The URL can be used to link to this page

2000-12-04PLEASE TURN OFF AT CELL PHONES & PAGERS IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS. AGENDA MOUND CITY COUNCIL MONDAY, DECEMBER 4, 2000, 7:30 PM MOUND CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS *Consent Agenda: Items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered routine in nature and will be enacted by a single roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Council Member or Citizen so requests. In that event the item will be removed from the Consenl' Agenda and considered in normal sequence. 1. OPEN MEETING - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE PAGE 2. APPROVE AGENDA, WITH ANY AMENDMENTS CONSENT AGENDA A. SET PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. CASE # 00-59: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - 1800 COMMERCE BOULEVARD - JOHN PASTUCK: DEC 12 CASE # 00-68: PRELIMINARY PLAT - CHESTNUT HILL - BRENSHELL HOMES CASE # 00-35: PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AREA - CUP - CHESTNUT HILL - BRENSHELL HOMES B. MINNEHAHA WATERSHED DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS 4770-4773 ACTION APPROVING NON-PHOSPHORUS DECLARATION ACTION APPROVING STORMWATER FACILITY MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT ON ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA. (LIMIT TO 3 MINUTES PER SPEAKER.) o PUBLIC HEARINGS A. TRUTH IN TAXATION 4774-4778 Bo STORM WATER MANAGEMENT FEES: ACTION ON RESOLUTION SETTING STORM WATER FEES 4779-4783C PLEASE TURN OFF AT CELL PHONES & PAGERS IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS. Co PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS 4'/84-4906 1. CASE # 00-66: ZONING AMENDMENT - METROPLAINS I)EVELOPMENT - NW CORNER OF LYNWOOD DR AND COMMERCE DR: ACTION ON RESOLUTION CASE # 00-65: PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AREA - CUP - METROPLAINS DEVELOPMENT - NW CORNER OF LYNWOOD DR AND COMMERCE DR: ACTION ON RESOLUTION CASE # 00-64: PRELIMINARY PLAT - METROPLAINS I)EVEI~OPMENT - NW CORNER OF LYNWOOD DR AND COMMERCE DR: ACTION ON RESOLUTION CASE # 00-71' STREET/EASEMENT VACATION - METROPLAINS DEVELOPMENT - NW CORNER OF LYNWOOD DR AND COMMERCE DR: ACTION ON RESOLUTION o CASE #00-60: VARIANCE REQUEST - 4924 GLEN ELYN ROAD - FRANZ BURRIS 4907-4923 ACTION APPROVING CHANGE ORDER FOR ASBESTOS ABATEMENT FOR COAST TO COAST DEMOLITION ACTION ON DOCK AND COMMONS ADVISORY COMMISSION 4924-4928 RECOMMENDATION FOR 2001 DOCK FEES ACTION ON RESOLUTION APPROVING EXEMPTION OF GILLESPI SENIOR CENTER FROM PROPERTY TAXATION 4929-4933 ACTION ON ETHICS GUIDELINES 4934-4943 INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS A. AMM FAX 4944 B. Senior Center newsletter 4945 C. Meeting suggestions 4946-4654 This is a preliminary agenda and subject to change. The Council will set a final agenda at the meeting. More current meeting agendas may be viewed at City Hall or at the City of Mound web site: www. cityofinound, com. 2 Page 1 of 1 KandisHanson From: To: Sent: Attach: Subject: Kandis, "John Cameron" <jcameron@mfra.com> <Kandishanson@msn.com> Friday, December 01, 2000 12:16 PM bufferdeclaration.doc; Coast to Coast - MCWD Permit The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District approved our permit at their meeting on the 27th of November, but the approval requires the City ratify the attached agreements and have them recorded against the property. I had John Dean review and approve the format of both agreements. They should be ready for the City's approval and submission to the MCWD so we can get our permit to demolish the building and construct the gravel parking lot. John 12/01/2000 NON-PHOSPHORUS DECLARATION THIS DECLARATION ("Declaration") is made as of the 2000, by the City of Mound, a municipal corporation ("Declarant"). of RECITALS WHEREAS, Declarant is the owner of real property within the City of Mound, platted and legally described as Outlot A, Mound Visions Addition the "Property" and Declaring has the full right and authority to enter into this agreement and perform its obligation here under; and WHEREAS, the Property constitutes the entirety of Outlot A, Mound Visions Addition a subdivision as approved by the City of Mound and to which Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Permit Number 00- 359 applies; and WHEREAS, Declarant desires to subject the Property to certain conditions and restrictions imposed by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District as a condition to issuance of their Permit Number 00-359 for the benefit of the Property. NOW, THEREFORE, Declarant makes this Declaration and hereby declares that this Declaration shall constitute covenants to run with the Property, and further declares that the Property shall be owned, used occupied and conveyed subject to the covenants, restrictions, easements, charges and liens set forth in this Declaration, all of which shall be binding upon all persons owning or acquiring any right, title or interest in the Property, and their heirs, successors, personal representatives, and assigns. 1. Non-phosphorus Fertilizer. The use of fertilizers containing phosphorous is prohibited upon all or any portion of the Property. Only fertilizers, which do not contain phosphorus may be applied thereupon. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this instrument the day and year set forth. DECLARANT: By: City of Mound STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )SS COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this __ day of ,2000. Seal: Notary Public This instrument was drafted by Declarant. s:\main:~lou 12544 :\reports\bufferdeclaration STORMWATER FACILITY MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT This maintenance agreement is made this __ day of ,2000, by and between City of Mound, hereinafter referred to as "Applicant," and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, hereinafter referred to as "MCWD," to provide for the maintenance of the stormwater facilities constructed pursuant to Minnehaha Creek Watershed District permit application number 00-359. WHEREAS, Applicant has applied for a permit from the MCWD pursuant to MCWD Rule B, application attached hereto as Attachment 1; and WHEREAS, the property which is the subject of this Agreement is legally described as Outlot A Mounds Visions Addition; and WHEREAS, MCWD Rule B provides, "A maintenance agreement shall be submitted for: stormwater treatment ponds, outlet structures for such ponds, culverts, outfall structures and all other stormwater facilities. This maintenance agreement shall specify methods, schedule and responsible parties for maintenance and must include at a minimum, the elements contained in the District's Maintenance Agreement Form." NOW, THEREFORE IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED by and between the parties 1. Applicant shall inspect the infiltration trench at a minimum of once a year to determine if the trench's percolation and treatment characteristics are adequate. An infiltration trench will be considered inadequate if sediment has decreased the infiltration volume by 1/2 of its original design. Based on this inspection, if the infiltration trench is identified for sediment cleanout, Applicant shall restore the trench to its original design within one year of the inspection date. 2. Applicant shall inspect the infiltration trench in the spring and fall of each year. Applicant shall remove all debris during the inspections such that the trench will operate as designed and permitted. 3. Violation of the inspection and/or maintenance provisions of this Agreement is a violation of the MCWD permit for the project for which the MCWD may take action against Applicant. 4. This Agreement is binding on the Applicant and the Applicant's representatives, heirs, successors and/or assigns. 5. This Agreement shall become null and void if a new permit is issued for the property and a revised maintenance agreement is mutually agreed upon by both parties or when this stormwater facility is replaced by an approved stormwater system. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto execute this Maintenance Agreement. Date: Applicant, City of Mound STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this __ 2000, by day of Notary Public Date: MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT By Its STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ~ 2000, by ., Creek Watershed District, a watershed district of the State of Minnesota. day of , on behalf of the Minnehaha Notary Public THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: The City of Mound s :\main:\Mou 12544 5Reportskstormwateragreement CITY CONTACT A Quarterly Publication From the City of Mound Vol. 12, No. 3 Fall 2000 The City of Mound, through teamwork and cooperation, provides, at a reasonable cost, quality services that respond to the needs of all citizens, fostering a safe. attractive and flourishing community. City Council approves $3.5 million preliminary budget At their September 13 meeting, the Mound City Council approved the preliminary 2001 city budget totalling just more than $3.5 million. Well more than half of the general fund expenditures will go toward the conventional city services of keeping residents safe, maintaining streets and facilities and providing parks and recreation services. Like most cities, the largest part of the Mound budget is dedicated to public safety. If approved, more than $1.1 of the 2001 budget will go toward police protection for citizens. Other significant expenditures include $567,000 for street maintenance and repair, $312,000 for parks and recreation and $303,000 for planning and inspections. By mid-November, all Mound residents will receive a statement from Hennepin County showing the amount of property taxes they can expect to pay to the County, the Mound Westonka School District, the City of Mound, and any special taxing districts like the watershed district. The statement will also include the amount paid last year, and specify the percent tax levy increase for each taxing jurisdiction. The City Council will hold its annual Truth in Taxation public ~ heating on December 4 at 7:30 p.m. are encouraged to attend the hearing and to comment on the proposed budget and tax levy. City of Mound General Fund expenditures Parks and Rec 10% Other 3% Public Safety 41% Public Works 16% Interfund General Transfers Government 5% 25% The cost of city services in Mound When taken in context, city services in Mound are quite a bargain. Compare the cost of some city services with the cost of some common monthly expenditures. Five tanks of gasoline Cable television service Police protection Home delivery of the Star Tribune City management, planning & inspections Movie tickets and refreshments for two Public works Parks and recreation $100 $39 $29 $19 $17 $25 $15 $5 0 ~L 'ID ,-,1 0 s..._ 0 0 0 CD 0 CD 0 0 o c~ o o o c~ c~ Q. What will Mound do with funds generated by the storm sewer fee? A. The fees collected can only be used for stormwater management. The dedicated funding source will allow Mound to repair and maintain the storm sewer system and reduce or eliminate flooding in the streets and in yards· The City will be able to resize some piping, clean lines, repair breaks, remove blockages, clean storm sewer catch basins and complete a variety of other activities that will increase the effectiveness of the system and protect area lakes and wetlands. The City will be able to issue bonds to pay for improvement projects and revenue from those fees would help to pay for the bonds. Q. Do other cities in Minnesota have stormwater utilities? A. Yes. Stormwater utilities that charge fees for storm sewer maintenance and improvements are common in the Twin Cities metropolitan area and throughout the State of Minnesota. In fact, the Mound ordinance is a standard ordinance that has been adopted by communities throughout the metropolitan area. Q. How does the proposed stormwater utility fee for Mound homeowners compare with the fee charged in other metro area communities? : Q. Will there be a public hearing prior to the '~ rates being set? A. Yes. The City Council will hold a public hearing near the beginning of the regularly scheduled City Council meeting on Monday, December 4, 7:30 p.m., following the Truth in Taxation Hearing. The City Council will set rates as part of its budget approval 'Process at its meeting on Tuesday, December 12. Q. When will property owners begin to be assessed the stormwater utility fee? A. Property owners will first notice the stormwater sewer charge on their first quarter 2001 utility hills. Property owners receive first quarter bills in February, March, or April, depending on their billing cycle. Q. How can I find out more information? A. Come to the City's Stormwater Utility Open House on Thursday, November 30, 6 p.m. to 8 p.m., at Mound City Hall Council Chambers. Everyone is encouraged to attend and learn more. The open house is an informal, non-intimidating format that allows community members to come and go at their convenience. No formal presentation will be made. City staff will be on hand to provide information, answer questions and listen to community feedback. A. Owners of a single-family home or duplex with a Q. Who should I call ifI have more questions? two-tenth acre lot will pay a total of $19.56 per year. A 1999 survey of 12 metro area communities with storm A. If you have questions about stormwater sewer utilities found the average annual fee for a management, contact Greg at 472-0635. If you have similar property was $23.45 per year. The lowest questions about your stormwater utility fee, contact annual fee charged for a similar properly was $11.20 Joyce at 472-0603. (Fridley) and the highest annual fee charged was ' $47.76 (Apple Valley). · . ~.~ Q. Since rates vary by property type and size, : i how cnn I find out whnt fee would be chnrged : '" - - for my property? ' ' ' A. You may ask City staff when you attend the l~~~~~ Stormwater Utility Open House on Thursday, . "~ November 30, 6 p.m. to 8 p.m., in the Council Chambers at City Hall, or you may call Joyce, the Q. What if I disagree with my property s dassificafion? A. If you have questions about your property's classification or disagree with the classification, you may contact Gino at City Hall at 472-0608. The City will discuss your concern and work with you to ensure that your property has been classified properly and Proposed Mound Stormwater Utility Fees MULTI-FAMILY : . 5 $24.50/ACRE/MONTHLY CEMETERIES $2.00/ACRE/MONTHLY NOVEMBER 2000 PUBLIC HF. ARING NOTICE CITY OF MOUND CITY COUNCIL Notice is hereby given that the Mound City Council will hold a public hearing on Monday, December 4, 2000, in the City Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound MN., immediately following the Truth in Taxation Hearing at 7:30 P.M. The purpose of this hearing will be to consider the rates for a storm water utility as called for in City Code Section 650. At this hearing the City Council will consider just and reasonable charges for the use and availability of storm sewer facilities in the City of Mound. The public is invited to attend. Francene C. Clark, CMC City Clerk Publish in The Laker November 18, 2000 December 4, 2000 RESOLUTION NO. 00- A RESOLUTION ADOPTING STORM SEWER RATES FOR THE CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, section 444.075, authorizes cities to impose just and reasonable charges for the use and availability of storm sewer facilities ("charges"), and WHEREAS, the City of Mound has determined that the establishment of a storm sewer facility charge will help provide funding to develop and maintain a storm sewer system, and WHEREAS, the city of Mound, in June of 1998, adopted Section 650 of the Mound city Code which provides for the establishment of storm sewer system including fees to support the development and maintenance of the storm sewer system and, WHEREAS, the City of Mound has completed a "Storm Sewer Rate Study". This study provides a system of rates to recover cost of storm sewer development and maintenance, and WHEREAS, the City Code provides for the establishment of storm sewer fees after a public hearing regarding the proposed fees, and WHEREAS, the City of Mound has mailed information to residents information regarding the storm sewer fees, and WHEREAS, the City of Mound has conducted and Open House regarding the storm sewer fees, and WHEREAS, the City of Mound has conducted a public hearing regarding the storm sewer fees, and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound that the following rates are hereby established as follows: Single-Family or Two Family Residential Cemeteries Parks and Railroads Public and Private Schools/Institutional Use Multi-Family residential uses/Churches Commercial/Industria/Warehouse Use $4.89/Lot/Quaterly $2.00/Acre/Monthly $6.1 O/Acre/Monthly $10.20/Acre/Monthly $24.50/Acre/Monthly $41.1 O/Acre/Monthly BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that these rates shall be effective for bills issued January 1, 2001 and thereafter until such time as rates are modified by the City of Mound in a manner as authorized by the City Code. Mayor Attest: Acting City Clerk N:~Vlinnsota~Mound\Stonn Water, rate.res. 11.30.00.wpd 2451 Fairview Lane Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 952.472.1416 Fax: 952.472.2126 Email: ShaunaKleinheksel @ s~ohnsofmou~d.org Home Page: www.stiohnsofmound.org ... growing in unity and love .. Eric J. Gustavson, Jr. Senior Pastor John H. Rogers Associate Pastor STAFF: Diane Bates Church Business Administrator Shauna Kleinheksel, Secretary Jan Liebrenz. Secretary Sandy Olstad. RN Parish Nurse Corinna Louis Youth Director Cathie Samuelson Christian Education Director Jan Bonnema Shared Ministry Coordinator Counseling Center at St. John's; Ellen Rusin, MSW December 1, 2000 Kandis M. Hanson, City Manager City of Mound 5341 Masxvood Road Mound, '_'Vhnnesota 55364 Dear t<2tndis, First of all, I wish to thank the city staff for the informative open house re~rding Stormwater Utility issues, which I attended on November 30% As you know, i came representing St. John's Lutheran Church with concerns about the proposed rates for churches in our community. It was most heartening to be assured that our city staff would look at each property indiv/dually and take into account its usage before settling on a final rate. St. John's looks forward to being a part of that evaluation process. Nk. Prosser asked that I oudme our position in a letter, so I beheve what follows are the salient points about our situation which we would like you to consider. He also indicated that changes would be made at the administrative level, so I assume that our presence is not needed at the public hearing on December 4% Our Erst question concerns why churches have been given a higher assessment rate than "Schools/Institutions." I ',vas told by Mr. Prosser that it is generally believed that churches, because of their parking lots, contribute more to storm water mn off. We believe that a case could be made that schools and some inst/tutions generally contribute at least as much, and perhaps in some cases, more, run off. In reading the City Code Section 650, ~ve are interpreting section 650:25 to say that if a property owner appeals for a rate adjustment, proof must be given that actual hydrologic response of the property is substan~xlly different than the REF assigned. In other words, a measurement of the actual runoff must be taken, rather than what the use of the property is. This would ec{uate to the amount of hardcover, 2451 Fairview Lane Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 952.472,1416 Fax: 952.472.2126 Emaik ShaunaKleint~eksei@ st~ohnsofmou~.org Home Page: www.stjohnsofmound.org ... growing/n unity and love ... Eric J. Gustavson, Jr. Senior Pastor John H. Rogers Associate Pastor STAFF: Diane Bates Church Business Administrator Shauna Kleinheksel, Secretary Jan Liebrenz. Secretary Sandy Olstad. RN Parish Nurse Corinne Louis Youth Oirector Cathie Samuelson Christian Education Director Jan Bonnema Shared Ministry Coordinator Counseling Center at St. John's: Ellen Rusin, MSW December 1, 2000 Kandis M. Hanson, City ~Lanager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 Dear I'L2ndis, First of ,4l, I wish to thank the city staff for the informative open house re~rding Stormwater Utility issues, vchich I attended on November 30m. As you know, I came representing St. John's Lutheran Church with concerns about the proposed rates for churches in our community. It was most heartening to be assured that our city staff would look at each property' individually and take into account its usage before settling on a final rate. St. John's looks for~vard to being a part of that evaluation process. Nix. Prosser asked that I outline our position in a letter, so I believe what follows are the salient points about our situation which we would like you to consider. He also indicated that changes would be made at the administrative level, so I assume that our presence is not needed at the public hearing on December 4% Our first question concerns why churches have been given a higher assessment rate than "Schools/institutions." I was told by 3ix. Prosser that it is generally believed that churches, because of their parking lots, contribute more to storm water run off. We believe that a case could be made that schools and some institutions generally contribute at least as much, and perhaps in some cases, more, run off. In reading the Cit?' Code Section 650, we are interpreting section 650:25 to say that if a property oxvner appeals for a rate adjustment, proof must be given that actual hydrologic response of the property is substantially different than the REF assigned. In other words, a measurement of the actual runoff must be taken, rather than what the use of the property is. This ~vould equate to the amount of hardcover, topography, etc. rather than the type of building on the property. For this reason, we are glad that you are going to look at each situation before decisions are made. However, we fed that the code should state that properties will be assigned an REF based on individual scientific assessment so as to correlate with the requirements of the appeal process. Our property is certainly a multi-use facility. On our grounds we will have a Memorial Garden for the interment of cremains. This project has been approved by the Planning Commission and City Council. Significant amounts of blacktop were removed to enable this garden, (thus reducing hardcover). Also, a major Indian Bur/al ground sits on our property and the State Archeologist has informed us that there are probably at least four bur/al skes underneath the original portion of our building. Should this portion of our 3.3 acres be designated as a "Cemetery>" Along this same line of thought, We have noted that the proposed Cit?' Code, Section 650:35 EXCLUDED LANDS states "No charge for system availabilit¢' or service shall be made a~inst land which is either (i) public street or right-of-~vay, or (ii) vacant and uni~proved with substantially all of its su(ace having vegetation as ground corer. "We ~vould like a clarification of how much of our 3.3 acres falls into the "vacant and unimproved" category. When we added on to our present facility in 1997, we were instructed to provide a large holding pond to ease potent/al storm water mn off problems. We did so, and also constructed one along side the shared parking lot at Shirley Hills School. We are concerned that the code does not seem to address properties that have taken measures to reduce impact on the storm sewer system. A different increment or rate credit would seem appropriate for these properties. In addition, please remember that the parking lot that lies betxveen Shirley Hills and St. John's is on school property. We simply have a joint-use lease arrangement with the school board. It might also be argued that up to one-half of the square footage of our building could be designated as educational. As you know Kids' Core school-age daycare and Head Start are housed at St. John's. Not to mention the Westonka Senior Center...until they move into their new facility. Over the years we have tried to be attentive to ser~5_ng the needs of our community by making our frae building available for use by outside groups. If you believe that we should be present at the hearing to publicly voice our concerns, please let us know. If you would like to visit our property with the appropriate city officials, we would be happy to give you a tour and discuss our concerns. On behalf of the congregation, I thank you for your prompt and judicious assessment of our situation. Yours truly, Eric J. Gustavson Jr. Senior Pastor Diane Bates Church Business Administrator CC: Mayor Pat Meisel Andrea Ahrens Bob Broxvn Mark Hanus Leah Weycker MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MONDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 2000 Those present: Chair Geoff Michael; Commissioners: Michael Mueller, Becky Glister, Frank Weiland, Cklair Hasse, Bill Voss, and Council Liaison Bob Brown. Absent Excused: Orvin Burma, Absent: Jerry Clapsaddle. Staff present: City Manager Kandis Hanson, City Planner Loren Gordon, City Engineer John Cameron, Building Official Jon Sutherland, and Recording Secretary Sue Schwalbe. The following public were present: Ken Berres, 5724 Lynwood Blvd., Mound Rod and Virginia Mac Charles Diane Rowe, 5733 Lynwood Blvd., Mound Peter Meyer, 5748 Sunset Road, Mound Kim Anderson, 5736 Lynwood Blvd., Mound Paula Larson, 5713 Lynwood Blvd., Mound Jeff Vanault, 5717 Lynwood Blvd., Mound Peter Johnson, 3140 Priest Lane Kathy L. Anderson, KKE Architects Lawrence W. Olson, Metro Plains Development Chair Michael welcomed the public and offered refreshments. He then called the meeting to order at 8:10 p.m. Council Liaison Bob Brown said the Monday night was a very ugly meeting at the end. This is a volunteer commission. Everyone here is freely giving of their time. I am going to single out Mr. Johnson for coming here and shaking his finger at this group of people and antagonizing them. None of these people deserve to be hostile talked to like that and it is not fair to these people who give their time. In the future, when people come up here with this hostile attitude toward these people who volunteer their time to ask this person to leave the chambers. Thank you. NOVEMBER 30, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PAGE 2 MINUTES -APPROVAL OF THE NOVEMBER 15, 2000,MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MOTION by Voss, seconded by Weiland, to accept the November 15, 2000, Planning Commission meeting Minutes. Ayes 7 (no call of names) Nayes 0 (no call of names) Motion Carried Unanimously AGENDA CASE #00-65: PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AREA CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT METRO PLAINS DEVELOPMENT NW CORNER OF LYINWOOD AND COMMERCE CASE #00-66: ZONING AMENDMENT METRO PLAINS DEVELOPMENT NW CORNER OF LYNWOOD AND COMMERCE CASE #00-71: STREET/EASEMENT VACATION METRO PLAINS DEVELOPMENT NW CORNER OF LYNWOOD AND COMMERCE Staff has compiled a list of items regarding the Metro Plans development project raised at Planning Commission meeting Monday night. TRAFFIC AND ClRCULATION ISSUES It is somewhat a coincidence that the downtown traffic study and this development proposal are on the same time schedule. Although there are traffic impacts because of this development, the traffic study has accounted for retail commercial on this corner. A number of revisions have been made to the plan to make the traffic and circulation