sq ft sq ft Hardcover: sq ft sq ft sq ft Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning distdct in which it is located? Yes (), No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use: Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? Please ~)~).too narrow .~'. topography ( ) soil ( ) too small ~).drainage ( ) existing situation ( ) too shallow ~ shape ~3..other: specify descdbe: Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No'~ If yes, explain: Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No~. If yes, explain: Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes~, No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? 9. Comments: I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Owner's Signature Applicant's Signature Date Date The lot located at 5104 Drummond Road has many unique characteristics. I have described the following circumstances that help minimize the "hardships" that are . inherent to the site. Tol~o~rat~hv: The slope of the site averages 35% grade. The foundation of both the house and garage have been designed in response to this condition, however, only the house is oriented in the direction of the slope. The garage has to be oriented to the street. This makes the construction of the foundation problematic at the NE corner. By rotating the garage as shown in the plan I was able to design a step footing to the required frost depth and maintain undisturbed soil at the NE comer during the excavation of the house. This has been confirmed by my excavator and structural engineer. The two foot variance offers an elevation gain of approx, one foot. Drainage: The issue of site surface water run-off is an issue that was discussed by both my engineer and landscape architect. The foundation was designed to withstand the soil & hydrostatic pressure of normal to extreme loads. However, it is impossible to precisely account for overly extreme conditions. In order to minimize the chances of the hydrostatic forces causing foundation failure the current design addresses surface water run-off in the following ways: 1. It maintains a distance between the garage and house that facilitates a system of berms and plantings that directs the water away from the foundations. 2. The use of perforated drain tile to redirect water that percolates through the soil at the foundations and releases it on undisturbed grade. Narrow lot: The street frontage is only forty feet wide. The standard lot width as described in the Mound zoning ordinance is sixty feet. This narrow condition makes it very difficult to separate the garage from the house. In an ideal situation a person would see at least five feet of daylight between the garage and house when viewed with the orientation of drainage. The proposed design maximizes separation with respect to site drainage. The house and garage foundations are within the side yard setbacks. Shai~e: Due to the land forms of the Teal Point Development the plated lots have a very irregular shapes. Our lot is a trapezoid that gets wider to east (pond side). Our neighbor to the south has a variance that allowed the builder to orient the house along the north side property line. The back of the house overlooks a large portion of our lot which makes the south east comer of our buildable area undesirable for the house. It also is lower in elevation and it would make the connection to the garage problematic. Instead the current design puts the garage in our neighbors shadow - not the house. Trees: I have tried to make sure that the trees on the site have been saved if at all possible. The concept of the "tree house" is to blend with the natural environment. It was my intention to maintain as many trees as possible between the houses to act as a screen during warm weather when the balconies will be host to social gatherings. Other considerations: From a purely aesthetic point of view the front yard variance will allow me to align my garage with my neighbor's. This will give our little street a more cohesive appearance. Lots 1,2 & 3 own this "outlot A" road and are responsible for its maintenance. There are no other lots that are directly effected by this variance. Side yard setback: The issue of the side yard encroachment of the NE balcony was added to this application along with an amended survey. We are asking for a side yard variance of 3'6". To measure this distance, however, a person would have to be standing on sixteen foot scaffolding. The 10' side yard requirement is maintained by the house foundation and there are no deck footings in this setback. The balconies have been designed by my structural engineer to handle a 50 lbs./s.f, deadload and a 60 lbs./s.f, live load as req. by code. It is part of a composition that is designed to blend with the existing trees as all "Tree Houses" should. If the balconies had post and footings they would be considered decks and thus only require a LL design of 40 lbs./s.f.. The number of posts required for a deck would not be a very sensitive solution within the context of the site. PROPERTY ADDRESS: OWNER'S NAME: LOT AREA LOT AREA LOT AREA CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) ~"l oH SQ. FT. X 30% = (for all lots) .............. I ,~J~O ~13 I SQ. FT. X 40% = (for Lots of Record*) ....... SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only) *Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted and approved by the Building Official. HOUSE DETACHED BLDGS (~GARAGE_/SHED) DRIVEWAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT Z '7" x = qG( X = X = TOTAL HOUSE ......................... X ?1' 7" x 24'7' TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ................. X X TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC .................. X X X TOTAL DECK .......................... X X TOTAL OTHER ......................... ~l"C~(C Open decks (1/4" min. opening between boards) with e pervious surface under are not counted as herdcover OTHER TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE i UNDERI/OVER (indicate~r~VerenGe) ............................... VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0607, Fax: 472-0620 Application Fee: $100.00 (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Distribution: SUBJECT PROPERTY LEGAL DESC. PROPERTY OWNER 3-/'7 City Planner -.~'/~ City Engineer .~, ] -/ Public Works / '~ Address Lot Block Subdivision PID# ZONING DISTRICT,d~~IA Name Address Phone DNR Other .; i~1._· Plat~ B-2 B-3 (M) APPLICANT Name (IF OTHER Address THAN Phone OWNER) ~'),x Gl?..- 9 bS- 97-9 Z (M) Has an application 3de for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes,' i,o~lf yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. Detailed description of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): Revised 02-0~00 Vadance Application, P. 2 Case No. Do the oxisti~j structures co~m~y with all area. height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes,;J, No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etC.): SETBACKS: REQUIRED REQUESTED VARIANCE (or existing) Front Yard: Side Yard: Side Yard: Rear Yard: Lakeside: ~E~ ~_0 EW) tO (NN~) lc) ( ) (NSEW) · (NSEW) Street Frontage: Lot Size: Hardcover: Does the present use of the property Yes~, No (). If no, spe~ ff. ff. ff. ff. ff. ff. ft. ft. ff. ff. ff. ff. sq ff sq ff sq ff sq ff to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? use: Which unique phys; '~.i permitted in that zon, !;I ~Jbject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses ( ) too narrow ( ) too small ( ) shallow Please describe:~ Pography ( ) soil drainage (;:~ existing situation shape ( ) other: specify Revised 02-04-00 ~]ariance Application, P. 3 Case No. ~ '" [ '~- Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No,(~ If yes, explain: 7. Was the hardship created by any other man-made Lii':j~[5 such as ,~e relocation of a road? Yes (), No (). If yes, explain: ~'-. ~ 8. Are the conditions of hardship this petition? Yes~JF~, No (). '.a vadance peculiar only to the property described in P,.~,~ert~es which are similarly affected? I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or p~ans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this appliCation by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by Ira". Applicant's Signature~_. 7'7'"--"7'"~-~w7 Date CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY MARY STEEN FOR OF LOT 2, BLOCK 1, TEAL POINTE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES : Lot 2, Block 1, TEAL POINTE o : denotes iron morker (969.9) : denotes existintg spot elevotion, meon seo level dotum ~ : denotes proposed spot etevotion, meon see level dotum Beorings shown ore hosed upon on ossumed dotum. This survey intends to show the boundories of the obove described property, end the proposed Iocotion of a proposed house end goroge thereon. It does not purport to show ony other improvements or encroochments. SCALE ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ tN ~ of tN Stow of ~t~ DATE 1--20~0 RECEIVED APE 2 ~ 2000 - MOUND PLANNING & INSP, 9,10 960 970 ~ vJ . I ~n-5 PI-AN 1/~," = 1' 98O O00g Biz :/_£ :LT §T, aeN pal~ 6~p' a'~TS\SH-zjEiI:ii\~,oa!o.,"'\ :0 10" '"++1 "~-" ~~ 000~ 6~ :OE iL~ §~ JeN paH §~P'SNVgd\SH-33Wl\4Oa!oJ~\ :0 LEVEL. ~ ~ 5.~. 9/$' = 1' 21'-7' L=NTR. Y LEVEL NIEC, H. PLN. 1/4" = 1' ot:1 000~ 6~ :[E:L[ §[ JeH paM §~P'$N¥gd\SH'-33WI\43a!oJO~\ :0 /q~-,e4MiEB~ED Ot:~j 0008 ~E :BE :L~ §~ JBN PaN fiMP'SNOIID3S\SH-33BI\lO@[oJd[\ :0 000~ §I :0~ :L~ §~ aeN pa~ EASt 1/~~ -- 1' 1/4" = 1' ~ O00g §O:~£:Z; §; aeN pa~ 6~p's^a[]\SH-~Wl\laa(oad;\:a A1 0008 8£ :I~£ :/~ §J JeW P@M 6Mp'SAaI2\SH-22HI\la@(ojd. J\ :0 (~) 5lt!P PTI,,I~,. I:::~"T~IL pan §MP'SN¥gd\SH-22Wl\la@(oJd[\ :0 CERTIFICATE City of Mound STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) OFFICE OF THE REGIS*TRAk OF TITLES HENN£PIN COUNTY, MINNESOT~ CERTIFIED FILED ON JUL - 1 1997 ~ DEPU~ I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and Clerk of the City of Mound, Minnesota, hereby attest and certify that: As such officer, I have the legal custody of the original record from which the attached and foregoing extract was transcribed. 2. I have carefully compared said extract with said original record. I find said extract to be a true, correct and complete transcript from-' the original minutes of a meeting of the City Council of said City held on the date indicated in said extract, including any resolution adopted at such meeting, insofar as they relate to: RESOLUTION 97-61 RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION #95-13 MODIFYING ITEM #16 FOR PARCELS 1, 2, 3, BLOCK 1, TEAL POINTE, AND TO APPROVE A 10 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR LOT 3 ONLY. Said meeting was duly held, pursuant to call and notice thereof as required by law on June 24, 1997. WITNESS my hand officially as such Clerk, and the sale of said City, this 25th day of June, 1997. CITY CLERK seal RESOLUTION 9%61 RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION/~'95-13 MODIFYING ITEM//16 FOR PARCELS 1, 2, 3, BLOCK 1, TEAL POINTE, AND TO APPROVE A 10 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR LOT 3 ONLY. June 24, 1997 WHEREAS, the applicant Caliber Homes, Fred Johnson, is seeking a front yard setback variance for Lot 3, Block 1, which fronts on both a short street (Outlot A) and an unimproved portion of Drummond Road, and; WHEREAS, the applicant, Caliber Homes, Fred Johnson, the current developer is seeking to amend Resolution 95-13, regarding item #16 which reads: "Homes constructed on Lots 1-3 shall be caisson and cantilevered structures. Prior to issuing a building permit for Lots 1, 2 and 3, the developer shall submit a set of plans, prepared by a registered Landscape Architect for review by the City. The plans shall contain a master plan, tree inventory, erosion mitigation plan and a landscaping plan which details tree and ground cover replacement." to change the structure style of the homes to a traditional basement structure, and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-lA Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires for non-lots of record a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet, a 20 foot front yard setback, 10 foot side yard setbacks, and a 15 foot rear yard setback, and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located on the comer of the improved Drummond Road and the home is proposed to be located 10 feet from Drummond Road right-of-way, and; WHEREAS, because of the location of the lot, it is required to observe a 20 foot setback off of Drummond Road, a 10 foot setback variance is being proposed, and; WHEREAS, when the preliminary plat for Teal Pointe was submitted the developer had originally proposed the vacation of Drummond Lane. After public hearings, the Council denied the vacation request. The general conclusion was that Drummond Road would probably never be improved for street purposes, and; 101 -- June 24, 1997 WHEREAS, locating a home within 10 feet of the line does not compromise future use of Drummond Road as either a formally marked or informally used public trail. Even if utilities were needed in the future, they could be placed within the fight-of-way without being hampered by the location of the proposed home, and; ,, WHEREAS, the fact that Drummond Road is likely to be held by the public as perpetual open space and the fact that the new home does not compromise the future use of the public right-of-way, are grounds for a finding that this case satisfies the existence of practical difficulty, and; WHEREAS, all other setbacks, lot area and impervious surface coverage are conforming, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and the vote was 3-2. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the Cit'~, of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby grant a 10 foot front yard setback variance in order to allow construction of a new dwelling 10 feet from Drummond Road. Item #16 of Resolution #95-13 be modified to remove the requirement for caisson and cantilevered structures. The remainder of the condition should be amended to read: "Prior to issuing a building permit for Lots 1, 2, 3, Block 1, the developer shall submit a set of plans prepared by a registered engineer and landscape architect for review by the City. The plans shall contain a detailed grading plan at a scale not larger than 1" = 10' identifying existing and proposed contours in one foot increments, a lot tree inventory, an erosion control plan and a detailed landscaping plan. Additionally, the grading plan shall note all site features such as retaining walls and decks and appropriate details shall be provided." Complete plans for the proposed construction on Lot 3 is consistent with the above requirement shall be submitted, reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and City Planner prior to issuance of a building permit. Grading and the construction of a deck or patio shall be limited to the area extending eight feet to the rear of the proposed home. The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the structures described in paragraph number one above remain as lawful, nonconforming structures subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420. 102 June 24, 1997 It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land: Single Family Dwelling 6. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lots 1, 2, 3, Block 1, Teal Pointe o This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit fot/ the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Hanus and seconded by Councilmember Weycker. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Hanus, Ahrens, Jensen, Polston and Weycker. The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: none. SS/BOB POLSTON Mayor Attest: City Clerk 103 Mound Ci~. Council Minutes - June 24, 1997 1.6 FRONT YARD VARIANCE REQUEST AND RESOLUTION MODIFICATION. CALIBER BUILDERS, FRED JOHNSON, 5100 DRUMMOND ROAD. TEAL POINTE, LOT 3, BLOCK 1. PID #25-117-24 12 0233. The Building Offtcial explained that this item was referred back to the Planning Commission at the May 27th Council Meeting. This was done to provide the public with an opportunity for input. Neighbors within 350 feet were notified, similar to the public hearing process. He reported that a few people attended the Planning Commission Meeting and their comments are in the June 9th Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. They spoke in opposition to the staff recommendation. The Planning Commission voted 3-2 in favor of the staff recommendation for approval. Hanus moved and Weycker seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION 97-61 RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION //95-13 MODIFYING ITEM//16 FOR PARCELS 1, 2, 3, BLOCK 1, TEAL POENTE, AND TO APPROVE A 10 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR LOT 3 ONLY The voted was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, JUNE 9, 1997 INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARING: TO CONSIDER THE APPROVAL OF MODIFICATION OF RESOLLrrION g95-13, ITEM #16, FOR PARCELS 1, 2, 3, BLOCK 1, TEAL POINTE AND TO CONSIDER A 10 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE FOR LOT 3 ONLY. Chair Michael stated the format for public hearings. Staff gives their report, Commissioners comment to staff, then the public hearing opens, and interested citizens can then speak. Planner Mark Koegler stated the Planning Commission had heard this case on May 19, 1997 and the Council heard this on May 27, 1997. The City Council decided it appropriate for the abutting properties be notified of the proposed changes in the original Resolution of//95-13. He then described the case briefly. The applicant is seeking approval of a front yard setback variance' and modification to one of the conditions of the approval resolution for the Teal Pointe subdivision in order to construct a new home. The parcel in questions is Lot 3, Block 1 of Teal Pointe which fronts on both a short street (Outlot A) and an unimproved portion of Drurranond Road. Because of the location of the lot, it is required to observe a 20 foot setback off of Drummond Road. A 10 foot setback is being proposed, hence the variance of 10 feet. Drummond Road is unimproved and is only platted. When the preliminary plat for Teal Pointe was reviewed and subsequently approved, the developer proposed vacation of parts of Drummond Road. In the course of the review of the preliminary plat, the right-of-way was not vacated and the plat continued to identify an incorrect 10 foot setback from Drummond Road right-of-way.. Presumably, the plat was drawn assuming setbacks with the right-of-way having been vacated. As a result, Caliber Homes is seeking a 67 Minutes - Mound Planning Commission June 9, 1997 10 foot setback variance to allow a home to be placed 10 feet from the lot line. The applicant is also seeking to change the proposed preliminary plat that included cantilevered/cassion foundations for homes on Lots 1, 2, and 3, to the standard form of housing with a full basement. Lots 1, 2 and 3 intrude into a bluff area as defined by the Shoreline Ordinance. Because of the timing of this development relative to the adoption of Mound's shoreland standards, the approval resolution granted, "A variance from Section 330:1225, Subd. 4(B) to allow minimal fill for home construction on Lots 1, 2 and 3 within the bluff impact zone and/or bluff area." The resolution also stated, "Homes constructed on Lots 1-3 shall be caisson and cantilevered structures. Prior to issuing a building permit for Lots 1, 2 and 3, the developer shall submit a set of plans prepared by a registered Landscape Architect for review by the City. The plans shall contain a master plan, tree inventory, erosion mitigation plan and a landscaping plan which details tree and ground cover replacement." This idea of caisson/cantilevered construction on Lots 1-3 was offered by the developer at that time as a means to lessen the impact on the steep slope areas. At this time, the current owner of Lots 1-3 is seeking to modify this clause in the resolution to allow the construction of traditional single family homes. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the requested 10 foot front yard variance to allow a home to be placed 10 feet from the right-of-way of Drummond Road. The facts of this case support a finding of practical difficulty. Staff further recommends that item 16 of Resolution //95-13 be modified to remove the requirement for caisson and cantilevered structures. The remainder of the condition should be amended to read: "Prior to issuing a building permit for Lots 1, 2 and 3, the developer shall submit a set of plans prepared by a registered engineer and landscape architects for review by the City. The plans shall contain a detailed grading plan at a scale not larger than 1" = 10' identifying existing and proposed contours in one foot increments, a lot tree inventory, an erosion control plan and a detailed landscaping plan. Additionally, the grading plan shall note all site features such as retaining walls and decks and appropriate details shall be provided." Complete plans for the proposed construction on Lot 3 consistent with the above requirement shall be submitted, reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and City Planner prior to issuance of a building permit. Grading and the construction of a deck or patio shall be limited to the area extending eight feet to the rear of the proposed home. Chair Michael asked the Commission if they had any comments, they had none. Minutes - Mound Planning Commission June 9, 1997 Chair Michael opened the Informal Public Hearing and asked if there was anyone present who wished to speak on this item. John Edewaard - 5125 Hanover Road. He stated he did not like the proposed variance. There was no hardship, doesn't meet code. He did not like changing plans. The new owner should have researched this before he purchased land. The original plat was approved because of the house style change, now it is being recommended. He stated there were already 17 variances and this had been well thought out once. Koegler stated that other PDA's had had changes in the past, once the plat was approved. Hanus asked Edewaard what his contention was with, the variance or the building style? Edewaard stated some conditions had not been met, such as reseed and resod. The homes should be built the way they were originally designed. Hanus reiterated the proposal before the Commission. Jim Brunzell, 5111 Windsor Road. He stated the neighbors had worked hard with the previous developer to come to an agreement, now it was changing. He was losing his trust in government. He purchased his home from previous developer, it had water problems in the basement. Brunzell stated he did not think the style of home would work on the slopes. Todd Rask, 5901 Drummond Road. He disagrees with the setback variance. The undeveloped Drummond Road was being discussed amongst neighbors as being a nature trail with walkway access to the slough area. He felt the slope was too steep for the style of home proposed. Chair Michael asked if this trail plan would go through the Parks and Open Space Commission. Harry Nassett, real estate agent, 2212 Fern Lane. He stated the plat map on view, was not the way the plat was approved. The plat on view showed Drummond Road vacated and it was not vacated. Lot 3 is 40 feet wide. The correct plat of lot 3 does not go into Drummond Road. Nasset stated caisson style homes are not good for Minnesota climate due to the cold seeping in. More earth would have to be moved installing caisson than a full basement. With retaining walls, the grade will be more improved than with the open ground style. Holes for the caisson would be larger and move more earth around than just digging a basement. Building Official Jon Sutherland stated the equipment used to dig a basement, would be a backhoe and cause less impact on the hillside because it could cut into the hillside for a foundation from at the top above the lot. In order to prepare footing holes, equipment would have to drive over and around the slope. Chair Michael asked why the original builder used caisson/cantilever style? Minutes - Mound Planning Commission June 9, 1997 City Planner Koegler stated the former developer proposed this style of structure. Chair Michael commented that some time changes occur, something may prove to be better than what was originally planned. Chair Michael asked three times if there were any more comments from the interested citizens, there were none. Chair Michael closed the informal public hearing. Hanus stated the cantilever style portrayed a more environmental friendly style, now we are hearing differently. The Commission would recommend the style that makes the most common sense. He didn't think much could grow under the caisson style overhang and that a full basement would not create as much erosion, especially if side elevations with landscaping were considered. He was not concerned with pipe freezing issue, this could be taken care of through special building efforts. The staff reports that there should not be further damage to the slopes. He is sensitive to the neighbors concerns. Weiland stated he also wants to protect the slope, and through the use of retaining walls, he could approve the full basement style. He was concerned as to what could grow under the cantilever. Burma stated he had mixed thoughts. He was concerned that recently there had been instances where the developer assumed a street vacation had been approved, and then, consequently, the Commission granted variances to allow the building. He stated that sometime exceptions are made. Glister stated she had wanted a public hearing to discuss the proposed changes. She was willing to consider the change. She was pleased citizens took the time to come to the meeting. She did not want to change the building style of the original proposed cantilevered/caisson style home. Chair Michael commented that there were four Commissioners not in attendance. He did have in writing, comments from Michael Mueller. Chair Michael wondered if the Commission would like to wait until more Commissioners were present. Weiland stated more information should be added to the motion, regarding the oversight in not vacating Drummond Road. Hanus stated the conditions as they would be in the motion. MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Burma to approve the requested 10 foot front yard variance to allow a home to be placed 10 feet from the right-of- way of Drummond road and to modify item //16 of Resolution 95-13 to remove the requirement for cassion and cantilevered structures. To amend 70 Minutes - Mound Planning Commission June 9, 1997 the condition to say "Prior to issuing a building permit for Lots 1, 2, and 3, the developer shall submit a set of plans prepared by registered engineers and landscape architects for review by the City. The plans shall contain a detailed grading plan at a scale of not larger than 1" = 10' identifying existing and proposed contours in one foot increments, a lot tree inventory, an erosion control plan and a detailed landscaping plan. The grading plan shah note all site features such as retaining walls and decks and appropriate details shall be provided." Complete plans for the proposed construction on Lot 3 consistent with the above requirement shall be submitted, reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and City Planner prior to issuance of a building permit. Grading and the construction of a deck or patio shall be limited to the area extending eight feet to the rear of the proposed home. Koegler stated the motion came directly from the staff report. Chair Michael read Commissioner Mueller's comments for the record: "The discussion we had with this development were many and the developer assured us that the entire development would be architecturally planned including building facades and that the bluff slopes would be least disturbed by the construction of some of the homes on caissons where the grade was the steepest. I brought up at that time the open underside exposure of the structures was a difficult and expensive way to build given the cold weather that we have in order to protect the heating and plumbing systems from freeze-up. The developer assured us that even though it would not be cheap, this type of construction is preferred in order to minimize the impact to the bluff. He informed us that caisson drilling does not disturb as much area as that which excavating machinery needs to move large amounts of fill material and the turning radius and movement required to remove such material. The lots in Block 1 were always of the largest concern as the slopes are very extreme. No type of construction other than that approved on the preliminary and f'mal plat should be allowed. It appears as though this is a request based solely and completely on a cost effective method of construction and not on a hardship that was not at length at the time of the preliminary plat approval. It is my understanding that a variance, or in this case a modification change to the final plat, should not be done for the sole purpose of making the project less expensive to complete. There are methods of assuring that the construction on caissons can be done without freeze-up problems and the bluff would sustain the least amount disturbance and infringement. I used to be an excavator, and I assure you that there is no way to excavate a basement that disturbs the bluff equal to or less than caisson drilling." Chair Michael stated the presumption was that Commissioner Mueller did not approve the structure style change. 