acceptable to staff. NOVEMBER 30, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PAGE 3 ZONING CHANGE The proposal to rezone the current R-1 district to R-3 PDA is tied to the development plan. If the rezoning is approved but the project does not materialize, the development plan is still applicable to the property. Anyone else wishing to develop the site would have at least two (2) options for development -1) comply with the approved development plan 2) submit a new development plan that would require revising the CUP, triggering public hearings at Planning Commission and City Council. The PDA process is a way for the City to control any development of the property regardless ownership changes. L YNWOOD AND COMMERCE RIGHT-OF-WA Y ISSUES The County will require maximum of 25 feet of additional right-of-way dedication on County Road 15 and 10 feet on County Road 110 as part of the final plat to accommodate additional turn lanes. The County told the City in our meeting on November 27, 2000, they will not require additional right-of-way from residential properties west of the site on Lynwood Blvd. The final plat must meet the additional right-of-way requirements of Hennepin County. The county indicated to the City and the Developer at the November 27, 2000 meeting that the three entrances show on the Metro Plains Site Plan would be allowed if some type of traffic channelization is used on both County Roads 110 and 15. This could be in the form of either medians or striping, which cannot be determined until the design of the 110/15 intersection is agreed upon. The also indicated that the right-in/right-out drive proposed on Commerce Blvd., will most likely become a right-out only exit. The design of the new intersection of County Road 15 with Commerce Blvd. Will require numerous meetings with Hennepin County before a final design can be agreed upon. ACCESS DRIVE ALONG L YNWOOD Staff believes this drive location gives the best access and entry point to the residential area. Moving the drive further east will cause conflicts with the grocery store dock area. There are some compromises with this location having single family residences across the street. Staff would suggest landscape buffering in the front yards to address headlights if the access drive stays in its present location. NOVEMBER 30, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PAGE 4 PARKING SPACES The commercial parking area is proposing 313 spaces that is based on a 1 space per 200 square feet of retail. Cities typically have commercial standards of 1 per 150 to 250. Mound is on the high end of the scale and a 1/200 is a very typical standard. The spaces are also 10 feet wide to meet Mound code. Additional spaces could be gained at 9 and 9 ¼ feet widths. A 9 feet width would add another 31 spaces or 344 total. A 9 ½ feet width would add 15 spaces or 328 spaces. Staff is very comfortable with the 1/200 ratio proposed and would recommend the Planning Commission support the variance to parking spaces. LETTER FROM METRO PLAINS: On November 27, 2000 at the Mound Planning Commission Preliminary Plat Approval Meeting, Chair Geoff Michael raised questions regarding parking the area and a plan for the Quest antenna on the site. Please provide this letter to the members of the Planning Commission as further explanation of our plans regarding parking and the antenna. City staff has indicated that they would support 9-foot wide parking spaces in the commercial area with a 62-foot distance between centerlines or 10 foot parking spaces with 60 feet between centerlines. As the buildings have moved around to accommodate the anticipated needs of Hennepin County, the 62-foot spacing because a problem and a 10-foot wide spaces were incorporated. This dropped the total commercial parking to 313 spaces plus and additional 20 spaces for the primary use of the Ponds Arena and 10 new parallel parking spacing on Lynwood Blvd. As more information is available on the exact building locations, it is our intention to work with increasing the distance between the centedines reducing the width of the parking spaces to 9 feet. We believe that this will provide up to 347 stalls plus the 30 spaces for Ponds and on Lynwood. These decisions would be made in conjunction with City staff. We believe this parking is adequate for the commercial needs of the development. After construction, we believe that the occasional event parking needs of the Ponds Arena and the church will have an effect on their neighbors. We are proposing that the Ponds Arena, the church, the townhome association, and retail center each appoint a responsible party for parking. The responsibility of the responsible parties would be to communication and coordinate the parking needs to minimize the effects of special events on the neighborhood and minimize the involvement of the City in these problems. NOVEMBER 30, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PAGE 5 We believe the current on street parking should be analyzed by the City to provide opportunity for additional parking for special events. Diagonal parking on Alder on the north side of the Ponds Arena and parking to the north and east of the new dedicated parkland are potential areas to look at. We are currently working with the Ponds Arena to draft a letter of intent for the additional parking as shown on the site plan. The intent is for this to be a long-term lease agreement with the lese rate based upon the amortization of Metro Plains' cost. The antenna is currently in the center of the residential area. We have had several meetings with Quest regarding options for the antenna. The antenna is anchored in an 8-foot concrete cylinder of 40-foot depth. Their opinion is that it cannot fall. They have indicated to us that the antenna is engineered in such a way to fold from the center of the antenna so that the top of the antenna would fall onto the base. They have further indicated that there is flexibility in location of the antenna within our site. We are currently working with City staff to determine their flexibility for relocation within the existing variance. Based upon our site plan, we think an ideal spot would be in the triangular green space behind the grocery store and adjacent to the storm drainage ponds. We have requested a letter from Quest confirming the above information and hope to present that to you on Thursday night, November 30, 2000. We will continue to respond to neighborhood requests in areas such as moving the path to the south of the pond, landscaping buffers and alley turnarounds. CORRESPONDENCE FROM ORVIN BURMA Although I told you on the phone yesterday that I was available for a special meeting of the Mound Planning Commission, a recount including dimpled ballots and pregnant chads (more like checking schedules with my wife) have revealed a conflict which I can't change. I would, however, appreciate if you could distribute the following comments to the Commission prior to or at the meeting. I am confident that the City Manager and Staff has accurately reported that the issues with the County are worked out to a point sufficient so as to not delay action on the development. NOVEMBER 30, 2000 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING I feel that the Commission (to the degree that the Planning Commission is required by law) has considered the traffic issues. We have been assured that Staff, the City Manager and City Engineer have discussed traffic flows with the County. I am ok with the combined expertise of these people to work out the details of ingress and egress. As explained by the City Manager, soil correction monies are not dependent on LCA funds. This project is not different that any other project in the city. It must meet or exceed all safeguards put in place through code, ordinance or other requirements of the building inspector, engineering and other government entities. I feel that this is adequate to assure a quality final product. 4. I feel that reasonable attention has been given to screening and other plans to minimize the impact of traffic, lights, noise, etc. I disagree with the point of neighboring property values being decreased by this project. Firstly, I don't believe that this will happen..Secondly, if the property values diminish, we have no right to deny a person or group of persons who wish to exercise their right to "reasonable use of land". 6. Rezoning resulting in increased taxes is a non-issue. Increased traffic in the area is unavoidable. The residents of the area chose to buy their property on a county highway with the potential inherent (and apparent) probability that as urban sprawl intensifies, so will traffic. It will increase regardless of the fate of this project. Quaintness of the neighborhoods was another point brought up. All of us would like for our neighborhoods to remain status quo. However, we would like development in someone else's neighborhood to help our tax base. I used to like to go out on my deck and look at 16 acres of woods that now is Pelican Pont. When I look out now, I see a 50" TV screen so clearly that I can determine what channel they are watching. I see boat canopies where I used to see lake. But it's progress. And it's inevitable. And it was a reasonable use of land. 9. Safety of the pond is no more an issue than any other pond in the city, or the lakeshore that we revere. Parental supervision is the answer to that issue. NOVEMBER 30, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PAGE 7 10. I have a dilemma with the parking. Although I would like to see more spaces, I am opposed to making the spaces smaller. I could accept perhaps 9'6", but 9' is too crowded. Once again, however, the developer has worked to accommodate the Arena's needs. The church will certainly benefit from the additional spaces on Sunday mornings. Weekday and Saturday weddings, funerals, etc. may continue to be a problem. This, however, should not fall upon the shoulders of the developer to solve the Church's parking problem. My thought would be to develop as many parking spaces as possible with a 9'6" width and recommend granting a variance for the difference from the required minimum number of spaces. These spaces, combined with the other planning parking within one block of the are should suffice. CASE #00-65: PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AREA CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT METRO PLAINS DEVELOPMENT NW CORNER OF LYNWOOD AND COMMERCE MOTION by Brown second by Mueller, to recommend to the City Council to accept the Planned Development Area, Conditional Use Permit, (Planning Department #00-65) as per all staff recommendations. Including the following additions. That the walkway be to the south of the pond; 1/200 spaces for parking; the commitment from Metro Plains Development to talk with Mr. Berris to continue to work with the fence and the turnaround; staff review of landscaping with neighbors and developer to insure screening/buffering; and the Metro Plans Development Continue to work with Quest to find a proper location for the cell tower. DISCUSSION Commissioner Weiland asked if the shrubbery refers to the south entry drive. Mr. Olson clarified that is correct. Commissioner Glister is concerned of the safety of the antenna. They claim the tower cannot fall and they claimed the Titanic would not sink. This antenna is 120 feet tall. NOVEMBER 30, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PAGE 8 Commissioner Mueller AMENDED the MOTION to offer a variance of 23 spaces on the 1/200; however predicated it by the width of the spaces not be less than 9 ¼ feet and the back to back not less than 60 feet, 60 inches. AMENDMENT accepted by Brown. No further discussion Ayes 7 (no call of names) Nayes 0 (no call of names) Motion carried unanimously CASE #00-66: ZONING AMENDMENT METRO PLAINS DEVELOPMENT NW CORNER OF LYNWOOD AND COMMERCE City Planner Loren Gordon stated to above information is staff's information. Rezoning R-3 planned develop area only. This plan is the only thing that can go through there. MOTION by Voss, seconded by Brown to recommend to the City Council to accept the Zoning Amendment and/or Rezoning (Planning Department #00-66) as per all staff recommendations. Including that the current R-1 district to R-3 Planning Development Area and the R-2 and B-1 to the Destination District. Lots 18, 19, and 20 are included in the minor land use plan revision as a destination district PDA consistent with the rezoning. DISSCUSSION: Commissioner Mueller questioned if the Comprehensive Plan can be changed this with evening with a the motion of the rezoning and if the land use portion of the comprehensive plan to includes Lot 18, 19, and 20 into a destination district. Gordon responded that yes it can. Those Lots are zoned residential the Commission has made a motion to change them to commercial destination district and the land use plan they are shown as density residential. The land use plan should also reflect that this is the destination district so that they are consistent. This motion makes the happen. AYES 6 (no call of names) NAYES 1 (Hasse) Motion carried NOVEMBER 30, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Commissioner Hasse does not agree with "piece meal" zoning. PAGE 9 CASE #00-71' STREET/EASEMENT VACATION METRO PLAINS DEVELOPMENT NW CORNER OF LYNWOOD AND COMMERCE City Planner Loren Gordon stated to above information is staff's information. This is the alley behind the homes on Lynwood. Lots 18, 19, and 20 were just rezoned in your motion. The idea is to vacate this, rebuild the utilities, move a storm sewer access and a manhole back onto Lot 22 and get this whole system to work. The easement is not longer needed so we think we should get rid of it. Commissioner Weiland asked if Lots 18, 19, and 20 were owned by Metro Plains Development? Mr. Olson explained they are under a purchase options and there are purchase agreements. MOTION by Voss seconded by Weiland to recommend to the City Council to accept the Street/Easement Vacation (Planning Department #00-71) as per all staff recommendations. DISCUSSION Ayes 7 (no call of names) Nayes 0 (no call of names) Motion Carries unanimously Chair Michael indicated all correspondence in packet has been read. MOTION by Voss seconded by Weiland to adjourn meeting at 9:00 p.m. Ayes 7 (no call of names) Nayes 0 (no call of names) Motion Carries unanimously Submitted by Sue Schwalbe Date Approved by Chair Geoff Michael, Date NOTICE There will be a Special Meeting of the Mound Planning Commission at 8:05 p.m., Thursday, November $0, 2000, for the purpose of discussing and taking action on the following land use applications as submitted by MetroPlains Development: Planned Development Area - CUP Zoning Amendment Street/Easement Vacation This is not a public hearing. Kandis Hanson City Manager MEMORANDUM Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. To: Mound Planning Commission From: Loren Gordon, AICP Date: November 29, 2000 Subject: November 27~' Planning Commission meeting follow-up Staff has compiled a list of items regarding the Metro Plains development project raised at Planning Commission meeting Monday night. Traffic and circulation issues - It is somewhat a coincidence that the downtown traffic study and this development proposal are on the same time schedule. Although there are traffic impacts because of this development, the traffic study has accounted for retail commercial on this comer. A number of revisions have been made to the plan to make the traffic and circulation acceptable to staff. Zoning change - The proposal to rezone the current R-t district to R-3 PDA is tied to the development plan. If the rezoning is approved but the project does not materialize, the development plan is still applicable to the property. Anyone else wishing to develop the site would have at least two options for development - 1) comply with the approved development plan 2) submit a new development plan that would require revising the CUP, triggering public heatings at Planning Commission and City Council. The PDA process is a way for the City to control any development of the property regardless ownership changes. Lynwood and Commerce right-of-way issues - The County will require a maximum of 25 feet of additional right-of-way dedication on County Road 15 and 10 feet on County Road 110 as part of the final plat to accommodate additional mm lanes. The County told the City in our meeting on Nov 27~, they will not require additional right-of-way from residential properties west of the site on Lynwood Blvd. The final plat must meet the additional right-of-way requirements of Hennepin County. The County indicated to the City and the Developer at the Nov. 27~' meeting that the three entrances show on the Metro Plains Site Plan would be allowed if some type of traffic channelization is used on both County Roads 110 and 15. This could be in the form of either medians or striping, which can not be determined until the design of the 110/15 intersection is agreed upon. They also indicated that the right-in/fight-out drive proposed on Commerce Blvd., will most likely become a right-out only exit. The design of the of the new intersection of County Road 15 with Commerce Blvd. will require numerous meetings with 123 North Third Stxeet, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax(612) 338-6838 p. 2 November 27'~ Planning Commission meeting follow-up November 28, 2000 Hennepin County before a final design can be agreed upon. Access Drive along L_vnwood - StatTbelieves this drive location gives the best access and entry point to the residential area. Moving the drive further east will cause conflicts with the grocery store dock area. There are some compromises with this location having single family residences across the street. Staff would suggest landscape buffering ia the front yards to address headlights if the access drive stays in its present location. Parking spaces - The commercial parking area is proposing 313 spaces that is based on a 1 space per 200 square feet of retail Cities typically have commercial standards of 1 per 150 to 250. Mound is on the high end of the scale and a 1/200 is a very typical standard. The spaces are also 10 feet wide to meet Mound code. Additional spaces could be gained at 9 and 9 ~/2 feet widths. A 9 feet width would add another 31 spaces or 344 total. A 9 ~/~ feet width would add t 5 spaces or 328 spaces. Staff is very comfortable with the 1/200 ratio proposed and would recommend the Planning Commission support the variance to parking spaces. 123 North Third Street, Suite I00, Mimaeapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax(612) 338-6838 November 2g, 2000 City of Mound Attn: Kandis Hanson, City Manager 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 ETROPLAINS METROPLAINS PROPERTIES INC METROPLAINS DEVELOPNENT LLC g t It e It e a r t I a n d " On NT,-,.,.o~,t,~,,, ,,~. ~.....,... -,.)"/th, ..)0n0v 4,~* th,,._. Mo,,~nd P!a.mning Co:o_mission Pre!imina_,w. Plat. Approval Meeting, Geoff Michael raised questions regarding parking in the area and a plan for the Quest antenna on the site. Please provide this letter to the members of the Planning Commission as further explanation of our plans regarding parking and the antenna. City staff has indicated that they would support 9-foot wide parking spaces in the commercial area with a 62-foot distance between centerlines or 1 O-foot parking spaces with 60 feet between centerlines. As the buildings have moved around to accommodate the anticipated needs of Hennepin County, the 62-foot spacing became a problem and 10- foot wide spaces were incorporated. This dropped the total commercial parking to 313 spaces plus an additional 20 spaces for the primary use of the Ponds Arena and 10 new parallel parking spaces on Lynwood. As more information is available on the exact building locations, it is our intention to work with increasing the distance between the centerlines reducing the width of the parking spaces to 9 feet. We believe that this will provide up to 347 stalls plus the 30 spaces for Ponds and on Lynwood. These decisions would be made in conjunction with City staff. We believe this parking is adequate for the commercial needs of the development. After construction, we believe that the occasional event parking needs of the Ponds Arena and the church will have an effect on their neighbors. We are proposing that the Ponds Arena, the church, the townhome association, and retail center each appoint a responsible party for parking. The responsibility of the responsible parties would be to communicate and coordinate the parking needs to minimize the effects of special events on the neighborhood and minimize the involvement of the City in these problems. We believe the current on street parking should be analyzed by the City to provide opportunity for additional parking for special events. Diagonal parking on Alder on the north side of the Ponds Arena and parking to the north and east of the new dedicated parkland are potential areas to look at. We are currently working with the Ponds Arena to draft a letter of intent for the additional parking as shown on the site plan. The intent is for this to be a long-term lease agreement with the lease rate based upon the amortization of MetroPlains' costs. SPRUCE TREE CENTRE · 1600 UNIVERSITY AVE. · SUITE 212 ST PAUL MINNESOTA 55104-3825 651 646 7848 · FAX 651 646 8947 · www. metroplains.com The antenna is currently in the center of the residential area. We have had several meetings with Quest regarding options for the antenna. The antenna is anchored in an 8- foot concrete cylinder of forty-foot depth. Their opinion is that it cannot fall. They have indicated to us that the antenna is engineered in such a way to fold from the center of the antenna so that the top of the antenna would fall onto the base. They have further indicated that there is flexibility in location of the antenna within our site. We are currently working with City staff to determine their flexibility for relocation within the existing variance. Based upon our site plan, we think an ideal spot would be in the triangular green space behind the grocery store and adjacent to the storm drainage pond. We have requested a letter from Quest confirming the above information and hope to present that to yoa on Ttaursday night, November 30th, 2000. We will continue to respond to neighborhood requests in areas such as moving the path to the south of the pond, landscaping buffers and alley tumarounds. We ~o~_~.his~es these two matters. Ols-~on m:\larrywokmkm\ 11280049.1tr iX'IOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 2000 Those present: Chair Geoff Michael; Commissioners: Michael Mueller, Orvin Burma, Becky Glister, Frank Weiland, Cklair Hasse, Bill Voss, Jerry Clapsaddle, and Council Liaison Bob Brown. Staffpresent: City Manager Kandis Hanson, City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, and Recording Secretary Sue Schwalbe. The following public were present: Ken Berres, 5724 Lynwood Blvd., Mound Rod and Ginny MacCharles Josephine Sicheneder, 2318 Fairview Lane, Mound Marlin Sicheneder, 2318 Fairview Lane, Mound Lorna Norling, 5969 Lynwood Blvd., Mound Bob Schwiderski, 5969 Lynwood., Mound John Babler, 2235 Langdon Lane, Mound Karen Babler, 2235 Langdon Lane, Mound Janelle Danielson, 6020 Chestnut Road, Mound Betty Davis, 5925 Lynwood Blvd., Mound Jo Soderlund, 5945 Lynwood Blvd., Mound Ferol Andersen, 5935 Lynwood Blvd., Mound Diane Rowe, 5933 Ly-nwood Blvd., Mound Brad'Johnson, 5789 Elm Road, Mound Wayne Davis, 2248 Langdon Lane, Mound Mark Heeser, 5826 Lynwood Blvd., Mound Thomas, 5212 Waterbury Road, Mound Bob Johnson, 2928 Westedge Blvd., Mound Terri, 6001 Lynwood Blvd., Mound Chair Michael welcomed the public and offered refreshments. He then called the meeting to order at 7:36 p.m. Council Liaison Bob Brown thanked Council Member Mark Hanus for filling in for him at the November 13, 2000 Planning Commission Meeting. NOVEMBER 27, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PAGE 18 CASE #00-64: PRELIMINARY PLAT, PUBLIC HEARING METRO PLAINS DEVELOPMENT NW CORNER OF LYNWOOD AND COMMERCE CASE #00-65: PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AREA, CLIP PUBLIC HEARING METRO PLAINS DEVELOPMENT NW CORNER OF LYNWOOD AND COMMERCE CASE #00-66: ZONING AMENDENT, PUBLIC HEARING METRO PLAINS DEVELOPMENT NW CORNER OF LYNWOOD AND COMMERCE CASE #00-71: STREET/EASEMENT VACATION, PUBLIC HEARING METRO PLAINS DEVELOPMESNT NW CORNER OF LYNWOOD AND COMMERCE Since the last Planning Commission meting, the developer has submitted additional information to complete the submittal package. The deficiencies outlines in the Planning and Engineering reports at last meeting have been addressed with this submittal. MO UND MARKET PLA CE The locations of the grocery store and smaller retail shops have been flip-flopped since the last meeting based on conversations the developer has had with two potential grocers. This arrangement alleviates almost every issued raised by staff during the last review including circulation, building orientation, facade treatments, driveways alignments with Church Road, loading docks, and relationships with adjacent residential homes along Lynwood Blvd., By having the smaller retail shops along Lynwood Blvd., there are oppommities to have entrances from the street and the parking lot. NOVEMBER 27, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PAGE 19 The building will not need to be as tall and massive which will create a more intimate feel along Lynwood Blvd. It is also demonstrated that on-street parking can be accommodated along with a boulevard and sidewalk. Architectural Design Guidelines for Mound Marketplace detail how design will be addressed. LANDSCAPING. SCREENING AND BUFFERING The landscaping plan identifies plantings for residential, park and commercial areas of the site. City code requires 99 plantings of overstory, conifer, and ornamental varieties within the residential area to meet the minimum of one tree per dwelling unit provision. The plan provides 145 planting units in addition to existing trees that will be maintained. A total of 47 shade trees will be planted along private streets and trail segznents. Ornamental trees are located in courtyards and in front of buildings. A total of 64 ornamentals are shown. Conifers will provide screening along the south and west property lines. A total of 34 are proposed. The park will be planted with 24 overstory trees in addition to 9 conifers that will be maintained along the est property lines. The commercial area will have a total of 95 plantings to satisfy the 66 planting minimum based on retail floor area. Again, conifers will be used to screen the grocery store and pond arena facades as well as the loading area of the grocery store. A total of 44 conifers are proposed. Shade trees are proposed for the parking area and along street boulevards. A total of 45 trees are proposed. A few ornamentals will highlight entry points along Lynwood Blvd. and Commerce Blvd. The landscape plan is labeled as schematic and staff would want to work with the developer on detailing shrubs and plantings at the foundations of the commercial buildings. AS with all developments, planting minimums of 2.5 inch caliper for deciduous and 6 feet height for conifers apply. NOVEMBER 27, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PAGE 20 Staffbelieves the developer has proposed a good landscaping plan to address many of the screening and buffering issues. Two Items with the landscape plan staff would recommend modifications to are boulevard plantings along the commercial areas and internal parking lot landscaping. Staff would suggest overstory planting islands at the midpoint of every other parking row. Two islands would be sufficient to help provide visual relief in the parking lot. Secondly, staff would suggest the overstory boulevard plantings along Lynwood and Commerce be relocated to suggest an urban edge. Staff would like to work with the developer to better define the relationship of the building and street that is agreeable to the mound Visions Plan. The plaza area at the comer should also tie into this plan. B UIDLING MA TERIAI_, STANDARDS Material standards for the Village at Cook's Bay and Mound Marketplace detail exterior treatments for these buildings. These standards exceed code minimums for multi-family and commerce buildings. COUNTY ROAD 15 AND 110 RIGHT-OF-WA Y The developer is proposed to dedicate a 7 feet strip along Lynwood and Commerce to Hennepin County for right-of-way. This would appear to be acceptable to staff at this time until a determination from the County can be made. This often times comes after approval of the preliminary plat and is handled as a condition of final plat approval. Staff would like the developer to dedicate a pedestrian access easement between the right-of-way and building edge to further protect public access along Commerce and Lynwood. Continuation of public hearing on Metro Plain Development. Review by staff which is Loren Gordon: Staff has received another submittal from developer. There were a number of items staff felt were incomplete and staff requested additional information. At the staff level we feel the submittal is complete. And provide recommendations tonight. NOVEMBER 27, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PAGE 21 Commercial site: looking at preliminary plat approval tonight and an easement vacation of an alley and the preliminary plan approval of the development and residential development. Commercial portion: grocery store and a potential liquor store. A series of smaller shops along Lynwood and commerce. Staffbelieves this flip-flop is a huge improvement of the esthetics of the project as a whole. Guidelines have been submitted (see packet). The thing we are still trying to work out is what to do with the sidewalk edges. Trying to better define what will work the best. The urban look will set the tone for the intersection. Showed schematic drawing of the intersection, which will evolve, into the Mound Visions Project. See letter in the packet from the County regarding traffic issues and right of way. Letter is strong is saying we have a number of concerns. The position the County seems to be taking is workable. Everything in the letter is almost worked through. The traffic situation can be accommodated. Screening and landscaping (second page of plan set) One tree per unit. Scattered around site. The park will be planted with 24 overstory trees in addition to nine conifers that will be maintained along the west property line. BUILDING MA TERIALS STANDARD$ Material standards for the Village at Cook's Bay and Mound Marketplace detail exterior treatments for these buildings. These standards exceed code minimums for multi-family and commerce buildings. COUNTYROAD 15 AND 110 RIGHT-OF-WAY The developer is proposing to dedicate a seven feet strip along Lynwood and Commerce to Hennepin County for right-of-way. This would appear to be acceptable to staff at this time until a determination from the County can be made. This often times comes after approval of the preliminary plat and is handled as a condition of final plat approval. NOVEMBER 27, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PAGE 22 Staff would like the developer to dedicate a pedeslrian access easement between the right-of-way and building edge to further protect public access along Commerce and Lynwood Blvd. PARKS AND TRAILS The multi-use trail will be 8 feet in width and easements will be provided to allow public use. A suggestion that was raised at the last meeting was to route the trail along the south side of the pond. The developer has indicated this is acceptable. ALLEY VACATION The plans show the alley on Lots 18, 19, and 20 will be vacated. The preliminary plat indicates vacation of a portion of an alley to accommodate the access drive on Lynwood Blvd. All on and off-site utilities in the alley will need to be rebuilt consistent with the City En~neer's specifications. PARKING A total of 313 parking spaces are shown in the commercial area at a 10 feet width. This equates to almost one space per 200 square feet of retail, a common standard among most metropolitan communities. The Mound code is set at 1 per 150 square feet, which would require 440 spaces. Staff would concur with the developer's request. Staff would recommend isle spacing be a minimum of 62 feet. Two 90-degree parking areas are proposed in the residential area to accommodate staff's concerns regarding visitor parking. Staffwould suggest that the spaces adjacent to the rear of the grocery store be relocated around the clubhouse to better accommodate visitor parking. Pond arena parking lot is reconfigured and provides 40 parking spaces. NOVEMBER 2'7, 2000 PLANNING COMMIgSION.MEETING PAGE 23 LIGHTING The City Code requires that commercial development lighting not exceed 0.4 candles at the property line. Building lighting is proposed as discussed in the Architectural Desig-n Guidelines for Mound Marketplace. Lighting for the private pedestrian street system should be indicated. Combinations of streetlights and building lighting could be used. COMMON INTRES T COMMUNITY The Villages at Cook's Bay will be platted as a Common Interest Community (CIC). A CIC is permitted by State Statute and acts similar for platting purposes to a condominium. There will not be dedicated lot lines for the townhomes or Big Houses. Rather, lot lines will be created at interior walls for each unit. The building exteriors and land will be owned and maintained by an association. For platting purposes, the Preliminary Plat will receive approval from the Planning Commission and Council and final plat will receive Council approval. Upon final locations of the units, the developer will certify each unit and file ht CIC with the Hennepin County Recorder. For a point of reference on density, if this development were platted, each unit would have an average of 5,400 square feet of lot area. This exceeds that lot area that would be required for a townhome development platted under a straight R-3 zoning district. The townhome provisions in the R-3 district require 5,000 square feet of lot are a per unit for a 3 unit building and 4,000 square feet per unit for a 6 unit building. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN An amendment to the land use plan for Lots 18, 19, and 20 will need to be made to show the land as Destination District. This can be handled at the same time as the rezoning at the Planning Commission and at Final Plat approval by the City Council. NOVEMBER 27, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PAGE 24 RECOMMENDATIONS PRELIMINARY PLA T Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the Preliminary Plat with the following conditions: 1. Determination of right-of-way by Hennepin County. Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the rezoning as requested. The City will also approve a minor Land Use Plan revision to show Lots 18, 19, and 20 of Lynwold Addition as Destination District Planned Unit Development consistent with the rezoning. The City will also approve a textual revision to the Downtown Residential designation in the Land Use Plan to better describe the development density and character. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the PDA for the Villages at Langdon Bay and the Mound Marketplace as requested with the following conditions: 1. A variance of 127 parking spaces for the commercial parking area be approved. 2. Relocate parking spaces along the rear of the grocery store so areas close to the clubhouse. o A pedestrian easement between building facades along Lynwood and Commerce right-of-ways be provided. 4. Easements for recreation and maintenance of the multi-use trail system. NOVEMBER 2'7, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PAGE 25 5. Indicate how the private streets will be lighted. o Developer work with the City in developing a streetscape along Commerce and Lynwood to address landscaping, facade, and other improvements complementary to the development and the Mound Visions Plan. EASEMENT VA CA TION Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approve vacation of the alley easement as requested. Commissioner Brown questioned if there would be an easement or an agreement with the developer to allow spots for overflow parking for the Pond .area. Gordon explained that the idea is that the developer will work out some arrangement for the use of the parking spaces. Maybe deed the land to the Pond Arena. The parking at the Pond is a bad situation and this does not completely correct it. Vern Hanson of Metro Plains explained that they are in discussion with the Pond Arena in regards to parking. A letter of intent will be issued at the appropriate time. CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING Peter Johnson, 3140 priest Lane, representing Pond Arena. They are continuing conversation with developer. The Lot directly west of the pond arena will be joint use parking. They are now working out the details. He is very favorable with the idea of diagonal parking on the Alder Road side of there property. Mueller: Asked Peter Johnson, the planning commission likes to "plan". The 20 feet owned by the Pond arena. This is the total green space. NOVEMBER 27, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PAGE 26 Bob Polston, 5784 Lynwood Blvd., Mr. Polston is a resident of the area. He and his neighbors are asking for this project to be put on hold because a number of items are not yet addressed. For example the safety issues. Mr. Polston proposes to wait for traffic study to be completed by Hennepin County. Mr. Polston also questioned if TIF is it to be used, has it been approved, are the correct soil readings taken, has the Livable Communities Act grant been approved and what about the cell phone tower? Mr. Polston is requesting this be tabled until all these issues have been addressed. City Manager Kandis Hanson explained that The Livable Communities Act Grant has been applied for administratively. It is intended to be spread across all of Mound Visions and downtown redevelopment projects to different degrees for different portions of the project. The application was for $900,000 but it is spread across various pieces of the projects. To my knowledge it is not dedicated in any way to soil corrections. There is a piece of it dedicated to this portion of the project should it be awarded but not to soil corrections. Tom Casey, 2854 Cambridge Lane. Mr. Casey agrees with Bob Polston. Mr. Casey then read Section 330.25 in subdivision code, #7. Mr. Casey believes the traffic signal should be completed before moving ahead with this project. Beverly Payne, 5709 Lynwood Blvd., Ms. Payne is very concerned with the parking issue and does not believe the Planning Commission is addressing this issue. Ms. Payne asked what are the conditions of rezoning? Chair Michael explained two (2) public hearings. Ms. Payne asked what is the definition of R-3 Zoning? Gordon explained that R-3 Zoning is multiple housing units. Ms. Payine recently paid for a very expensive survey and she is concerned about property values. Ms. Payne doesn't feel any of these issues have been addressed. Ms. Payne also agrees with the issues raised to Bob Polston. Ms. Payne then asked how high are the trees going to be? Diane Rowe, 5733 Lynwood Blvd. Ms. Rowe would like to address the rezoning issues as well as the traffic issues involved and the effects it may have on her property. NOVEMBER 27, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSIQN MEETING PAGE 27 Ms. Rowe property is Lot 49 and the ELY 25 feet of Lot 48, Lynwold Park Lake Minnetonka. This is on the south side of Lynwood Blvd., almost directly across from the proposed entry to the development. Ms. Rowe's concerns are involving traffic and feels this portion on Lynwood Blvd. is fairly quiet for a county road. When backing out of her driveway and her vision is that it will be a nightmare in the future. Also Ms. Rowe is concerned that she will be getting headlights directed at her home which never happened before. Also she feels the developer is not only purchasing portions of her neighborhood but are also taking away the quaintness that drew her to this property in the first place. Ms. Rowe asked why the entrance has to be on Lynwood Blvd., and would suggest to the developer that they consider an entrance on the opposite side of the development near Alder and Bellaire. She feels this would allow new residents to enter into an immediate neighborhood setting without driving behind a docking station and grocery store and would also eliminate the destruction of a couple of homes. If the entrance is necessary for the delivery trucks then make it as such; deliveries only which would eliminate the heavy traffic at that entrance. Ms. Rowe is a lifetime resident of Mound and has also felt the need to make improvements to the community; however, her property values will decrease because of the proposed placement of the entrance of the development. She is willing to pay that extra tax dollar to improve the city but does not agree with a decrease in the one investment in property that she owns. Ms. Rowe is a single parent and has put a lot of time, effort, and money into making her home just what it is ..... an investment. She would hate to see it take a major dive financially. Ms. Rowe doesn't feel it is justified that she personally should bear the burden of a decrease in property values as well as the inconvenience of traffic issues for the sake of improving the community. She is hopeful the developer as well as the city can assist her in arriving at a solution to this dilemma. NOVEMBER 27, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PAGE 28 Paula Larson, 5713 Lynwood Blvd., Ms. Larson has lived here almost 30 years. Ms. Larson is appalled at what is going on across the street and what is the Commission trying to do to your long term residents. Ms. Larson asked if there is a map of 100 feet or so of the properties located around this property. Gordon answered that there is an updated survey of the topography. Ms. Larson is concerned that her quality of life will be greatly reduced by the traffic and headlights. Ms. Larson questioned if we are aware of what the additional residences and grocery store effect will have on the sewer system? Cameron explained that the sanitary sewer is sized to handle this project. Also Ms. Larson asked if there will be any assessments to the property owners? Cameron explained that the City of Mound cannot guarantee what Hennepin County will do and that all the additional r/ght-of-way will come offthe north side. This is 25 feet the developer must provide to Hennepin County for a mm lane to go north. Ms. Larson questioned what are the store hours? Chair Michael explained the City cannot dictate what the store hours will be. Ms. Larson stated that Mr. Ban'is said the developer might be purchasing his property. Ms. Larson then called Remax Realty and the realtor told her the value of her property is $155,000-165,000; however after the development it will be $95,000. Ms. Larson would like to know why do the long-term residents of Mound have to take a hit in the pocketbook and whose responsibility to maintain the pond? Gordon explained the pond is the responsibility of the Homeowners association. Judy Marshcheck, resident of Mound and is also a realtor. SEE HANDOUT. MOTION to discontinue public hearing and mn meeting until 11:30 p.m. seconded by Brown for discussion purposes only. Motion to discontinue public meeting and mn until 11:30 p.m. Brown second only for discussion purposes. MOTION by Voss seconded by Hasse to continue public hearing until 12:00 p.m.. Commissioner Mueller stated that there are issues that probably will not be addressed so he would like to see the public hearing and meeting be continued until the next meeting and is uncomfortable with extending meeting at this time. NOVEMBER 2'7, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PAGE 29 BROWN call for vote: AYES 8 NAYES 1 (Mueller) Motion Carried Bob Johnson, Lives in the Highlands. Mr. Johnson stated that the most important fact is that half of the Mound registered do not want to see this project. Tom Casey. Mr. Casey asked not to close the public heating tonight because further information is forthcoming. For example the traffic study. Ken Berris 5724 Lynwood., Mr. Berris examined Chair Michael list for non- repetitives. Peter Meyer, 5748 Sunset Road. Mr. Meyer appreciates what the Planning Commission does here but note there is a common theme here tonight. More and more questions and less certainties. Mr. Meyer feels the development is too abrupt. Three out of ten residents of Mound are under 17 years of age and there is a lack of attention to this group. Chair Michael instructed Mr. Meyer to direct his comments to the items on the agenda; not the football field or soccer field etc. Mr. Meyer supports the commercial portion of the development. He is looking at the balance especially the towuhomes issues. Mr. Meyer is very opposed to the rezoning and the street vacation. There is no benefit to the community. Mr. Meyer is against the preliminary plat. NOVEMBER 27, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PAGE 29 Ken Berris, Lynwood Blvd. Mr. Berfis is asking the Planning Commission for a mm around in the alleyway. The loading dock is less then 50' from his property and directly in his view. Mr. Berris questioned how the storm sewer is going to be managed in the pond area and could a fence be considered along the east side of his property. Also there are 100 year old trees are along the north side. Are these trees coming down? Hanson responded no the trees are not coming down. Mr. Berris is also concerned with the pond because it is a kid magnet. This is a safety issue. Mark Hayes, 5826 Lynwood Blvd. Mr. Hayes asked how tall are the townhomes? Hanson responded 2½ stories. Mr. Hayes is questioning the buffer and believes this to be too abrupt. It should be a gradual effect in density. Linda Skorseth, 4648 Alder Road. Ms. Skorseth asked what is the rush? To rezone the property required 4 out of 5 council members to approve. There will be a new city council in January, 2000. Kim Anderson, 5736 Lynwood Blvd., Ms. Anderson requested the traffic study needs to be completed first and how far does the traffic study include, what areas, what roads? Gordon responded that the traffic study is basically for the downtown area. Cameron added that the traffic study was ordered because of the relocation of County road 15. City Manager Kandis Hanson explained they met with County Engineers at Hennepin County to request some clarifications as per the Letter. This meeting was completed tonight at 5:00 p.m. therefore another memo could not be included at this time. Ken Ben-is, Mound evangelical Free Church. Mr. Berris stated the Church does have an agreement with the Library for parking and what does the council recommend for parking because there will be people parking on the streets from the Pond Arena all the way down to the 2020 building. Chair Michael stated the Pond has had parking problems since the beginning and the chruch has always had parking issues. NOVEMBER 27, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PAGE 31 Bob Polston, Lynwood Blvd., Mr. Polston has other concern in the development with the width of the street at 24 feet wide and believes there is a 28 feet wide minimum. This is a standard to comply with the city standards. Mr. Polston also stated to downsize the zoning is taking away the fights of two residents. Peter Meyer. Stated any project that you review should solve problems not create problems. Public Hearing Closed at 11' 53 p.m. Commissioner Voss asked staff if we make the motion of staff recommendation do we just make a motion on the preliminary plat or would the preliminary plat include rezoning, conditional use permit and the easement vacation. Gordon suggested that the Planning Commission vote on the individual cases. Staff is recommending approval of preliminary plat, rezoning the CUP that goes with the zoning and the easement vacation with those conditions. MOTION by Voss let me explain why I am making the motion after I make the motion staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council of the preliminary conditions 1. Determination of right-of-way by Hennepin County. That is a big issue and would determine whether the preliminary plat would be approved if the county would go along with it. There are a number of other issues that I am also concerned with 1. Being the tower. However if the tower cannot be relocated than the developers cannot do anything about. There are a number of things to stop the project from going forward. If they don't meet the preliminary plat by the time it gets to city council. MOTION by Voss, seconded by Brown to recommend City Council approval of preliminary plat as per all of staff's recommendations. DISCUSSION Commissioner Mueller would like to see another planning commission meeting due to the late hour and numerous questions he would like discussed. Ay_fla (5, Mueller, Burma, Glister, Michael, Hasse ) Nayes (3 Weiland, Voss, Bro.wn) Motion carried oppoes wieland, voss, Brown Motion that we approve rezoning amendment: motion that extend Review of Area Property Values for Townhome, Twinhome Projects 10 Projects Built Between 1990-1997 In a Ten Mile Radius of Proposed The Village on Cook's Bay Year Built Name (#) City Map Coord 1994 Countryside (11) Waconia Pg 129,D3 1997 Green Meadows(15) Waconia Pg 129,D4 1994 Katy Hills TH (17) Victoria Pg 131,A2 1996'* Mission Hills (23) Chanhassen Pg 132,B3 1994'* Oak Hill (27) Chanhassen Pg 132,A2 1994 The Seasons (37) Shorewood Pg 118,A3 1990'* South Lotus Villas (39) Chanhassen Pg 132,B2 1995 Sunset Knoll (42) Watertown Pg 101 ,A3 1993 Waterbury TH (46) Waconia Pg 129,C3 1994 Waterford TH Shorewood Pg 118,B3 Type Twin Town Town Twin Town Town Town Town Town Twin Data Sources: Multiple Listing Service, Twin City Area Three Projects Built in Neighborhoods with Existing Single Family Housing Comparisons of Listing/Sales Price of Single FamilyHomes At Four Points in Time In a Selected Map Coordinate Mission Hills Project (1996-208 units) 1992-94 1995 # homes sold 3 3 av sales price $145,783 $224.903 Map Coor Pg.132,B3 1997 2000 4 8 $232,950 $241,712 Oak Hill Project (1994-141 units) 1992 # homes sold 7 av sales price $107,457 Map Coor Pg.132,A2 1995 1997 2000 6 10 8 $147,833 $160,560 $203,287 South Lotus Villas(1990-14 units) 1992 # homes sold 20 av sales price $131,155 Map Coor Pg. 132,B2 1995 1997 2000 24 28 1 $170,043 $180,611 $249,900 Data Sources: Multiple Listing Service, Twin City Area Chanhassen City Planner, Bob Generis (T: 937-1900) Waconia City Planning Secretary, Dawn (T: 442-2184) 11/22,/2000 11:49 ?634?84000 HEN PAGE 02 Hennep 3o .G.e unty Kandi~ M. Hanson, City Manager City of Mound 53~,1 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 RE: 22, 2000 CSAH-15 (Lynwood Blvd.) / CSAH-110 (Commerce Bl,,'d.) Preliminary Plat Submittal No. 2546 M¢.troPlains Properties, Inc. - Village by Cooks Bay Dear Ms. Hanson: This preliminary, plat review is performed in accordance with Minnesota S~atute.s 505.02 ~nd 505.03, Plats and Surx~eys, and MS 462.358, County Review of Plats. Since last spring, we have had a number of discussions with city staff and the developer concerning this l:n'oposed development. This proposal is a key element of Mound's do~-ntown redevelopment program and it is also affected by future improvements being designed by Hennepin Count)' as part of the CSAH-15 realignment project scheduled for year 2002. As often happens with these types of proposals, a number of changes have occurred since the development proposal was first presented to the ciD' and discuss/cms were first held ~,5th the coun~~. 2~e proposed developmmt has undergone a number of alterations, the city bas refined their vision cf ?,ow this dcvclopmen: ~vould fit ~dthin the overall downtown setting, and Hermepin Counb' has cc~;:i: to: ':r:.::: _:,3~: s:r~din~ of what types of roadway improvements may be required to support the proposed redeveiopmen:. There still are a number of issues that remain unresolved. A traffic smd>' has been r:ques:cd b? our Design Division and initiated by the city, that would clarify the traffic charactcris~cs and give some ~a~dance on thc design for the intersection and roadway approaches of CSAH-15 (Lynwood Blvd.) and CS.~-I-110 (Commerce Blvd.). The results of this study are not =nticipated to be available unn~ :h: - : ' ' Wc believe the issues related to the design of these two roadways are directl> proposal since right-of-way needs, access configurations, roadway and rum lane geometries w/Ii hinge on the evaluation of the results from the traffic study. For thts reason, we recommend that the city delay the preliminary plat approval until completion of the traffic study and the associated roadway needs can be determined. If the city should determine that this course of action is not a viable alternative, our recommendations based on the information currently available to us are the following: Right-of- Way Dedication · A total of 50 foot half roadway section should be dedicated along the frontage of the propcrts' for both CSAI-I-15 and CSAH-110. · A comer right-of-way triangle should be provided on the northwe st corner of CSA~H- 15 / CSAH- 110 (20 feet back from the corner along each roadway). This is for the comer radi,~s and signal appurtenances. The proposed plaza appears to sarisl~.' this requir~nc;',', ho'~'e'.'c: ch,':n~es in thc corn~ radius (mentioned below) might necessilat¢ further rnod~ficarion.~. ,4 CCeS.~ It is our understanding that the city envisions both the north a?pr oar?, o:' L'S.4-14- 2 i O anJ thc approach of CSAH-15 to remain as undivided roadways. In contras:, the count>' believes ;hat ehannelization needs to be a component of these roadway designs in order to maintain safe traffic flow and to accommodate the developer's proposed access config:aratior,. Transportation Department 1600 prattle Drive Mtdin~, Mirmmota 333~0-5421 ctq! ,~ 8_ ,-6 .., TDD (61~,) 852-6760 11/22/2000 ll:~B 753~7B~000 HEN ~'$£ ~3 If the roadway approaches remain unchannelized, count)' access spacing guidelines call for mile spacing for undivided minor arterial roadways. Therefore, we recorranend no access be provided to CSAI-I-110 betwccn Alder Road and CSAI-I-15. The exis:in£ pull-out accesses serving the Ice Arena would also need to be closed. The proposed entrance onto CSAH-15 from the development also would not meet county access spacing guidelines, however, the proposed location is acceptable as proposed. The lower volumes on CSAH-15, traffic movement benefits (less traffic forced tl~xough the CSAH-15 / CSAH-1 t0 intersection), and the existing public alley access in this vicinib' tend to support the proposed location as a reasonable option. Roadway Geometries · We understand the city's desire to provide parking on CSAH-15 to com?