71 Minutes- Mound Planning Commission June 9, 1997 Chair Michael asked if there were comments from the Commission. Weiland stated he would like to see plans for the retaining walls on Lots 1 and 2. He wanted to make sure the retaining walls were installed. Burma stated he agreed with Mueller on most points with the exception of the construction cost being cheeper. The Commission should not request only the most expensive plan. There is no reason to require a more expensive method if both methods have equal impact. VOTE was called, motion carried 3-2. Glister and Michael voting nay. Chair Michael stated the item goes to the City Council on June 24, 1997. Teal Pointe 10/95 All in Block 1 PID ]24,- 117-24 12 0 Lot 1 (231) 5108 Lot 2 (232) 5104 Lot 3 (233) 5100 Drummond Road Drummond Road Drummond Road Lot 4 (234) 5090 Lot 5 (235) 5080 Lot 6 (236) 5070 Lot 7 (237) 5060 Lot 8 (238) 5065 Lot 9 (239) 5075 Windsor Road Windsor Road Windsor Road Windsor Road Windsor Road Windsor Road RESOLUTION//95-13 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND GRANTING PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL, APPROVAL OF A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AREA BY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, LOT AND STREET DESIGN VARIANCES, SHORELAND VARIANCES, AND FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR TEAL POINTE P.F~IDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted an application for a major subdivision called Teal Pointe 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 project submitted for approval is substantially unchanged from the project that received preliminary plat approval by the Mound City Council on February 9, 1993 (Resolution 93-20) and final plat approval by the Mound City Council on May 10, 1994 (Resolution 94-65), and WHEREAS, the applicant's proposal includes a request for a Conditional Use Permit to establish Teal Pointe as a Planned Development Area (PDA), together with a request for street design variances and variances from the bluff setback provisions of the Mound City Code, 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, the City Council, on January 10, 1995, held a public hearing pursuant to Section 330:00 of the Mound City Code of Ordinances, to consider the approval of the Teal Pointe Subdivision located on property described as follows: Lots 2, 3, 4, 22, 23 and 24 Block 11, "WHIPPLE"; That part of Lots 13 through 21, inclusive, Block 10, "WHIPPLE," and that part of Lot 1, Block 11, in said plat, together with that part of vacated Cobden Lane, as dedicated in said plat lying North of the Westerly extension of the South line of said Block 10, also together with that part of the North half of vacated Drummond Road as dedicated in said plat lying East of the Southerly extension of the West line of said Block 10, all which lie Southerly of a line described as beginning at the Northwest comer of said Lot 1; thence on an assumed beating of East along the North line of said LOt 1 a distance of 22 14 January 24, 199~ feet; thence South 41 degrees 59 minutes 14 seconds East, 26.91 feet; thence South 44 degrees 03 minutes 39 seconds East, 43.14 feet; thence South 50 degrees 21 minutes 21 seconds l:~_st, 45.45 feet; thence South 51.degrees 20 minutes 25 seconds East, 19.21 feet; thence South 50 degrees 28 minutes 39 seconds East, 51.86 feet; thence South 68 degrees 11 minutes 55 seconds East, 43.08 feet; thence South 80 degrees 04 minutes 26 seconds East, 40.61 feet; thence North 75 degrees 57 minutes 50 seconds East, 41.23 feet; thence North 78 degrees 41 minutes 24 seconds East, ~3.79 feet; thence on a bearing of East, 40 feet; thence South' 47 degrees 43 minutes 35 seconds East to the South line of said Lot 21, Block 10; thence East to the Southeast comer of said Lot 21; thence South along the extension of the East line of said LOt 21 to the centefline of vacated Drummond Road and there terminating. ALSO Lots I to 26 inclusive, Block 15, and Lots 1 t0.26, Block 16, 'WHIPPLE'; That portion of vacated Windsor Road, dedicated to the public in the plat of 'WHIPPLE' as Windsor Place, which lies Easterly of a line drawn from the Northwest comer of Lot 13, Block 16 to the Southwest comer of Lot 14, Block 15, and Westerly of a line drawn from the Northeast comer of LOt 1, Block 16 to the Southeast Comer of LOt 26, Block 15, said addition, That portion of vacated Drummond Road, dedicated to the public in the plat of 'WHIPPLE,' which lies South of the centerline thereof, Easterly of a line drawn from the Northwest comer of LOt 13, Block 15 to the Southwest comer of Lot 14, Block 10, and Westerly of a line drawn from the Northeast comer of Lot 1, Block 15, to the Southeast comer of Lot 26, Block 10, said addition, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and City Council have studied the practicability of the preliminary plat, the planned development area, the variances, and the final plat taking into consideration the requirements of the City, giving particular attention to the arrangement, location, width of streets, 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 street variances for Drummond Road and Windsor Road will facilitate the construction of street extensions that will match the grade of the existing paved streets, and WHEREAS, the proposed subdivision as conditioned is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and Wlt~AS, the physical characteristics of the site are suitable for the type and density of development contemplated subject to the conditions imposed herein, and 15 January 24, 1995 WNF~REAS, the applicant prepared an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the project, the project was modified to reflect information collected during the preparation of and comment period for the EAW and the Mound City Council acting as the RGU determined that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was not warranted for the project, and WHF_.RF_,AS, the Indian Affairs Council has reviewed the project as part of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet and has given their approval, 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, adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and other necessary facilities as required by the City subdivision regulations are being provided, and WHEREAS, the proposed use is consistent with the existing land use in the area, and WNEREAS, the proposed use is consistent with' the Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of the Zoning Code and the purposes of the zoning district, and WHEREAS, the applicant's property is exceptional in that it is irregularly shaped and has unusual topography, and WHEREAS, the applicant's property is covered with mature trees and mature vegetation which when coupled with the unusual shape and topography of the site requires some variation from the literal interpretation of the street design requirements of the Zoning Code to allow the preservation of existing trees and vegetation to the maximum extent practicable, and WI:IEREAS, due to the shape of the parcel, existing topography and existing vegetation, a variation from the requirements of the bluff setback provisions of the Zoning Code will allow the distribution of home sites throughout the property avoiding a concentration of homes on the peninsula area off of Windsor Road, and WHEREAS, the variances requested are the minimum variances necessary to alleviate the practical difficulty created by the shape and topography of the site and to facilitate the preservation of existing vegetation, and WHEREAS, the granting of variances will not confer upon the applicant any special privilege that. is denied owners of other lands in the same district, and WHEREAS, the granting of variances would not be materially detrimental to the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance or to property in the same zone, and 16 Sanuary 24, 1~5 WREREAS, 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. NOW TFrEREFORE, BE IT RF~OLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Preliminary Plat approval, Final Plat approval, approval of issuance of a Conditional Use Permit to establish a Planned Development Area includ'.mg the designation of Outlot A as a private street and the following variances: Street frontage variances for Lots 1~-3 which will front on an extension of Drummond Road. Lot 1 requires a 36 foot variance, Lots 2 and 3 each require a 20 foot variance fi'om the 60 foot minimum frontage standard. Lot width variances for Lots 2-and 3. Lot 2 requires a 6 foot variance and Lot 3 requires a 17 foot variance from the minimum 60 foot width requirement. A variance from Section 330:1225, Sub& 4(B) to allow minimal f'fll for home construction on Lots 1, 2 and 3 within the bluff impact zone and/or bluff area. A 220 foot variance from the maximum 500 foot cul-de-sac length on Windsor Road. A 10 foot variance from the required 50 foot right-of-way width for Windsor Road and a 10 foot variance from the required 50 radius cul-de- sac bubble on Windsor Road. A 5 foot variance from the 40 foot standard on the paved area of the cul- de-sac bubble and a 4 foot variance from the standard 28 foot street width, both on Windsor Road. A variance on lots 1-3 from the bluff area setback requirements of the Shoreland Management Ordinance section 350:1225. · A 5 % street grade variance from the maximum 8% on Windsor Road. are hereby granted subject to compliance with the following requirements and those found within the City Engineer's memo dated December 7, 1994: 17 Sanuary 24, 1995 The preliminary plat drawings labeled as Exhibit A and the final plat drawings labeled as Exhibit B are 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 Homeowner's Association documents labeled as Exhibit C are hereby incorporated into this Resolution. The Conservation Easement labeled as Exhibit D is hereby incorporated into this Resolution. m The Developer shall secure and provide the City with a copy of a stormwater permit from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District prior to the City releasing the final plat. The Developer shall secure and provide copies to the City's Building Official of all required reviews and permits from the Minnesota Department of Health and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency prior to beginning construction. The Building Official will not authorize construction until permits are secured. 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 items covered by said contract shall be completed within 280 days of the City releasing the final plat. As part 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 $155,000 (125% of estimated construction costs) as per plans approved by the City Engineer. e Outlot B as shown on the preliminary plat shall be dedicated to the City of Mound. The Developer shall furnish the City Attorney with all necessary information and assistance to transfer Ouflot B to the City. This transaction shall be completed prior to the City releasing the final plat and shall be filed at the same time the plat is placed of record. The City Attorney shall examine title to the property and shall render a title opinion to the City showing the ownership status of the property prior to filing. The applicant shall provide the City Attorney a current abstract or register of property abstract for Teal Pointe. Out. lot A shall be limited in use to a private street and utility extension of Drummond Road to serve Lots 1, 2 and 3. An undivided ~,6 interest in Outlot A shall be conveyed to each of Lots 1, 2 and 3 and bound to those parcels in the property tax records. It is further understood that all tax parcel descriptions shall include the individual lot and the 1/3 undivided interest in Outlot A and this may not be divided off in the future. 18 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. January 24, 1995 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. The cost of constructing all the public utilities in Windsor Road and in any other portion of the plat shall be borne by the developer, including a sanitary sewer pumping station design approved by the City Engineer. Street and Utility plans prepared by the developer shall indicate grades which accommodate pedestrian access through the Cobden Lane right-of-way. Plans are to be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to the City releasing the final plat. A Homeowner's Association shall be established' for all lots within the subdivision according to the homeowner's documents attached as Exhibit C. Ail these documents shall be reviewed and approved by. the City Attorney. The retaining wall proposed along Windsor Road shall be constructed using a stone-faced modular .block retaining wall system or other stone retaining wall system. Color, material and construction drawings .shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to the City releasing the final plat. Sanitary sewer service for Lots 1, 2 and 3 shall be provided by private individual lift pumps with the forcemains combined into one common line located in Outlot A. This private line shall discharge into the public system located in Drummond Road. The maintenance and/or replacement of these lift stations shall be the responsibility of the owners. The City shall not have responsibility for the maintenance or replacement of the lift stations. Homes constructed on Lots 1-3 shall be caisson and cantilevered structures. Prior to issuing a building permit for Lots 1, 2 and 3, the developer shall submit a set of plans, prepared by a registered Landscape Architect for review by the City. The plans shall contain a master plan, tree inventory, erosion mitigation plan and a landscaping plan which details tree and ground cox;er replacement. Impervious cover on individual residential lots shall be limited to no more than 30% of the lot area. Building permits or Certificates of Occupancy will not be issued for homes in the subdivision until utilities and access servicing the homes are approved by the City Engineer, Fire Chief and Building Official. 19 ~anuary 24, 199~ 19. The MI~-A's Best Management Practices shall be applied to the development and ~ subsequent management of the property. 20. Park dedication in the amoUnt of $500 per lot totaling $4,500 is to be paid prior to the City releasing the final plat.. 21. Any outstanding cash balance in the escrow account plus an additional $2,500 necessary to cover engineering, planning, legal and administrative fees shall be deposited with the City prior to the City relying thc 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 Jensen and seconded by Councilmember Ahrens. The following Councilrnembers voted in the affirmative: Hanus, Ahrens, Jensen, and Jessen. The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Polston. ., Mayor Attest: City Clerk 20 co s av no THIS EASEMENT, made this ! ay of /Tt tS4 , ]9O57, by and between TONKA BAY SALES, INC., a Minnesota corporation ("Grantor") and the CITY OF MOUND a municipal corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota ("Grantee"). The Grantor, for good and valuable consideration to it in hand paid by the Grantee, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, does hereby convey to the Grantee a permanent easement for conservation purposes (the "Easement Area"), which easement is described on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, as follows: 1. Grantor, for itself, its successors and assigns, declares and agrees that the following prohibitions shall continue in perpetuity in the Easement Area: a) Constructing, installing or maintaining anything (specifically including docks) made by man. b) Cutting or removing trees or other vegetation. Notwithstanding the foregoing, trimming trees to maintain their health, removing diseased trees and removing selected trees to allow sunlight to penetrate to limited parts of the Easement Area may be permitted, but only when approved by the Grantee. c) Excavation or filling within the Easement Area. d) Application of chemicals for destruction or retardation of vegetation, unless first approved by the Grantee. TRANSFER ENTEREDe) HENNEPIN OOL,~iTY TAXPAYER AUG 18 1997 g) The deposit of waste or debris. The application of herbicides, pesticides and insecticides. The application of fertilizers. Activity detrimental to the preservation of the scenic beauty, vegetation and wildlife in the Easement Area. 2. Grantor, for itself, its successors and assigns, further grants to the Grantee the affirmative right, but not the obligation, to do the following in the Easement Area: a) Enhance the slope, trees, vegetation and natural habitat at no cost to the Grantor. b) Enter upon the Easement Area at any time to enforce compliance with the terms of this instrument. c) Take such other action as the Grantee deems necessary or advisable in its sole discretion, to enforce compliance with the terms of this instrument. d-BD~265¢4 I'N WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantdr and Grantee have caused this instrument to be executed the day and year first above written. THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY · ,47o C,{ Iname .a~ addressl . GRA~OR: TONKA BAY SALES,/NC. GRANTEE: CITY OF MOUND _ By: It ~dfF~~V-~ STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this/~d 7/"lday of ~:-t~.~:5 ~ 1997 by .~-~:.,,_lor i e [ -.~OCz./ , the ~ce'Stc~ e,'t_"f--- of Tonka Bay Sales, Inc. Notary Public STATE OF Mn, r~ESOTA ) )SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) Th~-toregoing instr2m~ent was acknowledged before me this ~>~"~ day or ~}t..t.~(.tg/g: 19976y ~ ~r--]- ~B I~'~D/q and ~C~O-vC~ ~-~-~'~ g", the'Mayor and City Manager respectively of the City of Mound, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation. d~D12654~ oMI3200-1 2 Notary Public ..22-7,2 · '" ~'" ';~'~ '~ An c~cment for flowage ~d concision p~s~ o~cr.,o~ p~ of ~c following dcsc~bed ),',..~.:... ,_ ~ "~, ~e No~e~terly ~0.00 feet 6fLo~ 1 ~d 2, Bloc~ 1, ~ PO~, according to ~e plat ~crcof on fil~:'or ~f..r~ord ~ ~c 6ffi~e of ~e Rcgi~ of Titles in ~d for He~epin Count',' Mi~eso~ .' :~ ;~ 0'BD126S44 .!,g3200-1 ~ TUXEDO 7) / HANOVER RD ~.~ (240) /INDSOR RD RD ~8 (30) CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SHEET ADDRESS: SURVEY ON FILE? YES I ~O.) LOT OF RECORD.'? YF-S /~NO) YARD IIOUSE ......... FRONT FRONT SIDE SIDE REAR LAKE TOP OF BLUFF DIRECTION I N S E W N S E W N S E W N S E W Iq S E W N S E W ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH: Ri 10,000/60 B1 7,500/0 (' ' ,000/40) 20,000/ 0 R2 6.000/40 B3 20.000/60 R2 14,000/90 R3 ~B~ ORD. I1 30,000/100 REQUIRED [ EXISTING/PROPOSED 10' OR 30' EXISTING LOT SIZE: · LOT WIDTH: LOT DEPTH: VARIANCE GARAGE, SliED ..... DETACIIED 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 TOP OF BLUFF 4' OR 6' 4' OR 6' 4' 50' 10' OR 30' ItARDCOVER 30% OR 40% 'CONFORMING? YES , NO 1(,-~ I ~ds 7~ning info~adon Sh~l only ~marizcs a ~flion of ~c requircnmnm ouUi~d in ~e City of Mou~ Zo~ng ~i~e. ~r ~r&er info~fion, contact ~e Ci~ of Mou~ RESOLUTION #00- A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE REZONING OF A PARCEL IN THE B-2 GENERAL BUSINESS DISTIRCT TO R-2 ONE AND TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT LOCATED AT 1800 COMMERCE BLVD. P & Z CASE #00-18 WHEREAS, the applicant, Steve Codden, has submitted an application to rezone property located at 1800 Commerce Blvd from the current B-2 General Business District to R-2 One and Two Family Residential; and, WHEREAS, existing uses in the area consist of a four-plex condominium north of the site and a two family residence south of the site; and, WHEREAS, the proposed rezoning would allow for a variety of single and two family residences; and, WHEREAS, the property is guided as Medium Density Residential in the Comprehensive Plan which is consistent with the proposed R-2 Zoning District for density and housing types; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 8, 2000, to review the proposal finding the rezoning to be consistent with development in the area and the City's Comprehensive Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended Council approval of the rezoning as requested by the applicant; and, NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota approves the rezoning from B-2 General Business District to R-2 One and Two Family Residential District for the property addressed at 1800 Commerce Blvd, as legally described on the site plan attached and stamped "Received April 13, 2000 Mound Planning and Inspection." All subsequent approvals for development of the property shall be consistent with adopted City Codes and/or as approved by Council Resolution. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember by Councilmember The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: and seconded The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Mayor Attest: City Clerk DRAFT MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, MAY 8, 2000 Those present: Chair Geoff Michael; Commissioners: Orvin Burma, Jerry Clapsaddle (excused at 10:15 p.m.), Becky Glister, Cklair Hasse, Michael Mueller, Bill Voss, Frank Weiland, and Council Liaison Bob Brown; Staff present: City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Suthedand, City Engineer John Cameron, and Secretary Sue McCulloch and Diana Mestad. The following public were present: Sue Almquist, Terry Almquist, Cathy Bailey, John Beise, Kristen Beise, Ron Christensen, Steve Coddon, Ken Custer, P,obert J. Davis, Cathi Dioszeghy, Tom Dioszeghy, Bruce Dodds, Patti Dodds, Mike Empson, Angela Femanoez, Carlos Fernanoez, Jennifer Garder, Martin Garder, Brian Gulrud, Theresa Gulrud, Milton Hentges, Tom Kirk, Linda Kiadsrup, Steve Kladstrup, Phil Lansing, Randy Lee, Peter Meyer, Mike Mueller, Bill Netka, Dorothy Netka, Brad Nordgren, Deb Olson, Lowell Olson, Bill Plume, Travis P, apie, Roger Reed, Tom P,eese, Jeff Ruhr, P.M. P,uhr, Mary Steen, Tom Tumer, Jack Weist, Roger Westman, Dave Willette, Ben Withart. CASE #00-18: ZONING AMENDMENT; STEVE CODDON, 1800 COMMERCE BOULEVARD, LOT & BLOCK AS PER SURVEY, REZONE IN ORDER TO CREATE A CONFORMING R-2 STRUCTURE WHICH WILL FLOW WITH EXISTING LAND USE PATTERNS OF THE AREA, PID# 13-117-24 23 0004. PUBLIC HEARING. Voss asked to be excused from any discussions on this matter because of a conflict of interest. Chair Michael excused Voss. Gordon state the applicant, Steve Coddon has an option on the property and is requesting a rezoning to R-2 to ready the property for a twinhome. The property is currently zoned B-2 General Business which does not provide for this use. Adjacent uses are a 4-unit town home to the north and a twinhome to the south. The property is guided as medium density residential in the Comprehensive Plan which allows for this use. The proposed building appears to meet all lot area requirements for twinhomes - 14,000 sf as well as street frontage - 80 feet. Twinhomes are regulated in the P,- 2 district under a conditional use permit and staff would presume an application would follow if the zoning is approved. ^ twinhome conditional use permit would involve a review of the all applicable conditions for twin homes and a more detailed review of site conditions. The P,-2 zoning would also allow a single family residence or a two family residence (rental) as an outright permitted use. DRAFT Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend Council approve rezoning from B-2 to R-2 as requested. The rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and adjacent properties. Weiland asked if the City would be spot zoning. Gordon stated this is not the case. Mueller asked if the townhouses are permitted in a B-2 zone. Gordon stated this is permitted. Mueller suggested for future sake to have everything north of Highway 52 be considered R-2 with regards to the map presented on this case. Chair Michael opened the public headng at 11:20 P.M. Martin Garder, 1760 Commerce. He is a property owner next to the property in question and is delighted there is an individual interested in making improvements on this property. He is concerned with respect to a single-family house versus a twin home in this location. Specifically, because the area abuts Lake Minnetonka. He stated those people living there have a small slip for boats. He stated this property has one dock adjacent to their slip and it is very difficult to navigate to the proximity of the dock. Mr. Gardner stated adjacent to this are three townhomes with docks that protrude outward and it is a very tight fit when getting boats in and out of this location. Mr. Gardner is wondering if the City of Mound has any codes regarding this dock that has a small amount of space for a boat. He stated he has talked to the developer of the property and supports the application to have the area zoned residential. He would appreciate the entire area being rezoned residential. Brown suggested Mr. Gardner contact Mr. Fackler with regard to the docks problem. He suggested possibly having this location have a multiple dock with four slips on, rather than having four separate docks. Mueller agreed with Brown and stated the Planning Commission does not deal with dock issues, only rezoning issues which is the topic being discussed. Ron Christensen, 1764 Commerce Boulevard. Mr. Chdstensen also addressed the Planning Commission with a question concerning pdvate docks and he was also referred to Mr. Fackler. Chair Michael closed the public hearing at 11:29 p.m. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Glister, to approve the zoning amendment according to staff recommendations. MOTION CARRIED. 7-0, Voss abstaining. DRAFT Chair Michael stated this case will be heard in front of the City Council on May 23, 2000. PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. II]l TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: May 8, 2000 SUBJECT: Zoning Amendment OWNER: Jeff Lafrance CASE NUMBER: 00-18 ltKG FILE NUMBER: 00-5 LOCATION: 1800 Commerce Blvd. ZONING: B-2 General Business COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Medium Density Residential BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The applicant, Steve Codden has an option on the property and is requesting a rezoning to R-2 to ready the property for a twinhome. The property is currently zoned B-2 General Business which does not provide for this use. Adjacent uses are a 4 unit town home to the north and a twinhome to the south. The property is guided as medium density residential in the Comprehensive Plan which allows for this use. The proposed building appears to meet all lot area requirements for twinhomes - 14,000 sf as well as street frontage - 80 feet. Twinhomes are regulated in the R-2 district under a conditional use permit and staff would presume an application would follow if the zoning is approved. A twinhome conditional use permit would involve a review of the all applicable conditions for twin homes and a more detailed review of site conditions. The R-2 zoning would also allow a single family residence or a two family residence (rental) as an outfight permitted use. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning approve rezoning from B-2 to R-2 as requested. The Comprehensive Plan and adjacent properties. Commission recommend Council rezoning is consistent with the 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 RECEIVED APR 1_3 2000 ivlOUND PLANNING & ~$~. Planning Commission Date: C,~ Council Date: ?~ Distribution: ~' ) ~ CiW Planner ~'/~ CiW Engineer ZONING AMENDMENT APPLICATION City of Mound, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0607, Fax: 472-0620 Public Works DNR PAID Case No. ~ ~1~,~ ~)~I~,~C~UNL) Zoning Amendment Fee: $250.00 Applicant Name Address Phone (H)~ ~7/-7707 AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE It is requested that Section 350: follows: of the Mound Zoning Ordinance be amended as ~MENT TO THE ZONING MAP I ZONING DISTRICT It is re_ques_ted that the property described below and shown on the attached site plan be rezoned from ~ 2.- to /~-~ . Address & Legal of Subject Property Address ,/ Lot /".~-O_ ~.,-~ ~~ ~~~ BIo~ Addition PI~ /,~//~-~ ~-~ ~-~ ~ Plat .am. Subje~ Site Address Phone (H) ~1 ~-~ ~ ~ 7A ~ (M)- Present Use of Reason for Amendment _~-~_ / _ ~~--~=~_ ~ ~'-/~ ~ Appr~a~'s Signature:/'~ _. Date Owner's Signaturei' ' Date SOl/gl RECEIVE~ i- z RECEIVED APR 1 3 2000 MOUNI~ PLANNiNL~ & IN$f / / / / (25) 275 100 ""' (251) ~(270) ~ 235 (4) (1)'- 100 (6) V I8.4 CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SHEET SURVEY ON FILE? ~'~) I NO LOT OF RECORD? YES / NO YARD .' [ DIRECTION IIOUSE ......... FRONT N S E W FRONT N S E W SIDE N S E W SIDE N S E W REAR N $ E W LAKE N S E W TOP OF BLUFF GARAGE, SilED ..... FRONT FRONT ~ .. sIDE R~ R2 R3 DETACIIED BUILDINGS N S E W N S E W N S E W N S E W N S E W 15' 50' 10' OR 30' ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH: EXI~HNG LOT SIZE: ~o,ooo/so n~ ~,soo/o LOTWIDTIt: 6, ooo/4o ~,~n~ ~oatso.- j 6,000/40 UJ 'J U,. UUU/O0 3.4, ooo/eo LOT DEPTH: SI~E ORD. T1 30,000/100 4' OR 6' SIDE 4' OR 6' REAR 4' LAKE N S E W 50' 'lOP OF BLUFF 10' OR 30' : ER 30% OR 40% lNG? YES / NO / ? ] BY: D A TED: ~,lis ~,.oni.n.g Information Sheet only summarizes n portion of the requirements outlined in Ibc City of Mound Zoning Ordinance. For further information, contact thc City of Mound rlanmng ucpartmcnt at 472-0600. . . ~ ~x -.. ~ ..% ' m H~ ~ ~ ~ --1 - , ~ . ~ I RESOLUTION # 00- RESOLUTION TO DENY A LAKESIDE SETBACK AND HARDCOVER VARIANCE TO BUILD AN ENCLOSED PORCH ON THF~ PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5537 BARTLETT BOULEVARD, LOT 10 AND THE EAST 20 FEET OF LOT 9, BLOCK 9, BARTLETT PLACE, PID # 24-117-24 23 0015 P & Z CASE #00-21 WHEREAS, the applicant, has requested a lakeside setback and hardcover variance to build an enclosed porch on an existing deck on the property located at 5537 Bartlett as indicated below Existing/Proposed Required Variance Lakeside 44.9' 50' 5.1' Hardcover 1859 sf 4308 sf 2449 sf WI-IEREAS, the property is located within the R-lA Single Family Residential District which requires a lot area of 6,000 square feet, a 20 feet front yard setback, a 6 feet side yard, and 50 feet lake side setbacks. Hardcover is a 30 percent requirement. WItEREAS, current nonconformities include hardcover which is over by about 1500 square feet as proposed. The deck will add 360 square feet to that figure; and, Wl~REAS, the existing deck is less than 30 inches above grade so is not regulated by the 50 feet ordinary high water line (OHW) setback. The porch addition would however, be regulated as an extension of the house requiring a 50 feet OHW setback; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommended that the Council deny the variance as requested by the applicant; and, NOW, TltEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The City does hereby deny the variance. This variance is denied for the followin~l le[lally described property as stated in the Hennepin County Property Information System: LOT '10 AND THE EAST 20 FEET OF LOT 9, BLOCK 9, BARTLETT PLACE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA. D AFT MINUTES - MOUND ADVI:SORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, MAY 8, 2000 Those present: Chair Geoff Michael;.Commissioners: Orvin Burma, Jerry Clapsaddle (excused at 10:15 p.m.), Becky Glister, Cklair Hasse, Michael Mueller, Bill Voss, Frank Weiland, and Council Liaison Bob Brown; Staff present: City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Suthedand, City Engineer John Cameron, and Secretary Sue McCulloch and Diana Mestad. The following public were present: Sue Almquist, Terry Almquist, Cathy Bailey, John Beise, Kdsten Beise, Ron Chdstensen, Steve Coddon, Ken Custer, Robert J. Davis, Cathi Dioszeghy, Tom Dioszeghy, Bruce Dodds, Patti Dodds, Mike Empson, Angela Femanoez, Cados Femanoez, Jennifer Garder, Martin Garder, Bdan Gulrud, Theresa Gulrud, Milton Hentges, Tom Kirk, Linda Kladsrup, Steve Kladstrup, Phil Lansing, Randy Lee, Peter Meyer, Mike Mueller, Bill Netka, Dorothy Netka, Brad Nordgren, Deb Olson, Lowell Olson, Bill Plume, Travis Rapie, Roger Reed, Tom Reese, Jeff Ruhr, P.M. Ruhr, Mary Steen, Tom Turner, Jack Weist, Roger Westman, Dave Willette, Ben Withart. CASE #00-21: VARIANCE; TOM TURNER, 5537 BARTLETT BOULEVARD, LOT 10 & THE EAST 20' OF LOT 9, BARTLETT PLACE, TO SCREEN IN EXISTING PORCH WITH A NONCONFORMING LAKESIDE SETBACK, PID# 24-117-24 23 0015. Gordon stated the applicant is seeking a lakeside setback variance to build a porch on the existing deck. The requested variance is listed below. Existing/Proposed Required Variance Lakeside 44.9' 50' 5.1' Hardcover 1859 sf 4308 sf 2449 sf The property is located within the R-lA Single Family Residential District which requires a lot area of 6,000 square feet, a 20 feet front yard setback, a 6 feet side yard, and 50 feet lake side setbacks. Hardcover is a 30 percent requirement. Current nonconformities include hardcover which is over by about 1500 square feet as proposed. The deck will add 360 square feet to that figure. The existing deck is less than 30 inches above grade so is not regulated by the 50 feet OHW setback. The porch addition would however, be regulated as an extension of the house. Staff would like to suggest the porch plans be modified to keep the lakeside wall at the 50 feet OHW setback. There appears to be living area large enough to accommodate activities at this size. The existing deck could still remain under DRAFT this scenario. Gordon further s~ated hardcover is over. Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council work with staffs suggestion for this variance request. Mueller asked staff if this has been scaled and technically this should go to the corner of the screen porch with regard to the 50 foot lakeside requirement. Gordon agreed and this would be about 45 feet as it sits to date. Mueller asked the applicant is he would be willing to make the distance 50 feet from the lake. The applicant stated he does not want that and he is requesting a vadance instead. Brown stated it has been policy to try and stop the scenado of having an addition first become a pomh, then a deck, then a three or four season porch. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Hasse, to deny the variance request. Discussion. Mueller stated the line-up provision might need to be considered in this case. Brown stated if the applicant was willing to work with the City, the request might have not been potentially denied. Glister agreed. Gordon stated if the porch could be built at 50 feet and then removing that portion of the area from the lot to have a no-net gain. With this it would maintain the lakeside setback and have a zero increase in hardcover. Mueller asked if the rock and plastic would be perforated, would this consider to be less hardcover. Staff stated they could look at this option and this could be considered. Tom Turner, 5537 Bartlett. Mr. Turner stated he is trying to make the deck usable. He stated dght now it is impossible to be on the deck in the heat of the day. Mr. Turner stated two cases to consider that are precedent are Case 98-10 and Meisel's property. He further stated by increasing the deck, the hardcover would not be increased. He further stated by perforating the plastic, this would cause an increase in water going to his basement. Hasse mentioned the overhang on the house is also going to cause more water to be disbursed properly. Brown called the question. DRAFT MOTION CARRIED. 5-3 (Mueller, Michael and Voss voting nay). Mueller stated he would have liked to see this approved because it is not very extensive, it would have lined up with other homes in the neighborhood, and there is precedence. Voss stated the lake is them to enjoy and there is precedence. Chair Michael recommended the applicant attend the City Council meeting on May 23, 2000. PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. Ill TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: May 8, 2000 SUBJECT: Variance Request OWNER: Tom and Cathy Turner CASE NUMBER: 00-21 HKG FILE NUMBER: 00-5 LOCATION: 5537 Bartlett Blvd. ZONING: Residential District R- 1A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Low Density Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking a lakeside setback variance to build a porch on the existing deck. The requested variance is listed below. Existing/Proposed Required Variance Lakeside 44.9' 50' 5.1' Hardcover 1859 sf 4308 sf 2449 sf The property is located within the R-lA Single Family Residential District which requires a lot area of 6,000 square feet, a 20 feet fi:ont yard setback, a 6 feet side yard, and 50 feet lake side setbacks. Hardcover is a 30 percent requirement. Current nonconformities include hardcover which is over by about 1500 square feet as proposed. The deck will add 360 square feet to that figure. The existing deck is less than 30 inches above grade so is not regulated by the 50 feet OHW setback. The porch addition would however, be regulated as an extension of the house. Staff would like to suggest the porch plans be modified to keep the lakeside wall at the 50 feet OHW setback. There appears to be living area large enough to accommodate activities at this size. The existing deck could still remain under this scenario. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council work with staff's suggestion for this variance request. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 n~cEIVED l~OL~blD l~LtkNll~ltG & JNSP. (FOP, OFFICE USE ONLY) Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Distribution: VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 534,1 Maywood Road, Mound, Mt4 5536~ Phone: 472-0507, Fax: 472-0820 ~-"~- -~)'0 City Planner .,~..i~[oC_~O~ City Engineer Public Works PArD APR I 8 ZOO0 Application Fee: CITY OF MOUND Case No. {~-~:;~ / DNR Other Other SUBJECT PROPERTY LEGAL DESC. )PERTY OWNER Address ~ c~..~-7 ,~i P-~'"~"L'~TT ~'I.A~ P Lot ~ ~O ~~ ~ ~~~~ ~oc~ ~ ~¢ Subdivision PID~ ~ Q -II ~-~~~ H~ ~ 5 ~01 ~ P~ ZONING DISTRICT R-1 ( R-lA ~ R-2 R-3 B-1 B-2 Name -~¢~ ~ ~~~~~ Address ,%%.~ ~~~ ~~.~ Phone APPLICANT Name (IF OTHER Address THAN Phone OWNER) (H) (W) (M) Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, (~,)~0. If yes, list date(s.) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. Detailed description of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): Revised 02-04-00 ~ , Do the existing structures comply wit~ al~ma, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No~. If no, specify each don-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot a?ea, ~tc.): SETBACKS: REQUIRED REQUESTED VARIANCE (~) Front Yard: ( N S E W ) Side Yard: ( N S E W ) Side Yard: ( N S E W ) Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) Lakeside: ( N~ E W ) : (NSEW) Street Frontage: Lot Size: Hardcover: ft. ft. ff. ft. ft. ff. ft. ff. ff. ft. ft. ft. ft. rt. ft. ft. ff. ff. ft. ft. ft. sq ft sq ft sq ft Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No ~ If no, specify each non-conforming use: o Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ()/too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil (~too small ( ) drainage ( ) existing situation ( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other:, specify Please describe: · r~evised 02-04-00 Variance Application, P. 3 Case No. Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zonin9 ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No (). If yes, explain: O 3v. O o 7 Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No .'~ If yes, explain: 8. Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a vadance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (), No .~r,. if no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. pplicant's Signa ~ Revised 02-04-00 SO. RECEIVED APl{ 1 8 2000 MOUND PLANNING & PROPERTY ADDRESS: 'OWNER'S NAME: CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) .LOT AREA /O~.T&::) SQ. FT. X 30% = (for all lots) ...... . ' I I LOT AREA ,/~'70 SQ.'. FTT'X"40%"-='"(fo¢'r6'ts.0'f'R~'¢0'rd*) ....... I 4.~,~ J' LOT AREA' /~77~ sc.,.. FT. X 15% =,-(for detached buildings only) .... I · *-Existing, Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as"' oudJn.ed..in.Z, on!ng Qr.d!nan. ce Sect. ion 350~_12.25,Subd:.6. B:.I. (see. back), A .plan must be .submitted and approved by the Building Official. LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT HOUSE X = /410 DETACHED BLDGS (GARAGE/SHED) DRIVEWAY, PARKING AREAS., _SIDEWALKS, ETC. DECKS Open decks [114" min. opening between boards) with a · perviou~.~u~face unde.r.e~e not counted as hardcover TOTAL HOUSE ......................... x = X ~ TOT/~_ DETACHED E~LDGS .......... · "/'~¢'~c,~-¢- ,~'~,'~'/,~,/s, .....~9'.J'~' ""' ', x ~ ~ r~y) = ~ 7 TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC .................. X ~ X TOTAL DECK .......................... OTHER * = W',~z.4~ /~ / x.. /, ~ = TOTAL OTHER ............. ; ........... TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE I UNDER dicate difference.)..: .... -,..-.r; .,.., ........ ,.... ;....,. ...~., ., . ; ......,-; .... PREPARED BY' C~£~/~ ~.. ~Ko~C~ /~ DATE or'/ April 1~, 1994 RESOLUTION #94-45 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDmON AT 5501 BARTLETT BLVD. LOTS 22 & 23, AUDITORS SUBD. NO. 170, PID #24-117-24 23 0007 P&Z CASE #94-17 WHEREAS, the owners, a. Paul and Patricia Meisel, have applied for a variance to allow the construction of a single stop/addition consisting of a kitchen and dining area, and a second story addition approximately 21' x 8' to follow the existing footprint for master bedroom, and WHEREAS, there are several nonconforming issues relating to this property, as follows: Princir)al Slruc/ure: Front N: Side W: Channel E: Rear S: Lakeshore S: Okay = 100' + to street. Okay = 40' to side. Existing Structure = 41 setback to~O~_~= Proposed Addition = 24' setback t~ =,~27, Y~~/' Encroachment of 7.9' to required 15' set'oack. 34' selback lo OHW = 16' variance. Cabin / Little House: Front N: 1.2' setback to Bart .,l~tt~;. 118.8' vpdanoe.:.~ ~, Side W: Chimney'~?~~ oVer line Channel E: Okay. Rear S: Okay. Lakeshom S: Okay. Gamete (detached): Front N: Okay = 24.4'. Side W: Okay. Chann, +/- ,o Rear S: Okay. Lakeshore S: Okay. FLOODPLAIN: According to the survey, a portion of the ex'~tJng crawl space of the dwelling is in the floodplain, however, the main floor and the addition is not. and 87 April 12, 1994 Principal Structure: Channel E: Rear S: Lakeshore S: Current: 41' Current: 7.9' encroachment Current: 34' ~Va~{ 22.9' f Cabin / Little House: Front N: Side W: Current: 1.2' _;.~y~: 1,8.8" current: encroachment Gara(le {detached): Channel E: Current: 14'(+/-) ~r~t~e~' ' Hardcover: Calculating the driveway at 50%, but excluding boulevard/commons property: .4% or 63.6 square feet variance is recognized. The allowable impervious surface coverage is 5,250 square feet. Approval of this variance is subject to the following conditions: a. The lowest floor elevation for the new addition shall be at 933.0 or above. be An as-built survey detailing the floor elevation of the new addition shall be provided as required by the Building Official. The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the dear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420. It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land: Construction of a single story kitchen/dining area addition, and approximate 21' x 8' expansion of second story to follow the existing footprint for master bedroom. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lots 22 and 23, Auditor's Subdivision No. 170. 89 R~SOL~TION %96-64 R~SOLUTION TO A~PROVE H FAPJ~%NCE TO R~COGNTZ~. ~XISTING NONCONTORMING SET~ACKS TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A CONFOR~ING GARAGE ADDITION AT 5513 BARTLETT BLVD.t PART OF LOTS 13 & 14 THE BARTLETT PLACe., PID 24-117-24 23 0018 P&Z CASE ~96-27 WKEREAS, the owners, Clyde & Denise Bonnema, have applied for a variance to recognize an existing nonconforming rear yard and lakeshore setback variance to allow construction of a conforming 20' x 30' garage addition, and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-lA Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet, a 20 foot front yard setback, 6 foot side yard setbacks for lots of record, a 15 foot rear yard setback, and a 50 foot setback from ordinary high water elevation, and; WHEREAS, the home is located 4 feet from the rear property line resulting in an 11 foot variance. The subject lot boarders a publicly owned commons area that has a width of approximately 45 feet. The home is approximata!y 49 feet from the ordinary high water (Oh-W) contour resulting in a one foot variance, and; WHEREAS, a side walk on the west side encroaches on the neighboring property, however, due to topography, in order to relocate the encroaching side walk, the steps would also need to be moved which provides access to the dwelling, and; WHEREAS, there is also a 12' x 8' shed on the property which is located 3 feet from the side property line. The required side setback is 4 feet. The applicant has agreed to relocate the shed, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval upon the condition that the nonconforming shed be relocated. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ~ESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby grant a variance recognizing the existing nonconforming rear yard setback of 4 feet and the nonconforming lakeshore setback of 49 feet to allow construction of a conforming garage addition subject to the relocation of the existing nonconforming shed. The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420. 2A. The shed shall be relocated according to plan within one year of this resolution passing date of 6-25-96. June e It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use oft_he property to afford the owners reasonable use of ~%eir land: Construction of a 20' x 30' garage addition. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: The West 40.00 feet of Lot 4, and the East 40.00 feet of Lot 13. "The Bartlett Place" Upper Lake Minnetonka. This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how ~his prcperty may be used. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. The foregoing resolution was moved by Coun¢ilmember Hanus and seconded by Councilmember Jenesn. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Ahrens, Hanus, Jensan, Jessen and Polston. The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: None Mayor Attest: Acting City Clerk .Resolution adopted: June 25, 1996 CERTIFICATE City of Mound STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )SS COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting Clerk of the City of Mound, Minnesota, hereby attest and certify that: As such officer, I have the legal custody of the original record from which the attached and foregoing extract was transcribed. 2. I have carefully compared said extract with said original record. I find said extract to be a true, correct and complete transcript from the original minutes of a meeting of the City Council of said City held on the date indicated in said extract, including any resolution adopted at such meeting, insofar as they relate to: RESOLUTION//99-43 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A LAKESIDE SETBACK VARIANCE IN ORDER TO ALLOW FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A CONFORMING DETACHED GARAGE, AT 5513 BARTLETT BOULEVARD, E 40 FT OF LOT 13 & W 40 FT OF LOT 14, AND ADJOINING ABANDONED BOULEVARD, THE BARTLETT PLACE, PID # 24-117-24 23 0018 P&Z CASE g99-16 1999. Said meeting was duly held, pursuant to call and notice thereof as required by law on May 25, 1999. WITNESS my hand officially as such Clerk, and the sale of said City, this 8th day of June, seal CITY CLERK May 25, '/9gg RESOLUTION #99-43 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A LAKESIDE SETBACK VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A CONFORMING DETACHED GARAGE · AT 5513 BARTLE'i-r BLVD, E 40 FT OF LOT 13 & W 40 FT OF LOT 14, AND ADJOINING ABANDONED BOULEVARD, THE BARTLETT PLACE, PID 24-117-24 23 0018, P & Z CASE #99-16 WHEREAS, the applicants, Clyde and Denise Bonnema, have applied for a lakeside setback variance to construct a conforming detached garage at 5513 Bartlett Boulevard; and, WHEREAS, the following lists the requested setbacks: Existing/Proposed ReQuired Vadance Lakeside 36' 50' 14' WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-lA Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet, 40 feet of lot frontage; and, WHEREAS, the property exceeds the lot area and width requirements of the R-lA Zoning District; and, WHEREAS, the proposed detach garage would be in a conforming location; and, WHEREAS, Resolution 96-27 is a variance to recognize a rear yard lakeshore setback in order to construct an attached garage and Resolution 98-28 is a variance to recognize a rear yard lakeshore setback in order to construct a season porch; and, May 25, 1999 Bonnema - 5513 Bartlett Blvd Page 2 WHEREAS, it has be recognized that Resolution #96-27 is in error and is no longer applicable as follows: The actual setback to the house from the Ordinary High Water (OHW) was 45 feet not 49 feet resulting in a vadance of 5 feet +. Resolution #96-27 incorrectly states the lot borders a publicly owned commons. The area was actually a privately owned boulevard that has since been attached to the applicants (and other adjacent owners) legal property descriptions and subsequently is no longer subject to the rear yard setback requirement. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommend approval of the variance recommended by staff; and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby grant a lakeside setback vadance listed below as recommended by the Planning Commission in order to construct a conforming detached garage. Existing/Proposed Reauired Variance Lakeside 36' 50' 14' The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the structures described in paragraph number one above remain as lawful, nonconforming structures subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420. It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land: Construction of conforming detached garage. This vadance is granted for the following legally described property as stated on the Certificate of Title No. 849365: THAT PORTION OF LOTS 13 AND14, "THE BARTLETT PLACE" UPPER LAKE MINNETONKA AND THE ADJOINING ABANDONED BOULEVARD DEDICATED IN SAID PLAT DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING ON THE SOUTH LINE OF BARTLETT BOULEVARD AT A POINT WHICH INTERSECTS WITH A LINE DF~WN PARALLEL WITH AND 40 FEET WEST OF THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 13, THENCE SOUTH ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE AND ITS EXTENSION TO THE SHORE OF LAKE MINNETONKA, THENCE EAST ALONG THE SHORELINE OF SAID LAKE TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE SOUTHERLY EXTENSION OF THE WEST LINE OF LOT 22, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NUMBER May 25, 1999 ~..~: Bonnema - 551:~arlle~l~lvd Page 3 170, ~E NORTH ALONG SAID EXTENDED LOT LINE TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH BARTLETT BOULL~I~D, THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF BARTLETI' BOULEVARD TO THE P . ~.OF BEGINNING. s V~riance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Weycker, and seconded by Councilmember Ahrens. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Ahrens, Brown, Hanus, and Weycker. The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: None. Meisel abstained from voting. Attest: City Clerk SS/ PAT MEISEL Mayor CERTIFICATE STATE OF MINNF_3OTA ) )SS COUNTY OF I-mNNEPIN) City of Mound I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and Clerk of the City of Mound, Minnesota, hereby attest and certify that: As such officer, I have the legal custody of the original record from which the attached and foregoing extract was transcribed. 2. I have carefully compared said extract with said original record. I find said extract to be a tree, correct and complete transcript from the original minutes of a meeting of the City Council of said City held on the date indicated in said extract, including any resolution adopted at such meeting, insofar as they relate to: RESOLUTION//98-28 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A LAKESIDE SETBACK VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A NON-CONFORMING THREE SEASON PORCH AT 5513 BARTLETT BLVD, E 40 FT OF LOT 13 & W 40 FY-OF LOT 14, AND ADJOINING ABANDONED BOULEVARD, THE BARTLETT PLACE, PID 24-117-24 23 0018, P & Z CASE/DS-10 Said meeting was duly held, pursuant to call and notice thereof as required by law on March 24, 1998. WITNF_.SS my hand officially as such Clerk, and the seal of said City, this 21 st day of April, 1998. SEAL March 24, 1998 RESOLUTION #98-28 RESOLI. FTION TO APPROVE A LAKESIDE SETBACK VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A NON-CONFORMING THREE SEASON PORCH AT 5513 BARTLE3-r BLVD, E 40 FT OF LOT 13 & W 40 FT OF LOT 14, AND ADJOINING ABANDONED BOULEVARD, THE BARTLETT PLACE, PID 24-117-24 23 0018, P & Z CASE #98-10 ~.-.:~:.:~. _~.HE~ .F. AS,: .the applicants/Clyde and Denise lakeside setback vanance to construct a t~ree season porch addit,3n to their home,' WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-lA Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet, 40 feet of lot frontage, and; WHEREAS, the property exceeds the lot area and width requirements of the R- lA Zoning District, and; WHEREAS, the proposed porch does not meet the required setbacks for the lakeside of 50 feet, t~ proposed setback is 36 feet and the variance requested is 14 feet, and; WHEREAS, the proposed porch lines up with adjacent homes on the lake which is a consideration for the reasonable use of the property, and; WHEREAS, Resolution 96-27 is a variance to recognize a rear yard lakeshore setback in order to construct a conforming attached garage, and; March 24, 1998 Bonnema - 5513 Bartlett Blvd Page 2 WHEREAS, it has be recognized that Resolution #96-27 is in error and is no longer applicable as follows: The actual setback to the house from the Ordinary High Water (OHW) was 45 feet not 49 feet resulting in a variance of 5 feet ±. Resolution #96-27 incorrectly states the lot borders a publicly owned commons. The ama was actually a privately owned boulevard that has since been attached to the applicants (and other adjacent owners) legal property descriptions and subsequently is no longer subject to the rear yard setback requirement. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommended approval of the variance recommend by staff, and; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby grant a lakeside setback variance to construct a 12 by 18 foot three season porch. The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the structures described in paragraph number one above remain as lawful, nonconforming structures subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420. o It is determined that the iivability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land: Construction of a 12 by 18 foot three season pomh. This variance is granted for the following legally described property as stated on the Certificate of Title No. 849365: THAT PORTION OF LOTS 13 AND14, "THE BARTLE'I-I' PLACE" UPPER LAKE MINNETONKA AND THE ADJOINING ABANDONED BOULEVARD DEDICATED IN SAID PLAT DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING ON THE SOUTH UNE OF BARTLETT BOULEVARD AT A POINT WHICH INTERSECTS WITH A LINE DRAWN PARALLEL WITH AND 40 FEET WEST OF THE EAST UNE OF SAID LOT 13, THENCE SOUTH ALONG SAID PARALLEL UNE AND ITS EXTENSION TO THE SHORE OF LAKE MINNETONKA, THENCE EAST ALONG THE SHORELINE OF SAID LAKE TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE SOUTHERLY EXTENSION OF THE WEST LINE OF LOT 22, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NUMBER 170, THENCE NORTH ALONG SAID EXTENDED LOT LINE TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH BARTLETT BOULEVARD, THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF BARTLE'I-r BOULEVARD TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. Bonnema. 5513 BaJ'Uelt Blvd Page 3 This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of 'F~les in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmernber Hanus and seconded by Councilmember Weycker. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Hanus, Polston and Weycker. The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: none. Councilmember Ahrens and Jensen were absent and excused. SS/BOB POLSTON Mayor Attest: City Clerk X LEGAL DESt Lot t0 ~ ,, (,~I .and thor pi ' Soutl~rly e , ~.~ r&~ of t~ wes ' ~ survey CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR TOM TURNER IN LOTS 9 & 10, THE BARTLETT PLACE UPPER HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA LAKE MINNETONKA LEGAL DESCRIPTION 0¢ PR:E:t/~SES: Lot 10 ~ the £ust 20 feet of Lot 9, "The B~'tlett P~ce" Uppe¢ Luke ~nd that p~'t of edjoining boulevard, ~.~ shasta o~ said I~et, lyin~ between the Southerly extermlon of the E~st line of said Lot 10 oncl the Southerly extermlo~ of the west Frae of m~d £eet 20 feet of Lot 9. This survey shows the boundaries of the above described property, and the location of on existing house, gcroge, and other visible "hordcover' thereon. It does not purport to show on)' other improvements or encroachments. Yon merker Denotes repot elev4tlo~ .~..... ~., ~ ....,r.d ,~t,.,, RECEIVED APR 1 9 2000 MOUND COFFIN l: GROt{BERg, INC. -- 482 TA}4ARAO( AV~MJE. LON~ ~ I.lq. 553,~ ~ ADDRESS:"- .. SURVEY ON FILE? YES / NO CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SItEET ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SiZEFWIDTH: LOT OF RECORD? YES / NO '[ mara~rloN ,IOIJSZ ......... 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 TOP OF BLUFF R1 ~0,000/60 BZ q~500/0 R1A 6.000/40 B2 20.000/80 R2 6,000/40 B3 ~0,000/60 R2 ~4,000/80 R3 S~E ORD. Z1 30.000/X00 I~I~UIRI~D [ EXISTING/P~OPOSED 15' 50' I0' OR 30' EXISTING LOT SIZE:, LOT WlD'flt: LOT DEPTH: YARIA NC~. GARAGE, SIIED ..... FRONT DETACIIED BUll.DINGS N S E W FRONT N S E W SIDE N S E W 4'OR6' SIDE N S E W 4' OR 6' REAR N S E W 4' LAKE N S E W 50' TOP OF BLUFF !0' OR 30' ltARDCOVER 30% OR 40% CONFORMIt~C,? YES / NO t ~ J~y: J OATEn: 'Hals 7~ning Infmmalion Sheet only ~arizes n ~flion of ~e require~nB oulli~ in die Cily of Mou~ Zoning ~di~e. ~r ~r~er infomtion, conmct &e City of Mound Pln~ing ~parunent al 472-0~. ' ~,: "r ......... ~ ............ ~ ........... ~..~ ...... ~~ , , '~, ~u 40 4~ --~ ~' ~0 ~ll (~5)~ .~tt '~ . I , ' lc ,0)i Creative Solutions for Land Planning and Design Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. MEMO May 16, 2000 To: Kandis Hanson, City Manager City of Mound CC: John Cameron, MFRA, City Engineer Loren Gordon, HKGi, City Planner From: Bruce Chamberlain Mound Visions Coordinator Re: Wetland buffer requirements related to the Lost Lake Canal/Greenway project. The question was asked by Mark Hanus on the Mound City Council whether the wetland buffer provision included in the first draft Surface Water Management Plan would render the canal/greenway project unbuildable. The answer is that a variance would be necessary to build it as currently designed. When the Canal project was permitted by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District in 1997, it came under the review provisions of MCWD Rule D, which requires that a 35 foot buffer of native vegetation groundcover be established around a wetland. It is important to note that the primary reason for the buffer provision is to filter runofffrom the surrounding landscape before it enters the wetland. The permit that was granted to the City for the Canal/Greenway project (enclosed) sites several findings-of-fact justifying a variance from the buffer provision. In the case of the greenway, runoff from the Auditors Road area of downtown is completely captured by the street curb and will be directed to stormwater ponds before entering Lost Lake. The only runoff entering the wetland in the Auditors Road area will be the precipitation landing on the narrow greenway itself. In this area the plans do include a narrow buffer strip (8-12 feet) of perennial grasses and flowers between the wetland edge and the trail. In the NE comer of Lost Lake (Super America side) there is opportunity for a much wider vegetative buffer of 35 to 50 feet which is envisioned to be planted with a combination of perennial grasses, flowers, shrubs, trees and only a small amount of turf. Even though the trail is within the buffer area, the buffer provisions would be exceeded. There is a natural tendency to envision a wetland buffer as a patch of weeds. In the case of the Lost Lake Greenway, the buffer will be planted and managed as a garden of ornamental plants. M: ~vlOUND~99-2 4~OCS~wtl_buff. doc 123 North Third Street, Suite 10O, Minneapolis, MN 55401-1659 Ph (612) 338-080O Fx (612) 338-6838 MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT BOARD OF MANAGERS RESOLUTION GRANTING PERMIT APPLICATION NUMBER 96-280, CITY OF MOUND Febmary27,1997 Manager Maple moved, seconded by Manager Love, that the following Resolution be adopted by the Board of Managers of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District: I. FINDINGS 1. On December 19, 1996, the City of Mound submitted a permit application to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) for certain activities to take place in and around Lost Lake, a DNR public water wetland. Lost Lake is below the ordinary high water mark of Lake Minnetonka as established by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR). 2. The permit application was assigned permit application number 96-280 and placed on the agenda for the January 23, 1997 MCWD Board of Managers meeting, the fn'st meeting for which the permit application was eligible for review. 3. Prior to receipt of the permit applicatiOn, representatives of the MCWD had met with the City of Mound on numerous occasions to discuss the proposed project and the requirements of the MCWD Rules. The MCWD also reviewed the environmental assessment worksheet performed for the project and provided comments on the worksheet. 4. The specifics of the project are contained in the permit application, which is part of the record before the MCWD and upon which the MCWD's decision is based. The project involves several activities which are regulated by the MCWD pursuant to its rules. 5. The project involves dredging in a historic channel that connects the City of Mound's property to Cook's Bay of Lake Minnetonka. The original channel width was 30 feet. The Applicant proposed dredging the channel to a width of 70 feet, one-half mile long, with proposed side slopes at a 5:1 (horizontal to vertical) ratio. Dredging is regulated pursuant to MCWD Rule E. 6. The project involves the installation of a seawall and riprap. These activities are regulated pursuant to MCWD Rule F. 7. The project involves placement of structures around the perimeter of Lost Lake. These activities are regulated pursuant to MCWD Rule D. 8. On January 21, 1997, the MCWD received a Notice of Intervention to intervene in the permitting proceeding and a Memorandum in Support of the Notice of Intervention from John Edewaard. 9. At the Board meeting of January 23, 1997, the MCWD Board of Managers voted to table the permit application pending review of the Notice of Intervention and supporting documents by each Manager and District Counsel. The Board then voted to continue the Board meeting to February 6, 1997. 10. At the February 6, 1997 MCWD Board meeting, after receiving comments from interested individuals, the Board voted to grant the permit application with conditions and direct District Counsel to prepare draft Findings and Conclusions. 11. Draft Findings and Conclusions in the form of a draft resolution were made available to the public and transmitted to the permit applicant and Intervener on February 13, 1997. 12. The record for submittal of written comments remained open until close-of-business day February 20, 1997. 13. At the February 27, 1997 MCWD Board meeting, the MCWD voted to approve this resolution. · A. DNR General Pemfit 95-6140 14.' The MCWD is not reviewing the City of Mound's permit application under its general permit with the DNR, general permit 95-6140. I5. The DNR general permit allows the MCWD to issue a permit for certain types of activity without the permit applicant also obtaining a permit from the DNR. The MCWD canissue permits under the DNR general permit for, among other things, riprap, retaining walls, and excavation for navigation. 16. The MCWD will not be permitting the City of Mound's project under the DNR general permit because the DNR has exercised its right pursuant to special provision 5 of the general permit to require a separate individual permit for the project. B. MCWD Rule C - Floodplain Alteration 17. The MCWD regulates activities taking place in a floodplain pursuant to MCWD Rule C. Rule C requires that floodplain filling "shall not cause a net decrease in flood storage capacity below the projected 100-year flood elevation unless it is shown that the proposed filling, together with'the filling of all other properties on the affected reach of the waterbody to the same degree of encroachment as proposed by the applicant, will not cause high water or aggravate flooding on other properties and will not Unduly restrict flood flows." 18. The permit application meets the requirements of MCWD Rule C because the record before the Board establishes that the project will actually increase flood ~torage capacity in the area. C. MCW'D Rule D - Wetland Protection 19. The MCWD regulates wetlands pursuant to Rule D - Wetland Protection. Rule D primarily regulates wetlands regulated under the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA wetlands). W~nile the MCWD does not regulate work in DNR protected water wetlands, the MCWD does regulate activities surrounding DNR protected water wetlands by requiring that those activities not take place within a certain area around the wetland. This is the buffer zone requirement. 20. Rule D provides that a buffer zone of 35 feet be maintained around a wetland that is larger than five (5) acres, such as Lost Lake. A buffer zone is defined in the MCWD rules as "an area of native, unmaintained, vegetated groundcover abutting or surrounding a wetland." Activities such as mowing, disposal of yard waste and fertilizer application are not allowed within the buffer zone. 21. The record indicates that certain aspects of the project as proposed will take place within the 35 foot buffer zone around the perimeter of the wetland. The record also indicates that the project involves creation of significant wetland revegetation areas and other green buffer areas which do not exist today. These buffers are significantly wider in areas than the 35 feet required by the role. 22. Because a 35 foot buffer will not be maintained around the entire wetland, a variance is required. MCW'D Rule I governs issuance of a variance. 23. In this case, a variance is warranted. Special conditions apply to this property that do not generally apply to other land or structures in the District. The area around the wetland is public land that will be used as parkland. Construction of a "floating" boardwalk around the perimeter of the wetland which will serve as an educational tool on wetlands is a condition unique to this project. The use of the site for public enjoyment and education is unique to this site. 24. The granting of the variance is not merely a convenience to the.applicant. The applicant has made significant efforts to minimize the activities around the wetland and has provided for extensive revegetation around portions of the wetland and a green buffer around other parts of the wetland. A buffer zone does not currently exist around the wetland. Granting of the variance is necessary to allow the applicant access to the docks. 25. Granting the variance is not contrary to the intent of the rules. The intent of Rule D is to provide protection for wetlands and DNR protected water wetlands. The extensive revegetation proposed by the applicant around a portion of the perimeter of the wetland combined with the use of a green buffer around an additional portion of the wetland and the use of curbed gutters around the parking area will minimize the impact of upland activities on the wetland while allowing access to the docks. ' ' 3 D. MCWD Rule E - Dredging 26. The MCWD regulates dredging pursuant to MCWD Rule E. Rule E sets out four (4) circumstances where dredging will be permitted and five (5) circumstances where dredging will not be permit-ted. Rule E also sets out general standards that apply to dredging. The MCWD finds that the project complies with the terms of MCWD Rule E. I. Compliance with Rule E ¶ 4 (a)(2) 27. Paragraph 4(a)(2) of Rule E provides that dredging will be permitted "[t]o implement or maintain an existing legal right of navigational access: .... Riparian rights" are certain rights enjoyed by owners of land abutting waterbodies. 28. The City of Mound owns land surrounding Lost Lake. Lost Lake is entirely located below the ordinary high water mark of Lake Minnetonka, and therefore considered part of Lake Minnetonka. As a result, the City of Mound has a riparian right of navigational access to Lake Minnetonka. 29. The exercise of riparian rights is not unrestricted, but rather is subject to regulation in the public interest. 30. The MCWD finds that the City of Mound has an existing legal right of navigational access and the dredging is necessary to implement or maintain that legal right. 31. The MCWD has consistently allowed riparian owners to use dredging to accomplish access only if other means of access are not available. Both MCWD Rule E and the Lake Minnetonka Dredging Joint Policy Statement entered into between the MCWD, DNR, and Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD), require that dredging be the "minimal impact" solution to achieving navigational access. This requirement is also reflected in DNR's rules regulating dredging in public water wetlands. Minn. R. 6115.0201, Subp. 4 (1995). 