~ez, er,: tY, e 5an:'tion of the proposed development storefronts. However, the provision for safe roadway operations somewhat limits the amount of parking that can realistically bc provided. Ne parking will be allowed on CSAH-15 in the vicinity of the intersection since the parking n-mneuvers could conflict with turning movements from CSAH-110. Since CSAH-15 is only a 2-lane roadway, parking maneuvers could block the one through lane of traffic and thus dela':'¢d ve,~lc,es could back into the intersection of CSAI-I-15 / CSAH-ll0. The no-park/ng zor, e should prob~b!y cover thc length of at least one semi-track plus a couple of automobiles ( · Another limiting factor on the parking, is the need to provide for a wes:bo'.and rigAt tam lane from CSAH-15 to the development. · To maintain adequate Ixaffic operations on CSAH-15, provisions should be considered for eastbound left turns to the site. · To improve traffic flow, the egress from the site to CSAH-15 should pro,sale two exiting lanes to accommodate left and right roms. · Semi-truck turning characteristics need to be considered in thc design of thc CSAH-15 / CSAH- 110 intersection. These requirements may necessitate an increase in the radius of thc northwest comer (near the development plaza) and could also affect the intersection radii a~d ram lane lengths at the westerly access from CSAH-15 to the development. The resolution of these operational and design issues will require some additional t/me, thought, and discussion. The results of the traffic study will be needed before the corr~ple~e picture of fne roadway operations can be assernbled. We believe that these considerations supper, ~.~ r~eed '.o .Selay the apTroval of the preliminao' plat. The count':' Plat Review Committee would be willing to meet with the ciD' and :,he de-.'elc~per tc ~Liscass :hose issues prior to the plot's final approval by the ciD'. We could also reconsider other access confi,./ura:ions to this development if channelization is provided on CSAH-15 and/or CSAH-110. Please contact either Dave Zetterstrom (763) 745-7643 or Bob Byers (763) 745-7633 to set up a meeting or if you have any further questions. Thank you for yom consideration. Sincerely, James N. Combe Director, Transportation DepaFm~en~ John Cameron - Cit)' Enl~ineer (Mi:gA In¢,) Plat Review Committe~ - Byers I Holtz / Johnson / Lindgren / SrnmL-a / Zetterstrorn Lsvcme 14~nson Jl, - MetmPlains Development PUBLIC NOTICE MOUND HOUSING AND REDEVELOI~MENT AUTHORITY 1. Notice is hereby given that a public hearing on the approvat of a business subsidy agreement with MetroPlains Development LLC will be held before the HRA on Tuesday, December !2, 2000 at 6:30 o'clock p.m. in the city council chambers at the Mound City Hall located at 5341 Maywood Road Mouad, Minnesota. 2. Copies of the proposed business subsidy agreement will be available for public inspection on and after November 27, 2000, at Mound City Hail during normal business hours, 8:00 A.M. to 4:30 P.M., Monday through Friday. Fran Clark, City Clerk ~P~olished in The L~er, Nov. 25, 2000) NOTtCE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO [~Z. CONSIDER THE APPROVAL OF A - ONING AMENDMENT AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AREA/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AT 5600 LYNWOOD BLVD. P & Z CASE 00-65 AND 00-66 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 p.m. on Monday, December 4, 2000 to consider rezoning of the former Westonka School site and adjacent residenua~ prope~y from the current R-1 - Single-Family ResiqentiaL R-2 - Single and Two Family Resioential, and B-1 - Cemrai Business Zoning Dismcts to R-3 PDA . Mu[tipie Family P!anneo Development Area and Destination District Planned Development Area. The hearing is part of a development proposal which would create single and multiple family housing, retail commercial, and public ;)ark amenities for the site. Copies o[ the ptans are available to the public upon request at Ci~, Hall. All persons appearing at said hearing wit,~ reference to the above will ne g~ven '.ne opportunity to be heard at this meeting. Loren Gordon Ci~ Planner (p,;~lis~ed "The Laker November 25, 2000) NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE APPROVAL OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT AT 5600 LYNWOOD BLVD. P&Z CASE 00-64 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 p.m. on Monday, December 4, 2000 to consider the approval of a preliminary plat 5600 Lynwood Blvd. The hearing is part of a development orooosal /NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE YACATION OF A STREET/EASEMENT AT 5600 LYNWOOD BLVD. THE NORTH 30 FEET OF LOTS 18, 19, AND 20, "LYNWOLD PARK" LAKE MINNETONKA, LOCATED GENERALLY AT 5600 LYNWOOD BLVD. P & Z CASE 00-71 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the · City. Council of Se City..ef Mound..M~gesota, : ,wilt.meet irt the. Cout~ciL Chambers..5341 · Maywood-Road, at 7:30 p.~.'on Monday, Decembe~ ~ 2000'io Eonsider the vac.~tion of a streeUeasement · . DESCRIPTION OF STREET TO BE VACATE D The street to be vacated is a Portion of the public alley located directly 'no'Ih of the homes located along Lynwood Blvd. The legal description of the area to be vacated reads: which would create single and multiple family housing, retail commercial, and public park amenities for the site. Copies of the plans are available to the public upon request at City Hail. · · L0ren Gordon City Planner (Published in The Laker November 25, 2000) "The north 30.00 feet of Lots 18, 19 and 20, "Lynwold Park" Lake Minnetonka, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota." Lots 18, 19 and 20 are owned'by MetroPlains Development LLC. The hearing is part of a development prooosal which would create single and mut~pie family housing, retail_commercial, and public oark amenities for the.~te. The ,~ ~bli~,heann~ll:'be:heid- a~ City-Hal~;5.341 Maywood Road, at 7:30. p.m. on..,Monday December 4, 2000. Cop es Of the p~ai'{s are available to the public upon request at City Hall. .~ Loren Gordon City' Planner '(Published in The i_ake; Nover~ber 2.5, 2000) '- , ,;~ ': PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. TO: City of Mound Staff, Planning Commission and Council FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: November 20, 2000 SUBJECT: Mound Visions 1~ Addition Preliminary Plat (#00-64), Rezoning (#00-66), PDA (#00-65), and Easement Vacation (#00-71) - Supplemental Report APPLICANT: MetroPlains Development OWNER: Westonka Public School District LOCATION: NW comer ofLynwood Blvd and Commerce ZONING: Currently R-l, R-2 and B-1 proposed to change to R-3 PDA and Destination District PDA COMPREB2ENSIVE PLAN: Downtown Residential, Destination District, and Low Density Residential This report is intended to supplement to the November 8, 2000 Planning Report Since the last Planning Commission meeting, the developer has submitted additional information to complete the submittal package. The deficiencies outlined in the Planning and Engineering reports at last meeting have been addressed with this submittal. Mound Marketplace The locations of the grocery store and smaller retail shops have been flip-flopped since the last meeting based on conversations the developer has had with two potential grocers. This arrangement alleviates almost every issue raised by staff during the last review including circulation, building orientation, facade treatments, driveway alignments with Church Road, loading docks, and relationships with adjacent residential homes along Lynwood. By having the smaller retail shops along Lynwood, there are opportunities to have entrances from the street and the parking lot. The building will not need to be as tall and massive which will create a more intimate feel along Lynwood. It is also demonstrated that on-street parking can be accommodated along with a boulevard and sidewalk. Architectural Design Guidelines for Mound Marketplace detail how design will be addressed. 123 North Third Street, Suite I00, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax(612) 338-6838 p. 2 #00-64, 65, 66, and 71 - The Villages by Cook's Bay and Mound Market£1ace Preliminary Plat, CUP, t~ezoning, and Easement vacation November 20, 2000 Landscaping, Screening and Buffeting The landscaping plan identifies plantings for residential, park and commercial areas of the site. City code requires 99 plantings of overstory, conifer, and ornamental varieties within the residential area to meet the minimum of 1 tree per dwelling unit provision. The plan provides 145 planting units in addition to existing trees that will be maintained. A total of 47 shade trees will be planted along private streets and trail segments. Ornamental trees are located in courtyards and in front of buildings. A total of 64 ornamentals are shown. Conifers will provide screening along the south and west property lines. A total of 34 are proposed. The park will be planted with 24 overstory trees in addition to 9 conifers that will be maintained along the west property line. The commercial area will have a total of 95 plantings to satisfy the 66 planting minimum based on retail floor area. Again, conifers will be used to screen the grocery store and pond arena facades as well as the loading area of the grocery store. A total of 44 conifers are proposed. Shade trees are proposed for the parking area and along street boulevards. A total of 45 trees are proposed. A few ornamentals will highlight entry points along Lynwood and Commerce. The landscape plan is labeled as schematic and staff would want to work with the developer on detailing shrubs and plantings at the foundations of the commercial buildings. As with all developments, planting minimums of 2.5 inch caliper for deciduous and 6 feet height for conifers apply. Staff' believes the developer has proposed a good landscaping plan to address many of the screening and buffering issues. Two kerns with the landscape plan staff would recommend modifications to are boulevard plantings along the commercial areas and internal parking lot landscaping. Staffwould suggest overstory planting islands at the midpoint of every other parking row. Two islands would be sufficient to help provide visual relief in the parking lot. Secondly, staff would suggest the overstory boulevard plantings along Lynwood and Commerce be relocated to suggest an urban edge. Staff would like to work with the developer to better define the relationship of the building and street that is agreeable to the Mound Visions plan. The plaza area at the corner should also tie into this plan. Building Material Standards Material standards for the Village at Cook's Bay and Mound Marketplace detail exterior treatments for these buildings. These standards exceed code minimums for multi-family and commercial buildings. County Road 15 and 110 right-of-way The developer is proposing to dedicate a 7 feet strip along Lynwood and Commerce to Hennepin County for fight-of-way. This would appear to be acceptable to staff at this time until a 123 North Third Street, Suite I00, Minneapolis, Minnesota 5540 l (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 3384838 p. 3 #00-64, 65, 66, and 71 - The Villages by Cook's Bay and Mound Marketplace Preliminary Plat, CUP, Rezoning, and Easement vacation November 20, 2000 determination fi.om the County can be made. This often times comes after approval of the preliminary plat and is handled as a condition of final plat approval. Staff would like the developer to dedicate an pedestrian access easement between the right-of- way and building edge to further protect public access along Commerce and Lynwood. Parks and Trails The multi-use trail will be $ feet in width and easements will be provided to allow public use. A suggestion that was raised at the last meeting was to route the trail along the south side of the pond. The developer has indicated this is acceptable. Alley Vacation The plans show the alley on lots 18, 19 and 20 will be vacated. The preliminary plat indicates vacation of a portion of an alley to accommodate the access drive on Lynwood. All on and off- site utilities in the alley will need to be rebuilt consistent with the City Engineer's specifications. Parking A total of 313 parking spaces are shown in the commercial area at a 10 feet width. This equates to almost 1 space per 200 square feet of retail, a common standard among most metropolitan communities. The Mound code is set at 1 per 150 square feet which would require 440 spaces. Staff would concur with the developer's request. Staff would recommend isle spacing be a minimum of 62 feet. Two 90 degree parking areas are proposed in the residential area to accommodate staff's concerns regarding visitor parking. Staff would suggest the that spaces adjacent to the rear of the grocery store be relocated around the clubhouse to better accommodate visitor parking. Pond arena parking lot is reconfigured and provides 40 parking spaces. Lighting The City code requires that commercial development lighting not exceed 0.4 foot candles at the property line. Building lighting is proposed as discussed in the Architectural Design Guidelines for Mound Marketplace. Lighting for the private pedestrian street system should be indicated. Combinations of street lights and building lighting could be used. Common Interest Community The Villages at Cook's Bay will be planed as a Common Interest Community (CIC). A CIC is permitted by State Statute and acts similar for planing purposes to a condominium. There will not be dedicated lot lines for the townhomes or Big Houses. Rather, a lot line will be created at interior walls for each unit. The building exteriors and land will be owned and maintained by an association. For platting purposes, the Preliminary Plat will receive approval fi.om the Planning Commission and Council and final plat will receive Council approval. Upon final locations of the 123 North Third SWeet, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax(612) 338-6838 £. 4 #00-64, 65, 66, and 71 - The Villages by Cook's Bay and Mound Marketplace Preliminary Plat, C UP, Rezoning, and Easement vacation November 20, 2000 units, the developer will certify each unit and file the CIC with the Hennepin County Recorder. For a point of reference on density, if this development were platted, each unit would have an average of 5,400 square feet of lot area. This exceeds that lot area that would be required for a townhome development platted under a straight K-3 zoning district. The townhome provisions in the K-3 district require 5,000 square feet of lot are a per unit for a 3 unit building and 4,000 square feet per unit for a 6 unit building. Comprehensive Plan An amendment to the land use plan for lots 18, 19, and 20 will need to be made to shown the land as Destination District. This can be handled at the same time as the rezoning at the Planning Commission and at Final Plat approval by the City Council. RECOM~LENDATIONS: Planning Report recommendations are provided below and are in addition to those outlined in the City Engineer's report. Preliminary Plat Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the Preliminary Plat with the following conditions: 1. Determination of right-of-way by Hennepin County. Rezoning Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the rezonings as requested. The City will also approve a minor Land Use Plan revision to show lots 18, 19, and 20 of Lynwold Addition as Destination District Planned Unit Development consistent with the rezoning. The City will also approve a textual revision to the Downtown Kesidential designation in the Land Use Plan to better describe the development density and character. Conditional Use Permit Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the PDA for the Villages at Langdon Bay and the Mound Marketplace as requested with the following conditions: 1-. A variance of 127 parking spaces for the commercial parking area be approved. 2_. Relocate parking spaces along the rear of the grocery store to areas close to the clubhouse. 3_., A pedestrian easement between building facades along Lynwood and Commerce right-of- ways be provided. 4_. Easements for recreation and maintenance of the multi-use trail system. 5-. Indicate how the private streets will be lighted. 123 North Third Street, Suite I00, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 p. 5 #00-64, 65, 66, and 71 - The Villages by Cook's Bay and Mound Marketplace Preliminary Plat, CUP, Rezoning, and Easement vacation November 20, 2000 Developer work with the City in developing a streetscape along Commerce and Lynwood to address landscaping, fagade, and other improvemems complementary to the development and the Mound Visions Plan. Easement Vacation Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approve vacation 'of the alley easement as requested. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax(612) 338-6838 PUBLIC HE,,-kKING NOTICE CITY OF MOC~D MOL ~-ND, MIN~'ESOTA CASE .=,' 00-6~ NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO COt StDER T~IE APPROVAL OF A PR~[I'-,~-'/Lx':kR:y PleAT AT 5600 LYNWOOD BLVD. c.. s NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that th, City Council ~.,:' th= Cit} ,z,t' Mo:md. Mirmesota, will racet in thc Council Chambers, 53,[[ ~ta)'~voou ~.oad, at ,' v.m'. on ' ~ :30 , Monday, December 4, 2000 to consider the approval ot'a tor¢~,k,--,.ialr/plat 5600 Ly'm~ ood Bird. The heating is part of a development proposal which would create single and multiple family housing, retail commercial, and public park amenities for the site. Copies of'the plans are available to the public upon request at Ci~ Hall. Loren Gordon City, Planner Mailed to property owners within 350 feet of affected property on November 22. 2000. Published in the Laker November 22, 2000. ov ~O O0 OS: 1Sp PUBLIC HE~RING NOTICE CITY OF MOL.~D MOLrND, MIS.~ESOTA CAS ~.: o0-05 · N .-x. D 00-66 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEAP. lNG TO CONSIDER THE APPROVAL OF A ZOh'IiNG AMEND>LENT APPLICATIONAT 5600 LYiNWOOD BLVD. P&Z CASE 00-65 AND 00-66 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Counc/'i of ~e Cit.',' of blound, Mirmesota, will mcct ia the Couacit Chambers, 5341 Maywood Koaci, ar 7:30 p.m. or. Monday, December 4, 2000 to consider, rezoning of' the fOtTaCr W~tor, ka Sc'.-,ool site and adjacent residential prop¢~y from the currem R-1 - SingI~-Faz,.i!y R.~sidential, 8,-2 Single and Two Family 8,esidential, and B-I - Central Business Zoning Dis.'.dcu to R-3 PDA - M. uttipi~ Family Ptarmed Development .&rea and Des:ina:ion Dis:~ct Plak. ned Development Area. The hearing is par, of a development prov,.;-_'z;. '-~';...,,., '~' '~,. .... .,~.,.,"~ create single and multipie family housing, retail commercial, ~d public 7.'.::k "-':'-.cnities for t. he sit~. Copies of the plans are available to the public upon request at Ch',' Hall. Ail persons appeahng at said hearing wir. h reference to the ~bove will bt given the opporr, mJ.~' to be heard ar this meeting. Lor~n Gordon City Planner Mailed to property o,.vne~ within 350 feet of affected property or. Nev::n~.cr 22, 2000. Published ia th¢ Laker Novemb~'22, 2000. PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA CASE # 00-71 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE VACATION OF A STREET/EASEMENT AT 5600 LYNWOOD BLVD, THE NORTH 30 FEET OF LOTS 18, 19, AND 20, "LYNWOLD PARK" LAKE MINNETONKA, LOCATED GENERALLY AT 5200 LYNWOOD BLVD P&Z CASE 00-71 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 p.m. on Monday, December 4, 2000 to consider the vacation of a street/easement DESCRIPTION OF STREET TO BE VACATED The street to be vacated is a portion of the public alley locazed directly north of :he located along Lynwood Blvd. The legal description of the area to be vacated reads: hol~le$ "The noah 30.00 feet of Lots 18, 19 and 20, ~Ly~vold Pa~k' Lake ~4~nn~l;onlcn, ac. cording to recorded plne thereof, Heanepin Coumy, 1Vt'innesota." Lo~s l 8, 19 and 20 ar~ owned by MetmPlains Development LLC. The hearing is part of a development proposal which would create single and multiple family housing, retail commercial, and public park amenities for the site. The public hearing will be held at City. Hall, 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 p.m. on Monday December 4, 2000. Copies of the plans are available to the public upon request at City. Hall. Loren Gordon City Planner Mailed to property owners within 350 feet of affected property on November 22, 2000. Published in the Laker November 22, 2000. 612 333 7596 ' 11/17/2000 15:05 FAI'612 333 7596 __K K E ARCHITECTS ~002 MOUND MARKETPLACE DEVELOPlVI~HT__ - ARcHrrECTURAL DESI~2q ODiDELINES KKE ARCHITECTS KKE NO.: 01-05-1030-01 The overall P.U.D. design concept is to creatc a grocery anchored shopping center that is cohesive in the site plan layout to allow flexibility of'mixed-use of building types. The architecture should m~ntain a uniform charactcr and reflect a style that delivers a downtown vision and creates an attractive and pleasant shopping and dining environment. ARCI~TECTURAL GUIDEL~S BUILDING OI~W~NTATION , Site plapning concept of multiple buildings that are oriented toward Commerce and Linwood Streets buildings should be placed directly on property line of streets where feasible. · The orientation of buildings should take advantage of available view sheds from major thorough_Pares, where possible, and not conflict with the visibility of each tenant. · Fronts of buildings should orient toward Commerce and Linwood where fcasible and service areas of major anchor tenants shall face west toward industrial property. · Plaza areas should incorporate arbor structures, benches, ornamental lighting, special paving, and other pedestrian related streetscape clements. · The corner of Commerce and Linwood should provide a public gathering plaza/open area anchored by an architectural tower feature. BUll I~ING DESIGN .. BUILDING MASS , Varsring scale of buildings should be encouraged. · Varying rooflines to create interest in design stylcs shall be encouraged. · Proportions and massing should reflect a two-story appearance reminiscent of turn-of- the-century main streets. · Large areas of blank wall surface icing street frontage is discouraged. FA C...ADE DESIGN Unique and colorful canopies, roofs, and accents encouraged, however controlled to a palette of selected colors. · Architectural character will be consistent with all buildings w/thin master plan. · Masonry detailing such as. soldier coursing, or patterning shall be encouragcd. · Building character shall reflect the attractive and pleasant nature of the desired shopping and dining experience. · Thematic decorations are limited to m~i- front entries only. The use of cornices, ornamental lights, and other architectural details should bc encouraged. 11/17/2000 15:05 FAX 612 333 7596 K K E ARCHITECTS ~003 MOUND MARI<ETPLACW- DBVELOPMF-.NT AKCHITECTUKAL DESIGN GUIDELI2qES KKE ARCHITECTS KK2E NO.: 01-08-1030-01 The utilization of storefront glass should be maximized along street frontages where feasible. The use of spandrel glass is encouraged in lieu of blank facades along street frontages. BUILDING MATERIALS · Materials shall be selected for suitability to the type of buildings and the design in which they are used. Building walls should be finished in aesthetically acceptable tones and colors, complement the tones and colors of neighboring buildings. A rich, reddish brick color should predominate. · Materials shall be a durable quality. · Exterior wail treatments such as brick, natural stone, decorative concrete block, stucco and architecx'n~'xal metal panels shall be encouraged. · All wood treatment shall be painted and weather proofed. · A minimum of 25% of the facade shall be treated with the finished masonry building material. · Colors and specifications of masonry and stucco colors should be consistent throughout P.U.D. · Blank single masonry walls must consist of 25% of decorative masonry variation in color, texture or surface. DOORS AND WINDOWS A variety of canopies shall be encouraged at entryways. · Window frame, material and color to complement architectural style and be consistent in color throughout development. · Window openings may be modulated to scale and proportion complementary to the architectural style. Maximize storefront opportunities to avoid long expanses of blank wails at street fronts. o A minimum eight feet clear space shall be provided from sidewalk elevation to the lowest point of a canopy and/or suspended sign. · Window frames shall be constructed ofprefmished metal. · Window and doors shall be glazed in clear glass. Mirrored windows shall be discouraged. SCREENING · Loading areas, serviced doors, mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on ground, roof, or building shall be screened from public view with materials similar to the adjacent building material. · Drive-thru or service areas should be screened with berming and landscaping. 612 333 7596 11/17/2000 15:05 FAX 612 333 7596 K K E ARCHITECTS ~004 ~v~OUND MARKETPLACE DEVFJ.OPMF-.NT ARCHll'~CTLrRAL DESIGN GUIDELINEs4 KItE ARCHITECTS KKE NO.: 01-08-1030-01 FRANCHISE DESIGN ' , Franohise design shall utilize materials, scale and style of these architectural standard guidelines, yet maintain corporate identity. LANDSCAPE AND SITE TREATMENT pLA~T~G Plant material is to be utilized within the master plan area as an aid to provide continuity within the area and to provide a recognized definition of its boundaries. Parkway like street trees will be utilized along all external and internal roadways placement as to not block visibility of commercial signage. Unity of design shsl! be achieved by repetition of certain plant varieties and other streetscape materials and by correlation with adjacent development Entry points into the site are to be significantly landscaped and are to be designed with a common theme. Plant material is to be utilized as a screening element for parking and building utility Plant materials are to be utilized within parking lot islands. All loading service, utility and outdoor storage areas shall be screened from all public roads and residential developments. When natural materials are used as a screen, the screen shall achieve 75% capacity year round. Plant material shall be selected in regard to its interesting structure, texture, color, seasonal interest and its ultimate growth characterizes. Where building sites limit planting, the placement of plant materials in planters or within paved areas is encouraged. PARKING · When determined appropriate, commercial buildings arc to accommodate bicycle/motorcycle parking areas and bike rack design. * Cross parking between sites is encouraged. · Parking stalls to be 9' x 15', drive aisles to be 26' (62' bay spacing). · Parking lot layout should include clear, direct traffic movement throughout site. 11/17/2000 15:05 FAX 612 333 7596 K ~ E ARCHITECTS ~005 MOUND_MAB/~TPLACE DEVELOPMENT ARCH/~CTURAL DESIGN GUIDELINES KKE ARCHITECTS NO.: 01-0g-1030-01 LIGHTING , · Lighting should provide continuity and consistency throughout the area_ All parking lot lights shall be uniform in style, color and height maximum pole height of 30' in parking areas. Parking lot lights and wall lights shall have recessed lens directed away from residential areas. · Exterior wall lighting shall be encouraged to enhance the building design and the adjoining landscape. · Lighting styles and building fixtures shall be of a design and size compatible with the building and adjacent areas. Ornamental fighting should be encouraged. · Excessive brightness shall be avoided. SIGNAGE · Signs not allowed: - Rooftop signage - Signs painted on building - Electronic reader boards - Flashing or motion signs - Pole signs · Signage must maintain a consistent metal surround color throughout P.U.D. · Accent color banding or neon will be counted in sign area calculation if more than one band. · One pylon sign should be allowed at comer of Linwood and Commerce. A clock tower should be incorporated within the pylon. Pylon tower must be of brick to match buildings, and reflect architectural character and detailing of the rest o£the center. · Building signage should not overpower architectural character, but serve as identity. · Low entry monuments not to exceed 8' in height shall be encouraged at site entry from Linwood. · Wall signage should not exceed 8% of the building elevation. · Wall signage is allowed on any fagade facing public K.O.W. · Wall signage must be individually mounted illuminated letters. · The use of banner signage should be encouraged along small shop sweet oriented buildings. DATE FROM TO RE REMARKS MEMO November 1'7, 2000 Paul Madson Paul Madson + Associates, Ltd. City of Monnd Planning Commission l~'linimmn exterior nlalerials for lhe Residenliai componen! of the Village ~' Cook's Bay, Mound, MN Our intention is to provide a quality low maintenance exterior for all of the building types in the residential portion of the project. We commit to the following minin'mms: Masonry--20% of the building elevations below the "2_a floor ceiling line will be either brick or decorative concrete masonry. Siding--lap siding material shall be either prefinished steel or a cement based product called hardi-plank (see attached information). Soffits and Trim--soffits, trim and fascia shall be prefinished steel. Roofing--roofing shall be a 240 to 265 lb. "textured" asphalt shingle similar to Certainteed's Landmark series. Windows--windows shall be either vinyl clad wood or all vinyl, giving a maintenance fi'ce finish to the window exteriors. Doors--entry doors shall be insulated steel doors with either half or full vision glass. Miscellaneous--gutters and downspouts shall be prefinished aluminum. Paul Madgnn ~- Associalcs. l.ld grchitecmtre + Plannin$ 420 Norlh Fifth ~ql. Minncapolix. Mbl 55401 fil 2 332 7026 Flfi12 332 p oduct Speci£ catio Basic Composition/Size Ond cement, ground sand, cellulose select additives and water. James Hardie siding products contain no asbestos, glass fibers or formaldehyde. Hardiplank® Lap Siding Thickness: 5/16" Weight: 2.3 Ibs./sq ft. Width: Select Cedarmill 5 1/4" (4" exposure) 6 1/4" (5" exposure) 7 1/4" (6" exposure) 8 1/4" (7" exposure) 9 1/4" (8" exposure) 12" (10 3/4" exposure) Smooth 5 1/4" (4" exposure) 6 1/4" (5" exposure) 7 1/4" (6" exposure) 8 1/4" (7" exposure) 9 1/4" (8" exposure) 12" (10 3/4" exposure) Colonial Smooth anc Colonia Rougnsawn 8" (6 3/4" exoosure~ ~oe~ Smooth and Beaded Cedarmill 8 1/,~" T' exoosurel all Long,ns: t2' Hardi panel® Vertical Siding- Sierra 8, S~erra 4. Cedarmill. Smooth. and Stucco Thickness: 5/16" ': Weight: 2.3 It~s./kq. ft Sheet Sizes: 4' x 8'. 4' x 9', 4'k 10' Hardie® Shingleside® Thickness: 1/4" _ Weight: 1.9 lbs./sq, fi.. Length: 18" (8" exposure) Approvals :---' ' Hardiplank lap siding, Hardipanel vertical siding and Hardie Shingleside are recognized as exte- rior claddings in National EValuation Service (NES), Inc., Report No. NER- 405 (BOCA, ICBO, SBCCI); Ci'o/of Los Angeles, Research Report No. 24862; Texas Department of Insurance Product Evaluation EC23; United States Depart- ment of Housing and Urban Development Materials Release 1263a; California DSA Product Acceptance Number PA-019; and City of New York MEA No. 223-93-M. Hardiplank lap siding is recognized as exterior cladding in CCMC Evaluation Report 12678-R. These documents should also be consulted for additional information concerning the suitabiliW of this product for specific applications. Durability James Hardie building products are autoclaved, will not rot, and will resist permanent damage from water and salt spray. Flexural Strength Typical based on Equilibrium Moisture Content '~ accorQance with ASTM memod S1185. Along direction of sheet: 2500 ps, Across direction of sheet 1850 ps~ Non-Corn bustibitity Hard olank'~ and HardiDaneF sidings are recogn~zeo as non-combustilJle when tested in accordance with ASTM test method E-136. Surface Burning Capabilities When tested ~n accordance with ASTM test method E-84: Flame Sprea~ 0 Fuel Contributed 0 Smoke Develooed 5 Thermal Resistance (Approximate values) 5/16" thick: R=0.15 t/4" thick: R=0.13 Please call 1-800-9HARDIE for installation instructions and safe handling information. · , L mes,Hard,e . : ~2~Ja~s ~a~m au,o~ ~,.l~..m a~ ~ denote trade~ ~ ~":'- : :. J~mes.H~rdie.Research ~ Limi~ ACN ~6 114 ~;77,~..',.dj ? -z iil iI1 Midwest Commercial Exteriors. Inc. ~61C: Jefferson Hwy. · Osseo. MN 55369-0266 · Lic. 20131062 EXTERIOR PRODUCTS AND INSTALLATION SERVICES TOM LEMKE offioe: (763) 424-5003 Cell: f612) 369-1524 Direct: (763) 391-5509 Nexteh 3935 ,-ax: (763) 391 HARDIPLANK, HARDIPANEL HARDIE~SH/NGLES/DE® · The Warmth of Wood, the Durability Consumers Demand · 50-Year Limited Transferable Warranty* · Resists Moisture'Damage · Low Maintenance Won't Crack, Rot or DeIaminate · witkstands Termite Attack · Non-combustible MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAYNOVEMBER 15, 2000 Those present: Chair GeoffMichael; Commissioners: Michael Mueller, Becky Glister, Frank Weiland, Cklair Hasse, Bill Voss, Jerry Clapsaddle, and Council Liaison Mark Hanus. Excused: Ovrin Burma. Absent: Council Liaison Bob Brown. Staff present: City Manager Kandis Hanson, City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland and Recording Secretary Sue Schwalbe. The following Public were present: Kathy Anderson, KKE Architects Vernon Hanson, Metro Plains Development Rod and Ginny MacCharles, Minnetrista Erik Magnus, 2052 Grandview Blvd, Mound Valarae J. Magnus, 2052 Grandview, Mound Mark Heesen, 5826 Lynwood Blvd., Mound Pete and Jackie Meyer, 5748 Sunset Road, Mound Betty Weiland, 6045 Aspen Road, Mound B. W. Murdsten, SEI Diane Rowe, 5733 Lynwood Blvd., Mound Jeff and Terri Corn, 5764 Lynwood Blvd., Mound Gregory Metz, 5718 Elm Road, Mound Francis Engle, 5745 Lynwood Blvd., Mound Robert J. Bosse Marshall and Kim Anderson, 5736 Lynwood Blvd., Mound Wayne Ehletracht, 4873 Shoreline Drive, Mound Watson Pounder, 5782 Elm Road, Mound Jane Carlsen, 5782 Elm Road, Mound Linds Skorseth, 5648 Alder Road, Mound Sheila Murphy, 2044 Bellaire Lane, Mound Pat Murphy, 2044 Bellaire Lane, Mound Peter Johnson, 3140 Priest Lane, Mound Carol Perkkio, 5748 Elm Road, Mound Marion Jones, 5748 Lynwood Blvd., Mound Michael David Tom Casey, 2854 Cambridge, Mound Robert W. Jones, 5748 Elm Road, Mound Becky Jorgensen, 5758 Elm Road, Mound NOVEMBER 15, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PAGE 2 Chair Michael welcomed the public to the special meeting and offered refreshments. He then called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. Chair Michael explained the reasons for a special meeting tonigiht and went on to explain the three items on the agenda and the ground rules. The staff presentation will be bypassed and the developer will give a presentation. The Commission will then discuss the information and open the public hearing. The discussion will then return to the Commisison Level for the final discussion. 1. BOARD OF APPEALS CASE #00-64 PDA/PRELIMINARY PLAT, PUBLIC HEARING METROPLAINS DEVELOPMENT NW CORNER OF LYNWOOD AND COMMERCE CASE #00-65 CONDITION USE, PUBLIC HEARING METRO PLAINS DEVELOPMENT NW CORNER OF LYNWOOD AND COMMERCE CASE #00-66 ZONING AMENDMENT, PUBLIC HEARING METRO PLAINS DEVELOPMENT NW CORNER OF LYNWOOD AND COMMERCE VERN HANSON FOR METRO PLAINS: Introductions were made. Paul Madson, Madson Architects; Michelle Keiser, Larry Olson of Metro Plains; each a specialist. Kathy Anderon of KKE Architects for the commercial component; and Brian Lundstock of Sunday Engineering. Show Madson Survey Company has no representation. Hanson first discussed background information. Describing location of each component as indicated on the map. He then went on to explain the survey and basic grading conditions of the property and surrounding uses. The next visual aide was the preliminary plat broken into two major areas. First, Block One Entire Complex of the Mound Visions Second Addition. Lot one commercial. Second, lot two indicated by residential component. Three outlots (A = direction to the west of the Pond Arena. B and C = surround residential on the easterly and northerly perimeters). Hanson then went on to explain the grading and utility plan. He analyzed the proposed needs of the complex and outlined the general grade after the residential and commercial portions are complete. NOVEMBER 15, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PAGE 3 Site Plan 1 was submitted in original packet. Hanson believes the commercial component works well with the Mound Vision Plan. For example, the urban comer works directly with the relationship to the Mound Visions Plan. See packet map. Two housing styles are proposed. First for the senior population; and second, townhomes for a greater density. All of which are readily accessible to the community at large. The trail system moves north to south or south to north and allows itself to the downtown Mound Visions plan. Site Plan 2 is revised from above. The proposed grocers are concerned about their location be the most advantageous. Other sites were reviewed; then the strip commercial area was flip-flopped with the grocery/liquor area. This allows the strip commercial portion to have parking on two sides. This change will not effect residential, parks or tot lot. Metro Plains has worked with staff and met the needs of the Pond Arena, potential retailers and the Mound Visions Plan. Also they have increased the parking for the Pond Arena by approximately 40- 50 stalls to help with major events. This new arrangement also promotes the urban comer with special characteristics for green space, water fountain, or special event space. Metro Plains also met with Mound Senior Citizens to address their goals and ambitions in what they are looking for. This meetings was November 15, 2000 with a focus group of seniors. PAIJL MADSON, PAUL MADSON AND ASSOCIATES. Mr. Madson explained that the residential portion remains basically unchanged from the previous meeting. However, the site is a bit more introverted. More landscaping has been established than previously submitted. They are trying to create outdoor spaces at a more natural scale. All units will be for sale to private owners and will be owner occupied. The size of the units will be approximately 1500 to 1800 square feet with two care garages. One type will have a tuck under and one type of townhome will have an attached garage. Mr. Madson then went on to explain in detail the dimensions of living rooms, dinning rooms, etc. The idea of the 'big house' is being developed and will be determined by the potential buyers. Two units will be combined if the market dictates. The typical unit will have 1400 square feet and 1500-1600 for the large units with a two bedroom and study space. Major features of the site is dictated by the retention pond (storm water management). Also included is the provision for Lynwood Blvd (County Road 15) to be expanded by Hennepin County. For dimensions see packet. NOVEMBER 15, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PAGE 4 COMMERCIAL: By relocating the grocery from the original location, the building will be as the size requested. Plus the green space can be extended. Also there can be a 4000 square foot building to anchor along the street to keep with the Mound Visions Plan. Maybe a stepping and/or ramping area for the plaza area which would create drama and a gathering place. The amount of land Hennepin County will take for expansion of County Road 15 is still an unknown. However, moving the grocery store should accommodate this expansion. Also moving the grocery store from its original location creates a traffic swing which will slow down the traffic entering and existing and parking lot. MEETING OPENED TO BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Metro Plains has submitted a Preliminary Plat, Conditional Use Permit and Zoning Amendment for a residential/commercial redevelopment project for the old Westonka High School property. The residential project, "The Village by Cook's Bay", will include 99 units in townhome and row house buildings. A 67,000 square foot retail commercial component, "Mound Marketplace," is proposed for the Commerce/Lynwood comer. A purchase agreement with the Westonka Public School District is pending. THE VILLAGE BY COOK'S BAY The concept plan indicates 59 townhomes arranged in 3-7 unit buildings. All streets within the residential area of the development t will be private with a 24 feet width. Staffhas requested there be no on-street parking because of the need to allow emergency access on this narrowed design. Staff has also requested extra parking bump outs for overflow parking that is always needed in townhome developments. The narrative indicates each townhome will have a two stall garage, although the garage width on the plans scales at 17 feet and would not allow this arrangement. Either the plans are not to scale or the unit widths will be to be increased. If the unit width is increased, the layout and/or unit count will change as a result. As a planned development, dimensional items such as building setbacks, lot area and width are approved and regulated under a conditional use permit. At this point, individual lots are not shown on the preliminary plat or the development plan to establish these standards. Articles of incorporation, association bylaws, or other covenants will need to be provided and approved by Council for this development. NOVEMBER 15, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PAGE 5 Typical building layouts showing exterior elevation design are provided. Townhome developments have a tendency to be rather monotonous without attention to special details like rooflines, large wall sections, garage doors, transition between units, and materials. If these are the plans that will be used, the plansets should reflect this and also provide an elevation as viewed from the street to show garages. The developer anticipates the townhomes will attract empty nesters and young families and is a good "fit" with current housing market needs. An idea of what the interior layouts will incorporate to support the narrative in the development packet should be provided. Four 'big house' flats are shown on the eastern side of the development along Bellaire Road. The narrative talks about these units as single level with four units per level in these 2-3 story buildings. Underground parking would be provided. Dimensional standards would be regulated through the conditional use permit as well as building design items like exterior materials. Staff agrees with the developer that the market for the flats would appeal to senior which is a good 'fit' with the needs in Mound. PARCEL SIZE 12.27 ac PROPOSED UNIT # 99 DENSITY 8 units/acre ZONING (EXITING) ZONING (PROPOSED) Minimum Lot Size Minimum Lot Width Front Yard Setbacks Side Yard Setbacks Rear Yard Setbacks LAND USE PLAN R-1 R-3 PDA Not Available Not Available Not Available Not Available Not Available Downtown Residential (Medium to High Density Residential ~ 7 + units/acre) SUBDIVISION STREET DESIGN Right-of-way width NA - Private Streets Pavement width 24 feet Park Site Dedication 1.89 acres or 10% of total development land area - 18.97 acres HARDCOVER 36.2 percent NOVEMBER 15, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PAGE 6 MO UND MAR KE TPLA CE At the comer of Lynwood and Commerce on the old school site, the developer is proposing 67,000 square feet of retail commercial arranged in three buildings. The developer indicates a grocer will be the main tenant to anchor this area and will be locate din the building fronting on Lynwood Blvd. The building fronting on Commerce Blvd. would be targeted for a restaurant. Ideas for the third building are a liquor store and other small tenants. The buildings fronting Lynwood Blvd. And Commerce Blvd. would have a close relationship with the street to compliment the Mound Vision Plan. Because this is a planned development like the residential component, dimensional standards and design are regulated through a conditional use permit. PARCEL SIZE PROPOSED SQ. FT OF COMMERCIAL ZONING (EXITING) 6.7 ac 67,000 B-1,R-1,R-2 ZONING (PROPOSED) Minimum Lot Size Not Available Minimum Lot Width Not Available Front Yard Setbacks- Building fronting on Lynwood Building fronting on Commerce Destination District PDA 20 feet 2 feet Side Yard Setbacks- Building fronting on Lynwood 97 feet West building 30 feet Rear Yard Setbacks Not Available LAND USE PLAN Destination District SUBDIVISION STREET DESIGN Streets/Drives All private access PARKING 357 spaces provided Code requires 446 spaces 9 feet by 18 feet stall dimension Code requires 10 feet by 20 feet 92 percent HARDCOVER NOVEMBER 15, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING LANDSCAPING PAGE 7 Details for landscaping are not provided. Code requires minimums of one tree per residential dwelling unit and the great of one tree per 1,000 square feet of floor or 50 feet of perimeter for commercial development. There are virtually no trees on the property today. SCREENING AND BUFFERING Parking areas and loading docks will require screening form residential areas through landscaping, berming or fencing techniques. BUILDING MA TERIAL S TANDAP~S Acceptable building materials as outlined in the code will apply to residential and commercial structures. WETLANDS The site was historically a wetland but was filled prior to and after construction of the 1916 school and 1960 addition. No wetlands exist on the property today and a review of development implications on the Wetland Conservation Act is not applicable. COUNTY ROAD 15 AND COUNTY ROAD 110 It appears that Hennepin County will require additional right-of-way that will reduce the platted land area. This will impact the proposed building locations and parking area. The County is holding off on specific comments until a review of the traffic study for the downtown is complete. The report is anticipated to be complete in early December 2000. PARKS AND TRAILS The plan indicated the dedication of 1.89 acres of land to park to satisfy 10 percent land dedication. The report is inaccurate in describing the City's role in park development. The City has asked the developer to provide play equipment in the tot lot located in the northwest comer of the site. Additional improvements desired in the park area along Bellaire Lane would be provided to the developer, not the City at this time. The City would expect the park area be graded and turf established at the time the residential component is building built. Parking bays along Bellaire Lane and Elm Road would be constructed by the developer not the City. NOVEMBER 15, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PAGE 8 The indicated six feet trail should be eight feet as requested by Staff. Additional easements to provide public access will need to be improved. Discussion about using the stormwater pond as a skating area during the winter surfaced at staff discussions and the Park Commission. The developer would like to incorporate this as a 'public' amenity. Some type of easement of use agreement will need to be put in place to secure this for community residents. Arrangements for now removal, lighting, and other use related issues will need to be worked out also. An outnm area will need to be graded properly for a sliding hill. The retaining wall in the tot lot should be on private property if it can't be avoided. ALLEY VA CA TION The preliminary plat indicated vacation of a portion of an alley to accommodate the access drive on Lynwood blvd. A description of the alley needs to be provided along with an application to vacate. A public hearing will also need to be scheduled. POND'S ARENA As indicated on the survey, the property boundary extends into what would appear to be the parking area for Pond's arena. Knowing the parking deficiencies of the arena during hockey games, the developer has indicated that are shown as Outlot A will be given to the arena. ANTENNA TOWER The developer has discussed the status of the cell tower with the leasing company US West, now known as Qwest. The developer has indicated the tower will not work with the current site layout and will need to be relocated on or off site. The City approved a variance for the tower for its location on current Parcel 11 and it will only allow relocation within the boundaries of that parcel. Because towers are only permitted on industrial lands, there is no opportunity for relocation to the commercial site. Also, if the tower is moved, it needs to have a fall zone equal to its height from the property lines of what is now parcel 11. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN An amendment to the land use plan for Lots 18, 19, and 20 will need to be made to shown the lands as Destination District. This can be handled at the same time as the rezoning at the Planning Commission and at Final Plat approval by the City Council. NOVEMBER 15, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PAGE 9 OTHER COMMENTS Narrative discusses speed bumps Complete survey information for the site and adjacent lands 100 feet from property. Comply with Hennepin County requirement for showing off site streets and driveways. Need to determine how townhomes and flats will be subdivided on the plat. Narrative discusses speed bumps along Bellaire Lane and Alder Road. Appear to be incorrect statement. City will not allow bumps on public streets. RE COMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission consider review of the Preliminary Plat and development plan applications, but take no action until additional information can be provided to meet code requirements as discussed in this report and the City Engineer's report. Staff has reviewed the materials submitted by Metro Plans for a major subdivision of the School District property at the comer of Commerce Blvd., and Lynwood Blvd., and have the following comments and recommendations: PRELIMINARY PLA T The name suggested for the plat is Mound Vision 1st Addition," with Vision singular. The plat for the new True Value Hardware site was called "Mound Visions Addition" with Vision plural. This plat should also use Visions. Hennepin County will most likely require this plat to be the 2nd addition; however, they do not have a requirement that the addition number of numerical, it can be spelled out. The City should decide with this plat how they would like to see the addition number identified and continue the procedure on all future plats for the downtown redevelopment. The documentation submitted suggests that at least some of these units will be platted as townhomes, which require separate plated lots. The preliminary plat as submitted shows only one large lot for the entire residential area. If the intention is to plat individual lots, the plat will need to be revised to show such. The preliminary plat does not show any additional right-of-way to be dedicated to Hennepin County along both Commerce Blvd. and Lynwood Blvd. Hennepin County had indicated they will definitely require additional right-of-way on Lynwood Blvd., and possibly along Commerce Blvd. The City is currently working with Hennepin County on a redesign of the intersection, which will undoubtedly affect this property. NOVEMBER 15, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PAGE 10 The City Code Section 330, requires that all existing conditions within 100 feet must be down. This has not been done; therefore, it is very difficult for Hennepin County or Mound staff to review the submittal for the affects on adjacent property. The preliminary plat shows the east end of the existing alley to be vacated. This will require additional action by the City Council and Planning Commission and required public hearings. The City has utilities located within this alley, for which easements will need to be retained. There is also an existing City of Minnetrista sanitary sewer forcemain and a City of Mound storm sewer line, which traverse the site between Alder Road and the alley, for which easements will be required. PRELIMINARY GRADING AND UTILITY PLAN The preliminary grading and utility plan generally met the City's requirements. The streets within the development are proposed to be private. The gradnig plan indicates two different methods of collecting stormwater. The main north/south street that connects to the commercial area shows street drainage with catch basins on only one side. The looped street along the north and west side has an inverted crown with catch basins located in the center of the street. These designs will function adequately; however, they do not met Mound's normal City street design where the street is crowned with catch basins locate don both sides at the curb line. Since the City does not have an approved Stormwater Management Plan, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) is still the permitting agency for the stormwater permit. Application must be made directly to the MCWD and any approval by the City of the preliminary plat must be conditional upon MCWD's ultimate approval. MCWD policy requires that the applicant receive preliminary approval from the City before they will take action on the request. We have reviewed the proposed watermain system with the Public Works Superintendent and are in general agreement with the proposed plan; however before final plans can be prepared the applicant must provide a fireflow analysis for our review. It appears there may be a shortage of hydrants, especially in the residential area. The hydrant spacing should be reviewed by the Mound Fire Department. The plan does not show any valves on the proposed watermain. Locations for valves will need to be discussed with the Public Works and the City Engineer and added when final plans are prepared. Mound requires valves on all hydrant leads. The sanitary sewer system as presented also appears to be in general compliance with the City requirements. NOVEMBER 15, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PAGE 11 Utility easements must be provided on the final plat for both the watermain and sanitary sewer, which will be public utilities. The sanitary sewer mains providing service for the two individual commercial buildings should remain as private lines. The entire storm sewer system, including the stormwater pond will be private, to be maintained by the Homeowner's Association and Commercial entity. The only exception will be the existing catch basins located at the southwest side of the intersection of Bellaire Lane and Alder Road. These catch basins should remain on the City's present system. The most easterly sanitary sewer manhole in the alley is located in the portion of the alley proposed for vacation. It is also very close to a proposed retaining wall and therefore we are recommending that a new manhole be built over the existing main approximately 20 feet. The unused section main and old manhole would need to be removed as part of this construction. STREETS AND ACCESS The narrative accompanying the applications calls for private streets 24 feet wide with no parking on either side. The plan does not specifically identify concrete curb and gutter; however this is a standard requirement of the City whether the streets are private or public. The off street parking areas shown on the "development Plan" do not match those shown on the "Preliminary Grading and Utility Plan." It appears the Grading Plan may be more correct, since it shows more off street parking, which will be required with no on street parking allowed. The Development Plan needs to be revised to reflect the correct layout. Any approval of the preliminary plans must be conditional