32. Intervener claims there is no need to dredge to obtain access because the land has access to the Bay via canoes and kayaks. The MCWD and DNR have consistently applied the depth requirements set forth in the Lake Minnetonka Dredging Joint Policy Statement to establish what constitutes "navigational access" on Lake Mirmetonka. Pursuant to the Policy Statement and MCWD practice, an appropriate dredging depth for multiple-user channels is five (5) feet or less. As a result, the MCWD has consistently determined that "navigational access" for a multiple- user channel is a channel with a depth of five feet. The record establishes that the City proposes to dredge to a depth of five feet. 33. Because the MCWD finds that the City of Mound has an existing legal right of navigational access and the dredgit4g is necessary to implement or maintain that legal fight', the dredging meets the requirements of MCWD Rule E ~[ 4(a)(2) and a permit may be issued. 4 2. Compliance with MCWD Rule E ~[ 4(a)(1) 34. The MCWD also fmds that a permit for the project may be issued under MCWD Rule E ¶ 4(a)(1) with a variance allowing the dredging to exceed the original channel width. 35. Paragraph 4(a)(1) provides that dredging may be permitted "[t]o maintain, or remove sediment from, an existing public or private channel, that does not exceed the originally permitted requirements." In order to issue a permit under this section, it must be established that: a. there is an existing channel; b. the dredging is for the purpose of maintaining or removing sediment from the channel; and c. the maintenance does not exceed the originally penrLitted requirements. 36. The MCWD finds that the first condition is met because a channel through Lost Lake currently exists. 37. The MCWD finds that the second condition is met because the proposed dredging is for the purpose of removing sediment from the channel. 38. The MCWD fmds that the third condition is not met because the dredging will exceed the historical dimensions, but that a variance is warranted to allow dredging to the proposed dimensions. 39. The record establishes that the original channel was 30 feet wide. The channel is proposed to be dredged to a width of 70 feet. As a result, a variance is required. MCWD Rule I governs issuance of a variance. 40. In this case, a variance is warranted. Special conditions apply ~to this property that do not generally apply to other land or structures in the District. The granting of the variance is not merely a convenience to the applicant. The applicant originally requested permission to dredge the channel to a width of 50 feet with three boat pull-ont areas. The MCWD in conjunction with the DNR proposed the wider channel in order to reduce the frequency of maintenance dredging and, as a result, reduce the frequency of disruption of the wetland and wildlife. 41. Granting the variance is not contrary to the intent of the rules. The intent of Rule E is to provide for sound and responsible dredging that provides the minimal impact solution for reasonable navigational access. The increase in the width of the channel promotes sound dredging and the objectives of the rules in that the wider width allows for safe passage of boat traffic in both directions and requires less frequent maintenance dredging, thereby resulting in the minimum impact solution. 42. Because the project meets the criteria for a variance set out in MCWD Rule I, the MCWD finds that granting of a variance for the wider channel width is appropriate. 43. The fact that a permit was not issued by a government agency to construct the original channel does not mean that the channel cannot be maintained. The MCWD has interpreted the language "does not exceed the originally permitted requirements" to mean "historic channel" in cases where the original channel was dredged prior to any dredging regulation. The language "does not exceed the originally permitted requirements" sets limits on the extent of the dredging, not on the types of channels that can be dredged. The intent of the provision was to "grandfather" in channels that were dredged prior to imposition of the rule. The role provided for a grandfather clause in part because of the history of the creation of Lake Minnetonka. Lake Minnetonka was created by the dredging of channels betWeen many small lakes to create one large lake. The rule is intended to recognize that those channels and others that were created prior to implementation of Rule E can be maintained as originally constructed. 44. The MCWD finds that the project meets the requirements of MCWD Rule E ¶ 4(a)(1) and a variance is warranted. 3. The dredging is not prohibited under MCWD Rule E ¶ 4(b) 45. In addition to establishing circumstances where dredging may be permitted, Rule E also established certain situations where dredging will not be allowed. The MCWD finds that the project is not prohibited under MCWD Rule E. 46. Paragraph 4(b) provides that dredging will not be allowed: 3 4. 5. Above the ordinary high water level or into the upland adjacent to the lake or watercourse; Which would enlarge a natural watercourse landward or which would create a channel to connect adjacent backwater areas for navigational purposes; Where the dredging will alter the natural shoreline of a lake; Where the dredging might cause increased seepage or result in subsurface drainage; or Where any portion of the dredged area contains any slope steeper than 3:1 in a marina or channel, or steeper than 10 to 1 for an area adjoining residential lakeshore. 47. Rule E also provides that, if a dredging proposal falls under category 1, 2 or 3, the dredging may be allowed if the project complies with applicable DNR rules. MCWD Rule E, 4(c). ao Dredging above the ordinary high water level or into the upland adjacent to the lake or watercourse 48. The MCWD finds that the dredging will occur in an upland area adjacent to the lake but that this dredging will be allowed if approved by the DNR. As a result, the permit will not be issued until the DNR approves the project. 6 49. The record indicates that dredging would occur in upland adjacent to the watercourse. The City of Mound has proposed to dredge upland in a small area at the north end of the channel to create the turn-around area. The record indicates that this area was at one time part of the channel but was subsequently filled. b. Dredging which would enlarge a natural watercourse landward or which would create 'a channel to connect adiacent backwater areas for navigational purposes 50. The record indicates that the project as proposed by the City, of Mound would enlarge a natural watercourse, Lake Minnetonka, landward. The City of Mound has proposed to dredge landward in a small area at the north end of the channel to create the mm-around area. The record indicates that this area was at one time part of the channel but was subsequently filled. 51. The MCWD finds that the dredging would enlarge a natural watercourse, Lake Minnetonka, landward but that this dredging will be allowed if approved by the DNR. As a result, the permit will not be issued until the DNR approves the project. c. Where dredging might cause increased seepage or result in subsurface drainage 52. The MCWD finds that the dredging will not cause increased seepage or result in subsurface drainage and, as a result, the dredging is not prohibited under this section. 53. The record contains the professional opinion of the District Engineer that the dredging will not cause increased seepage or result in subsurface drainage. The District Engineer's opinion was based on, among other things, the geotechnical evaluation completed for the project and also contained in the record. d. Dredged area contains any slope steeper than 3:1 in a marina or channel, or steeper than 10 to 1 for an area adjoinin~ residential lakeshore. 54. The MCWD finds that the slope will not be steeper than allowed by MCWD Rule E and, as a result, the dredging is not prohibited under the rule. 55. The record indicates that the slope will be 5:1. 4. The Project meets the general standards for dredging and the required exhibits have been provided to the MCWD 56. The MCWD f'mds that the project meets the general standards for dredging and that the required exhibits have been provided to the MCWD. 7 57. MCWD Rule E requires that all dredging comply with the following standards: o The spoil disposal site must be identified and found not to be below the OHW of a public water or public water wetland, wetland subject to the Wetland Conservation Act of 1991, or floodplain and not prone to erosion. In cases of an identifiable source of sedimentation under the control of the applicant, the plan shall include remedial action to minimize deposition of sediment into a waterbody or off-site. Prior to review by the District, all dredging proposals that involve docking shall be submitted to and approved by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and, in the case of Lake Minnetonka, by the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District. The proposed project shall represent the "minimal impact" solution to a specific need with respect to all other reasonable alternatives such as dock extensions, aquatic nuisance plant removal without dredging, beach sandblankets, excavation above the bed of public water, less extensive dredging in another area of the public water, or management of an alternative water body for the intended purpose. The dredging shall be limited to the minimum dimensions necessary for achieving the stated purpose (Reference DNR General Permit 95-6150, "Excavation for Navigation," ¶ 5). If the dredging will be accomplished by means of hydraulic dredging, additional conditions must be met. a. Identification of the spoil disposal site 58. A spoil disposal site has not been identified for the project. It is common for municipalities to seek permits before a construction contract has been let. Most construction contracts provide that the contractor is responsible for proper disposal of materials. 59. It is appropriate and consistent with the MCWD's past permitting experiences to approve the permit application conditioned upon the project receiving a Spoil Disposal Site (SDS) permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). 60. As a result, the MCWD finds that the permit may be issued with the condition that the project receive a SDS permit from the MPCA. b. Minimization of sources of sedimentation 61. The MCWD finds that there are no significant sources of sediment under the control of the Ci,ty and that the project does include activities designed to reduce sedimentation into the channel and wetland. 62. The rule requires that, prior to allowing dredging, an applicant must establish that sources of sediment under the control of the applicant and which may contribute to the on-going need to dredge have been controlled. The record indicates that there are no significant sources of sediment under the control of the City. The record also indicates that the project does include activities designed to reduce sedimentation into the channel and the wetland. For example, a buffer zone will be maintained around much of the wetland perimeter associated with the project. In addition, riprap erosion protection will be installed along portions of the shoreline to prevent erosion. c. Approval bv the LMCD and the DNR 63. The proposed project requires approval from both the LMCD (docks) and the DNR (dredging and docks). It is appropriate and consistent with the MCWD's past permitting practices for the Board to issue the permit conditioned upon approval by the LMCD and DNR. 64. The MCWD finds that a permit may be issued conditioned upon approval of the project by the LMCD and the DNR. d. Minimal impact solution 65. The MCWD finds that the project as proposed represents the minimal impact solution to achieve navigational access. 66. The rule lists several alternatives that should be considered. Extension of a dock is one alternative the Board should consider. In this case, the canal is approximately ½ mile long. The MCWD finds that construction of a dock is not a realistic or reasonable alternative in this case because of the length of a dock. 67. The MCWD £mds that aquatic nuisance plant removal without dredging is not a reasonable alternative. Aquatic nuisance plant removal would not provide the depth necessary for navigational access as set forth in the Joint Dredging Policy. 68. The MCWD finds that the use of sandblankets is not a reasonable alternative. The MCWD considers sandblankets an appropriate alternative to dredging in circumstances where the placement of sand over a mucky area would provide access. Sandblanketing in this circumstance is not a reasonable alternative due to the fact that filling would result in more environmental degradation and further reduce the depth of the channel. 69. The MCWD finds that excavation above the bed of public water is not an appropriate alternative because dredging above the bed of a public water would not provide navigational access for this site. 70. The MCWD finds that the proposed dredging is the least impact dredging necessary to maintain navigational access. The record indicates that the channel as proposed provides the most direct access. In addition, as discussed above, the proposed channel design provides the least impact of other dredging alternatives. There is no evidence that management of an alternative water body would provide navigational access for the City. e. Minimum dimensions 71. The MCWD finds that the dredging is limited to the minimum dimensions necessary for achieving navigational access. 72. Paragraph 5 of the Excavation for Navigation section of the DNR general permit provides the standards for determining necessary dimensions for dredging. Paragraph 5 provides that the maximum depth for multiple user channels and mootng/maneuvefing areas is 923.6 feet. The record indicates that the depth of the Lost Lake channel will be 923.6 feet. 73. Paragraph 5 also provides that sideslopes of excavated channels should be 3:1 (horizontal to vertical), "unless substrate conditions and other mitigating factors warrant a steeper or more gentle slope." The slope of the proposed channel is 5:1. The record contains several documents, including an opinion from a geotechnical engineering consultant, that the 5:1 slope is appropriate and will result in a stable slope. f. Conditions applicable to hydraulic dredging 74. The record indicates that hydraulic dredging will not be used. As a result, the MCWD finds that the additional conditions applicable to hydraulic dredging set forth in the role do not apply. E. MCWD Rule F - Shoreline Alteration 75. Alterations to shoreline are regulated pursuant to MCWD Rule F - Shoreline & Streambank Improvement. The project involves the placement of riprap and reconstruction and construction of retaining walls, both of which are regulated under Rule F. 76. With one exception, the record indicates that the project as proposed meets the requirements of Rule F. The one exception is that the riprap cross-section does not contain all of the information contained in the text portion of the permit application. 77. As a result, issuance of the permit is conditioned upon receipt of a revised riprap detail and approval of the detail by the District Engineer. F. MCWD Rule K - Performance Bond or Letter of Credit 78. MCWD Rule K provides that a performance bond or letter of credit be submitted to the MCWD for projects regulated by MCWD Rules E and F. A performance bond or letter of credit has not yet been submitted for the Lost Lake project. 79. The MCWD has in the past conditioned issuance of a permit on r~ceipt of a performance bond or letter of credit. Issuance of a permit for the project is likewise conditioned upon receipt of a performance bond or letter of credit covering the work regulated by Rules E and F. 10 G. Compliance with Water Management Plans 80. The proposed project is in compliance with the MCWD's current water resources management plan dated 1993. The plan states on page V-8 that the policies of the MCWD in regard to dredging are: Allow dredging projects to improve the recreational, wildlife, and fisheries resources of surface waters, and when necessary, to implement or maintain an existing legal fight of navigational access. Prohibit dredging in the watercourses, waterbodies, or wetland areas.., which would enlarge a natural watercourse landward to create a channel to connect adjacent backwater areas for navigational purposes. Allow maintenance dredging to remove harmful sediment. 81. The project is in compliance with policy 1 because, as set forth above, the Board has determined that dredging is necessary to implement or maintain an existing legal fight of navigational access. 82. The project is in compliance with policy 2 because the dredging does not enlarge a. natural watercourse landward to create a channel to connect adjacent backwater areas. The dredging does enlarge a natural watercourse landward, but does not create a channel that connects adjacent backwater areas. The channel is not being created, but rather it is being maintained and expanded. Lost Lake is not a backwater area that is being connected to a waterbody. Backwater areas are areas unconnected to a waterbody. Lost Lake is already connected to Lake Minnetonka. 83. Policy 3, allowing maintenance dredging to remove harmful sediment, is not applicable to the proposed project. H. Minnesota Environmental Riehts Act (MERA) 84. The MCWD finds that (1) barring a determination by the MPCA that the project will increase levels of PCB's to a threshold exceeding acceptable standards, the project does not result in "impairment, pollution, or destruction of the air, water, land or other natural resources" and (2) there are no feasible and prudent alternatives. 85. Minnesota Statutes section 116B.09 requires an agency in issuing a permit to consider any alleged "impairment, pollution, or destruction" and forbids an agency from allowing an activity that results in "impairment, pollution, or destruction .... so long as there is a feasible and prudent alternative consistent with the reasonable requirements of the public health, safety, and welfare and the state's paramount concern for the protection of its air, water land, and other natural resources from pbllution, impairment, or destruction." Minn. Stat. § 11 ~5B.09, Subd. 2. 86. MERA only forbids actions which will result in "impairment, pollution or destruction" of the environment. The statute defines "pollution, impairment or destruction" as: 11 ao Any conduct by any person which violates, or is likely to violate, any environmental quality standard, limitation, rule, order, license, stipulation agreement, or permit of the state or any instrumentality, agency or political subdivision thereof which was issued prior to the date the alleged violation occurred or is likely to occur; or Any conduct which materially adversely affects or is likely to materially adversely affect the environment. Minn. Stat. § 116B.02, Subd. 5. 87. The MCWD has conditioned issuance of a permit for the project on approval of the project by the LMCD, DNR, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and approval of the spoil disposal site by the MPCA. The MCWD has also conditioned issuance of a permit for the project on additional testing for PCB's by the applicant and a determination by the MPCA that the project will not result in increased levels of PCB's which exceed acceptable standards. If each of these agencies approve the project, then the MCWD may conclude that the project will not be in violation of an environmental quality standard. 88. The MCWD finds that in regard to the presence of contaminants other than PCBs, the MPCA has established standards and found that the project does not exceed those standards. The MPCA testified at the February 6, 1997 MCWD Board meeting that the dredging of the channel would not result in harm to the water quality of Lost Lake or Lake Minnetonka. The MCWD accepts the testimony of the MPCA in this regard due to the expertise of the agency. 89. In regard to PCBs, the MCWD finds that the MPCA did not make a determination as to whether PCB's were present at a level of concern or whether the project would result in increased levels of PCB's which exceed acceptable standards. As a result, the MCWD has placed a condition on the issuance of the permit that the City will perform sediment testing for the presence of PCB's based upon the method for sampling and analysis prescribed by the MPCA to determine whether the project will increase levels of PCB's to a threshold which exceeds acceptable standards. The results in conjunction with mitigative measures prescribed by the MPCA (as necessary) must be determined by the MPCA to meet or be below acceptable standards, which determination the MCWD shall consider final. 90. If an environmental standard is established by an agency and a project is not in violation of that standard, then the project does not result in "pollution, impairment or destruction" of the environment as set forth in the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act. 91. The MCWD also finds that the project does not result in "pollution, impairment or destruction" because the project is not likely to materially adversely affect the environment. 92. In MERA cases, courts consider the following factors in determining whether the conduct in question materially adversely affects, or is likely to materially adversely affect, the ' environment: 12 Whether the natural resource involved is rare, unique, endangered, or has historical significance; Whether the resource is easily replaceable (e.g., by replanting trees or restocking fish); Whether the proposed action will have any significant consequential effect on other natural resources (for example, whether wildlife will be lost if its habitat is impaired or destroyed); and Whether the direct or consequential impact on animals or vegetation will affect a critical number, considering the nature and location of the wildlife affected. State of Minnesota. ex rel. Wacouta Township v. Brunkow Hardwood Corp., 510 N.W.2d 27, 30 (Minn. App. 1993). '93. Wetlands are an important natural resource, but the record shows that the proposed project will actually generate a net gain of wetland acreage in the area. 94. The record shows that the proposed dredging project will not eliminate water or fish from the area in question. The record shows that cattail vegetation would be eliminated in the dredged area, but that this vegetation is not endangered and would be present elsewhere in the area. 95. Even if the MCWD detenrdnes that the project will result in "impairment, pollution or destruction," the MCWD may issue a permit for the project if there are no "feasible and prudent alternatives." Any "feasible and prudent alternative" must be consistent with the reasonable requirements of the public health, safety, and welfare and the state's paramount concern for the protection of its air, water, land, and other natural resources from pollution, impairment, or destruction. Economic considerations alone shall not justify the proposed conduct. 96. The "no feasible and prudent alternative" analysis is intended to strike a balance between the rights of property owners and the protection of natural resources. In this case, the right of the City to navigational access must be balanced with the protection of natural resources. 97. As discussed at length above in the discussion of MCWD Rule E, the MCWD finds that the dredging as proposed represents both the "minimal impact" solution and is the most feasible and prudent alternative. 98. The only alternative suggested by Intervener is to allow the City no navigational access, except by way of canoe and kayak. The City's riparian right, however, encompasses navigation for which Lake Minnetonka is reasonably used. Lake Minnetonka is used substantially for motor boat navigation, and therefore the City has a legal right of navigational access by way of motor boat. Completely denying that right to the City is not a feasible or prudent alternative, particularly if the City's proposed dredging project is consistent with MPCA and DNR standards and permits. Nor does Intervener's suggested alternative strike a balance between property owner fights and protection of natural'resources. The MCWD and DNR Lake Minnetonka * Dredging Joint Policy Statement, on the other hand, does strike a balance. 13 99. As a result, the MCWD fmds that (1) if the agencies listed in the permit conditions approve the project, then the project will not result in "pollution, impairment or destruction" of the environment and (2) the project represents the most feasible and prudent alternative for the exercise of the City's right to navigational access. II. CONCLUSIONS 100. The project as proposed in permit application 96-280 subject to the conditions set forth below and the variances discussed above meets the requirements of MCWD Rules C, D, E, F and I. 101. The project as proposed in permit application 96-280 subject to the conditions set forth below is in compliance with the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act. III. RESOLUTION NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Board of Managers, by a vote of 5 yeas and 2 nays as follows: Permit number 96-280 will be granted to the City of Mound for the activities set forth in permit application number 96-280 pending approval of the activities by the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and with the following conditions: ~ 1. Revised riprap detail be approved by the MCWD; ~/' 2. Documentation must be submitted to the MCWD that multiple silt flotation curtains will be installed within the channel during dredging; 3. The project receives a SDS permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency to dispose of the dredge spoils; Lightsd buoys are placed around the entire turn-around area at the ~,.~l~e::t~t~ north end of the channel; ~/t 5. The City will perform sediment testing for the presence of PCB's, based upon the method for sampling and analysis prescribed by the MPCA; the results in conjunction with mitigative measures prescribed by the MPCA (as necessary) must be determined by the MPCA to meet or to below acceptable standards, which determination the MCWD shall consider final; and O 6. receipt by the MCWD of a performance bond for the project. 14 Dated: YEAS NAYS BLIXT X GROSS X LABOUNTY X LOVE X MAPLE X REID X THOMAS X Upon vote, the Chair declared the Resolution passed. ,1997 Monica Gross Secretary 15 EHLERS & ASSOCIATES INC May 2, 2000 Kandis Hanson, City Manager City Hall 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364-1627 Dear Kandis: As promised in our meeting yesterday, enclosed are the sample Reimbursement Resolution and Declaration of Intent for the City Council to consider. The resolution is passed one time only for the purpose of establishing procedures for complying with federal reimbursement regulations. In Section 2, the Council authorizes a city official to make "declarations" as needed. That city official is given the authority to prepare a Declaration of Intent for each project for which the Council anticipates incurring expenditures that may be reimbursed by the issuance of bonds. Also enclosed for your information is an outline of the sessions to be held with staff in outlining the City's Key Financial Strategies. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to call me at (651) 697-8510 or Jim Prosser at (651) 697-8503. Yours truly, EHLERS & ASSOCIATES, INC. Steve Apfelbacher LEADERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE Equal Opportunity Employer Charter Member of the National Association of Independent Public Finance Advisors 3060 Centre Pointe Drive, Roseville, MN 55113-1105 651.697.8500 fax 651.697.8555 www.ehlers-inc.com RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES RELATING TO COMPLIANCE WITH REIMBURSEMENT BOND REGULATIONS UNDER THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the "Council") of the City of "City"), as follows: , Minnesota (the 1. Recitals. (a) The Internal Revenue Service has issued Treasury Regulations, Section 1.150-2 (as the same may be amended or supplemented, the "Regulations"), dealing with "reimbursement bond" proceeds, being proceeds of the City's bonds used to reimburse the City for any project expenditure paid by the City prior to the time of the issuance of those bonds. (b) The Regulations generally require that the City make a declaration of intent to reimburse itself for such prior expenditures out of the proceeds of subsequently issued bonds, that such declaration be made not later than 60 days after the expenditure is actually paid, and that the bonding occur and the written reimbursement allocation be made from the proceeds of such bonds within 18 months after the later of (I) the date of payment of the expenditure or (2) the date the project is placed in service (but in no event more than 3 years after actual payment). (c) The City heretofore implemented procedures for compliance with the predecessor versions of the Regulations and desires to amend and supplement those procedures to ensure compliance with the Regulations. (d) The City's bond counsel has advised the City that the Regulations do not apply, and hence the provisions of this Resolution are intended to have no application to payments of City project costs first made by the City out of the proceeds of bonds issued prior to the date of such payments. 2. Official Intent Declaration. The Regulations, in the situations in which they apply, require the City to have declared an official intent (the "Declaration") to reimburse itself for previously paid project expenditures out of the proceeds of subsequently issued bonds. The Council hereby authorizes the City to make the City's Declarations or to delegate from time to time that responsibility to other appropriate City employees. Each Declaration shall comply with the requirements of the Regulations, including without limitation the following: (a) Each Declaration shall be made not later than 60 days after payment of the applicable project cost and shall state that the City reasonably expects to reimburse itself for the expenditure out of the proceeds of a bond issue or similar borrowing. Each Declaration may be made substantially in the form of the Exhibit A which is attached to and made a part of this Resolution, or in any other format which may at the time comply with the Regulations. (b) Each Declaration shall (1) contain a reasonably accurate description of the "project," as defined in the Regulations (which may include the property or program to be 916757.01 financed, as applicable), to which the expenditure relates and (2) state the maximum principal amount of bonding expected to be issued for that project. (c) Care shall be taken so that the City, or its authorized representatives under this Resolution, not make Declarations in cases where the City does not reasonably expect to issue reimbursement bonds to f'mance the subject project costs, and the City officials are hereby authorized to consult with bond counsel to the City concerning the requirements of the Regulations and their application in particular circumstances. (d) The Council shall be advised from time to time on the desirability and timing of the issuance of reimbursement bonds relating to project expenditures for which the City has made Declarations. 3. Reimbursement Allocations. The designated City officials shall also be responsible for making the "reimbursement allocations" described in the Regulations, being generally written allocations that evidence the City's use of the applicable bond proceeds to reimburse the original expenditures. 4. Effect. This Resolution shall amend and supplement all prior resolutions and/or procedures adopted by the City for compliance with the Regulations (or their predecessor versions), and, henceforth, in the event of any inconsistency, the provisions of this Resolution shall apply and govern. Adopted this ~ day of , by the City Council. 916757~1 2 EXHIBIT A Declaration of Official Intent The undersigned, being the duly appointed and acting City of the City of , Minnesota (the "City"), pursuant to and for purposes of compliance with Treasury Regulations, Section 1.150-2 (the "Regulations"), under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, hereby states and certifies on behalf of the City as follows: 1. The undersigned has been and is on the date hereof duly authorized by the City Council to make and execute this Declaration of Official Intent (the "Declaration") for and on behalf of the City. 2. This Declaration relates to the following project, property or program (the "Project") and the costs thereof to be financed: 3. The City reasonably expects to reimburse itself for the payment of certain costs of the Project out of the proceeds of a bond issue or similar borrowing (the "Bonds") to be issued by the City after the date of payment of such costs. As of the date hereof, the City reasonably expects that $_ is the maximum principal amount of the Bonds w~ich will be issued to finance the Project. 