upon Hennepin County's approval of the three entrances shown on the Grading Plan and Development Plan. The Grading Plan indicates new off street parking on the west side of Bellaire Lane between Alder Road and the new private street entering the site at the northeast comer of the property. The Development Plan also shows off-street parking on the south side of Elm Road. All costs associated with widening of the City streets to provide additional parking should be the responsibility of the developer. The parking stalls for the Commercial area are not dimensioned; however they scale approximately nine feet wide by 20 feet deep, which does not meet the City's required width often feet (Section 350:760,sbd. 2.A). The dimension of 60 feet as shown between the parking bays is at the low end of the accepted standards for this distance. Our recommendation would be to look at these two distances together. If the stalls are changed to ten feet wide, as required by code, then the 60 feet is acceptable; however, if nine feet wide stalls are used (which will require a variance) then a minimum of 62 feet or 63 feet should be required between the parking bays. The proposed bituminous trails are not dimensioned on any of the plans; however the narrative states it will be six feet wide. We would recommend that eight feet wide be the minimum allowed, which is a recognized standard in most communities. NOVEMBER 15, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PAGE 12 Speed bumps at Bellaire Lane and Alder Road are mentioned in the narrative. The City does not allow speed bumps on public streets. MISCELLANEOUS The records at City Hall have been researched to try and determine what this property has previously paid for utility and street assessments. It appears that sufficient fees have been paid for past sanitary sewer and street improvement projects; however nothing could be found relating to previous assessments for watermain. The different plan sheets should be revised to include City requirements and also to be consistent with each other. Building Official Jon Sutherland. Generally, the concept reviewed is likeable and a good fit for the site and for the needs including housing and retail. THE VILLA GE B Y COOKS BAY (RESIDENTIAL) The townhomes and 'big house' will be setup in a condominium owned by an association; not platted lots of ownership. Ownership will be within the walls of the condominium. City Planner Loren Gordon will be reviewing Preliminary Plat showing the lots in the future. This is a little different than a townhome or a skyrise apartment. The development as to where the buildings will sit on the property will be approved by the City of Mound. The final plat will not have lot lines as it is a condominium. DENSITIY: Eight units per acre is 'Downtown Residential' by the Comprehensive Plan. Zoning requested is R-3. Sutherland believes that zoning fits nicely with the Mound Comprehensive Plan. PARK SITE DEDICATION 1.89 acres which is exactly 10% of the residential and commercial which was the idea from the beginning. Commercial 6.7 acres or 67,000 square feet with a zoning of B1 and R1 'Plan Development District'. As per Gordon, it is very important City agrees with location of the buildings on the site. 357 spaces of parking. City of Mound requires 446 spaces of parking. Mound Code is one parking space for every 150' of retail. Metro Plains is requesting one parking space for every 200' of retail. This is basically what other communities have. NOVEMBER 15, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PAGE 13 Staff is working hard for on-street parking for the Lynwood Blvd. Hennepin County does not seem to agree. HARDCO VER The residential portion is 36% ofhardcover; this includes the park site. The commercial portion is 92% ofhardcover; this is good for a commercial downtown. COMPLIMENTARY COMPONENTS There will be one tree for every 50 feet of linear perimeter. Staffrecommends closely examining the landscaping issues and the location of trees. SCREENING AND B UFFERJNG Staff recommends closely examining the loading dock areas in regards to screening and buffering because of the close proximity of other residents. PARKS AND TRAILS An eight foot trail along the west side of the property so that the public go walk from one area to the next would have to be an easement. ALLEY A portion of the alley needs to be vacated. This would be part of the development. POND ARENA Staff is working on the parking situation. Additional parking would be very helpful. This development will not resolve the parking issues at the Pond Arena. ANTENNA TOWER At this time, staff is not clear as to how to relocate the antenna tower. The Planning Commission should keep this in mind when reviewing the plan. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NOVEMBER 15, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PAGE 14 Lot 20 (along Lynwood Blvd., vacant house) 18, and 19 will become a driving area. The developer has an agreement with owner to purchase. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends no action taken at this time. Review again at the next scheduled Planning Commission Meeting on November 27, 2000. Leave the public hearing open for more input. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS: Commissioner Mueller questioned the manipulating the grade. Metro Plains explained that basically everything will be scraped. Fairly significant grading must be done. Commissioner Mueller questioned the hardcover inclusive of sidewalks. Response from staff is yes and that this information is included on page 42 of the packet. Commission Clapsaddle questioned the size of the urban area. Metro Plains explained that in the spring of 2001 the commercial area will be developed first. Next phase will be the residential to be completed in the late fall of 2001. The residential commences with the number of purchases. The size of the plaza is 40 X 40. Commissioner Mueller questioned the trail system. Gordon explained the trail system will be eight feet wide sections and installed, constructed, and paved at the cost of the developer. The City will maintain it. PUBLIC HEARING OPENDED AT 9:10 P.M. PETER REPRESENTING THE POND AREA. Peter voiced his concerned with parking. First, the Pond Arena does intend to continue as is and feels the parking is going to more of a problem than it is now; and second, the Pond Arena's permit issued for a shared/used parking lot with the school district, Marquette Bank, and the Methodist Church. They are very concerned with the parking limitations. PETE MEYER, 5748 SUNSET ROAD. Mr. Meyer strongly supports the commercial portion of this project; however strongly opposes the zoning change and the residential portion. Mr. Meyer feels we will loose kids services because this area is the only outdoor skating in the area. The soil is poor because it is filled in swampland. Mr. Meyer feels the residents of Mound should not have to subsidize the soil improvements of the townhomes. NOVEMBER 15, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PAGE 15 ERIC MAGNUSON 2052 GRANDVIEW BLVD. Mr. Magnuson is concerned with the big house elevations. Metro Plains responded 2 1/5 story buildings. This third story will be built into the roof and wood frames are usually limited to three stories. DIANE ROWE, 5733 LYNWOOD BLVD. Ms. Rowe lives on the south side of the development and is concerned with on-street parking on County Road 15 and would like this clarified. Gordon explained this is a County Road and mostly a County decision. Also any turn lanes would be at the end of the commercial development. Hennepin County improvements would only be the length of the commercial property. Ms. Rowe is also concerned with the affect on property values. City Manger Kandis Hanson explained that the realignment of County Road 15 will change the traffic patterns of this road and property values might change accordingly. Ms. Rowe would also like to request no speed bumps. GREG METZ, 5718 ELM ROAD. Mr. Metz is concerned with the direct effect this development will have on his property. Mr. Metz inquired if a shading study was completed. Metro Plains responded by explaining the residential homes will be set back 60 feet from the property lines plus an additional 50-60 feet of right-of-way, plus the distance to Mr. Metz's home. TERRI CORN, 5764 LYNWOOD BLVD. Ms. Corn's concern in the Evangelical Church. The church uses the Pond Arena Parking. Ms. Corn's also is concerned with the Pond. Gordon explained the purpose of the pond is to filter the rainwater bsefore it soaks into the ground and into the storm sewer. LYNWOOD BLVD. ALLEY OWNER. This gentleman's back yard drains into the low land area and is questioning where the water will be diverted to. Gordon explained the storm water management will handle it. Also he is questioning the price of the townhomes. Metro Plains responded with $150,000 to $180,000. KIM ANDERSON. Read passage from book regarding neighborhood histories. JACKIE MEYER, 5748 SUNSET ROAD. Ms. Meyer is bothered by the term "urban" and does not want to live in an "urban" area. Also does not approve of the idea of rezoning. NOVEMBER 15, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PAGE 16 MICHAEL, 2853 FERN LANE. REPRESENTING THE HOUSE OF MOY. Michael is concerned with the TIF district and is questioning if this area will be included with the TIF district. Council Liaison Hanson explained that the Council has not been approached and/or requested as of this time. VALERIE MAGNUS, 2052 GRANDVIEW BLVD. Ms. Magnus is a long time resident of Mound. She feels she will welcome new neighbors but not by the hundreds. Ms. Magnus is concerned that the density is too high but welcomes the commercial development. LINDA, 5680 SKORSETH ROAD. Linda inquired as to Mound's guidelines concerning density. Gordon explained low density is six units per acre. Medium is up to 12 units per acre and high density is over 12 units per acre. This is considered medium density. Lakewind Condominiums and Seahorse Condominiums is much higher. ROBERT JONES, 5758 ELM ROAD. Mr. Jones' main issue is density also. He feel the Commission should look at the entire neighborhood and any plans should be incorporated with the single family homes already in the area. HARMAN DAVID, 5748 LYNWOOD BLVD. Mr. David would like to see the density cut in half. He supports the commercial site and supports the tot area TOM CASEY. 2854 CAMBRIDGE LANE. Mr. Casey would like to inquire on the fiscal impacts of this new community; for example, this cost of the public services, what is the impact of the current businesses. Metro Plains responded by informing Mr. Casey the negotiations are currently under way to move the municipal liquor store into the new and improved area. BECKY JORGENSON, 5758 ELM ROAD. Ms. Jorgenson also is has issues in regards to density and zoning changes. Also is concerned with adding 500 extra vehicles to our streets. Chair Michael stated the Planning Commission will continue the public hearing on Monday, November 27, 2000. If applicant submits suitable information to city staff. F. NOVEMBER 15, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PAGE 17 Chair Michael requested the parks and open space minutes be included in the next Planning Commission packet and thanked the public for coming forth and speaking. City Manager Kandis Hanson stated this project is unfolding daily and the public is encouraged to follow. The HRA meeting will address the TIF issues. Business subsidies are the HRA and City Council meetings. There is a forum to express your comments and concerns. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION by Glister, seconded by Muller to adjourn the meeting. MOTION CARRIED: 8-0 Chair Michael adjourned the meeting at 11' 15 p.m. Memorandum Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. [MX TO: City of Mound Staff, Planning Commission and Council FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: November 8, 2000 SUBJECT: Mound Visions 1" Addition Preliminary Plat - Mound Marketplace and The Village by Cook's Bay .~PPLICANT: Mcu'oPlains Development OWNER: Westonka Public School District LOCATION: N-W comer ofLynwood Blvd and Commerce ZONING: Currently R-l, R-2 and B-1 proposed to change to K-3 PDA and Destination District PDA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Downtown Residential; Destination District, and Low Density Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant, Metro Plains, has submitted a Preliminary Plat, Conditional Use Permit and Zoning Amendment for a residential/commercial redevelopment project for the old Westonka High School property. The residential project, "The Village by Cook's Bay", will include 99 units in townhome and row house buildings. A 67,000 sq. ft. retail commercial component, "Mound Marketplace," is proposed for the Commerce/Lynwood comer. A purchase a~eement with the Westonka Public School District is pending. The Village by Cook's Bay The concept plan indicates 59 townhomes arranged in 3 - 7 unit buildings..&Il streets within the residential area of the development will be private with a 24 feet width. Staff has requested there be no on-street parking because of the need to allow emergency access on this narrowed design. Staffhas also requested extra parking bump outs for overflow parking which is always needed in townhome developments. The narrative indicates each townhome will have a 2 stall garage, although the garage width on the plans scale at 17 feet and would not allow this arrangement. Either the plans are not to scale or the unit widths will need to be increased. If the unit width is increased, the layout and/or unit count will change as a result. As a planned development, dimensional items such as building setbacks, lot area and width are approved and regulated under a conditional use permit. At this point, individual lots are not 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 p. 2 ii00-64, 65. and 66 - The Villages by Cook's Bay and Mound Marketplace Preliminary Plat, CUP. and Rezoning November 8. 2000 shown on the preliminary plat or the development plan to establish these standards. Articles of incorporation, association bylaws, or other covenants will need to be provided and approved by Council for this development. Typical building layouts showing exterior elevation design are provided. Townhome developments have a tendency to be rather monotonous without attention to special details like rooflines, large wall sections, garage doors, transition between units, and materials. If these are the plans that will be used, the plansets should reflect this and also provide an elevation as viewed from the street to show garages. The developer anticipates the townhomes will attract empty nesters and young families and is a good 'fit' with current housing market needs. An idea of what the interior layouts will incorporate to support the narrative in the development packet should be provided. Four 'big house' flats are shown on the eastern side of the development along Bellaire Road. The narrative talks about these units as single level with 4 units per level in these 2 - 3 story buildings. Underground parking would be provided. Dimensional standards would be regulated through the conditional use permit as well as building design items like exterior mater/als. Staff agrees with the developer that the market for the flats would appeal to seniors which is a good 'fit' with the needs in Mound. P.~CEL SIZE 12.27 ac PROPOSED L.'~-NIT # 99 DENSITY 8 units/acre ZONING (EXISTING) R-1 ZONIN'G (PROPOSED) R-3 PDA Minimum Lot Size Not available Minimum LoT Width Not available Front Yard Setback Not available Side Yard Setbacks Not available Rear Yard Setbacks Not available LAND USE PLAN Downtown Residential (Medium to High Density Residential @ 7 + units/acre) SUBDIVISION STREET DESIGN Right-of-way width NA - private streets Pavement width 24 feet Park Site Dedication 1.89 acres or 10% of total development land area - 18.97 acres HARDCOVER 36.2 percent 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 p. 3 g00-64, 65, and 66 - The Villages by Cook's Bay and Mound Marketplace Preliminary Plat, CUP, and Rezoning November 8, 2000 Mound Marketplace At the comer of Lynwood and Commerce on the old school site, the developer is proposing 67,000 sq. ft. of retail commercial arranged in three buildings. The developer indicates a grocer will be the main tenant to anchor this area and will be located in the building fronting on Lynwood. The building fronting on Commerce would be targeted for a restaurant. Ideas for the third building are a liquor store and other smaller tenants. The buildings fronting Lynwood and Commerce would have a close relationship with the street to compliment the Mound Vision Plan. Because this is a planned development like the residential component, dimensional standards and design are regulated throu*~h a conditional use permit. PARCEL SIZE 6.7 ac PROPOSED SQ. FT. OF 67,000 CONLMERCIAL ZONING (EXISTING) B-t, R-i, R-2 ZONL-NG (PROPOSED) Destination Dismct PDA Minimum Lot Size Not available Mimmum Lot Width Not available Front Yard Setbacks- Building fronting on L.vnwood 20 feet Building fronting on Commerce 2 feet Side Yard Setbacks- Building fronting on Lynwood 97 feet West building 30 feet Setbacks t Not available Rear Yard LAND USE PLAN Destination Dislrict SUBDIVISION STREET DESIGN Streets/Drives All private access PARKING 357 spaces provided Code requires 446 spaces 9 feet by 18 feet stall dimension Code requires 10 feet by 20 feet HARDCOVER 92 percent Details for landscaping are not provided. Code requires minimums of 1 tree per residential dwelling unit and the greater of t tree per 1,000 square feet of floor area or 50 feet of perimeter for commercial development. There are vimally no trees on the property today. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 p. 4 1t00-64. 65. and 66 - The Villages by Cook's Bay and Mound Marketplace Prelimina~ Plat, CUP, and R~oning November 8, 2000 Screening and Buffering Parking areas and loading docks will need screening from residential areas throu~ landscaping, berming, or fencing techniques. Building Mater/al Standards Acceptable building materials as outlined in the code will apply to residential and commercial structures. Wetlands The site was historically a wetland but was filled prior to and after construction of the 1916 school and 1960 addition. No wetlands exist on the property today and a review of development implications on the Wetland Conservation Act is not applicable. Grading/Storm Water As addressed in City En~dneer report Coun _ry Road 15 and 110 As discussed in the City. Engineer report, is appears that Hennepin County will require additional right-of-way that will reduce the platted land area. This will impact the proposed building locations and parking area. The County is holding off on specific comments until a review of the traffic study for the downtown is complete. The report is anticipated to be complete in early December. Parks and Trails The plan indicated the dedication of 1.89 acres of land to park to satisfy 10 percent land dedication. The report is inaccurate in describing the City's role in park development. The City has asked the developer to provide play equipment in the tot lot located in the northwest comer of the site. Additional improvements desired in the park area along Bellaire would be provided by the developer, not the City at this time. The City would expect the park area be Faded and ruff established at the time the residential component is being built. Parking bays along Bellaire and Elm would be built by the developer not the City. The indicated 6 feet trail should be 8 feet as requested by Staff. Additional easements to provide public access will need to be provided. Discussion about using the stormwater pond as a skating area during the winter surfaced at staff discussions and the Park Commission. The developer would like to incorporate this as a 'public' amenity. Some type of easement of use agreement will need to be put in place to secure this for community residents. Arrangements for snow removal, lighting, and other use related issues will need to be worked out also. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Mirmesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 p. 5 g00-64, 65, and 66 - The Villages by Cook's Bay and Mound Marketplace ?relimina~. Plat, CUP, and Rezoning November 8, 2000 An outrun area will need to be graded properly for a sliding hill. The retaining wall in the tot lot should be on private property if it can't be avoided. Alley Vacation The preliminary plat indicated vacation of a portion of an alley to accommodate the access drive on Lynwood. A description of the alley needs to be provided along with an application to vacate. A public hearing will also need to be scheduled. As indicated on the survey, the property boundary extends into what would appear to be the parking are for Pond's arena. Knowing the parking deficiencies of the arena during hockey games, the developer has indicated that are shown as Outlot A will be given to the arena. The developer has discussed the status of the cell tower with the leasing company US West, now known as Qwest. The developer has indicated the tower will not work with the current site layout and will need to be relocated on or off site. The City approved a variance for the tower for it location on current parcel 11 and it will only allow relocation within the boundaries of that parcel. Because towers are only permitted on industrial lands, there not the opportunity for relocation to the commercial site. Also, if the tower is moved, it needs to have a fall zone equal to its height from the property lines of what is now parcel 11. Comprehensive Plan .An amendment to the land use plan for lots 18, 19, and 20 will need to be made to shown the land as Destination District. This can be handled at the same time as the rezonmg at the Planning Commission and at Final Plat approval by the City Council. Complete survey information for the site and adjacent lands 100 feet from property. · Comply with Hennepin County requirements for showing off site streets and driveways. · Need to determine how townhomes and flats will be subdivided on the plat. · Narrative discusses speed bumps along Bellaire and Alder. Appear to be incorrect statement. City will not allow bumps on public streets. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission consider review of the Preliminary Plat and development plan applications, but take no action until additional information can be provided to meet code requirements as discussed in this report and the City Engineer's report. 123 North Third S~xeet, Suite 100, Minaeapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: November 9, 2000 Jon Sutherland, Planning and Zoning John Cameron, City En~neer City of Mound Metro Plains Mound Visions 1 st Addition Preliminary Plat Case No. 00-64, 00-65, and 00-66 MYRa, #12252 As requested, we have reviewed the materials submitted by Metro Plains for a major subdivision of the School District property, at the comer of Commerce Boulevard and L.vnwood Boulevard and have the following comments and recommendations: Preliminary Plat The name suggested for the plat is "Mound Vision 1 st Addition," with Vision singular. The plat for the new Tree Value Hardware site was called "Mound Visions Addition" with Vision plural. This plat should also use Visions. Hermepin County will most likely require this plat to be the 2nd Addition; however they do not have a requirement that the addition number be numerical, it can be spelled out. The City should decide with this plat how they would like to see the addition number identified and continue the procedure on all future plats for the downtown redevelopment. o The documentation submitted suggests that at least some of these units will be platted as townhomes, which require separate platted lots. The preliminary plat as submitted shows only one large lot for the entire residential area. If the intention is to plat individual lots, the plat will need to be revised to show such. Jon Sutherland, Planning and Zoning November 9, 2000 Page 2 The preliminary plat does not show any additional right-of-way to be dedicated to Hennepin County along both Commerce Boulevard (CSAH #110) and Lynwood Boulevard (CSAH #15). Hennepin County had indicated they will definitely require additional right-of-way on Lynwood Boulevard and possibly along Commerce Boulevard. The City is currently working with Hermepin County on a redesign of the intersection, which will undoubtedly affect this property. The City Code, Section 330, requires that all existing conditions within 100 feet must be shown. This has not been done; therefore it is very difficult for Hennepin County or Mound staff to review the submittal for the affects on adjacent property. The preliminary, plat shows the east end of the existing alley to be vacated. This will require additional action by the City Council and Planning Commission and requires public hearings. The City has utilities located within this alley, for which easements will need to be retained. There is also an existing City of Mirmetrista sanitary sewer forcemain and a City of Mound storm sewer line, which traverse the site between Alder Road and the alley, for which easements will be required. Preliminary Grading and Utility Plan 1. The preliminary, ~ading and utility plan generally met the City's requirements. The streets within the development are proposed to be private. The ~m'ading plan indicates two different methods of collecting stormwater. The main north/south street that connects to the commercial area shows street drainage with catch basins on only one side. The looped street along the north and west side has an inverted crown with catch basins located in the center of the street. These designs will function adequately; however they do not meet Mound's normal City street design where the street is crowned with catch basins located on both sides at the curb line. Since the City does not have an approved Stormwater Management Plan, the Mirmehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) is still the permitting agency for the stormwater permit. Application must be made directly to the MCWD and any approval by the City of the preliminary plat must be conditional upon MCWD's ultimate approval. MCWD policy requires that the applicant receive preliminary approval from the City before they will take action on the request. We have reviewed the proposed watermain system with the Public Works Superintendent and are in general a~eement with the proposed plan; however before final plans can be prepared the applicant must provide a fireflow analysis for our review. It appears there may be a shortage of hydrants, especially in the residential area. The hydrant spacing should be reviewed by the Mound Fire Department. The plan does not show any valves on the proposed watermain. Locations for valves will need to be discussed with Public Works and the City Engineer and added when final plans are prepared. Mound requires valves on all hydrant leads. Jon Sutherland, Planning and Zoning November 9, 2000 Page 3 The sanitary, sewer system as presented also appears to be in general compliance with City requirements. Utility easements must be provided on the final plat for both the watermain and sanitary sewer, which will be public utilities. The sanitary sewer mains providing service for the two individual commercial buildings should remain as private lines. The entire storm sewer system, including the stormwater pond will be private, to be maintained by the Homeowner's Association and Commercial entity. The only exception will be the existing catch basins located at the southwest side of the intersect/on of Bellaire and Alder. These catch basins should remain on the City's present system. The most easterly sanitary sewer manhole in the alley is located in the portion of the alley proposed for vacation. It is also very close to a proposed retaining wall and therefore we are recommending that a new manhole be built over the existing main approximately 20 feet. The unused section ma/n and old manhole would need to be removed as part of this construction. Streets and Access The narrative accompanying the application calls for private streets 24 feet wide with no parking on either side. The plan does not specifically identify concrete curb and gutter; however this is a standard requirement of the City whether the streets are private or public. The off street parking areas shown on the "Development Plan" do not match those shown on the "Preliminary Grading and Utility Plan." It appears the Grading Plan may be more correct, since it shows more off street parking, which will be required with no on street parking allowed. The Development Plan needs to be revised to reflect the correct layout. Any approval of the preliminary plans must be conditional upon Hermepin County's approval of the three entrances shown on the Grading Plan and Development Plan. The Grading Plan indicates new off street parking on the west side of Bellaire Lane between Alder Road and the new private street entering the site at the northeast comer of the property. The Development Plan also shows off-street parking on the south side of Elm Road. All costs associated with widening of the City streets to provide additional parking should be the responsibility of the developer. The parking stalls for the Commercial area are not dimensioned; however they scale approximately 9 feet wide by 20 feet deep, which does not meet the City's required width of 10 feet (Section 350:760, subd. 2.A). The dimension of 60 feet as shown between the parking bays is at low end of the accepted standards for this distance. Our recommendation would be to took at these two distances together. If the stalls are change to ten foot wide, as required by code, then the 60 feet is acceptable; however if nine-foot wide stalls are used (which will require a variance) then a minimum of 62 feet or 63 feet should be required between the parking bays. Jon Sutherland, Planning and Zoning November 9, 2000 Page 4 The proposed bituminous trail is not dimensioned on any of the plans; however the narrative states it will be six feet wide. We would recommend that eight feet wide be the minimum allowed, which is a recognized standard in most communities. 