4. Each expenditure to be reimbursed from the Bonds is or will be a capital expenditure or a cost of i. ssuance, or any of the other types of expenditures described in Section 1.150-2(d)(3) of the Regulations. 5. As of the date hereof, the statements and expectations contained in this Declaration are believed to be reasonable and accurate. Date: City City of , Minnesota 916757.01 A--1 CERTIFICATION The undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting City , Minnesota, hereby certifies the following: ] of the City of The foregoing is a true and correct copy of a Resolution on file and of official, publicly available record in the offices of the City, which Resolution relates to procedures of the City for compliance with certain IRS Regulations on reimbursement bonds. Said Resolution was duly adopted by the governing body of the City (the "Council") at a regular or special meeting of the Council held on , ~. Said meeting was duly called, regularly held, open to the public, and held at the place at which meetings of the Council are regularly held. Council Member moved the adoption of the Resolution, which motion was seconded by Council Member · A vote being taken on the motion, the following members of the Council voted in favor of the motion to adopt the Resolution: and the following voted against the same: Whereupon said Resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. The Resolution is in full force and effect and no action has been taken by the Council which would in any way alter or amend the Resolution. WITNESS MY HAND officially as the City Minnesota, this ~ day of , ~ of the City of City City of , Minnesota 916757.01 RESOLUTION NO.00- RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF REAL PROPERTY TO THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Mound, (the "HRA") and Ray Mar Properties, Inc., (the "Redeveloper") have entered into a document entiled Contract for Private Redevelopment (the "Contract") providing for the redevelopment of land in Development District No. 1 (the "Project Area"); and WHEREAS, the Contract calls for the exchange of land between the Redeveloper and the HRA with the Redeveloper constructing the Redevelopment on lands it will receive in the exchange; and WHEREAS, the parcel of land that the HRA will be conveying to the Redeveloper and which is described in the attached Exhibit A (the "Property") is currently owned by the City; and WHEREAS, it is in the best interests of the community, and consistent with the provisions of Minnesota statutes Section 469.041 that the Property be conveyed to the HRA for exchange with the Redeveloper all in accordance with the provisions of the Contract; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, on May 8, 2000 determined that the proposed transfer of the Property was consistent with the general planning goals as stated in the City's Comprehensive Plan. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota as follows: 1. The transfer of the Property to the HRA for disposition in accordance with the terms of the Contract is hereby APPROVED. 2. The City Manager and Mayor are hereby authorized and directed to take all steps necessary to carry out this approval. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember by Councilmember and seconded The following Councilmembers voted yea: The following Councilmembers voted nay: JBD-180599vl MU195-7 Dated: Attest: Mawr City Clerk JBD-180599vl MU195-7 CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 " FAX (612) 472-0620 Memorandum May 16, TO: FROM: SUBJECT: 2000 ~ ~ Jim Fackler, Park Director ~M // . _ Request From POSAC Related To ~o~ Rental. The POSAC has passed a motion to have all proceeds from the rental of the Depot building dedicated to park improvement and the recreation fund. Attached is exert from the minutes of the POSAC February 10, 2000 meeting, and the 1999 rental history. I will copy Gino Businaro, Finance Director for his input. printed on recycled paper Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission February 10, 2000 4. DISCUSS: REQUEST FROM COMMISSION MEMBERS ON CAPITAL OUTLAY Park Director Fackler stated that the end of May is when the listings are made, and the requests go to the City Manager the first part of June. Chair Domholt stated that the current list needs to be reviewed, as this list will be discussed with the Mayor in April, and each item needs to be firm. Mayor Pat Meisel stated that the City Council will discuss the direction that will be given to the Park Commission so some firm direction can.be provided. This will be discussed in the March meeting. Commissioner Beise stated that after that information is received, the Park Commission can then compare that to the current list, and be ready to discuss line items in April. This could be the major discussion for the March POSC meeting. Commissioner Meyer stated that for the last several years, there has been a special workshop regarding the prioritizing of park improvements, as it takes a lot of time. Commissioner Beise stated that the list has been prioritized, and it simply needs to be reviewed, noting the list from last year is a fairly solid list. CounCilmember Weycker stated that the list could possibly be presented better as well, which may help when the Council looks at it. Right now it is just kind of a '~this is what we want" list. Importance, safety issues, and other funding options could be included. Commissioner Meyer stated that the public input is needed before the list is complete. Chair Domholt stated that the direction from the City Council and the following discussion regarding items that were on the list last year should probably be discussed first, before even more ideas are presented. The public input could be encouraged in April, which gives the Commission the March meeting to discuss the current items, with Council direction. ,5. REVIEW: 1999 DEPOT RENTAL Commissioner Meyer shared an unofficial tally he prepared regarding the vadous uses for the Depot. Motion made by Beise, seconded by Weycker to recommend that all proceeds and interest from the rental of the Mound Depot be dedicated to a park improvement and recreation fund. Motion carried unanimously. 3 DEPOT RENTAL 1999 NAME Sabrina Ruud 472-4359 (X-mas Party) Troy Tasche 472-8725 (Party) Laura Babb 472-1768 (Baby Shower) Suzanne Hinrichs 472-6346 (Birthday Party) Jodi Pettit 472-3592 (Baptism) James Nelson 472-0772 (B-Day Party) Lorrie Ham 472-0439 (B-Day Party) David Hanus 472-4487 (Anniversary) Karin Zeeb 472-7858 (Graduation) Bob Polston 472-5520 (Open House) Mike O'Flanagan 472-0136 (Rehearsal Dinner) Michael Littell 471-8850 Ralph Dodson 471-0726 (Graduation Party) ADDRESS 2740 Grove Lane 5238 Sulgrove Road 5259 Eden Road 1205 Loma Linda Ave. 5926 Beachwood Road 4085 Lancaster Lane 4717 Hampton Road 2715 Halstead Lane 2617 Clare Lane 5780 Lynwood Blvd. 2142 Sandy Lane 4363 Shoreline Drive 2117 Shadywood Road TOTAL $ 25.00 $ 75.00 $ 75.00 $ 75.00 $ 25.00 $ 75.00 $ 75.00 $ 75.00 $ 75.00 $ 75.00 $ 75.00 $ 50.00 $150.00 Leah McGlinsky 4724176 (Wedding Reception) Michelle Olson 472-2371 (Graduation Party) Clark Lovrien 472-2557 Greg & Carrie Palm 472-1233 (B-day Party) Julie Eckstrom 472-8646 (Graduation Party) Judy Pike 4724963 (Wedding Reception) Creatis, Inc. 333-3233 (Company Party) Klm Wright 472-5965 (B-day Party) Cheri Johnson 472-6461 (Family ReUnion) Frances Rust 472-3920 (Graduation) Zotos International 472-3905 (BBQ) Betty Carlson 472-3371 (Family REUNION) Lowell Swenson 949-9496 (Family Gathering) Ronald Hayes 472-4048 (Family Picnic) Clara Householder 4724255 (Graduation) 1~51 Lakeside Lane 2060 Waterside Lane 6038 Evergreen Road 1160 Marina Drive 6230 Deerwood Drive 2960 Dickens Lane 222 No. 2~ Street, Mpls 5845 Beachwood Road 6347 Bayridge Road 5655 Lynwood Blvd. 2621 Granger Lane 4743 Dorchester Road 8101 Hidden Court 5019 Rosedale Road 6348 Lynwood Blvd. $ 75.00 $ 25.00 $ 75.00 $ 75.00 $ 75.00 $ 25.00 $150.00 $ 75.00 $ 25.00 $ 75.00 $ 75.00 $ 25.00 $ 50.00 $ 75.00 $ 75.00 Nancy Gilbert 472-8529 (Rchersal Dinner) Robert Cmwford 472-2955 (Company Picnic) Nancy Johnson 472-1549 (Birthday Party) Gary Kluckman 472-0437 (Family Gathering) Jean Eldworth 472- (Birthday Party) Marg Hatting 941-0803 (Family Gathering) Janet Derby 472-4376 (Family Reunion) Betsy Kohls 472-2975 (Family Reunion) Veto Strand 472-4167 (Family Gathering) Isabel Carlin 472-1172 (Wedding) National Power Chair 472-3806 (Company Picnic) Patty Guttormson 472-7501 (Baptism) Mary Berglund 472-8515 (Birthday Party) Greg Neubert 472-7783 (Reception) Joann Petersen 472-4794 (Family Get-Together)] 4'979 Wilshire #C3005 5093 Bartlett Blvd. 5300 Piper Road 2760 Grove Lane 6112 Ridgewood Road 9757 Purgatory Road 3046 Brighton Commons 5840 Lynwood Blvd. 6001 Beachwood Road 2020 Commerce Blvd. 2642 Commerce Blvd. 2871 Pheasant Circle 5049 Avon Drive 5852 Idlewood Road 4923 Bedford $ 75.00 $25.00 $75.00 $25.00 $75.00 $50.00 $25.00 $25.00 $25.00 $25.00 $75.00 $75.00 $75.00 $75.00 $75.00 ^nn Schwingler 472-5869 (Sample Sale) Nancy Walsh 472-7163 (Family Dinner) Chere Manty 472-5160 5301 Bartlett Blvd. 5770 Bartlett Blvd. 4770 Dorchester Road $75.00 $75.00 $75.00 General Fund CDBG Area Fire Protection Services MSA Sealcoat PW Facility Capital Improvement CDB Commerce Place TIF Downtown TIF 1-2 Co Rd 15 Recycling Liquor Store Water Sewer Cemetery Dock Fire Relief HRA $783 222 I 464 303 9t6 44 847 29,803 53,998 275 320 3 356 87 835 (260,188) 7,783 67,788 328,577 717,003 631,083 5,806 283,489 (42,421) 0 Note: The above schedule shows the combined cash and investment balances by fund for the months indicated as recorded in the General Ledger. The balances do not reflect receivable, payables, authorized transfers, encumbered funds, or dedicated/reserved resources, etc. Only some accrued transactions are reflected. Investment income will be distributed to the funds at the end of the year and is not included. A long and complete process is followed to record all transactions, before we close the books, at the end of the year. In addition, the audit from the independent auditor is performed and an official Comprehensive Report will be presented to the City Council and made available to Interested parties. In no way the schedule is Intended to represent balances of funds available for spending. 05/1112000 CeshReportCouncil Gino CITY OF MOUND BUDGET REVENUE REPORT April 2000 33.33% GENERAL FUND Taxes Business Licenses Non-Business Licenses and Permits Intergovernmental Charges for Services Court Fines Other Revenue Transfers from Other Funds Charges to Other Departments April 2000 YTD PERCENT BUDGET REVENUE REVENUE VARIANCE RECEIVED 1,344,330 0 0 4,210 655 1,085 116,200 13,892 43,313 963,800 0 38,284 85,700 2,602 30,861 100,000 10,235 32,077 63,500 175 1,686 47,500 0 0 13,000 1,260 4,322 (1,344,330) 0.00% (3,125) 25.77% (72,887) 37.27% (925,516) 3.97% (54,839) 36.01% (67,923) 32.08% (61,814) 2.66% (47,500) 0.00% (8,678} 33.25% TOTAL REVENUE 2.738.240 28,819 151.628 (2.586.612} 5.54% FIRE FUND RECYCLING FUND LIQUOR FUND WATER FUND SEWER FUND CEMETERY FUND DOCK FUND 377,470 43,391 173,281 (204,189) 45.91% 115,600 7,055 27,443 (88,157) 23.74% 1,750,000 144,129 503,793 (1,246,207) 28.79% 500,000 32,798 131,398 (368,602) 26.28% 960,000 77,303 316,954 (643,046) 33.02% 6,200 400 1,775 (4,425) 28.63% 86,000 785 66,132 (19,868) 76.90% 0511112000 rev00 Gino CITY OF MOUND BUDGET EXPENDITURES REPORT April 2OOO 33.33% GENERAL FUND Council Promotions Cable TV City Manager/Clerk Elections Assessing Finance Computer Legal Police Civil Defense Planning/Inspections Streets City Property Parks Summer Recreation Contingencies Transfers April 2000 YTD PERCENT BUDGET EXPENSE EXPENSE VARIANCE EXPENDED 77,620 4,277 31,962 45,658 41.18% 4,000 0 0 4,000 0.00% 26,000 0 366 25,634 1.41% 198,750 13,006 50,553 148,197 25.44% 12,450 44 44 12,406 0.35% 68,000 3 144 67,856 0.21% 175,400 14,397 53,692 121,708 30.61% 22,100 45 4,795 17,305 21.70% 146,980 14,076 31,322 115,658 21.31% 1,049,650 68,097 350,699 698,951 33.41% 12,150 248 1,1 58 10,992 9.53% 208,250 17,329 71,228 137,022 34.20% 485,990 53,885 209,562 276,428 43.12% 76,890 5,396 24,203 52,687 31.48% 208,050 14,473 54,607 153,443 26.25% 39,570 0 0 39,570 0.00% 106,780 0 86 106,694 0.08% 166,120 13,843 55,373 110,747 33.33% GENERAL FUND TOTAL 3,084.750 2t9,119 939,794 2,144,956 30.47% Area Fire Service Fund 411,520 TIF 1-2 0 Recycling Fund 124,980 Liquor Fund 238,920 Water Fund 441,360 Sewer Fund 939,410 Cemetery Fund 8,190 Dock Fund 80,640 15,956 66,596 344,924 16.18% 29,605 64,585 (64,585) 945 23,440 101,540 18.76% 21,480 80,438 158,482 33.67% 27,931 145,145 296,215 32.89% 53,441 295,429 643,981 31.45% 0 1,003 7,187 12.25% 6,847 20,300 60,340 25.17% Exp..00 05/11/2000 Gino °2o ~ 0 0 0 0 0 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 Chief Len Harrell Monthly Report for April, 2000 STATISTICS The police department responded to 7~9 callS for service during the month of April. There were 14 Part I offenSeS reported. Those offenses included 1 aggravated assault, 6 burglary, 5 larcenies, and 2 vehicle their. There were 68 Part II offenses reported. Those offenses included 4 child abuse/neglect, 2 forgery/NSF checks, 9 criminal damage to property, 1 weapons, 9 narcotics, 10 liquor law violations, 2 DUI's, 8 domestics (5 with assaults), 3 harassment, and 20 other offenses. The patrol division issued 185 adult and 6 juvenile citations. Parking violations accounted for an additional 22 tickets. Warnings were issued to 185 individuals for a variety of violations. There was 1 adult arrested for felonies and 24 adults and 14 juveniles arrested for misdemeanors. There were 6 misdemeanor adult warrant The depmiment assisted in 11 vehicle accidents; 2 with injuries. There were 24 medical emergencies and 107 animal complaints. Mound assisted other agencies on 29 occasions in April and requested assistance 5 times. MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT - April, 2000 II. III. Vo INVESTIGATIONS The investigators worked on 6 child protection issues and 2 criminal sexual conduct cases in April accounting for over 47 hours. Other cases included a fatal accident, robbery/assault, burglary, theft, counterfeit money, domestic assault, absenting, indecent conduct, damage to vehicle, terroristic threats, narcotics, indecent exposure, harassment, and NSF checks. Formal complaints were issued for parking an unlicensed vehicle on the street, gross false information, gross DAC, gross DWI, issuing worthless checks, assault, disorderly conduct, interfere with a 911 call and domestic assault. Personnel/Staffing The department used approximately 44 hours of overtime during the month of April. Officers used 85 hours of comp-time, 51 hours of sick time, 86.75 hours of vacation, and 2 holidays. Officers earned 81 hours of comp time. IV. TRAINING Three officers completed Emergency Medical Technician certification training, Intoxilyzer certification training, mass fatality incident training through emergency management, mandatory training through Police Training Advisory Committee, a department shoot, Sgt. McKinley and I attended the Minnesota Chief's of Police Executive Training Institute, and Officer Swensen continues at canine school with "Ranger". COMMUNITY SERVICE OFFICER CSO Cams was involved in 69 animal calls, 52 ordinance violations, and 175 miscellaneous contacts. Ten citations were issued. VI. RESERVES The reserves donated 117.25 hours of community service in the month of April. MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT APRIL 2000 PART I CRIMES O~RSES ~ EXCEPT- CLF2%RF~D BY ARRESTED REPORTED UNFOUNDED CLEARF~ ARP~EST ADULT JUV Homicide 0 0 0 0 Criminal Sexual Conduct 0 0 0 0 Robbery 0 0 0 0 Aggravated Assault 1 0 0 1 Burglary 6 2 1 0 Larceny 5 0 1 0 Vehicle Theft 2 2 0 0 Arson 0 0 0 0 TOTAL PART II CRIMES 14 4 2 I Child Abuse/Neglect 4 3 .0 0 Forgery/NSF Checks 2 0 0 0 Criminal Damage to Property 9 1 1 0 Weapons 1 0 1 0 Narcotic Laws 9 0 0 9 Liquor Laws 10 0 0 10 DWI 2 0 0 2 Simple Assault 0 0 0 0 Domestic Assault 5 0 3 1 Domestic (No Assault) 3 0 0 0 Harassment 3 0 0 0 Juvenile Status Offenses 6 0 2 4 Public Peace 3 0 2 2 Trespassing 2 0 1 1 All Other Offenses 9 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 3 9 5 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 2 0 0 1 1 0 TOTAL 68 4 10 30 24 14 PART II & PART IV Property Damage Accidents Personal Injury Accidents Fatal Accidents Medicals Animal Complaints Mutual Aid Other General Investigations TOTAL 9 2 0 24 107 29 482 653 HCCP Inspections 8 16 TOTAL 759 12 31 25 14 MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT CRIME ACTIVITY REPORTAPRIL 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 Arrests Part I Offenses Part II Offenses Medicals Animal Complaints Ordinance Violations Other Public Contacts THIS YEAR TO LAST YEAR MONTH DATE TO DATE 158 444 266 29 117 157 46 129 73 81 307 197 97 333 305 22 125 172 2 21 16 1 17 15 9 31 21 2 6 8 0 1 0 1 5 8 30 110 74 0 4 10 14 37 26 14 69 42 68 217 141 24 125 102 107 250 169 16 255 72 482 1,805 2,591 TOTA~L Assists Follow-Ups HCCP Mutual Aid Given Mutal Aid Requested 1,202 4,408 4,465 77 296 210 32 141 73 8 20 43 29 72 63 5 19 16 MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT APRIL :~000 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 TOTP. L ADULT 2 1 3 0 0 117 2 0 24 0 2 0 3 0 7 0 0 22 1 2 5 1 6 207 ~IT,~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT APRIL 2000 WARNINGS Insurance Traffic Equipment Crosswalk Animals Trash/Derelict Autos Seat Belt Trespassing Window Tint Miscellaneous TOTAL WARRANT ARRESTS Felony Misdemeanor 38 43 15 0 4 25 0 0 0 47 172 Juveniles 4 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 13 Mound Police For MN0271300 NCIC Incidcnt. DateReported Between 0;~/26/00 04/25/00 CaseProper~y. RecordType Equal STOLEN Property Value Report Class Class Extension E - Consumer Items Beer TOTAL: E - Consumer Items J - Jewelry & precious Metals BraCELETS/NECKLACES/EARRINGS/WATCH TOTAL: J - Jewelry & precious Metals T - Currency, Negotiable bonds Unknown TOTAL: T - Currency, Negotiable bonds Tuesday, May 02, 2000 Record Tvoe Items Dollar Value Stolen I 16.00 1 16.00 Stolen 1 2,050.00 1 2,050.00 Stolen 5 1,997.00 5 1,997.00 OVERALL TOTAL... 7 4,063.00 Licensed to Mound Police Department Page: 1 05/16/00 14:5]. 651 488 $715 IAR~NCE $I~/~ COl~ ~oo! RECEIVED HAY 6 ZOO0 MOUND PLANm NG &/tVSP. May 16, ~00 Good at~emoon~ Ion: As I recall from the mim~es of one of the past two City Council meetings, the City Manager was to eomact me regarding~aaving a member of~he~lanning Commission consider becoming a member of thc five (5) member task tome. I%,c not ~ee~ contacted and in las~ wec'k's pub'Ucafio~ ofthe'Lak~, in thelower leit portion bt'the from page, I read where four (4) citizens have beau appointed as members and all t~a'~ remained was.the appoi~tmcnt of a~ark Commissioner to compete '~he task force. I'm very concerned and disappointed that thc City Council will not have the benefit of hcari~g.~-om someone'from thc?lanuing'Commhsio~. 'Perhaps either'the article or the minutes were incorrect7 John, thanks in advance for seeing'chat a copy of this is inserted into thc City Council packet an~ please send a copy to each planning commissioner. COUNCIL BRIEFING May 16~ 2000 Correspondence from Geoff Michael Two unsuccessful attempts were made to contact Mr. Michael. Twice messages were left on his recorders. The dates of these calls are undocumented. He also returned calls, but no connection was made. With the date for the Planning Commission agenda approaching, Jon Sutherland was briefed as to the need and the reason for the appointment, the item was placed on the agenda and the 1 O-point memo from Prosser was added to the agenda packet. It was expected that Sutherland could very adequately pass along the message. Also, while in a conversation with Loren Gorden, Gorden, who was about to call Mr. Michael in preparation for the Planning Commission meeting, was also asked to discuss the item with Michael. Both of these staff members were present at the Planning Commission meeting to further discuss the Council request for an appointment. It was my thought that through all of these efforts, Mr. Michael would be informed sufficiently to lead the Commission to make an appointment recommendation. MINUTES - EDC - APRIL 20, 2000 The meeting was called to order at approximately 7:05 a.m. by Mark Brewer. Members present: Jerry Pietrowski, Mark Brewer, Sharon McMenamy-Cook, Lonnie Weber, Stan Drahos, Suzanne Claywell. Others present: Kandis Hanson, Fran Clark, Gino Businaro, Bruce Dodds, Scott Bjorlin, and Ken Custer. Mark Brewer introduced our new City Manager, Kandis Hanson. BUSINESS CONCERNS REGARDING REDEVELOPMENT Bruce Dodds from Mound Family Hardware stated he had talked with Bruce Chamberlain regarding concerns he has and it was suggested to him to attend this meeting to voice them. Mr. Dodds stated he and Scott Bjorlin from Scotty B's are concerned with rumors they are hearing about the new development. He stated some of the business people, as well as citizens, believe business owners are not having any say regarding the Mound Visions Project and that our mayor is going to become independently wealthy because of the land she owns. He was requesting ideas from the commission to refute these rumors. Mr. Dodds stated he does not believe them but is concerned with the damage these false accusations may cause. Mr. Dodds stated that he realized that Ken Custer feels he has been left out of the planning stages and is, therefore, upset. Mr. Dodds stated he does not believe this is true and the article in the Laker last week was skewed and the negatives, for the public side, received far greater press coverage than the City side. Mr. Dodds also stated that there are citizens who believe ballfield property is being taken away from them and there will no longer be anyplace for children to play outside sports. The Commission acknowledged the importance of public relations and the r~ccd to communicate with the public all the changes that are beyond the control of the City, such as the School District Property. This property has been a concern for everyone in the City, but again, the City does not own this land and it is up to the school to decide what they are going to do with it. Ken Custer commented that the City had the opportunity to put out a vast amount of information at no cost where the public does not have that ability. He stated he can write a letter to the editor and it may get published, however, information from the City does get published. Because of this, he does not feel the public has the same opportunity to voice their position of what the City is doing. He stated he has heard a lot of misunderstanding from customers that has effected his business. They are concerned with when he will be leaving, where will he go, and if his warranty of 10-year thermopane will be any good, because he wont be at that location in ten 3. Sharon McMenamy-Cook brought up the fact that when Ken started his business he was told of the Mound Visions Project and tht it would effect the property he was was putting his business at. Mr. Caster stated that he knew the road was going to be re-aligned and had sold the city part of the property to do that. He stated that was the extent that he knew exactly what was going to happen. It was pointed out that the Commission did not know exactly what would happen at that time either, but both knew that area would be under construction at some point. The Commission acknowledged their concerns with misunderstandings of citizens and their willingness to get information out regarding the new development. Mark Brewer pointed out that the business owners and concerned citizens also need to take responsibility and attend meetings regarding the new development. He reiterated that lack of park land will presently effect several sports programs and that is a concern of parents. He suggested that someone from EDC act as a liaison with the school board and other sport groups, to show we are .concerned. By our representative attending some of these meetings it may eliminate much of the wrong information that is being given out. The Community Center property has never been a part of our overall plan and we have not had the authority or ability to be a part of it. It is property that plays a huge part of the Vision portion, but the City does not have any control over it. Fran Clark pointed out that the city did try to purchase that property with a fair offer and the school district turned us down. She stated why should the citizens of Mound now turn around and pay an outrageous amount of money to purchase property they basically already own. Bruce Dodds added by saying Mound should not always have to provide all the community services and parks for not only Mound, but Minnetrista, Spdng Park, Shorewood, and Orono. Each city needs to take responsibility to provide - these services. Fran Clark also stated Bruce and Patty Dodds both stepped forward when Mound Visions became active and stated they wanted to build a new building. She thanked them for coming forward to work with the City in obtaining property. It is not the fault of the City that other business owners did not do so and are now having to work with the developer instead of the City because of the preliminary development agreement. Fran Clark also stated the City Newsletter that will soon be out will contain a lot of factual information regarding the new development. This should help citizens understand the process the City has to go through. It will contain information explaining that the mayor owned the property in question for her business years before the Mound Vision project was developed and she signed a disclosure statement removing herself from any discussions at the City Council and HRA meetings regarding the development project that effects her property. Kandis reiterated that part of the job of the EDC is to be ambassadors for the City on behalf of the project. VVhen citizens bring up information that is incorrect, the members of the EDC should inform them of the correct facts and not in any way fuel the rumors that are being made. Stan suggested we take three Saturdays for citizens to participate in a public quorum. This would give people the opportunity to ask questions and obtain information regarding the project. Scoff Bjorlin asked about the realignment of the road. He was informed that it is scheduled by the County for 2002. Jerry Pietrowski explained that Beard is the prime developer and if he does phase I and that is not successful, we do not know when the second phase will be done. This agreement has not yet been signed and we do not have a second developer interested in this project. Ken Caster again pointed out that the unknown is what is hard to deal with. No set plans for the redevelopment were given to him two years ago when he purchased the property for his business. He stated it still has not been decided whether or not he will need to move his business out of the building he is now in. It is difficult to run a business under these conditions and would appreciate it if the city would come forth and inform him of a suggested figure that will be offered for his property so he can make plans regarding his future. Bruce Dodds answered Ken by telling him that the City cannot tell him what they do not know. The City is not purposely withholding information and they do inform the public as much as they can. The EDC members thanked Scoff Bjorlin, Ken Custer, and Bruce Dodds for attending the meeting and for their input in how to solve some of the problems and misinformation citizens are talking about regarding the new development. It was the consensus of the group to follow through with the following suggestions: 1). Hold public meetings informing the citizens of information as it becomes known to the City. 2). Get the City Newsletter out to the citizens as soon as possible. 3). Utilize Jill Schultz, a professional communications consultant, to interview effected merchants and have it publicized in the local paper. 4). Ask Bruce Charon to represent the school board at some EDC meetings so he can give input from the school. Stan Drahos, in turn, offered to go to some school board meetings and inform them on the updates of the Mound Visions Project. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION made by Stan Drahos seconded by Sharon McMenamy-Cook to approve the March 16, 2000 minutes. The motion was unanimously approved. POST OFFICE SITE UPDATE Kandis informed the committee that the post office has turned down the proposed community center site. Their favored location is the Willette-United properties combined site located behind the shopping mall and across the street from the public works garage. The land is vacant at this point and a professional real estate broker has been assigned to negotiate with the two property owners. There was a tight time frame set upon him to achieve the sale (two week window), because if the post office is not up and running in their new location by June 2001, the City will loose grant monies. If the Realtor is unable to come up with a signed agreement the City is ready to go forward with condemnation proceedings on the two properties. At this time it does not appear they will come to an agreement within the next two weeks. There was a long discussion regarding the possible condemnation of this property. Several members were deeply concerned with this development and questioned whether it was morally right to take property away from Dave Willette and putting his business in jeopardy by giving it to the post office to build upon. Ethical concerns of the city condemning the property Willette had purchased to move his business into once the building he is now in is torn down for the new development were expressed. Jerry Pietrowski stated Dave Willette had purchased this property with this in mind and did not like the idea of taking that away from him. He feels the City should offer him a fair purchase price for his property and land that would be suitable for his business to move to. Kandis Hanson explained that time has gotten away from us and in order to achieve all our goals, obtaining the property will have to take place quickly. We no longer have the option to take more time to negotiate a sale. She explained that the United property would probably be more concessionary but they are asking for an exclusive opportunity to be the developer for the post office and that cannot be guaranteed as the post office has the right to write the specs and will be putting it out for bids. It was the consensus that the commission does represent the City and the citizens. We need to do what does the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people. Mark pointed out that the commission has always kept this in mind. We offered many sites for the post office to choose from and they chose the Willette-United property because it best fits their needs. Fran Clark informed the Commission that the Council does not wish to go to condemnation and they are willing to do everything possible to meet any demand given by Dave Willette. Gino Businaro explained that sometimes the owners of property will prefer to go through condemnation because there are some tax advantages to that. He explained there is a lot of legal aspects to having property condemned and usually the price of property will be much higher because the courts make the decision as to the value and what the City will have to pay. Kandis pointed out that even if condemnation papers are started, the option to come to terms and sell the property to the City is still available. Lonnie Weber requested that when vital decisions and changes are made between meetings, the EDC and Planning Commission be notified by mail exactly what the decisions and changes are and who made them. This would give the members the option to talk to that person if they had any questions and also enable members to give accurate information out if asked about it. Kandis suggested that in order to get the most current information the members should consider attending the HRA meetings. They start at 6:30 on the second and fourth Tuesday of the Month, pdor to the City Council meeting. This is where these items are discussed and anyone attending the meeting will have first-hand information. It was pointed out that even in the minutes, it is stated that if property was going to be condemned, it would be the school site, not Willette's property. The members felt it was the responsibility of Bruce Chamberlain to notify the them of this change. Lonnie explained that he was willing to attend HRA meetings if he knew they were going to discuss topics that effected the EDC, but was too busy to attend all their meetings and did not feel that it was his responsibility to do so. BUY A BRICK UPDATE Lonnie stated there is $6,000 in the program so far. It is important to give the alumni coming to the all school reunion the opportunity to purchase a brick for the new pathway. Caroline Leopold is the chair person for the reunion and would be the one to contact regarding the selling of the bricks to the alumni. We will also have a booth for the City Days Celebration. The laying of the bricks has been postponed by at least one year, because of the changes at the post office site and Auditor's Road. The importantance to get the -- information out to the public regarding this program and the delay of the pathway being laid was discussed. Lonnie will do a write up regarding the update of this program. REVIEW OF THE LANGDON AND MOUND FAMILY HARDWARE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS Kandis Hanson informed the committee that again, we are being backed into the corner by dead lines because of all that needs to take place. Construction will begin on July 1st, which only gives three months for the construction and the move, in order for Mound Family Hardware to open by the first of November. It is important for them to accomplish this because the Christmas Season is a peak season in the hardware business and if they lose out on that opportunity by not being open, it would be devastating to his business. Again, we have to look at ways to expedite this project and deal with all the issues in a timely fashion. DISCUSSION OF UPCOMING PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS There will be a special meeting on Monday dealing with a bio-remediation of the wetlands off Lynwood Blvd. behind the former Tonka Toys building. The unimproved road called Morton Lane has become a liability to Hasbro because it has been determined there is some contamination coming from the Tonka property, through the ground water, and into Morton Lane. Bar Engineering has come up with an innovative plan on how to remediate the situation, by forming a wetlands to screen this out. They already have tentative approval from the DNR and will be presenting their plan to the Watershed District for their approval. A presentation will be done Monday night at 7:30 and the city council, all the boards and commissions have all been invited to attend. OLD BUSINESS None. NEW BUSINESS None. ADJOURNMENT MOTION made to adjoum the meeting by Stan Drahos and seconded by Jerry Pietrowski. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting was .adjourned at 8:30 AM. The next meeting will be May 18, 2000. Sharon McMenamy-Cook will bring rolls. DRAFT LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS 7:00 PM, Wednesday, April 12, 2000 Tonka Bay City Hall CALL TO ORDER Chair Babcock called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. ROLL CALL Members present: Doug Babcock, Tonka Bay; Craig Nelson, Spring Park; Andrea Ahrens, Mound; Tom Gilman, Excelsior; Greg Kitchak, Minnetonka; Lili McMillan, Orono; Tom Skramstad, Shorewood; Herb Suerth, Woodland; Sheldon Wert, Greenwood. Also present: Charles LeFevere, LMCD Counsel; Greg Nybeck, Executive Director. Members absent: Bob Ambrose, Wayzata; Kent Dahlen, MJnnetonka Beach; Craig Eggers, Victoria; Bert Foster, Deephaven; Gene Partyka, Minnetdsta. CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Chair Babcock Babcock announced that the petition to the MN Supreme Court to review the MN Appellate Court ruling on the Lynn Homer case has been granted. He stated that staff would keep the Board informed on the status of this case. READING OF MINUTES- 3/08/00 LMCD Regular Board Meeting. 3/22/00 LMCD Regular Board Meeting MOTION: McUillan moved, Ahrens seconded to approve the minutes of the 3/08/00 Regular Board Meeting as submitted. VOTE: Ayes (4), Abstained (4; Babcock, Gilman, Nelson, and Wert); motion carded. MOTION: Gilman moved, Wert seconded to approve the minutes of the 3/22J00 Regular Board meeting as submitted. Babcock stated although there was not any formal action at this meeting due to the lack of a quorum, minutes were prepared because there were presentations made. VOTE: Ayes (5), Abstained (3; Ahrens, Gilman, and McUillan); motion carded. Suerth arrived at 7:08 p.m. PUBLIC COMMENTS- Persons in attendance, subjects not on the agenda (5 minutes). There were no comments from the public on subjects not on the agenda. CONSENT AGENDA- Consent agenda items identified with a (*) will be approved in one motion unless a Board member requests discussion of any item, in which case the item will be removed from the consent agenda. Nelson moved, Gilman seconded to approve the consent agenda items as submitted. Motion carded unanimously. Items so approved include: lB, 2000 Multiple Dock Licenses, staff recommends approval of 2000 multiple dock license Lake ~%~eto~ka Co~sewatio~ District Regular Board Meeting o,April t2, 2000 Page 2 applications as outlined in 4/7/00 staff memo, 2D, 2000 Liquor Licenses, staff recommends approval of Liquor/Wine/Beer license applications as outlined in 3/17/00 staff memo, 2E, Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol Significant Activity Report, and 4A, Minutes trom the 3/10/00 EWM/Exotics Task Force meeting. PUBLIC HEARINGS · Seanote Cruises, Inc., new on-sale Intoxicating Liquor License application for the charter boat, Halfnote. Babcock opened the public hearing at 7:10 p.m. He asked the applicant and public if they had any comments. There being no comments, Babcock closed the public hearing at 7:11 p.m. MOTION: Ahrens moved, Gilman seconded to approve the new on-sale intoxicating liquor license application, for the 2000 season, for the charter boat Halfnote. VOTE: Motion carded unanimously. · Trillium Bay HOA, new multiple dock license application to reconfigure a conforming facility. Babcock opened the public hearing at 7:12 p.m. He asked the applicant and public if they had any comments or if they would like to provide background at this time. Mr. Chuck Schneider, property manager for Tdllium Bay HOA, spoke on behalf of the applicant. He stated the main purpose for the proposed site plan is to address crosswinds in the area that cause damage to the docks. He suggested this could be accomplished by reconfiguring the existing docks so they open lakeward. He indicated he was present to address questions or comments from the Board or the public. There being no further comments, Babcock closed the public headng at 7:15 p.m. Nybeck asked the applicant to clarify whether the proposal had been' addressed by the Minnetrista city council and planning commission. Schneider stated both the Minnetrista city council and planning commission had reviewed the proposal. He indicated that the city council approved the proposal, subject to acceptance by the District. Wert asked staff for clarification on the breakdown of the length of the currently approved 17 BSU's. Nybeck stated the approved site plan consists of six BSU's that are 32' long, two BSU's that are 36' long, and nine BSU's that are 40' long. He added the proposed site plan would consist of nine BSU's that are 32' long, seven BSU's that would be 40' long, and one BSU that would be 48' long. Babcock questioned whether the breakdown of BSU's and Watercraft Storage Units (WSU's) are accurately reflected on the application. He suggested staff should further investigate this. He added further clarification should be conducted by staff on whether the proposed structure would require an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) because structure and maneuvering space exceed the 20,000 square footage threshold. He expressed concern that the area between the dock and the shore might need to be included in these calculations because there are walkways proposed on both ends of the dock that block this area of the lake off. He suggested that staff should check into this and that a slip size report should be done to verify the square footage of the structure and maneuvering space before there is final Board approval. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting April 12, 2000 Wert asked how the 17 BSU's are disseminated with approximately 40 units in the development. Page 3 Schneider stated that is clarified in the covenants. Babcock cladfied for the Board that the 20,000 square foot tdgger is the requirement for an EAW, noting that it does not preclude the applicant from proposing a structure that exceeds it. He added this requires an additional step in the process and that it would require additional time because of the rules established. He suggested the Board could continue discussion of this agenda item to the next meeting or they could make this a condition of any approval. LeFevere stated he would recommend that staff conduct EAW calculations before the Board makes a decision on the proposed application. He explained that this information should be made available to assist the Board in making a decision. He suggested that if an F_AW needs to be conducted based on staff calculations of the proposed site plan, the Board might want to direct staff to get that process started. Ahrens suggested the Board might want to approve the application as submitted, subject to the calculations for dock structure and maneuvering space not to exceed 20,000 square feet. She stated she would prefer not to bring the applicant back to another Board meeting unless it is necessary. LeFevere stated he believed that could be an option if the calculations are clear to staff. He added that it is possible that staff might need to bdng these calculations back to the Board for interpretation if these calculations are not clear or if an EAW is required. He noted the Board could always require a discretionary EAW, even if it is not required legally. Babcock stated he would prefer that the Board send the proposal back to staff for further analysis and recommendation at the next Board meeting. He added he preferred this because he believed the square footage calculations for dock structure and maneuvering space on the proposed site plan is very close to the trigger point for a mandatory EAW and because of the walkways that enclose the water between the structure and the shore. Schneider stated he believed the applicant would be willing to revise the site plan to have one walkway at each structure rather than two. MOTION: Gilman moved, Nelson seconded to continue discussion of this agenda item to the 4/26/00 Regular Board meeting. McMillan asked approximately how long the EAW process would take. LeFevere stated he believed the EAW process would take approximately 90 days, He added he believed that the. staff report would be available at the next Board meeting in 14 days and that the applicant always has the option to renew their multiple dock license application without change, VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. · Seton View Association, new multiple dock license and variance applications to increase Boat Storage Units (BSU's) at a conforming facility from seven to eight. Babcock opened the public hearing at 7:35 p,m, He asked the applicant and public if they had comments or if they would like to provide background at this time, Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Eioard Ueefing April 12, 2000 Mr. Mike Ronald, 4853 Bartlett Blvd., spoke on behalf of the applicant. He made the following comments: Page4 The Association is currently approved for seven BSU's on four properties that all have riparian rights. He noted they all share a common dock and that they would like to increase BSU's to eight, with the end result of allowing two boats for each residence, · In the fall of 1999, they surveyed the shoreline at the 929.4' N.G.V.D. elevation and determined that they have 382'. He added based on the 1:50' General Rule, he believed the number of BSU's allowed at this property would be eight. · The preferred location to store this additional BSU is in the 30' minimum side setback to the east. He added that they had submitted an application for variance from LMCD Code for side setbacks for this location. He noted they preferred to use this location rather than to the west because it would not require additional structure to be constructed. · He asked for questions or comments from the Board. Babcock asked Mr. Ronald if they were making application to place the structure either on the east-end of the existing dock structure or on the west-end. Ronald stated that the Association had not made application to construct additional structure on the west-end because of the costs involved. He noted because the new dock structure could cost around $8,000, the Association believed it made more sense to make application for variance from Code. He added that they believed that additional structure would be hazardous to the environment. Babcock asked what physical hardships are associated with the variance.application.'. .. Ronald stated he believed there is shallow water and converging lot lines in the area. He added that the next neighbor to the east, James Morgan, has swamp in front of his property and currently does not have a dock installed. Wert asked for clarification on how many boats are currently being stored at the approved site plan. Ronald stated that the facility is currently approved for seven BSU's but that the structure could handle eight. Nelson asked for clarification on the optional BSU that is drawn in the inside of the proposed structure. Ronald stated if the preferred choice to the east is not granted a variance from Code, that this is the second choice for the additional BSU. He continued there could be some water depth concems with this location. Mr. James Morgan, 4841 Bartlett Blvd., stated he had no agreement or disagreement with parking an additional BSU on the east-end of the dock. He added he would be concerned if changes on the Association property because had an effect on his legal dghts. Babcock clarified that he believed what had been proposed by the applicant would not change what Mr. Morgan was allowed to do on his property. He stated that what has been proposed is a side setback variance from the double side setback requirements in the Code. Ronald stated that the shoreline documented on the 1989 survey, 382', is consistent with the shoreline documented on the survey of the proposed site plan. Babcock asked for clarification of the proposed 382' of shoreline an,:l whether it included the meandering shoreline and the shoreline from the islands. ,,,. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting April 12, 2000 Page 5 Kitchak asked Babcock whether the Distdct has changed how meandering shoreline is counted in the last year. Babcock stated that how meandering shoreline is counted for multiple docks has changed in the Code by taking into account the straight line measurement of the two end points for the site. He added the Code states that if the meandering shoreline at the 929.4' N.G.V.D. exceeds the straight -line measurement by 125%, the Board has the capability to take into account how the shoreline is accounted for and whether it should be adjusted. He noted the Code takes into account emergent vegetation and that the usable shoreline is not necessarily consistent with the shoreline platted at the 929.4' N.G.V.D. He suggested the Board needed to discuss this Code section and determine how it would apply the proposed application from Seton View Association. Ronald stated that they had been working on the proposed applications since the fall of 1999 prior to the Code changes. LeFevere questioned whether the meandering shoreline Code provision would apply to the proposed applications. He stated that it appears as though the proposed applications are for the consolidation of the dock use areas for four parcels or lots. He noted although they might not comply with the 1:50' General Rule because of the Code change for meandering shoreline, the Code has exceptions that allows for up to two watercraft per residence, without reference to ownership, and four watercraft per residence, provided they are all owned and registered to residents of the site. He clarified that although the consolidation of dock use area might not comply with the 1:50' General Rule, they are required by Code to get a multiple dock license when five boats are more are stored at the site. He suggested from a policy standpoint, the Board might not want to discourage the entitlement of residents for exceptions to the General Rule just because residents consolidate dock use areas. Babcock stated he believed the interpretation of the Code from LeFevere was that if the shoreline in question was under common ownership in an association, that the 1:50' General Rule would apply. He added because the shoreline in question in this case is under individual ownership control, they could qualify for exceptions to the General Rule for the consolidation of dock use areas. LeFevere stated that if the Board is uncomfortable with this policy, the Board might want to consider amending the Code. He noted the current Code has an entitlement that goes with the platting of a lot that is not strictly dependent on the amount of shoreline associated with it. Babcock expressed concem that the interpretation of the Code by LeFevere would encourage bowling alley type lots at the city level. He added he believed that type of policy has not been the intent of past Board for the management and development of outlots. Gilman stated that he believed any Code amendment might want to take into account a minimum 50' lot width. Babcock stated he would prefer that the Code state that all of the lots in question for the combined dock use area need to meet the minimum lot width requirements for the city. He added that if one of these lots does not meet this requirement, that he believed the 1:50' General Rule should apply. He stated he was unaware of a practical application around the lake where a multiple dock license was granted for a combined dock use area that did not comply with the General Rule. LeFevere questioned whether the Board had considered an application for multiple dock license using this exception. He stated in the case of combined dock use areas, he questioned whether the Board intends to have a policy for multiple dock licenses that does not allow combined dock use areas to take advantage of the exceptions to the General Rule. La~,e t~nneton~,a Consewat~on Regular Board Meeting April 12, 2000 Page6 Babcock stated that it appears that the usable shoreline at this site on the edge of the emergent vegetation is quite a bit less than the meandering shoreline. He noted he believed this is the first example that the Board might need to adjust the amount of shoreline as adopted by the Board in the fall of 1999. LeFevere stated in the policy adopted in 1978 for the 1:50' General Rule, there were exceptions grandfathered for lots already platted. He suggested the applicant should clarify when the lots in question were platted. Ronald stated he believed the Association was being discriminated against because they had a multiple dock license rather than being considered single-family homes. Babcock stated he did not believe they were being discriminated against because the dock in question should have been approved for a dock length variance. He noted a dock length variance has not been previously approved and that the Board has struggled with this. Kitchak questioned whether the length of this dock should originate from the mainland or from the island. He noted on the approved site plan, it appears to originate from the island rather than the mainland. He questioned whether this should be corrected because the dock actually originates from the mainland. Ronald asked how the Code would be interpreted if individual docks were extended from each property in question.' Babcock stated the Code would allow a dock to extend into the lake the same distance as lhe amount of shoreline at the 929.4' N.G.V.D. He added that any length required beyond this would require a dock length vadance and that up to four watercraft could be stored at these docks, provided they are all stored in the authorized dock use area and that they are all owned and registered to the residents of the site. He stated he believed there is not a practical means to get an individual dock out beyond the wetlands without each residence getting a separate variance. Ahrens reminded the Board that Ceil Strauss, MN DNR Area Hydrologist, stated that the District would be hard pressed to deny these lots reasonable access to navigable water. Babcock stated the Board in these types of situations in the past has not denied reasonable access to navigable water. He noted the Board has in some of these cases restricted the number and size of watercrafts stored at dock length variances. He added the Board has generally encouraged residents to combine dock use areas as done in this example. Ronald stated that it appears as though the Board was discussing the location of BSU's rather than the number. Babcock stated he believed there are three issues that need to be discussed when reviewing the proposed applications. He noted they include: 1) whether the District should have granted a dock length variance when it was initially approved, 2) is there sufficient shoreline under current shoreline calculations rules to support eight BSU's, and 3) at what locations would these eight BSU's be stored and whether they would require a side setback variance. He noted staff raised the 100' dock length issue in 1999 and he stated he believed it medted further discussion by the Board. Ronald stated he believed when the property was originally developed, he believed the MN DNR required the developer to find a place within 100' to place a piling. He noted he believed this place was from the island and that he believed the District also approved this condition of the MN DNR. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting April t2, 2000 Page 7 Babcock stated he would prefer that the applicant get a an approved variance for dock length after the fact to protect themselves in the future. He noted he believed this would be consistent with the intent of the District ordinances today. Ronald discussed grandfathefing of docks on Lake Minnetonka and the fact that most of them are not consistent with the current District ordinances. Babcock stated when a facility on Lake Minnetonka is grandfathered because it does not comply with the current Distdct ordinances, it is not allowed to expand the number of boats stored at the facility. Wert asked Babcock what he believed the Board should do with the proposed applications. Babcock stated he believed the Board should determine whether a dock length variance is required for this facility. He added he believed the Board should also determine whether an additional BSU should be allowed at this site and where this BSU should be located. Wert stated he believed a length vadance would not medt significant discussion because the dock has been there for several years and because the dock is permanent in nature. Babcock stated he would be comfortable with the Board approving a length vadance for seven BSU's. He added the question for the Board is whether to approve an additional BSU at this dock facility. Ahrens questioned whether the Board would be restricting one of the four residences to one boat if they alt came in for individual dock length variances. Babcock stated it is possible that all four lots could be restricted one boat if they came in for individual dock length variances. McMillan stated she would encourage the combination of dock use areas when there is emergent vegetation similar to what is the situation in the proposed application because it benefits the lake. She noted she did not have problems with the Board granting a length variance; however, she stated she believed the Board needs to determine the number of boats to be stored at the dock. Babcock stated the Board has typically placed boat size restrictions, such as 10' x 24', when the Board has granted dock length variances. He noted the applicant has proposed 33' long slips at the proposed facility. He questioned whether this is consistent with how the Board has granted length variances in the past. McMillan expressed concern with the proposed side setback variance to the east. She stated she believed · maintaining the integrity of the Code is important to the District and that it would not set a good precedent for the lake. Ronald stated the Association would be willing to drop the vadance request; however, they would still like to have the additional BSU by relocating it elsewhere. He noted he believed the Association is unique to the lake because they are the only multiple dock facility with the residents in question owning lakeshore frontage. Babcock stated he believed there are other homeowners associations on the lake that have similar circumstances. He used Gideons Point HOA in Tonka Bay as an example. He asked for LeFevere for direction on how to proceed with the proposed applications. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District ~ ~,' ,,~ ,~ Regular Board Meeting April 12, 2000 Page 8 LeFevere stated the only new Code provision for the Board to discuss is how to measure meandering shoreline and how much credit they should receive. He added he believed the Board might have made a mistake in the past by not granting a length variance and the Board might need to discuss any restrictions that could be applied to it. He stated .. he believed there is a hardship to grant the dock length variance after the fact; however, the Board needs to determine how much of a variance should be granted while keeping in mind the spirit and intent of the ordinances. He stated he believed the proposed side setback variance is a financial hardship and that it does not qualify as a physical hardship. Gilman asked if all eight boats to be stored at the proposed dock would be owned by the residents of the Association. Ronald stated that is a requirement of the covenants of the Association. Babcock asked how the Code would be interpreted if the Association allowed for the storage of boats that were not residents of the Association. LeFevere stated that would depend on when the lots were platted. He noted if the lots were platted prior to the date of adoption of the 1:50' General Rule in 1978, there was an exception for up to two boats. He added if the lots were platted after this date in 1978, there are no exceptions and all boats need to be owned and registered to residents of the site. He concluded otherwise, the 1:50' General Rule would apply. Babcock asked if the Association documents have restrictions on how the number of BSU's is distributed. Ms. Jan Trapp, 4869 Bartlett Blvd., stated that each of the four residences is deeded a certain number of boats in the covenants through a common dock. Babcock stated he believed the Board has received sufficient testimony and that there are number of issues that have been discovered that cannot be resolved tonight. He suggested these applications should be sent back to staff to allow them to come back with a clearer picture on whether seven or eight BSU's should be approved. He asked if there is any additional input from the public. Trapp stated that she had met with staff on several occasions and that she would like their recommendations. She noted that she believed staff recommended that they proceed with the applications that have been submitted. Nybeck stated the recommendation from staff was that the applicant not make application for vadance from Code for side setbacks. He noted that staff would not recommend an application be submitted when they recommend denial of it. ' Babcock stated the Board has raised the question relating to dock length this evening. He noted staff raised this in 1999 and that he believed the Board should address it. Suerth asked who is currently short a BSU at the site. Ronald stated when he pumhased the house, the covenants indicated that his residence only had one BSU. Suerth asked if the Association would be willing to consider a compromi~.e in order to get the eighth BSU, such as restricting boat length as a possibility. He noted most residents on the I~ke do not have two 33' long boats. There being no further comments, Babcock closed the public hearing at 3:40 p.m. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting April 12, 2000 Page 9 MOTION: Wert moved, Kitchak seconded to table further discussion of this agenda item to a future meeting to allow staff to resolve the pending issues discussed by the Board. VOTE: Ayes (4), Nayes (5; Ahrens, Babcock, Kitchak, Skramstad, and Suerth); motion to table denied. Kitchak stated he voted against the motion because he wanted to give staff direction on what needs to be resolved. He questioned whether the side setback vadance request could be approved because the only apparent hardship is financial. He added he would like to see staff come back with other alternatives that do not require a side setback variance. Babcock stated he understood the applicant would not like to have the second alternative option considered by the Board until the variance request to the east is denied. He added if they would like the altemative option considered by the Board, he would like that formalized by the applicant. Kitchak stated he would like to see the applicant submit an application for variance from Code for dock length to resolve the issues. He noted this was reviewed in 1999 and that the records should be cleaned up. He stated he believed there needs to be additional discussion on how to measure the meandering shoreline and whether an additional BSU should be approved at the facility. Ahrens questioned why the Board is delaying the approval of the proposed applications. Babcock stated he believed there is no way to add a conforming BSU to this facility without the Board granting a variance for dock length. He noted the applicant has not made application for this to date. Ahrens stated she believed there is adequate information provided by the applicant to consider the request for variance from Code for dock length. She added the Board might want to discuss the merits of whether an additional BSU should be approved at the facility. McMillan stated she believed the Association should make application for a dock length variance. She added if they can store an additional BSU without infringing on the required minimum side setbacks, she would be in favor of this. She noted she believed this is the time to clean up the facility procedurally. Nybeck stated staff brought up the issue of dock length when the Board approved the changes for the applicant in 1999. He noted a dock length variance application was originally submitted when the dock was approved; however, it was withdrawn for unknown reasons. He added staff believes this is the time to correct the records. Ronald stated that although the facility does not comply with Code for dock lengths, it currently complies with Code for number of boats stored and minimum side setback requirements. He noted the vadance application for side setbacks to the east could be withdrawn. Babcock questioned whether the District should approve the additional BSU when the covenants clearly state that one of the residences is only authorized for one BSU. He stated it appears as though the applicant is looking for the District to resolve their problems. LeFevere stated because the applicant has made application to increase the number of BSU's out beyond the authorized dock use area, he believed they need to make application for dock length. He suggested the public headng notice does not reference variance for dock length and that the current application should be amended and published properly. He recommended that the Board not require an additional variance application and that the existing application be amended. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting April 12, 2000 Page 10 The consensus of the Board was to send this agenda item back to staff to allow the applicant to amend their application for variance to include dock length. The Board directed staff to properly publish public hearing notice for the 5/10/00 meeting and to work with the applicant in submitting an amended site plan for the additional BSU. The consensus of the Board was that a side setback variance would not be granted for the request to the east. The Board requested the applicant provide the date when the lots in question were platted. MOTION: Gilman moved, Skramstad seconded to continue further discussion of these applications to a future meeting. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. 