7. Speed bumps at Bellaire and Alder are mentioned in the narrative. The City does not allow speed bumps on public streets. Miscellaneous The records at City Hall have been researched to try and determine what this property has previously paid for utility and street assessments. It appears that sufficient fees have been paid for past sanitary sewer and street improvement projects; however nothing could be found relating to previous assessments for watermain. 2. The different plan sheets should be revised to include City requirements and also to be consistent with each other. cc: Loren Gordon, Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc. s:\main:Wlou 12252:\Correspondence~sutherland I 1-7 REDEVELOPMENT OF FORMER WESTONKA SCHOOL SITE Mound Visions - First Addition Mound Marketplace and The Village by Cook's Bay BY: MetroPlains Development LLC October 27, 2000 13.1 TABLE OF CONTENTS MAJOR SUBDIVISION/RE-PLAT/PDA APPLICATION · Application · Labels · Narrative · Exhibits A) Legal Description B) Team Members C) Survey/topographic map D) Zoning classifications E) Grading, utility plan F) Proposed site plan G) Soil report CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT · Application · Labels · .. Survey.. · Proposed site plans · Building plans · Hardcover calculations ZONING AMENDEMENT · Application · Labels · Current zoning classification · Proposed site plan · Grading/utility plan MAJOR SUBDIVISION City of Mound PAJt~.: 5341 Maywood Road; Mound, MN 55364 P,one:4n oOO, F.x:4?2 Z0 OCT 3 0 ZOOQ ~IW COUNCIL DAT~: Dece~bez [2 f 2000 ~' CI~ P~NNER , t:~'/ ~-/,? U" SKETCH P~N REVIEW CI~ ENGINEER I ~ ~ PRELIMINARY P~T PUBLIC WORKS ~ iFINAL P~T ONR I ~ J I ,I~OT OVER 2 LOTS F,RE DEPARTMENT I ~ I j ~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: ASSESSING ~ [ ~ Z { ESCROWDEPOSZT OTMER;, , . ,:'~, ,i ' % ~ . , ~-,," ' ; VARIANCE. . :~ ~ TOTAL Please type or print the followina information: PROPERTY INFORMATION EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION Subject Acdress ZONING DISTRICT 5600 Lynwood Blvd. (reference point for property) Name°fPr°P~oed~nd _ P~at - Visions First Addition Lot olease see attached Bilk Plate Su~Msicn p[~-~. Circle: R-I R-lA R-2 R~, B-1 B-2 B-3 APPLICANT The applicant is X owner other: Name MetroPlains Development LLC ACtress 1600 University Ave. Suite 212 - St. Paul, MN 55104 Phone (H) n/a (W), 651-646-7848 (M) OWNER I Name (if other than Address applicant) Phone (H)... ('~'V) (M),, Name Survev-Schoell & M~dson En~ineer-Sunde En.~neering, Znc. SURVEYOPJ ' , ENGINEER I Address $~l-vev- 10580 Wayzata Blvd. Su£te I Minnetonka 55305 I Phone Engineer - 4200 West Old Shakopee Rd. Suite 230 Bloomington 554~7 ~ ~) a ~) a _ _ (vv) ~- - (M)_ Revised ?0-27-99) ' - Major Subdivision Application Page 2 Description of Proposed Use: into a combination of The former WestonkaSchoo site will be redeveloped residenital, commercial and dedicated oarks. · 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. please see attached for full eXPlanation of effects 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 Proje~,: $ RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS: Number of Structures: [.5 Number of Dwelling Units~Structure: 4-[0 Lot Area Per Dwelling Unit: 35 ~ 660 sq. ft. Total Lot Area: 534,900 sq. ft. Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this properly? ( ) yes, ( ) no. If yes, list date(s) of applica~on, acJon taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. zoning amendments, conditional use permit and PDA application are being submitted together on October 27,2000 This application must be signed by all owners of the subject property, or an explanation given why this is notthe case. METROPLAINS DEVE[0PMEN/, LLC ~ lO'Z7' ob RY- ! A~' u,l,~ ........ Date Print Owner's Name Owner's Signature Date Print Owner's Name Owner's Signature Date (Eewsed 10-27-99) r CONDmONAL USE PERMIT City o~ Mound 5.341 MaYWood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0607, Fax: 47Z-06Z0 Planning Commission Date: November 13, 2000 City CouncilDate: December 12, 2000 Distribution: Case No. Cond~onal Use Permit Fee~~:~,_,, ,PAID OCT 3 0 2000 CITY OF MOUND City Planner:. ,'/' ~ / ,¢ ~. "L' Public Works: Fire Dept... /'" . ,/ I City Engineer: Parks: Other: ------'----' Please type or print the following information: PROPERTY Subject INFORMATION Address.. 5600 Lynwood Blvd. (reference ooint for property) Name of Business LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lot Please see Attached Block Plat # Subdivision PIC~.. APPLICANT The aDplicant is: X owner other:. Name HetroPlains Development LLC Address 1600 University Ave. Suite 212 St. Paul, M~q 55104 Phone (H) n/a 0~ 651-646-7848 (M) Name OWNER (if other than Address applicant) Phone Name Paul Madson of Paul Madson + Associates ARCHITECT. SURVEYOR, OR A~cl~ess Ford Centre-420 N. Fifth Street-Minneapolis, MN 55401 ENGINEER Phone d on attache( (H) (W) 612-332-7026 (M) ZONING Circ,e:(,~R.]~,~ R-lA "~-2 R-3~B.2 B-3 DISTRICT CHANGE OF FROM:., 1) B1 & R2 and 2) R1 USE TO: 1) Destination District and 2) R3-PDA Revised 10-26..q~q *con Description of Proposed Use: The former Westonka School Site will be redevelo~ed into a combination of residential, commercial and dedicated parks. EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED USE: Mst impacts the proposed use will have on property in the v~cinity, including, but not limited to traffic, noise, light, smoke/odor, parking, and describe the steps taken to m~gate or eliminate the impacts. Please see attached for full ex?lanat£on of effects If applicable, a development schedule shall be attached to this application providing reasonable guarantees for the completion of the proposed development. Es~mated Development CoZ of the Projem: $ Has an applical~on ever been made for zoning, variance, condil~onal use permit, or other zoning procedure for this properb/? ( ) yes, ( ) no. If yes, list date(s) of applicalJon, ac~on taken, resoluton number(s) and provide copies of resolutons. zoning amendments, conditional use permits and PDA applications are being submitted together on October 27,2000 This application must be signed by all owners of the subject property, or an explanation given why this is not file case. METROPLAINS DEVELOPMENT, LLC N~ ./ BY: LAVERNE HANSON, JR., SENIOR VICE PRESIDE~//~ Print Applicant's Name Appli~-~re Date ~ErROl~.~aS DEVELOm, EI~r, U.C BY: LAVERNE HA~OIL ~ ~r..~OR VlC~ PRESlOE~rl Print Owner's Name Owner's Signature Date Print Owner's Name Owner's Signature Date Rev. 10-26-99 ZONING AMENDMENT APPLICATION City of Mound, 5341 MaywoOd Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0607, Fax: 472-0620 -'lanning Commission Date: November 13, 2000 Council Date: December 12, 2000 i/;./.~ ,/" . Distribution: ' -'/"~'¢/:.'~-' City Planner ./ Public Works / City Engineer ./ DNR Name MetroPlains Development, LLC Address 1600 University Ave. Suite 212 Phone (H) _ (W) 651-646-78fl~¢ ApPlicant AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE (M) It is requested that Section 350: follows: of the Mound Zoning Ordinance be amended as Reason for amendment: ~ -~'~1 AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING MAP I ZONING DISTRICT It is requested that the property desc,dbed below and shown on the attached site plan be rezcned from B1,R1 & R2 to Destination District and R3-PDA Address & Legal of Subject Property Owner of Subject Site Present Use of Property Address 5600 Lynwood Blvd. Lot p±ease see attached Addition PID¢ (reference point for property) Block Plat Name MetvoPlains Development LLC Address 1600 University Ave. Suite 212 St. Pault MN Phone (H) n/a ¢A0. 651-646-7848 (M) 55104 vacant Reason for Amendment PnliCa~' s Signature: er's Signature: will be developed into residential, commercial and parks. Date i0-~,'~ · eo Date Property is being submitted for a Planned Develooment Area (PDA). Proper%y i NOV f4 2000 -q. CP .,F ...... . ~ Application for STREET / EASEMENT VACATION City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 6,72-0607, Fax: 4T2-0620 Planning Commission Date: /~./~.~.//T. City Council Date: CaseNo. ?~, -- 7/ A,optication Fee:~ ~//,//~a City Planner ////~//0~" City Engineer 'i;'9/,//~ o .Pu ~ic wor~ I / ////,/?~U _Police Dept Fire Dept. Ple-,__-e type or print the following ihiorrnaaon; ..... MetroPlains Development [~C _ AP~LJCANT Name 1600 University Ave. - Suite 212 St. Paul, ~ 5510~ Phone (H) n/a ,~) 651-646-78~8 (M) .. Lynwood Blvd. A~ja~nt ADJACENT PROPER~ Name of ~n~ (APPLICANTS (S) 18, 19 20 mo~ mlat~ - Subaiviaon L~wold Park m~ .. ZONING Circle: R-1 R-lA DESCRIPTION please see attached O~ STREET TO BE VACATED FOR REQUEST IS THERE A please see PUBLIC NE~D FOR THIS ~ND? Print ADolicant's Name Date Print Applicant's Name Applicant's Signature ~evisec[ 07-11-00} ATTACHEMENT TO STI:LEET/EASEMENT VACATION APPLCIATiON DESCRIPTION OF STREET TO BE VACATED The street to be vacated is a portion of the public alley located directly north of the homes located along Lynwood Blvd. The legal description of the area to be vacated reads: "The north 30.00 feet of Lots 18, 19 and 20, "Lynwold Park' Lake ~X~metonka, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County,, Minnesota." Lots 18, 19 and 20 are owned by MetroPlains Development LLC. REASON FOR REQU'EST This area, in conjunction with the residential lots 18, 19 and 20, will be re-zoned commercial in order to facilitate the new entrance into the commercial and residential development being proposed for the site. .. IS TItERE A PUBLIC NEED FOR THIS LAND? No - The alley is not a through alley and ~rremly dead ends at Lot 18. The vacation oftl~e atl6y will move the end of the alley to behind lot 21. The owner will coordinate with the ciD' the relocation of any public utilities fight-of-ways which may be required, such as manholes over the existing sanitary sewer. EFFECTS OF PROPOSED USE The proposed development will impact the vicinity in areas such as traffic, noise, parking, etc. Following are the steps to be taken to mitigate the impact: AR_KANGEMENT · The commercial area is positioned on the existing intersection of Lynwood and Commerce Birds. This is being done to minimize the effects of traffic, people, noise, etc. on the surrounding neighborhood. c> There will be two loading docks for the commercial development. Both docks are located close to the commercial entrance off Lynwood Blvd. They will be screened from the neighborhood by both landscaping and screening walls. The docks are located in these areas to minimize truck traffic through the neighborhood and development. · The proposed residential is centered in the redefined residential property. It is bounded by Bellaire Lane on the east, a public alley along the south, residential along the west and Elm Road along the north. The residential area is being positioned 'inward' so as to provide open ~een space between itself and the existing neighborhood. The scale of the housing is situated in footprint and height so as to inte~ate with neighborhood scale. Two access points are available for the residentS. Both are positioned to provide minimum impact on the existing neighborhood. · Parks are arranged along the north edge of the residential property on Elm Road and along the east edge of the residential property along Bellaire Lane. The parks are placed in these locations to offer a direct connection to the existing neighborhood and the greater community for ease of access. The parks offer access to the whole community by being located along the perimeter so as to not feel internal to the new development. The parks also allow the new residential area to integrate into the existing~ neighborhood. LOCATION AND WIDTH OF STREETS · All existing public streets will remain and will not be improved by the developer. · Ail streets internal to the property will be private. · Private streets are 24' edge-to edge or back-to-back. A standard city street in the community of Mound has a 28' back-to-back with parking one side. Thereby, a 24' with no parking gives equal or greater accessibility for emergency, frre and general use. · Private streets will connect to Bellaire Lane and Lynwood Blvd. DRAINAGE · All drainage for both the commercial and residential portions of the site wilt be contained within the site property boundaries. This will be accomplished will the construction of a storm water pond along the south edge of the site. · The pond is to be approximately 34,000 sq.ft. · Required dead-storage (standing water below the pond outlet elevation) volume for this development is 2.6 acres/ft. The proposed pond size meets these requirements I'RELI i/NARY FI T Mt'LICATION REDEVELOPMENT OF FORMER WESTONKA SCHOOL SITE BY: MetroPlains Development, LLC October 27, 2000 NAME OF SUBDIVISION Re-Plat Name: Mound Vision - First Addition Commercial: Mound Marketplace Residential: The Village by Cook's Bay LEGAL DESCRIPTION Please see attached EXHIBIT A NAME OF OWNER MetroPlains Development, LLC 1600 University. Ave - Suite 212 St. Paul, MN 55104 651-646-7848 Please see attached EXI-IIBIT B for other pertinent team members GENERAL NAR_R.a. TIVE MetroPlains Development, LLC over the past 12 months has generated a concept for the former Westonka School site that consists of three primary components; commercial, residential and park. To achieve this concept MetroPlains has brought together a skilled team of companies and individuals to address the issues in the most proficient way. The goal is to not only provide a high quality, development on the former school site but to also enhance the Mound Visions plan for the downtown and community as a whole. To that end, the concept presented here is a culmination of meetings, revisions and ideas as shared through city staff, department heads, city consultants, Sketch Plan Review, Parks & Open space, Hennepin County. Department of Transportation, Ponds Arena and the MetroPlains team. The three components of the concept include commercial (Mound Marketplace), residential (The Village by Cook's Bay) and the park (Central Park). Mound Marketplace on the comer of Cornmerce and Lyn~vood, is an urban commercial scheme addressing the street as a central business district building would and anchors the opposite comer of the downtown Visions plan for the CBD of Mound. The Village by Cook's Bay is a residential development of urban scale using for sale townhomes, row house and a big house to meet the needs of the marketplace. The housing addresses the needs for quality housing at a reasonable price that allows seniors to young professionals to find a lifestyle that compliments the single-family home ownership of the existing community. The park is the binder that ties the existing community/neighborhood, the commercial and the residential to come together as a mutually beneficial and complimentary neighborhood. EXISTING CONDITIONS BOUNDARY LINES - EXItIBIT C · The legal description and the boundary lines as designated on the survey define the site boundary lines. EXISTING ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS -EXHIBIT D · Commercial section zoned as B 1 (bounded by Lynwood Blvd., Commerce Blvd, alley off of Bellaire Lane and Adler Lane.) · Single family lots along Lynwood Blvd. (18-20) are zoned as R2 · Remaining site is zoned as R1 · Abutting property zoning classifications range from R2 - R3 TOTAL ACREAGE · 18.97 acres or 826,400 sq.ft. EXISTING PLATTED STREETS - EXHIBIT C · Commerce Blvd - east edge of site o There are two existing curb cuts located along Commerce. The cut to the south of the Ponds 'Arena will remain. An additional cut will be relocated further south for a 'rig_hr-in, right out' into the new commercial area. · Lynwood Blvd. - south edge of site c> Lynwood Blvd. right-of-way will be expanded to accommodate mining, parking and increased driving lanes as requested by Hennepin County. Final design is not yet defined. We are continuing to work w/th them through completion. At least a 6' condemnation of the property is expected. o There are two curb cuts located along Lynwood. One cut will be eliminated. The other ~vill be relocated for access into the residential/commercial area. · Elm Road - North edge of site - no proposed change · Bellaire Lane- - intersects site offElm Road o Parking access off the intersection of Adler and Betlaire will include speed bumps to slow traffic. · Adler Road - runs north of Ponds Arena - no proposed change · Public alle,vway servicing homes off of Lynwood Blvd. - no proposed change BLOCK ARR2MNGEMENT OF ORIGINAL PLAT · Please see EXHIBITS A (legal description) and C (survey) EXISTING UTILITIES - EXHIBIT E Water Mains · 6" water main network surrounds the site · 10" water main off Commerce Blvd. Sanitary Sewer Lines · Elm Road · 8"line offofLynwood Blvd. · 12" line off of Commerce Blvd. Pipelines A 12" joint storm & sewer force main runs through the site. The main runs down Adler, south through the site to the public alley for the houses located on Lynwood Blvd. High Voltage Lines · No high voltage lines nm through the site Cellular Tower · The cellular tower is presently located in the cemer of the proposed residential development. · The tower has a 25-year lease, which cannot be terminated by the landowner. · The tower can be relocated either somewhere else on the site or within the City of Mound. · Meetings with US West Cellular w/II continue to define the relocation of the tower. · Please see EXI-IIBIT E for ~ade, invert elevation and hydrant data and locations. BOUNDARY LINES OF ADJOINING, UNSUBDIVIDED LAND · Not applicable - all adjoining land is divided SUBDIVISION DESIGN FEATURES LAYOUT OF PROPOSED STREETS - EXItlBIT F · All existing public streets will remain. No changes to these streets are proposed with the exception of the expansion of Lynwood Blvd. · The remaining street infrastructure is included in the PDA and will be private. The streets will be constructed and maintained by the owner. · Private streets are 24' edge-to edge or back-to-back. A standard city street in the community of Mound has a 28' back-to-back with parking one side. Thereby, a 24' with no parking gives equal or greater accessibility for emergency, fire and general use. LOCATION AND WIDTHS OF ALLEYS/SIDEWALKS - EXHIBIT F · Sidewalks will be 5' for the residential mains. Walks from units will be 4' wide. · Trailway system will be 6' bituminous with improvements. A right of way easement for maintenance will be executed with the City of Motmd. PROPOSED UTILITY LOCATIONS/SIZES -EXHIBIT E Water: · The water service for the proposed development will be looped through the site and connected to the 10" water main in Commerce Blvd. An additional connection will be made to the smaller 6" main in Bellaire Lane. The size of the on-site water supply lines will be generally 8" diameter and will provide both fn'e protection and domestic water service. Sewer: · The proposed sanitary, sewer will be a gravity line extending from the residential portion on the '*'est through the commercial area on the east line connecting to the existing 12" sewer main in Commerce Blvd. An 8" diameter PVC sanitary sewer will provide the required sanitary, sewer capacity. Gas/Electric: · Gas and electric service will be designed and provided by NSP and Minnegasco for both the commercial and residential areas. Gas lines are presently available to the site from Commerce Blvd. DRAINAGE PLAiN - EXI-IIBIT E · Due to the natural grade of the property as explained above, a storm water pond will be constructed in the far SW comer of the property. · The pond will be dead-storage (standing water below the pond outlet elevation) Based on the percentage of proposed impervious site coverage; the required dead storage volume for this development is 2.6 acres/foot. · The proposed storm water pond of 34,000 sq.ft accommodates this volume. · Pond will include a 10' aquatic bench at the normal water level. · The pond will discharge to the existing 30" diameter storm sewer on the west side of Parcel B. · The proposed development will enhance storm water management throughout the site by providing new ponding and pre-treatment facilities. The previous drainage of the site was an uncontrolled sheet drainage system. · A review in underway to determine features, such a~ perimeter pl~tings, aeration, water table and recreational use of the pond. PRELIMINARY DIMENSIONS OF LOTS AND BLOCK - EXHIBIT F · The property will be platted as one lot. · The property will be designated as a planned development area. Each component is separately planned and each will have its own set of standards and phase completion. · The lot is 18.97 acres or 826,400 sq.ft. AREAS DEDICATED FOR PUBLIC USE - EXHIBIT F · 10% of proposed property will be dedicated to the City of Mound for park dedication fees. This is approximately 1.89 acres. · Central Park is a continuous park along Bellaire Lane and Elm Road. · The Bellaire Lane park is 590' x 100' or 59,000 sq. fi. It extends fi-om Elm Road to the south edge of the Ponds Arena. · The park on Elm Road sits in the far NW comer of the'site. It is approMmately 32,700 sq.ft, in a trapezoid shape. · There is a parkway connection linking the two parks. A portion of the development trailway system hms through the parkway connection. The connection is approximately 26' x 40' or 10,400 sq.fi. · The parks will extend over a new street accessing the residential development. A permanent easement to the residential development will need to be executed between the city and the owner. AREAS rNTENED FOR USE OTHER THAN RESDIENTIAL/PUBLIC - EXI-IIBIT F · 6.7 acres of the site will be used for commercial development. The commercial development will be located in the area of the property presently zoned as B 1 located in the SE comer of the site at Lynwood Blvd. and Commerce Blvd. · Site will be re-zoned in the PDA/CUP as 'Destination District'. · The comer plaza off Lynwood and Commerce will be a major design feature to encourage and accommodate pedestrian activity. SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR ZONING DISTRICT - EXHIBIT F · The proposed development will be re-zoned as a PDA. · Setbacks will be as follows: c) Commercial - no setback c> Residential - front yards adjacent to parks or property lines 20' within development. Zero lot line definition for the condominium or townhome association will be developed. S UPPL EMENTAR Y INFORMATION TOPOGRAPHIC MAP · See Exhibit C SOIL REPORTS · Soil testing was completed by STS consultants. Soils on the site range from medium to poor. Extensive soil corrections will be necessary to prepare the site for the construction of the residential and commercial portions of the site. See enclosed EXHIBIT G WATER SUPPLY/SEWAGE DISPOSAL/FINSII-IED GRADES/DRAINAGE · See attached EXHIBIT E for all information. PROPERTY REGISTERED OR ABSTRACT · The entire parcel is an abstract property. · A copy of the abstract is attached. EXttiBIT A PARKING - EXttiBIT F Commercial · 363 parking stalls will be available for commercial parking. · This number exceeds the necessary mount for a commercial development of this size, which would be 335 spaces. Ponds Arena · The developer is committed to expanding the parking for Ponds Arena. The present plan intends to expand parking from 20 to 42 spaces. Residential · Towhome/Rowhouse - A 2-car attached garage will be part of the design of each unit. The driveway will accommodate an additional 2 cars. This gives each towahome unit 4 spaces each. · Big House - Underground parking will be located beneath each big house. A total of 80 spaces will be constructed, providing a 2:1 milo. · Guest Parking - Several guest parking spaces are located throughout the residential site to accommodate resident guests. Parks Parking may be available on street at both Elm Road and Bellaire Lane. Improvement to the street to accommodate this parking will need to be undertaken by the City of Mound. Legal Description Former Westonka School Site Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17, Lynwold Park, Lake Mirmetonka, together with vacated Ridgewood Avenue and vacated alley originally delineated and dedicated in said plat of Lynwold Park, Lake Minnetonka. Lot 18, Lynwold Park, Lake Minnetonka, except the North 30 feet thereof. Lots 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111,112, 113, 114 and 115, Mound. Those parts of Lots 102 and 103, "Mound", which lie Easterly of the East line of the West 200.00 feet of the Northeast ¼ of the Southeast ¼ of Section 14, Township 117 North, Range 24 West of the 5t~ Principal Meridian, Hennepin County, Minnesota. That pan of Meadow Lane, as delineated and dedicated on ~he plat of"Mound", and now vacated, which lies Easterly of the West 200.00 feet of the Northeast ¼ of the Southeast ¼ of Section 15, Township 117 North, Range 24 West of the 5u~ Principal Meridian, Hennepin Count3,.', Minnesota,. and Westerly of the Southerly extension of the West line of Dewey Avenue, now known as Bellaire Lane, as delineated and dedicated in said plat of "Mound". ' The South ½ of the northeast ¼ of the Southeast ¼ of Section 14, Township 117 North, Range 24 West of the 5t Principal Meridian, Hennepin County, Minnesota. except the West 200.00 feet thereof, also except that pan within the plat of "Mound", and except that pan described as follows: Commencing at the Northeast comer of said South ½ of the Northeast ¼ of the Southeast ¼; thence Southerly along the East line of said Southeast ¼, a distance of 225.00 feet; Westerly parallel with the North line of said South ½ of the Northeast ¼ of the Southeast ¼, to the intersection with the southerly extension of the West line of Dewey Avenue, now known as Bellaire Lane, as delineated and dedicated in the plat of "Mound"; thence Northerly along said Southerly extension to the North line of said South ½ of the Northeast ¼ of the Southeast ¼, thence Easterly along said North line to the point of beginning. And except that part of said South ½ of the Northeast ¼ of the Southeast ¼, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the East line of said Northeast ¼ of the Southeast ¼, distant 225.00 feet Southerly from the Northeast comer of said South ½ of the Northeast ¼ of the Southeast ¼; thence Westerly, parallel with the North line of said South ½ of the Northeast ¼ of the Southeast ¼, a distance of 398.63 feet; thence Southerly, deflecting to the left 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds, a distance of 158.39 feet; thence Easterly, deflecting to the left 89 degrees 57 minutes 22 seconds, to said East line of the Northeast ¼ of the Southeast ¼; thence Northerly along said East line to the point of beginning. Legal Description: Lots 19 and 20 Lynwold Park Lake Minnetonka Metro Flains Development - Overall Project Developer/Owner 1600 University Ave. Suite 212 St. Paul, MN 55104 FAX: 651-646-8947 Larry Olson Larissa Tadavarthy Veto Hanson Michelle Kaiser 651-523-1246 651-523-1236 651-523-1245 651-523-1238 lolson~xnetroplains.com ltaa avarthy('&metroplains .corn lbanson('&jnetroplains.com mkaiser(&metroplains.com PBK Investments - Sub Developer/Owner for Commercial property 4969 Olson Memorial Highway Golden Valley lVlN 55422 FAX: (763) 545-1697 Brian Pellowski (763) 545-1672 pbkirivest(~.aol.com Paul Madson + Associates - Project Master Planner/Architect Residential Ford Centre 420 N Fifth St Minneapolis MN 55401 FAX: (612) 332-5604 Paul Madson (612) 332-7026 pmadsonf&.visi.com KKE Architects, Inc. - Commercial Architect/Planner 300 First Avenue North Mineapolis, MN 55401 FA.X: (612) 333-7596 Kathy Anderson (612) 3394200 klande~kke.com Sunde Engineering, Inc. - Civil Engineering/Overall Project 4200 West Old Shakopee Road - Suite 230 Bloomington, MN 55437 FAX: (952) 881-1913 Brian Mundstock (952) 881-3344 bmundstock,~.sundecivil.com SchoelI & Madson, Inc. - Site Surveyor 10580 Wayzata Blvd- Suite 1 Mirmetonka, MN 55305 FAX: 952-546-9065 Dave Tinnes Rick Williams (952) 546-7601 (952) 847-9615 ! Mixed Use Development, Mound STS Project 97658 3.0 EXPLORATION RESULTS 3.1 Site and Geolo!