1. WATER STRUCTURES A. Excel Marina, consideration of new multiple dock license application to reconflgure a non-conforming structure (previously tabled by the Board on 2/24/99). Babcock asked for background on this agenda item from staff. Nybeck provided the following background: · A public hearing was conducted on 2/24/99 to consider the reconfiguration of a non-conforming structure on St. Albans Bay. He noted the facility is approved for 84 BSU's and that the proposed reconfiguration focused on the six BSU's to the east of the main structure. · It was discovered at this meeting that the proposed dock structure might encroach in the dock use area of a firelane that was between the two dock structures in question. He noted this dock use area was granted an adjusted dock use area variance and that the six BSU's proposed for change to the east are required to meet minimum side setback requirements from it. He added that the remaining 78 BSU's to the west are not supposed to encroach in the dock use area of this firelane. · At the 2/24/99 meeting, the Board was unable to determine whether these conditions were met in the proposed site plan because the applicant had not submitted a survey with to-scale drawings of both dock structures. He noted the applicant has recently submitted this survey. · The survey highlights that the structure to the west does not encroach in the dock use area of the firelane and that the proposed structure to the east would meet a 15' side setback. He added the proposed application meets the Code requirements outlined in Section 2.015. He stated he believed one final question was whether the 15' setback from the eastem docks should be doubled because it is a multiple dock abutting a non-multiple dock. After discussing this issue with LeFevere, he believed it does not need to be doubled because the shoreline of the firelane is defined as commercial property and that it does not need to be doubled. · He entertained questions or comments from the Board on the proposed application. Babcock asked for clarification from LeFevere whether the double side setback provisions in the Code apply to commercial properties that abut non-commercial properties. LeFevere stated in the proposed example, the setbacks do not need to be doubled because the property in question is defined as commercial. Babcock clarified that if the shoreline in question were abutting a non-commercial, non-multiple dock facility such as a single family home, the minimum side setbacks would have to be doubled..He noted those Code provisions Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting April 12, 2000 Page 11 do not apply in this case because the Code defines this shoreline as commercial because it is included in the shoreline calculations for the City of Excelsior. MOTION: Gilman moved, McMillan seconded to approve the new multiple dock license application to reconfigure a non-conforming structure for the 2000 season. VOTE: Motion carded unanimously. C. Ordinance Amendment, Second reading of an ordinance relating to the density of watemraft storage on Lake Uinnetonka; amending LMCD Code Section 2.11 by adding new Subd. 6. Babcock introduced the agenda item by providing some background and overview of it. He suggested there is a need to review the language of Subd. 6 a) (iii). He expressed concem that this clause might preclude some members of the public from utilizing the proposed Code amendment if adopted by the Board. Wert asked for the intent of this section of the Code amendment. LeFevere stated the intent is to not allow more boats than the number of units approved for development on the site, as the site was platted in 1999. He added the intent is also not to allow additional acreage to be added to a site in the future. He noted the language was drafted with the assumptions that the conversions would originate from a commercial facility and that there would be no residences on site. Babcock questioned how this language would be applied if an application were received by a developer before they have had their proposal reviewed by the respective city. McMillan stated she understood the intent to be to restrict one watercraft per residential unit on the site. LeFevere stated he took the intent a step further by not allowing the applicant to expand the acreage of the site that was grandfathered in. Babcock stated he had three other areas of the ordinance that he believed should be changed. He noted in Subd. 6 a) (i), he believed the word "licensed" should be inserted after units. He added in Subd. 6e), he believed slip sizes rather than boat size should be restricted. He stated this based on practical experiences by the District, he believed the slip size restriction should be 10' x 24' LOA, with a 4' overhang. He noted this concept was included in the process to reconfigure non-conforming facilities on the lake. He concluded that he believed language should be added to the ordinance amendment that requires adequate water depths to support the facilities. McMillan expressed concern with the language that would allow one restricted watercraft for each 20' of shoreline. She stated she believed that this figure is tied to nothing specifically other than a pending application. She encouraged the Board to establish a number that can be logically explained. She expressed concern with losing commercial facilities on the lake because they provide access to the lake and because they provide a number of services. She concluded she was interested in looking at the conversion of use provisions in the Code; however, she preferred the Board take a look at what the marina's does for the lake by establishing a Task Force. Babcock stated the reason why the commercial marina facilities on the lake are considered legal, non- conforming is because of the adoption of the 1:50' General Rule. He added later on, special density Code provisions provided an exception that allowed them to be considered conforming facilities, provided they do not Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting April 12, 2000 Page 12 exceed the density of 1:10' and provided they have public amenities available for the increased density. He suggested the further the BSU density goes away from the 1:50' General Rule, the smaller the boats stored at the site should be. Fie expressed concern with the Code amendment as drafted because slip sizes are not being properly restricted. .* McMillan stated she would prefer to get away from counting shoreline and establishing arbitrary numbers. She suggested the District should take into account what commercial marinas need to survive and stay healthy for the services they provide. Babcock questioned whether the marina owners would like the District to dictate market values of their propedies. He suggested this should be left up to the market. He stated he believed the District should evaluate how changes could have impact on the lake on a lakewide basis. He noted he would prefer a 1:25' number because it would provide a one step process to get non-conforming facilities closer to conforming Code for density. He stated this because it would allow the facility twice the density allowed under the 1:50' General Rule and it would have less impact on the lake. He concluded he believed this would be a reasonable approach based on practical experiences on the lake. Wed stated he believed the task at hand for the Board was to evaluate the Conversion of Use Code provisions of the Code. He questioned whether there is a need to study the viability of commercial facilities at this time. Mr. Gabbriel Jabbour, Owner of Tonka Bay Marina, expressed concem that the draft ordinance amendment has been driven with one developer and application in mind. He stated he believed this process would benefit from having input from all the commercial marina owners, not just the developer of the pending application. He recommended the attomey might need to further define what constitutes a site. He concluded he had concem with the potential limitation of slips widths of 10' x 24' because of market demands on the lake. Babcock stated he believed the 10' x 24' limitation for boat structure is based on past practical experiences. He noted he would like further explanation why if this is not reasonable. Jabbour reminded the Board of the size of the boats being stored at commercial marinas on the lake. He re- stated his concem that the ordinance amendment is being drafted with one application in mind. Babcock stated if the Board decides to change the conversion of use Code Section by allowing additional boats to be stored beyond the current 1:50' General Rule, he believed it is reasonable to restrict boat lengths within 10' x 24' slips, with 4' overhangs allowed. He noted he believed anything above this would be for financial incentives. He stated the Board has used this in the past, citing Groveland HOA as an example. He concluded that if it were not reasonable, he would like to get clarification. Jabbour stated in the Groveland HOA example, he believed the 10' x 24' restriction was reasonable because the boats in question were stored on slides. He added the boats in question at commercial facilities generally would be much larger, with some of them being 70' in length. Suerth stated he believed that boat size restrictions should be a compromise in residential situations where an application deviates from LMCD Code. Babcock stated that the developer could apply under the current 1:50' General Rule and not have any size restrictions. He added if the developer desired to go with a density greater than the 1:50' General Rule, he believed it is reasonable to limit the size of boats based on practical experiences. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting April 12, 2000 Page 13 Mr. Paul Pederson, owner of Grays Bay Madna, stated he believed the 10' x 24' slips size restriction might be too limiting for what the public wants on Lake Minnetonka. He suggested the Board might want to be more liberal on this aspect of the ordinance amendment. He added he believed the ordinance could take into account that no variances would be granted and that a percentage of the shoreline must be cleared of docking. McMillan stated using the 1:20' storage rule, there could be some situations where a site with a larger amount of shoreline with a smaller site could make application for all the boats allowed by Code. She questioned whether this would be practical. Skramstad questioned whether the 10' x 24' restriction would be practical for Lake Minnetonka. He suggested it might be more practical to have a sliding scale for the size of boats being stored based on density of the shoreline. McMillan asked what section of the Code the Pelican Point HOA site was approved by. LeFevere stated they were approved under the section of the Code that provided an exception for non- continuous shoreline. He noted this allowed shoreline to be transferred from the island provided a number of conditions were met. He noted some of these conditions included that the source site needed to be within 150' of the main site, that half of the shoreline credit from the island could be transferred to the mainland, that the target density could not exceed 1:35', and that the island needed to be left in its natural state. Nelson stated he did not have concern with 32' long boats being stored at the sites that would benefit from the draft ordinance amendment. He expressed concern with regulating the size of boats on the lake because he believed they would be getting bigger in the future. Babcock re-stated his concem with storing larger boats, side to side, if the Code is changed to allow boat storage density at these sites to 1:20'. Kitchak stated he had not made a decision on the proper boat storage density; however, he understood the concerns raised by Babcock. Babcock re-stated that the 10' x 24' slips size restrictions is not an arbitrary number but is based on practical experiences. He noted he believed a 32' long boat with no restrictions on slip size cannot be stored on a practical manner at the 1:20' density. The consensus of the Board was to take no action on the second reading of the ordinance amendment, to send it back to include changes recommended by the Board, and to bdng back the ordinance amendment with changes to the next meeting. D. Additional Business. McMillan stated that Mr. Gary Bdggs, owner of Wayzata Madne, has recently purchased Lakeside Madna in Orono and has some public safety concems with how the inner slips at the facility navigate out to the east near to the abutting neighbors dock to the east. She noted she would like to have preliminary discussion on how the concerns could be resolved in the short-term for 2000 to allow Mr. Briggs how to evaluate this on the long-term. Babcock stated the facility in question was granted a side setback variance on the east side of its dock use area some years ago, with limited side setbacks on the west side. He noted the problem side is the east-side, where some the inner BSU's are having problems navigating out because the property owner to the east has installed Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting April 12, 2000 his dock at the minimum side setbacks required by Code for the common extended side site line. that because of boats being stored at the east-end of the multiple dock facility at slip 36, they are having problems getting boats out from the inner slips. Page 14 He suggested Mr. Gary Briggs, owner of Wayzata Marine, stated that in addition to slip 36, slips 18 and 19 are problematic because of navigation and public safety concerns. He noted he believed that these BSU's might need to re- located to create a navigational channel for the inner slips. Babcock stated from a practical matter, it might make more sense for Mr. Bdggs to re-locate these BSU's to the west-end of the property because the adjacent property is the Maxwell Bay public access. The consensus of the Board was that Mr. Briggs should submit new multiple dock license and variance applications to address his concems at a Board meeting in the near future. Weft left at 10:25 p.m, e LAKE USE & RECREATION A. Ordinance Amendment, First reading of an ordinance prohibiting anchoring and rafting in public safety lanes; adding new Subd. 25 to LMCD Code Section 3.01 (consideration of LMCD Resolution 97). MOTION: Nelson moved, Kitchak seconded to approve first reading of the ordinance amendment, VOTE: Motion carded unanimously. MOTION: Gilman moved, Kitchak seconded to approve Resolution 97 as submitted. VOTE: Motion carded unanimously. B. Hennepin County Environmental Division, consideration of request for $2,500 for the placement, removal, and cleaning of regulatory buoys in Cruiser's Cove. Babcock stated that Hennepin County did not have funds budgeted in 2000 for these expenses involved in the placement, removal, and cleaning of these buoys. He noted they have requested assistance from the District for this in 2000, with the idea that they would budget for this in future years. MOTION: Nelson moved, McMillan seconded to approve $2,500 to the Hennepin County Environmental Division for the placement, removal, and cleaning of regulatory buoys in Cruiser's Cove for 2000. VOTE: Motion carded unanimously. Review of draft policy relating to the issuance of Intoxicating Liquor licenses for charter boats on Lake Uinnetonka. The consensus of the Board was to move this agenda item to later in the meeting and discuss it. F. Minnesota Lakes Association (MLA), update on MIA proposal to revise Minnesota State Statutes 86b, "Surface Water Use Policy". This agenda item was tabled to the 4/26/00 Board meeting, Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting April 12, 2000 G. Additional Business. There was no additional business. FINANCIAL A. Audit of vouchers (3/15/00 - 3/31/00) & (4/1/00- 4/15/00). Nelson reviewed the audit of vouchers as submitted. MOTION: Gilman moved, McMillan seconded to approved the audit of vouchers as submitted. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. B. February financial summary and balance sheet. Page15 Nelson recommending tabling discussion of this agenda item to the 4/26/00 Board meeting. MOTION: Gilman moved, UcUillan seconded to table discussion of this agenda item to the 4/26/00 Board meeting. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. C. Additional Business. Nelson stated that the draft 1999 LMCD audit would be reviewed at the 4/26/00 Board meeting. 4. EWMIEXOTICS TASK FORCE B. 3/10/00 EWU/Exotics Task Force meeting report. There was no meeting report. C. 2000 EWM Harvesting Program, staff overview of project. Nybeck stated that he believed discussion of this agenda item could be moved back to the 4/26/00 Board meeting. MOTION: Gilman moved, Nelson seconded to table discussion of this agenda item to the 4/26100 Board meeting. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. D. Additional Business. There was no additional business. 5. ADMINISTRATION A. Consideration of staff recommendation for compensation adjustment part-time Administrative Clerk Jan Briner. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District ,-' Regular Board Meeting April '12, 2000 MOTION: McMillan moved, Skramstad seconded to approve a compensation adjustment for part-time Administrative Clerk Jan Briner from $11.60 to $12.10, retroactive to 3/10/00. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. Page 16 B. Staff update on vacant Administrative Technician position. Nybeck stated that he and Board members Babcock and Nelson recently interviewed the final two candidates for the vacant position. He noted it was the consensus of the Seamh Committee that both candidates were qualified for the position and that staff was authorized to hire either one of them, with the position being offered to Judd Harper. He provided background on Harper, noting he has a bachelors degree in Urban Planning from St. Could State University. He noted in addition to his educational background, he has significant public sector background through internships at the City of Mendota Heights, City of Medina, and the City of Sauk Rapids. He concluded that references were checked on Harper and that he has agreed to accept the position at an annual salary of $29,000, with performance reviews after six and 12 months, and benefits consistent with the personnel. MOTION: Gilman moved, Skramstad seconded to enter into an employment agreement with Judd Harper as Administrative Technician for the Distdct at an annual salary of $29,000 effective 5/1/00, with performance reviews after six and 12 months, and benefits consistent with the District personnel policy. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. B. Additional Business. There was no additional business. The Board agreed to move back to agenda item 2C. 2. LAKE USE & RECREATION C. Review of draft policy relating to the issuance of Intoxicating Uquor licenses for charter boats on Lake Minnetonka. LeFevere stated in order to draft a policy relating to the issuance for liquor licenses on charter boats, he believed there are a number of questions that need to be resolved that he needed Board direction on. He noted he wanted to at least introduce these questions to allow the Board to get their thought process going. He stated he believed four basic questions in this policy need to be addressed. He noted these questions include: 1. How to deal with a renewal situation which involves the same person and same boat. 2. How to deal with a situation that involves same person but different boat. 3. How to deal with a situation when a license is sold without a boat. 4. How to deal with a situation when a license is sold with a boat. '~ He stated he believed that these last two questions are more difficult than the first two. He questioned whether the Board desires to adopt a policy by allowing a charter boat owner to sell a boat with the liquor license as an asset of the company. He noted he believed there are two distinct differences for the Board to consider when issuing liquor license on the water when compared to land. He stated they include the boat is not substantially altered like an establishment ison land and he believed there are not quite the hardships on the water as compared to land because a boat can be transported to another location. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting April 12, 2000 Page 17 Ahrens left at 11:21 P.m. Skramstad and Nelson left at 11:21 p.m. and 11:23 p.m. respectively. Babcock noted a quorum was no longer in attendance at the meeting. The remaining dialogue at the meeting generally focused on whether the liquor license should be considered an asset in the sales transaction of a charter boat. The Board discussed this generally with the current owner and prospective owners of the charter boat owned by A Day in the Sun Charters. The consensus of the Board was to continue discussing this agenda item at the 4/26/00 Board meeting. 6. SAVE THE LAKE Them was no discussion. 7. EXECUTIVE DIEECTOR EEPORT Them was no Executive Director Report. 8. OLD BUSINESS Them was no Old Business. 9. NEW BUSINESS Them was no New Business 10. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chair Babcock adjourned the meeting at 11:51 p.m. Douglas Babcock, Chairman Eugene A. Partyka, Secretary Hay 18 2888 1G:3G:Z2 Via Fax -> Handis Hanson AMM FAX lie May 8-12.2000 (no. 2) Page 001 0£ 081 Association of Plctropolitan gunidpalitie Transportation Bill passes Public Finance Bill Highways are a big recipient in the legislation The Omnibus Transportation Funding Bill contains a total of $596 million for various transporta- tion related items. This includes $405 million general fund cash, $91 million trunk highway fund appro- pdation and $100 million trunk highway bonding. The bill tips significantly to highway funding (only $20 million for Metro Transit). Specifics of the bill include: · $10 million for bus garages. · $6.3 million for transit ways. · $3.7 million for regular route deficiency funding from last year. · $5 million forAdvantages for Transit. · $177 million for metro area bottlenecks and $177 million for outstate corridors. · $39 million for local bridges. · $100 million in bonding for trunk highway construction. · $23.8 million for county roads. · $6.2 million for city roads. · $15 million for revolving loan fund. A_~.l~l ]Vews Far is foxed to all A.~I.~ 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 A.~I.~! 145 University Avenue West St. Paul, MN 55103-2044 Phone: (651) 215-4000 Fax: (651) 281-1299 E-mail: amm~gamm14 5. org · $25.7 million for buildings. · $4.8 million for trunk highway construction sales tax replacement. The remaining $2.5 million plus $1.6 million in cancellations was appropriated for various studies and a small increase in outstate transit. The original language killing LRT was deleted. Also, in last minute maneuvering Tuesday evening $44 million cash was inserted in the Bonding Bill (HF 4078) for construction of a bus transitway. This bill passed just pdor to 7 a.m., Wednesday, May 10. R.S.V,P. deadline for Annual Meeting is Friday If you haven't already, call now to make your reservation for the AMM Annual Meeting on Thursday, May 18 at the Sheraton Midway Hotel in St. Paul. The evening begins with a social hour at 5:30 p.m., dinner at 6:30 and the business meet- ing to follow at 7:30. Rep. Ann Lenczewski is the keynote speaker. Please call Laude Jennings (651-215-4000) by Fdday, May 12 if you plan to attend. still in committee The Public Finance Bill (SF 3730/HF 4090)is still in confer- ence committee. It contains $19.4 million in metro bonds for busses plus a possible $40 million per year in metro capital bonding authority for bus garages, etc. It is uncertain at this time if the bill or these provisions will survive for consideration Wednesday, May 17, when the legislature recon- venes to consider possible veto overrides. Tax Bill sent to the governor for approval The Tax Bill doesn't include: · Levy limits. · Reverse referendum. · More market value limitation. · Metro Transit property tax replacement. · General small city LGA in- crease. · More sales tax exemptions. Specifics included in the bill are: · Small LGA increase for Osseo, Kelliher and Darwin. · Income tax reduced .15%, .20%, .15% to 5.35%, ?.05% and 7.85%. · Small mardage penalty credit expansion. · Sales tax rebate equal to about 40% of last year's (about $660 M). · Auto license tab reduction. Year 1 - current, year 2 - max of $189, year 3-10 - max of $99 and year 11 - current $35. c--~'~ - AMM FAX lie May 8-12, 2000 Page 881 0£ 881 Association of getropolitan Hunicipalities Vote on Tax Bill expected Tuesday Tohe conference committees met ver the weekend and should finish their work today. Votes on the major tax and appropriation bills are scheduled for Tuesday, May 9. The schedule is designed to allow the legislature the opportunity to attempt to override any vetoes by the govemor. Being aware of the number of legislative days remain- ing and the fact that the govemor has three days to sign or veto a bill, the legislature will probably adjourn until next week and if needed attempt to overdde a veto. Although there are no official written conference committee reports, the following summary of the Tax Bill is based on committee action through noon May 8. NO 2001 LEVY LIMITS As a result of the three-part agreement to spend $175.0 million of permanent funds among the House, Senate and the governor, the Tax Bill does not include exten- sive tax rate compression. There- ~lM /Vews !~o~: is faxed W all A.~I.~f cit~ managers and administrators, legislative contacts and Board members. Please share this fax with p~our mapors, councilmembers and staff to keep them abreast of impor- tant metro cit~ issues, ~Cop~right 2000 AMM 145 University Avenue West St. Paul, M.N' 55105-2044 Phone: (6519 215-4000 Ear: (6519 281-1299 £-mail: amm~mm145.org fore, levy limits for 2001 are not in effect. The status of the limits in future years will be dependent upon such factors as the govemor's 2001 tax reform plan. SALES TAX REBATE The bill does include a sales tax rebate that totals approximately $700.0 million. The average rebate could equal half of last year's total. The checks, which are being paid with onetime money, should be mailed in August. There is also a farm rebate. INCOME TAX REDUCTION The bill reduces the income tax rates for all three income tax tiers. The exact rate reduction for each tier has not been announced. It is probable that the permanent reduction will use most of the $175.0 million. LGA INCREASE FOR SOME While there is no property tax compression, there are several property tax related items in the bill. Many of the property tax provisions address local issues. For example, there is a Local Government Aid (LGA) increase for individual cities including Osseo, Kelliher and Darwin. There is a special levy provision (if limits are imposed) to permit a city to levy to finance certain utility costs associated with highway improvements. The proposal to modify the class 4d property tax impact aid was not approved, but the House language that folds the aid into the LGA formula is included. AMENDMENTS TO TIF The TIF article includes numerous technical amendments modifying county notices and waiver dates. The bill also repeals the mined underground space district, amends the definition for redevelopment district to include oil storage facili- ties, adopts the redraft of the report- ing requirements and clarifies the duration limit for economic develop. ment districts. The limit will be eight years after the receipt of the first year's incre- ment. In addition, the base inflator has been repealed. The TIF article also makes sev- eral changes to the TIF Act that permit use of TIF for affordable housing that may be located outside the project area. OTHER CONFERENCE COMMITTEES The Transportation Conference Committee has scheduled another meeting for later today. The commit- tee has agreed to appropriate $405.0 million in onetime money for highway corridors, bottlenecks, bridges and local roads. The amount of funding for transit projects has not been finalized. The Bonding Conference Commit- tee will reconvene at 5 p.m. today. There is a spending target but the committee is still negotiating a final capital budget. Mau 85 Z888 14:41:45 Via Ya× AIVIM lie May 1-5, 2000 (no. 2} -> Hanson Page 881 Of 881 A ociation of Hetropolitan Hunicipalities Comprehensive plan forum set for May 16 Aetropol~an Council presentation n comprehensive plan monitoring is scheduled for Tuesday. May 16 from 8:15-9:30 a.m. at the League of Minnesota Cities building All members are invited to attend. Please call the AMM (651-215-4000) by Friday, May 12 to reserve a seat. Call now to attend AMM Annual Meeting If you haven't already call now to make your reservation for the AMM Annual Meeting on Thursday, May 18 at the Sheraton Midway Hotel in St. Paul. A social hour will begin the evening at 5:30 p.m., with dinner at 6:30 and the business meeting at 7:30 p.m. Please call Laude Jennings (651-215-4000) by Friday, May 12. AMM .News Fax is faxed to all AMM cily managers and administrators, legislative contacts and Board members. Please share this fax v~ith your mayors, councilmember$ and slaff lo kee~v them abrea$1 of im~oor- lant metro oily issues. ~Copyright 2000 AMM 145 University Avenue West St. Paul, .~I.N' 55105-2044 Phone: (651) 215-4000 Fax: (651) 281-1299 E-mail: amm~amm145, org Legislature nears adjournment With four legislative days remain- ing, the 2000 Legislature could adjoum within the next week Adjourn- ment is contingent upon the comple- tion of several outstanding issues. Among them are the form and amount of the rebate, the capital budget and thetax and appropriations bills. Based on the agreement to allocate $175.0 million to the House, the Senate and the governor, the confer- ence committees will attempt to complete their work by eady next week. Among the issues to be re- solved are: LEVY LIMITS Depending upon the amount and type of tax relief - property or income - there could be an argument for no levy limits. For example if there were a minimum of property tax compres- sion and change, levy limits would not be needed. TAX INCREMENT FINANCING (TIF) The TIF subcommittee has met several times to discuss the vadous issues and take testimony. While no final subcommittee report has been made the major issues seem to be the proposed amendments to the duration limits for economic development districts and special laws. TRANSPORTATION If the tab fees are reduced as proposed by the govemor, the issue of replacement revenue must be re- solved. The original tab proposal included a constitutional amendmentto dedicate a portion of the motor vehicle tax to replace the lost revenue. PUBLIC FINANCE The Public Finance Bill is in confer- ence committee. The bill authorizes $19.5 million in additional bonding for regional transit, permits counties outside the metropolitan area to estab- fish Economic Development Authorities (EDA) and allows a city to consider the transit opt-out alternative BUSINESS SUBSIDY The bill passed the House with the economic development related language contained in the Omnibus Appropria- tions Act. The Senate bill does not contain the amendments. A conference committee has been appointed to resolve the differences. It is possible that the conference committee report could remove the additional amendments and limit its work to the business subsidy amendments The major differences are the subsidy threshold, the required content of the wage goals and the retroactive report- ing. RE LIEVER AIRPORTS The bill (HF 849) requires legislative approval to reclassify an airport from a reliever to an intermediate airport. The difference between the two airport types is runway length (5,000 feet). The Senate bill includes the airport mitiga- tion program for the cities located adjacent to or near the international airport. The bill will be subject to a conferen ce committee. The legislature has completed action on numerous bills. Since April 17, 34 bills have been sent to the govemor for approval. Of the 34, 25 have been signed into law, two have been vetoed and seven are pending action. Among those awaiting action is the Public Corporations Bill. The Data Practices Conference Committee has completed its work and the House and Senate next week should discuss the committee report. ~dminis~ra~or FRIDAYFAX A weekly legislative update from the League of Minnesota Cities Page 881 0£ 881 Number1. May 5,2000 Thirty-three and a thirdm Solution or confusion? This week, the Senate, governor, and House agreed to a 1ragile com- promise of how to use the perma- nent $549 million state surplus. Each ol the three parties will designate how their $175 million share is to be allocated ($24 million has already been accounted/or through the passage oi Katie's Law on predatory o//enders and build- ing a state-wide criminal justice database). Events at the Capitol over the past two days, however, make the details appear even more con/using than be/ore the compromise was an- nounced. As ol Friday, the picture looks like this: · Governor's Share Probably reductions in license tab fees with a back/ill ol revenue into the Highway User Trust Fund. The governor has alluded to an alternative where he might reserve the money 1or his "big plan" relorm package scheduled /or the 2001 session. · House Share Probably will be dedicated to a package of permanent income tax reductions. · Senate Share Will likely be used to increase lunding/or education, nursing homes and environmental spending. The Legislature is also discussing how to divvy up the available one- time resources. Although the House and Senate have agreed on a one- time sales tax rebate, the House supports a larger rebate while the Senate supports additional spend- ing/or education and other uses. To add additional conlusion, even the size of the bonding bill has yet to be linalized and the contentious issue ol light-rail transit has not been lully resolved. Among the initiatives that appear to be out ol the picture are the House's proposal/or phase three/or prop- erty tax reform and the Senate's proposal for more Local Govern- ment Aid/or small cities. I1 phase three property tax relorms are dead, we hope levy limits will also be allowed to sunset. During the mark-up ol the House tax bill, Committee Chair Ron Abrams described lew limits as a transi- tional tool/or implementing prop- ert¥ tax relorm. I! no transition, no transition tool can be justilied. Conlerence committees have been instructed to meet over the week- end and wrap up their bills by noon on Monday. The House and Senate are scheduled to meet in lloor sessions on Tuesday. But until leadership agrees on spending targets/or the one-time money among the various bills, it will be di//icuit/or conlerence comm~ees to make much progress. In addition, there are only three legislative days remaining this session. With liEle time remaining, don't be surprised il the whole thing 1ails apart again. Will tab cuts equal municipal state aid cuts? Now that the Senate, House, and administration have agreed to the one-third, one-third, one-third split oi ongoing lunding, public policy watchers are questioning how the details will be worked out. One ol the options the administration is considering/or its third is reduc- tions in license tab lees. Among the biggest concerns with using $175 ' million for tab cuts is how the state will address the potential hole in ongoing transportation lunding. While several legislators have supported a constitutional amend- ment to dedicate MVET revenues to transportation lunding rather than to the general lurid, it is unclear whether the administration's proposal will secure MVET revenue /or roads. One possible compro- mise being discussed would main- rain the current tab fee structure and dedication, but would provide tab lee reductions to individuals via an o//set credit paid/rom the state's general lund. This is a variation on a bill ollered this session by Rep. Ray Vandeveer (R-Forest Lake). The status ol additional one-time transportation /unding is similarly unclear. The governor and [he Senate want a greater share ol any resources dedicated to transit, while the House wants to provide most o1 the one-time money/or transporta- tion project acceleration and con- gestion mitigation. Without su//icient transit resources, the governor could choose to veto any bill. Call the governor and your legisla- tors this weekend and early next week urging them [o protect ongo- ing transportation lunding. GIS bill Language previously included in the GIS liability bill, introduced by Rep. Holberg (R-Lakeville) and Sen. Hot~inger (DFL-Mankato), has been incorporated in [he omnibus data practices conlerence commit- tee report, which was agreed [o Wednesday. The report now moves to the House and Senate lloors. For more tnformatton on city legtslattve t~sues, contact any member of the League of Mtnne$ota Cltte$ Intergovernmental Relattons team. flag 15 Z888 13:53:07 Via Fax -> fl&ministrator Page 881 0£ 881 145 University Avenue We~t, St, Paul, 3'IN 55103-2044 Phone: (6:51) 281-1200 (800) 925-].122 Fa×: (65]) 281-1299 TDD (65]) 2~;]-~1290 Web Site: Special Monday FAX IMPORTANT: Legislative Review Session Changes Due to the delayed conclusion of the 2000 legislative session, we have cancelled the regional legislative review sessions in Crookston and Chisholm that were scheduled for this Tuesday. May 16 and Wednesday, May 17. If you pre-registered for either ot these sessions, we will send a refund in the near future. If you know of someone who is planning on attending, but has not pre-registered, please let them know of the cancellation. The regional sessions scheduled next week in Benson, Owatonna and St. Paul are unaffected by this change. They will be held as scheduled. If you would like to register for any of these sessions, please see the registration form in the Cities Bulletin. For those who planned on attended the Crookston and Chisholm sessions and for those who were unable to attend any of the regional sessions, we will be conducting an identical legisla- tive review track at our Annual Conference in St. Cloud in June. The St. Cloud review is scheduled for Wednesday, June 14 at 3:15 p,m. In addition to the St. Cloud annual conference legislative review session, we will be preparing a full review on new laws affecting cities for the May 31 Cities Bulletin. Bills await governor's signature The governor has until today to act on the vast array of bills passed by the House and Senate during the marathon session held last Tuesday and Wednesday. The legislature is scheduled to reconvene this Wednesday for what will undoubtedly be one of the last days of the 2000 legislative session. After last Tuesday's session, the House and Senate recessed until this Wednesday to potentially override vetoes and act on other unfin- ished business. Although the legislature will not likely adjourn on Wednesday, they cannot meet beyond next Monday, which is the constitutional deadline for legislative adjournment. We will provide an update on the outcome of today's bill signings or vetoes in this week's edition of the Cities Bulletin. 145 University .Avenue ~7'est, St. 12kul, MN 55103-204,4 Pl~one: (651) 281-1200 ($00) 925-1122 Fax: (651) 281-1299 TDD (651) 251-1290 '~lTe~, ~ite: httv:/&,~,~,.lmnc.o~g Special Wednesday Update Note: This update may arrive before you receive this week's Cities Bulletin and it is intended to supplement that information. Early Wednesday morning, the House and Senate completed work on the major tax and spending bills. The breakneck pace was necessitated by the desire of legislative leaders to be able to override any gubernato- rial veto of the major tax and spending bills. A consti- tutional provision gives the governor extra time to act on bills passed in the last three days of the session. Without action on Tuesday/Wednesday morning, the constitution allows the governor 14 days to act on bills. Floor activity on Tuesday and early Wednesday was punctuated by numerous recesses where leadership had to negotiate contentious unresolved issues between the House, Senate, and Governor's office. The bonding bill was held up over a disagreement on whether a portion of the governor's share of the budget agreement would be used for metro busways. The education bill was delayed several hours due to a disagreement between the House and Senate over the future of the Profiles of Learning. To make matters worse, the House spent time debating a proposed constitutional amendment for a unicameral legislature, only to have a minority report adopted that re-referred the bill to the Ways and Means Committee. The committee did not meet and the bill appears to have lost the eighth of its nine lives. The House and Senate adjourned until Wednesday, May 17 at 11:00 a.m. This brief recess will allow the governor to act on the bills passed to date. In addition, there are bills remaining that have not been passed by both bodies and there will undoubtedly be lobbying for action on these bills. With these variables, it is unclear exactly when they ,.,,,ill adjourn sine die. We hope to have a complete summary of new laws available in the Cities Bulletin in the next few weeks. Latest Activity Update Final action was taken on the tax bill, the transporta- tion bill, the education bill, the supplemental appro- priations bill and the bonding bills. Most major provi- sions are summarized in the May 10 edition of the Cities Bulletin. Following is a summary of the Housing funding provisions of the omnibus supplemental spending bill that were agreed to isle yesterda) after- noon. Funding for housing production and homeless preven- tion includes: · $50 million to be transferred from TANF for an affordable housing program - of which $20 million is an interest-free loan to Habitat for Humanity and $30 million to finance rental housing serving families assist low-income households; · $500,000 from federal welfare reform (TANF) funds for family homeless prevention and assis- tance; · $200,000 for ~buthBuild; · $175,000 base level funding for the Home Share Program. The legislature also created two supportive housing and managed care pilot projects, one of which will be located outside the Twin Cities metropolitan area. The projects will study whether integrating employment, health care and supportive services will reduce spend- ing for homeless assistance, increase employment and provide alternatives to current services to individuals and families requiring intensive case management and services. The legislature also appropriated $5.6 million for the state's Family Investment Program (MF1P) to cover the cost of eliminating a requirement that $100 a month be deducted from MFIP grants for low-income families who reside in subsidized housing. SPECIAL MONDAY UPDATE Legislature Moves Forward The weekend was bustling with legislative activity az most of the major conference committees reconvened for the first time in several weeks. Leadership established noon today (Monday) as the deadline to finish the omnibus tax and spending bills. Both the House and Senate will then attempt to pass the conference committee reports on the major bills on Tuesday. Tax Conference Committee The Tax Conference committee met on Saturday for 7 hours and completed work on most of the non-monetary provisions. Included in the Saturday agreement was a sunset of levy limits, the elimination of the House reverse referendum provision and the removal of the Senate Local Government Aid increase for small cities. The committee adopted the governor's proposed license tab fee reduction, which will limit automobile license fees in the second year to $189 and in the third and subsequent years to $99, The "backfill" revenue source is a statutory dedication of motor vehicle sales tax to the highway us~r tax distribution fund. In the first two years, the bill will transfer a set mount of revenues and in the third and subsequent years, 32 percent of the motor vehicle sal~s tax will be transferred. The statutory dedication could create long- term problems for the highway user tax digtribution fund. The L~gue and oth~' organizations argued for a constitutional dedication of funds to replace the lost revenues in order to preserve transportation 145 University Avenue West, St. Paul, MN 55103-2044 Phone: (651) 281-1200 · (800) 925.1122 TDD (6 1) 281-1290 I.MC Fa.,,: (651) 281.-129{2) · ].2qCiT Fax: (651) 281-1298 Web ~ite: http;//www.lnm¢.org funding. In addition, the growth in the motor vehicle sales tax revenues has been slower than the growth in the license fee revenue. In other words, the highway user tax distribution fund will ultimately have less revenue under the governor's proposal. TiF provisions adopted Over the weekend the tax conference committee reached an agreement and adopted the tax increment provisions that Will be included in the omnibus tax bill. One &the more notable provisions modifies the ~onomic development district duration. In final form, the language r.eveals the 11- year from TIF plan approval rule, provides for an 8-year from receipt &first increment ~uration, and allows a 3-year payback per.'W, d for violations occurring before June 1,'2000. Another provision that has generated considerable discussion is a correction of a previous cross-referencing mistake that allows taxpayers to bring private lawsuits for damages for TIF violations involving the collection of increment, Most &the concern revolved around the fact the original retroactive application of this provision. Ulfim~ately, it was decided that this provision would apply only to violations occurring after final enactment. Please look for a more detailed overview &the TIF prOvisions in the upcoming issue of thc C#i'es Bulletin, What's Out la addition to abandoning levy limits and reverse referendmn, the Conference committee did not adopt any &the prol~rty ehs. sification changes or the limited market value modifications contained in the original House tax bill. The Senate truth-in-taxation changes including the provision that would AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER ~W -lO 3{'19¥3'3 Wt~80:~ 00, 80 At~W . ~..~..0.. s3IilD have allowed local units of government to use the internet W provide taxpayers budget and levy information and the exemption from the hearing requirement were also abandon~l. Other Conference Committees The primary task of thc 2000 Legislature is to build a capital improvement package. As of this morning, the Omnibus Bonding Bill, HF407g/SF3gl l, is still being discussed. The original bills authored by Representative Knoblach CR-St. Cloud) and Senator Berglin (DFL-Minneapolis) contained $532 million in spending recommended by the House and $764 million in spending recommended by the Senate. The most recent information on the bill includes funding for Wastewator Infrastructure Funding, State Revolving Loan Fund, Public Saf~, Facility. Grants, Rural Finance A~thority' Loans, and Local Government Roads Wetland Banking Funding. However, a disclaimer on the accuracy of this information is necessary. According to the Senate and House Capital Improvement Committee staff, the most recur publicly released offers by the House and Senate are obsolete and the final deal must mill be reached. The transportation conference committee did not officially meet over the weekend, but House and Senate leaders negotiated throughout the weekend. Senate Transportation Finance Chairman Dean Johnson, DFU-Willmar, and House Transportation Finance Chairwoman Carol Molnau, R-Chaska, released details on the final bill late Saturday. The bill, HF 2891/SF 3793 appropriates mom than $500 million in road and bridge construction and keeps funding for light-rail ~ansit intact. The package includes funding for transportation projects over the next three years. Conferees have agreed to split the money as follows: · $177 million to eliminate bottlenecks on Twin Cities area freeways. ~ $177 million to improve highway ~oh-idors connecting Greater Minnesota regional centers. · $I 00 million in highway bonds that M~IDOT would use to finance other road and bridge projects. ®' $i~0 mi]Ii.on to repair and replace local bridges. s.$30 million in .Cate aid for city streets and count)' roads. Thc final agreement no longer contain language repealing the authority and funding for light rail transit. Two issues remain outstanding. The first is {!~ Administration's request for an a~lditional $I00 million for transit projects. Th~ second is whether to ask voters to approv, c a constitutional amendment dedicating a portion of the sales tax on cars and mlcks (MVET) to the state highway trust fund, The omnibus state government spending conference committee met over the weekend. The bill includes policy and appropriation changes in the areas of jobs and economic development, judiciary, ..,agr. i¢.ulture, natural resources, health and human services, and state depa~i~uents. There are several items of inter~st to cries th~ are currently in this bill including funding for low-income housing through f6deral'welfare r~form (TAN"F) funding, design-build prohibition, employer reference liability, $1 million for shelters for youth prostitutes and at-risk youth, and $30,000 for matching grants for drug enforcement The education conference committee met all day Saturday and all evening Sunday until 1':00 am Monday and was scheduled to meet ~ih ~his morning. A separate conference committee is working on changes to the K- 12, gra~uafion standards, known as the profiles of learning. CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAY~NOOD ROAD MOUN D, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 " FAX (612) 472-0620 May 5, 2000 Re' Bailey et al. v. Lien et al. Court File No: MC97-15540 Our File No: BE295-34 Dear Mound Resident: We are writing to bring you up to date on the City's efforts to construct multiple slip docks at street ends in Woodland Point neighborhood. As you know, litigation concerning the Commons has been ongoing since 1997. After much effort, the parties to the lawsuit worked out a settlement agreement, which was signed by almost all of the owners of property in Woodland Point. Under the settlement agreement, the City will construct and administer multiple slip docks at street ends on Wawonaissa and Waurika Commons. The City is not required to do this bm agreed to do so to help resolve the legal dispute. Judge Lange held hearings on the settlement agreemem, and on March 20, 2000 issued a decision approving it, subject to approval by the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) of variances which are needed for construction of the docks. As soon as the City received the Judge's decision, we contacted LMCD in order to be placed on its agenda. We learned that the first meeting at which the LMCD Board could hear the City's variance applications is its meeting on May 10, 2000. The variance applications will be heard at that meeting. The LMCD meeting will be held at 7:00 p.m. at the Tonka Bay City Council Chambers (4901 Manitou Road). We have projected how long it will take to build the stairways and docks, assuming LMCD approvals are obtained. We have assumed based on the information we have received that the LMCD will not take final action on the City's variance requests until it holds a second meeting (on May 24, 2000). Assuming approval is granted, the City would immediately take actions necessary for construction of four sets of stairs (which are required by the settlemem agreement) printed on recycled paper and for construction of the docks. Completion of the engineering work for the stairs would take a couple of weeks. Contracts for the stairs construction would be awarded by mid-$une. Construction work on the stairs would begin in late June and would be completed by mid-July. Because of their possible cost, state law requires the City of obtain competitive bids for the purchase of the docks. Bid specifications must be prepared and approved by the City Council, and the availability of bids must be published twice in newspapers. Bids must be received and reviewed, and the contract must be awarded to the successful bidder. Then, that bidder must assemble and install the docks. We are anticipating that bids would be received by about July 10, 2000, and that a contract would be awarded and the dock work would be completed by mid- August. As mentioned above, state law requires that the City received competitive bids for contracts exceeding a certain amount, and sets out the steps the City must follow. We will make every effort to obtain the LMCD approvals and to proceed expeditiously. Very Truly yours, James Fackler Mound Park Director CC. Tom McCaffrey Karen Cole File SOUTi-lV/EST ETRO DRUG TA SK FORCE P.O. Bo× 4~". Ch~k~, I~linne~o~ ~5~18 Phone (6, 12) ~6, I -&900 · (6, 12) Fax ~ ! -6901 To: From: Chief Len Harrell Mound Police Departmem 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Sgt. Stephen K. Grand Mound Police Department 5341 Maywood Road May 16, 2000 Please the Mound Police Department I have on my severance compensation an~yeques~gat a.t~.~the~a~ of my final paycheck. I have also talked with ~:~ ~.~ ~C~:Maaager re~dmg the at~er rettremem insurance benefit ~:c~a is ~ negotiat~*~ time at th~.d~~has been enjoyable but it is time to My move on to other Thank you for support and friendship. Sincerely, Stephen K. Grand cc: Public Employee's Retirement Association Law Enforcement Labor Services 3670 Gettysburg Avenue South #60 · St. Louis Park, MN · (612) 935-2106 May 8, 2000 Dear Chief Harrell, I would like to thank you for the opportunity given to me as the Community Service Officer with the Mound Police Department. The past five months have been a fantastic learning experience for my career in law enforcement. During this time I have dealt with many diverse situations which have helped me grow as a person and my law enforcement career. I leave with mixed emotions in hopes to reach my goal of becoming a police officer. Az we discussed on May 5, 2000 Deephaven has anticipated my hiring date for May 22, 2000. My last day will be May 20, 2000 with the Mound Police Department. I will try to be available during Mound City Days to volunteer if my schedule allows. I would like to thank you again for the experience that was given to me in this positior~ Sincerely Yours, Matthew P. Cams me before HR. 3709 could be consid~ sioz~ surfaced Senate. Senators Enzi and ere& ties on the nee~ Vo'movich R-Ohio) have filed a During six hours of heated address the cone Mayor Ted Tedesco speaks out against a rule that could adversely ~ct ~ g~~ Mayor Blasts OSHA at Ergonomics Headng Mayor Ted Tedesco of Ames, Iowa was in Waahinff~on, D.C. last week to testify on ]~half of NLC at the Depart- merit of !~hor on the Occupational Safety and Health Arlmini.~a~ion's (OSHA) proposed rule on ergonomics. The mayor testified before an OSHA-appointed panel and an ~rlmlni.~'ative law judge. Spe~irin~ for cities nation- wide, he argued that the rule should be withdrawn because 31 Mayor Focus On I. Thirty-one mayors met the challenges of malrir;.. Mayor Rudolph Giulia= net in his official reeide~ stressed that as mayors it ~lly rigid when trying to problems. "You don't find During the welcoming s utive director, commended cern and commikment to t ticipants represented citie geographic spread includ~ North Carolina, talked about the r~-~ of eminent and the need to of many of those services. This evont related to t~~ ities: helping city officiaJ serving as an advocate fm cities. Following the pro., on the lessons learned fro~ Mayor Bret Schundle: philosophy that power sh Ii! Metropolitan Council Working for the Re!~ion, Planning .for the Future May 11, 2000 To: Metropolitan Area City, Township and County Administrative Staff As you were previously informed, the Metropolitan Council will be making one appointment to the Metropolitan Parks and Open Space Commission. Minnesota laws require that the appointment process include holding a public meeting to invite participation and recommendations on the appointment fi:om local government officials and the general public. A public meeting for this appointment has been scheduled as follows: 7 p.m., Wednesday, May 31, 2000 New Hope City Hall 4401 Xylon Avenue North, New Hope For your information, enclosed is a list of the names, addresses and background of each of the candidates who have applied for this position. A map showing the geographic make-up of the district is also enclosed. In addition to testifying at the public meeting, local governments may submit their recommendations in writing to the Metropolitan Council, attention Julie Opsahl, council liaison, at the address below or via fax (651/602-1358). The deadline for written comments is May 26. Please note that this information is being sent to you as the chief administrative official for your local unit of government. I would, therefore, appreciate your assistance in bringing it to the attention of the elected officials in your jurisdiction. The Metropolitan Council would sincerely appreciate receiving any advice and recommendations that you. would like to make on this appointment. It is anticipated that the Metropolitan Council will act upon the appointment in June. Sincerely, Ted Mondale Chair 230 East Fifth Street St. Paul. Minnesota 55101-1626 (6511 602-1000 Fax 602-1550 .nn F. nuat Opponun~ ~ 'FDD/'ITY 291-0904 Metro Info Line 602-1888 METROPOLITAN PARKS AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION (MPOSC) APPLICANT SUMMARY COMMISSION DISTRICT A (Metropolitan Council Districts 1-2) CASEY, Thomas 2854 Cambridge, Mound, 55364; Legislative District 34; Metropolitan Council District 1. A practicing attorney, Mr. Casey has legal background in the areas of land use, real estate, and environmental law, and has represented numerous conservation organizations in their efforts to protect open space. Mr. Casey is a member of the City of Mound Park and Open Space Commission, the Citizen's Advisory Committee of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, the Board of Directors for 1,000 Friends of Minnesota, Inc., and the Board of Directors for the Minnesota Land Trust, West Metro Chapter. ELSTAD, Dean 7964 Mississippi Lane, Brooklyn Park, MN 55444; Legislative District 48A; Metropolitan Council District 2. Mr. Elstad has been a resident of Metropolitan Council District 2 since 1990 and currently is the Recycling and Trails Coordinator for the City of Minnetonka. HARTMAN, Hilmer 17501 Dayton River Road, Dayton, MN 55327; Legislative District 33; Metropolitan Council District 1. Mr. Hartman is a lifetime farmer and resident of Dayton. He has held elective office for 38 years and currently serves on the Dayton City Council. WICKLUND, Robert 11748 Red Fox Drive, Maple Grove, MN 55369; Legislative District 33; Metropolitan Council District 1. Prior to his recent retirement, Mr. Wicklund acquired 30 years of experience in local government, primarily in the management of park and recreation systems. In that time he worked in the communities of Booklyn Park, New Brighton and Robbinsdale and, most recently, as director of administration for Hennepin Parks: 5/11/00 mtrOnolitan Parks and Open Space mrission District Boundaries ~August 1999 Anoka Metropolitan Council 0 5 10 t5 20 25 Mites ~ 'r~ ~ 16 Metropolitan Paxks and Open Space Commission District Boundaries Westonka Healthy Community Collaborative Minutes · April 21, 2000 Present: Patricia Anderson, Cathy Bailey, Sarah Baker, Sue Cathers, Bill Erickson, Lenny Harrel, Margaret Hoiste, Kathy Jones, Patsy Kiesow, Carol OIson? Sandy Olstad, John Rogers, Jeanne Stortz, Sandy Rauschendorfer, Carolyn Schmidt, Mary Goode, Jeannette Metz, Leah Weycker Guests: Kathy Lentz - United Way Additions or Changes to the Agenda or Minutes: There were no changes to the agenda or minutes. Announcements: We talked about the direction given to the executive work group at the last WHCC meeting regarding the next step for the community gathering place requests. They decided to invite representatives from the cities in the area to a lunch meeting to discuss the needs of our residents that were debated at the last WHCC meeting. That lunch took place on April 19th at the Library. Jeanne did a great job of presenting the gathering place information and some background on the WHCC. Some good ideas were generated at the lunch. The old community center property was discussed. Limited size and the uncertain ownership of the property was limiting any plans for that site. Cheryl Fischer, Minnetrista Mayor, talked about five acres near the WRA Park. With the rapid development of the area, it w, ill not appear to be "so far out there". We discussed the transportation issue. Trolly cars sponsored by advertising could be a good way to transport people. The Met Council could address transportation issues. This will be explored more. What is the WHCC's role? NYPUM will be done on a smaller scale this summer. We are sharing a spot with Orono so each of us can send about 7 kids. All possible referral makers will be sent information on how to proceed. Be thinking of kids to be referred to the program. Strategic Planning (part 2): Kathy Lentz from the United Way walked us through day two of Strategic Planning. We brain stormed ideas about our top 4 community priorities. 1. Substance Abuse, 1. Domestic Abuse, (top two issues tied) 2. Stuff for Kids to do - Adults too, 3. Community Pride. The brain stormed lists follow. Strategic Planning WHCC Substance Abuse: · Support Tobacco Free Future group -ask them what we can do -link to Hennepin Co tobacco $ · Ordinance to ban smoking -calling trees -strategize best way to make it happen -letters -use data -start small (parks, sporting events) · Marijuana -increasing* · No beer (City Days) at beer garden -the message to youth -too radical -responsible drinking focus at event(s) -reminders: posters -have other things to do · Youth activity organized by youth · Youth make decisions on how to address drinking -breathalyzer at door of youth events -alcohol fi'ee events (messages) for youth · How do we change culture of acceptance? -education-ads, billboards · Identify places to reduce drinking in public areas · What is our message? -responsibility -against it -underage use -adult use -support/role of progress for those who want to quit - don't want to start. · -you are a role model - you send a message · Educate Parents -make them responsible for underage · Support/Encouragement for parents who are saying "no" and want to take responsibility. Top Four Priorities Meeting --April 21~ 2000 Domestic Abuse: · Stickers/cards with hot line # and message · Use data- it is happening here · Education - a community effort -video- cable TV -play -speakers · Violent Video Games- 7 what to do -educate on the dangers · Educate on "what is abuse?" · Bring information to where people are -half time -PTA -adult Sunday school -parties · Moratorium on "bad" video games -most are in homes -rental places -enforce ratings · Alternatives to playing video games -tips / ideas to parents / youth -dangers of desensitization · Domestic summit idea -taking pictures of damaged property to use as evidence. -victim sign the release immediately · Connect with Sojourner Strategic Planning Top Four Priorities WHCC Meeting --April 21, 2000 - page 2 Stuff for Kids to do - Adults too · Outdoor Skate park · Teen center · Involve youth, put them on the committee · Swim raf~ at Mound Bay Park · Skating on Lake Minnetonka · Refreshment stand/restrooms at M°undBay Park · Theater · Community Center ........ '- "~ · Fitness- expand at high school · Bike trail · Sports Center · Super Saturday at high school -classes for family · Community Classes for families · Non alcohol events · Support for businesses where 'kids hag out Our job-talk to any kid, any time about ina'ppmpriate behavior · Block parties '- '~ · Youth -your community is ,vat;hing you;~76i~ are s~fe · Out door concert -battle of the bands -alcohol fi~'e Community Pride: · Gathering place · Schools are doing a good job · Saying positive things - continuously · Support group for parents of older youth - brings people togeliier '~ :"- ' · Self esteem issue · All giving same message-raise the bar ~-Talk about-the progress/the successes · Let's be who we are - "We are Westonka" campaign · Support clean up events · Get major media out here · Take "our community" wherever we go · successful vs. happy youth .i MARK SAMTERMAN C.P.A. DIAMOND HILL CENTER 4301 HIGHWAY 7 SUITE 100 ST. LOUIS PARK. MN 55416 May 4, 2000 TELEPHONE (612) 920-8282 Kandis Hanson City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364-1687 Mound Liquor Store 2324 Wilshire Blvd. Mound, MN Dear Ms. Hanson, I own the Shoreline Plaza Shopping Center where the Mound Liquor Store is located. The City of Mound has been very good to me over the years and it has always been a pleasure to work with the City. I hope in the future you and I can develop a business relationship that is as good as several of your predecessors. I have not had an oppommity to meet you and I know you have a lot of things to address at the present time in your new position. I am writing you to inform you of the facts and rumors as I know them regarding Shoreline Plaza so that we both can make intelligent business decisions in the future. The Mound Liquor Store lease will expire 12/31/02. It has been discussed for several years that the City wanted to expand this business and really wanted to have their own building. I have also heard minors that the City may consider relocating into the new shopping center in the downtown area. I have spoken to Joel at the Mound Liquor Store who indicated that 7,500 sq f~ is probably more in line with the needs versus the 2,855 sq. ft that is leased from me. I have been approached by Westonka School whose lease at Shoreline Plaza expires 2/9/03. They would like to expand and would like to wait until your lease expires or sooner if possible and sign a 7-10 yr lease. Long term leases from my perspective are good and bad. Generally you receive less rent but you have more stability. I do not believe there is enough space on the comer lot where Rite Away Oil is located to build you a larger facility nor would you enjoy the rent that I would have to charge on a new building. I believe thc best thing for me is to begin negotiation with the school believing that the Mound Liquor Store may vacate in the near future. As this may be a year and a half or less in the future, I need to know your intentions so that I can respond to the Westonka School district. If you do not know, due to your new position, or the Mound City Council cannot advise you at this time, I will continue negotiations with the Westonka School district. If we do conclude a lease, I will notify you so that there will be ample time to relocate the liquor store. If there are other options, such as the liquor store leasing additional space in our center with a long term lease, or any other ideas that you may have, please let me know. I would like the Mound Liquor Store to remain an anchor in the shopping center as I believe it compliments the other tenants located within the property. I would be happy to arrange a meeting at your convenience. MAS/vl Sincerely, Mark A. Saliterman Owner