~t Approximately the southerly two-thirds to three-quarters of Parcel A was formerly occupied by the Westonka School and Community Center, which has recently been demolished. The foundations of that building reportedly still remain in place. The floor elevation of the demolished building was about 953 feet NGVD. The area directly to the north of the former building, leading to the adjacent Ponds Ice Arena, was bituminous paved. The larger parcel, Parcel B, was the former school playground, and contained a baseball diamond, hockey rink, play area, and football field with running track. Most of this area is fairly level, with ground elevations of 947 to 949.5 feet. There are earth berms or slopes to the west of the football field/nmning track, and to the northwest of the baseball diamond. A set of concrete bleachers is built into the slope west. of the football field. Them are also a number of chain link fences on this portion of the property. This site lies at the north margin of Lake Minnetonka. It is among Cooks Bay of Lake Minnetonka, Langdon Lake, Dutch Lake, and Harrison Bay of Lake Minnetonka. According to information published by the Minnesota Geological Survey, this site overlies a deeply incised valley in the bedrock. The uppermost bedrock in this area is believed to consist of St. Lawrence dolomitic siltstone and shale and/or Franconia sandstone of upper Cambrian age, probably occurring at depths of 275 to 325 feet below ground surface. The primary, naturally occurring surficial soil consists of lean, clayey glacial till deposited by the Des Moines ice lobe of the Wisconsinan glaciation. The upper portion of the clay till was subsequently water modified, and now contains random seams or lenses of sand and silt, some of which are water-bearing. In post- glacial times, some surficial organic soils formed on portions of the site under present study, due to the poor surface drainage and the tendency for water to pond in some areas. Some fill was placed over this site when the school building was developed. -6- Mixed Use Development, Mound STS Project 9?658 3.2 Soil Conditions We found about 2-1/2 to 5-I/2 feet of mixed fill in our borings. The fill was very variable in composition and density, and included fine sandy silt, silty fine sand, and sandy clay, along with some organic topsoil. We consider the fill to be unreliable for foundation support. Below the fill in three of our five borings, namely borings 2, 4 and 5, we penetrated a 2-I/2 to 9 foot thick stratum of peat, organic silt and organic silty clay. These soils were generally soft to very soft, and are potentially compressible. They are unsuitable for foundation support. The major soil type at this site commenced at depths of 2.5 to I I feet below ground surface, and extended to the termination depths of the borhags. The deepest boring extended ro 70 foot depth. This soil consisted of lean sandy and silty clay with a trace to a little fine sub-rounded gravel. The uppermost 2 to 7 feet of this formation tended to be soft to firm, but the maj or lower portion was stiff to very stiff in consistency. Standard penetration N-values in the clay till ranged fi:om 3 to 4 in the upper part of the formation, to 7 to 31 at depth. We penetrated a number of sand seams within the clay till profile. These were on the order of a few inches to 2 feet thick. Many of these sand seams were. water-bearing, but the sand was generally medium dense. The stiff to very stiff sandy clay glacial till has moderate load bearing capacity and Iow compressibility, and is competent for foundation support. 3.3 Groundwater Conditions We observed fi:ce groundwater in all five borings while drilling. In boring 3, the observed groundwater level was at 21 feet initially. We then used a drilling mud slurry to advance the hole to depth, which obscured the later groundwater readings. Thus we did not determine the hydrostatic groundwater level in boring 3. In the other four borings, we observed groundwater at -7- Mixed Use Development, Mound STS Project 97658 depths of 8 to 13.5 feet below ground surface, corresponding to elevations 933.3 to 939.7 feet Dutch Lake is about 1800 feet northwest of this property, and has an average s~mmer water elevation of 937 feet. Langdon Lake is 900 feet south by southwest, and has an average summer water elevation of 934 feet. Cooks Bay and Harrison Bay of Lake Minnetonka are also within a 1/2 mile radius of this site, and have an average summer water elevation of about 930 to 93I feet. Our interpretation of these data is that there is a groundwater table gradient across tlxis site, l~om Dutch Lake down toward Lake Minnetonka to the east and southeast. The groundwater levels at this site will fluctuate seasonally and annually, depending primarily on precipitation and climatic conditions. However the water level in Lake Mirmetonka is closely controlled by the Gray's Bay Dam, and the various lakes and wetlands surrounding the site provide large storage areas for surface water. Thus we would not anticipate large fluctuations of the groundwater level, either upward or downward. For purposes of design at this site, we recommend that a groundwater elevation of 938.5 feet should be used at the northwest comer of Parcel B, grading to a groundwater elevation of 935 feet at the southeast coroer of Parcel A. -8- Mixed Use Development, Mound STS Project 97658 4.0 ANALYSIS ANI) RECOMM]gNDATIONS 4.1 Discussion On a significant portion of the site explored, encompassing borings 1, 3, 4 and 5, the poor quality fill and soft compressible soils are less than I 1 feet thick. In these areas, some soil correction would be required in the building pads, and structures could then be supported on conventional spread footing foundations. In the area of boring 2 at the northeast comer of Parcel B, the potentially compressible soils emend to about 18 foot depth, which is below the groundwater level. At this location, it would be possible to excavate the poor quality soils, but extensive dewatering would be required, and a very large excavation would be needed bemuse of the oversiz/ng around the building footprint that would be necessary. Furthermore, granular fill would have to be imported, because the excavated soil would not be reusable. Thus excavation and replacement in the area of boring 2 does not appear to be economical; although it is technically feasible. Another alternative for a building in the area of boring 2 would be to support it on driven piles. Because of the lengths involved, treated timber piles may be a suitable foundation type. Alternatively, steel pipe piles could be used. For preliminary budgeting purposes only, driven piles in the area of boring 2 would be about 40 feet long in order to achieve at least 20 feet of embedment into the underlying clay till, and could probably carry a safe working load on the order of 25 to 30 tons, after due allowance for downdrag or negative skin friction. When your plans are being developed and more is known about the type, location and size of building, we can provide more precise length and capacity est/mates for various pile types. An intermediate foundation solution for the area of boring 2, between excavation/replacement and driven piles, would be to improve the soil in that area with the use of GeopiersTM, after which the building could be supported on conventional footings. Geopiers'" are comprised of very stiff, -9- Mixed Use Development, Mound STg Project 97658 densely compacted aggregate pier3, made of well graded stone such as aggregate base course used in highway construction. They are formed by drilling a hole in the matrix soil, and prestressing and densifying the soil at the bottom of the hole. The aggregate is then placed in thin lifts and densely compacted with a high energy impact densification system to approximately 110% of Modified Proctor dry density. The tamper is beveled, and is designed in such a way that significant lateral stress build-up occurs in the soil surrounding the drilled hole, in most matrix soil types and conditions. This process effectively prestresses the soils vertically and horizontally so that the effect of future loads is diminished. The result is a composite Geopierv~-soil matrix reinforced soil of significantly improved, modulus, stiffness, and capacity to control settlements. After installation of the GeopiersTM on a defined pattern which must be designed, the building can be supported on conventional spread footings. Some soil improvement and replacement would be required for pavements surrounding the buildings at this site. Pavements at this site should bear on a minimum 3.5 foot thickness of granular soil to distribute the wheel loads. In some areas, which are known to be underlain by peat, a geotextile separator fabric should be used between the native site soil and the granular sub-base course. The geofabric improves the constmctability and traffic, ability, and tends to prolong the pavement life, because it reduces the tendency for fine gra/ned softs to be forced upward into the sub-base or base course under the kneading action of traffic. 4~, Preliminary Foundation Recommendations Based on the limited soil boring information, it appears that the major portion of Parcel B, exclusive of the east half of the present baseball diamond in the northeast comer, and the south half of Parcel A, the depth of fill organics and upper soft clay is less than 11 feet. In these areas, it is our opinion that the poor soils could be excavated and replaced with compacted fill. Buildings in these areas could then be supported on conventional spread footings. Excavations to 11 foot depth or less should not encounter significant groundwater intrusion. The fill used should be an imported sand, or on-site, inorganic lema sandy clay which is moisture conditioned -10- Mixed Use Development, Mound STS Project 97658 to within 2% of the optimum moisture content determined fxom the Standard Proctor compaction test. For preliminary planning purposes, a net allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,500 pounds per square foot may be used for footing design, although it is possible that this value can be raised at~er further study. We strongly recommend that additional borings should be taken to the west and south of boring 2, to better delineate the extent of the poor soil deposits. In the area encompassing boring 2 within Parcel B, and approximately the north half of Parcel A, the depth of poor, potentially compressible soil appears to be in the range of 8 to 18 feet. At these locations, it may be possible to excavate the soil and replace it with compacted fill. However this may not be economical, because the excavated soil is not reusable and would have to be hauled off-site. New fill would have to be imported to replace it. Excavations deeper than about 11 feet will require dewatering, which would add to the cost of the excavation and replacement method. We recommend that you should consider the use of GeopiersTM. We recommend that the Geopiers~' should extend totally thxough the fill, topsoil, peat, and organic clay/silt, to a tip elevation that reaches the top of the underlying stiff sandy clay glacial till. A~O~er installation of the Geopiers~, the building could be supported on conventional spread footings. Geopiers~'' should also be installed under interior floor areas of buildings within the poor soil zone. Another alternative for the portion of the site surrounding boring 2 and the north half of Parcel A would be to support new structures on driven piles. Depending on the loads to be carried, Class B treated timber piles or steel pipe piles which are later filled with concrete would be suitable, although it is likely this alternative'would be more expensive than Geopiers~. We would be pleased to provide specific pile foundation recommendations, when building plans have been developed. -I1 o Mixed Use Development, Mound STS Project 97658 4.3 Ground Supported Floor Slabs In the areas of the site which can be conventionally soil corrected (excavation and replacement), the ground supported floor slabs can bear directly on the compacted fill. The modulus of subgrade reaction of the fill would vary, depending on whether a sandy clay or imported sand fill is used. We would be pleased to advise further on this matter, if requested. In the portions of the site where GeopiersTM are used, we recommend that the area below the floor slabs should also be corrected by means of Geopiers". A standard ground-supported floor slab design may then be used above such a corrected area. If driven piles are used, we recommend that the floor slabs should be structural slabs, also supported on piles. 4.4 Exterior Pavement Areas We do not recommend major soil correction in the exterior pavement areas. However there should be sufficient excavation and replacement to provide a minimum 3-1/2 foot thickness of compacted granular soil (combined sub-base course and base course) below the pavements. If this is done, conventional flexible pavement desi~.q can be used. If peat or organic silt soils are exposed at the base of the subgrade excavation, a geofabric separator should be installed prior to placement of the imported granular fill. 4.5 Construction Considerations Underground utility lines at this site which have invert elevations of about 937 feet or higher should not encounter si~tmificant groundwater intrusion. If groundwater seepage into the trench occurs, it could be controlled by conventional pumping from a sump pit. For sewer lines having invert elevations lower than about 937 feet, groundwater intrusion into the trenches should be anticipated. However the rate of infiltration should be Iow enough that it - 12- Mixed Use Development, Mound STS Project 97658 could be conla-olled by pumping. The soils at this site are not conductive to well point &watering. 4.6 Winter Construction The sandy clay soils at this site are not conducive to winter earthwork, and this should be avoided. Placement of fill and/or foundation concrete must not be permitted on frozen soil, and the bearing soils under footings or floor slabs should not be allowed to l~eeze after concrete is placed, because excessive post-consmaction settlement could occur as the frozen soils thaw. 4.7 Construction SafeW All excavations must comply with the requirements of OSHA 29 CFR, Part I926, Subpart P "Excavations and Trenches". This document states that excavation safety is the responsibility of the contractor. Reference to this OSHA requirement should be included in the job specifications. The responsibility to provide safe working conditions on this site, for earthwork, building construction, or any associated operations is solely that of the contractor. This responsibility is not borne in any manner by STS Consultants, Ltd. 4.8 Field Observation and Te~in~ We recommend that the earthwork and footing i~,allations for this project be observed and tested by a geotechaical engineer or qualified engineering technician to determine if the soil and groundwater conditions encountered are consistent with those anticipated based on our exploration. Foundation subgrade should be tested to check for adequate beating conditions. Subgrades for slabs, pavement and new structural fill should be test roiled and unsuitable areas improved. Fill placement and compaction should be monitored and tested to determine that the resulting fill conforms to specified density, strength or compressibility requirements. Structural -13- Mix~ Use Development, Mound STS Project 97658 materials should also be tested for conformance to specifications. STS would be pl~a.sed to provide the necessary field observation, monitoring and testing services during construction. 4.9 General Qualifications This report has been prepared to aid in the planning of buildings at this property and to assist the architect and/or engineer in the design of this project. The scope is limited to the specific building project and location described herein, and our description of the project represents our understanding of the significant aspects relevant to soils and foundations. When more definite building plans have been developed, we should be given the opporumity to review and update our report. Some additional borings will also be required. We recommend that we be retained to review the project plans and specifications to determine if the recommendations contained in this report have been interpreted in accordance with our intent. Without this review, we will not be responsible for misinterpretation of our data, our analysis, and/or our recommendations, or how they are incorporated into the final design. Because of the possibility that unanticipated subsurface conditions may occur, we recommend that a "Changed Conditions" clause be included in the contract with the general contractor and subcontractors involved in the foundation installation, earthwork, and general construction. The inclusion of this clause will permit contractors to quote lower prices because they will not need contingencies for unanticipated conditions. Providing for equitable adjustments to cost and schedule for verified changed conditions will generally reduce delays, unnecessary costs, conflicts and litigation. Experience demonstrates that a partnering approach between the owner, architect and contractor usually allows the most timely, cost-effective and risk acceptable actions to be taken to remediate a changed condition. Furthermore, a prompt investigation of changed conditions and prompt communication of findings helps to reduce the immense problem of trying to present facts if a dispute develops. In the event that the owner and contractor do not agree that a changed 14- Mixed Use Development, Mound STS Project 97658 condition exists, we recommend that a mediation/arbitration procedure be pursu~ If you wish, we would be pleased to furnish additional information pertain/ng to this procedure. A suggested wording is given on a separate sheet entitled "Changed Conditions Clause" in the Appendix. 15- 0 0 0 M N 0 I L 0 D ~ q ] C) H v d 3NVq MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT FOR METRO PLAINS DEVELOPMENT, L.L.C. CITY OF MOUND H_ARDCOVL=R CALCULA~ON~ LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 30% = (far ail lots) .............. LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 15% = (far detached buildings only) .. ~Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that l:achniques are u~ilized, as outtined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,$ubd. 6. B. 1. (see 13ack). A plan must ba submk'~ed and approved by the Building Official. HCUS~: DETACHED BLDGS (GARAG E/SHED) LENGTH WIDTH X X TOTAL HOUSE ......................... X X TOTAL DETACHED BLDG.S ................. DRIVEWAY, PARKING X AREAS, SIDEWALKS, X ETC. X DEC[(S ol3en dac~ [114." min. OTHER TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ET(:: .................. X TOTAL DECK .......................... X ~ X ~ TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE j/~"'U 'N D ~=~R 0 VER (indic~,t,e difference) ......................(~J" ' PREPARED a DATE~ CITY O~ ~IOUNO I IMPERVIOUS SURFAC~ COV~AGE~i LOT AR~A LOT ~Q. FT. X 130% = (for ail Io~s) ....................................... SQ. FT. X 40% = Obr l.ms af Recap) ............................. SQ. F'r. X 15% = (far dLM~lched I~lildings only) .................. LOT AREA HOUSE TOTAL OETACHE~ ~I.JIL~INGS ............................... / --~ ~i..___. X -- ~~/ ' Ot~TACHED BIJILDING~ (GARAGE/SHED) DRIVEWAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS. ETC. Creative Solutions for Land Planning and Design Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. gill MEMO October 23, 2000 iv'OI~J~ To: City of Mound Staff, Planning Commission, and Council From: Bruce Chamberlain Mound Visions Coordinator Re: MetroPlains Development Proposal -7 former high school site. RedevelOpment of the former high school site will play a significant role in the character and success of the future downtown Mound. As a result, it seems appropriate to prepare staff comments relating directly to the proposal's relationship with the Mound Visions plan. Mound Visions' primary design mission... The Mound Visions plan was developed and is continually refined to create a destination downtown district with urban form (as opposed to suburban). A district that is "place appropriate", multifaceted, concentrated, and inter-linked. The goal of Mound Visions is to construct priVate development espousing the elements just identified within a fabric of high quality and inter-linked public spaces. The project as it relates to Mound Visions... From an overall standpoint, Staff feels that the sketch plan submitted by MetroPlains upholds the mission of Mound Visions and will strengthen the urban character of the downtown district. The retail project strengthens the built core and "greets" pedestrians at the 15/110 intersection. The plan suggests handling the high parking demands of grocery retail in ways that minimize negative impacts to the character of adjacent streetscapes. The residential portion of the project has an urban form with housing that is inter-linked with parks and pedestrian ways. The residential neighborhood suggests a comfortable level of intensity with opportunities for strong neighborhood ties. Parks are used as "gateways" to the neighborhood and enhance the linkage between the residential and the core downtown. Even though the sketch plan demonstrates the basic constructs necessary to uphold the Mound Visions principles, it is obviously very preliminary and needs a greater level of detail before we can fully understand its impact on the future of downtown Mound. Staff has the following specific comments on the plan. 123 North Third Su'eet, Suite 100, Minneapolis, MN 55401 Ph (612) 3384)800 Fx (612) 3384838 Memo - Mound Visions, MeiroPlains sketch plan review October 23, 2000 Page 2 of 2 Buildings "H" & "J" are proposed to be located at the street edge with the suggestion of an urban plaza at the 15/110 intersection. High-quality street-side fagade treatments and plaza design will be critical - especially since there will be long building facades without retail entries. · The relationship between retail building 'T' and the closest residential fiat could either be uncomfortable or extremely interesting and unique - depending on how the area is fenestrated. Staff suggests that particular design attention be paid to this small area. Since there is a gap in building facades between buildings "H" and "J" along 110, that stretch of streetscape should be given special attention to ensure an interesting and attractive edge. · The site entry off of Lynwood Boulevard and the follow-up driveway split between the commercial entry and the residential entry seems to need greater attention and maybe more formal urban character through use of a round-a-bout or similar street element. · The sketch plan suggests a strong pedestrian connection past the commercial storefronts between the residential neighborhood and the core downtown. A high level of streetscape treatment will be necessary to make pedestrians comfortable in using the connection. · The plan suggests that the residential development be mostly inwardly focussed. This is of special note on Elm Road where there are existing homes facing the development site and new homes facing away from the street. Special treatment should be given to the green space south of Elm Road to minimize the negative impacts of back yards facing the street. · Design of the ponding basin needs to be well conceived in order to make it an amenity to the neighborhood. I~SER VERtAct~ve L~lOUNDI99-24~)OCSbnetropll.doc I { C,S.A.H. N.O. 15 il_ LDER :1 A ~ COTTONt OOD LA 2§7.01 $1°51'28"W 275.02 15703 51 ~ 250 !~ ~OCNou~:.~ GRANDVIEW BLVD ........................... NORTH :'. NO'11'E 83~.4s ~ ' (GRANDVIEW CT) ~ IRONWC 250; ;, 25O MER 713 414 98 225 .~..,, BELL,. CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION sIIEET ADDRESS: SURVEY ON FILE? YES I NO R! R1A R2 R~ ZONING DISFRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH: 10,000/60 ~ .6 r 000/4_0 B2 20,000/80 s,ooo/!.~ ~;3 ~.o.ooo/~o 14,000/80 SEE ORD. I1 30, 000/100 ~'(iSTINGIPROPOSED EXISTING LOT SIZE: LOT WIDI'I{: LOT DEF1H: LOT OF RECORD? YES / NO IIOUSE ......... 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 50' TOP OF BLUFF 10' OR 30' GARAGE, SIIED ..... DETACIIED BUILDING.S FRONT N S E W FRONT N S E W SIDE N S E W 4'0R6' SIDE N S E W 4' OR6' REAR N S E W 4' LAKE N S E W 50' roP OF BLUFF 10' OR 30' IIARDCOVER CONFORMING? YES / NO 30% OR 40% lay: ]DATED: Planning Department at 472-0600. 'rhis Zoning hffor,natiou Sheet only summarizes a portion of the requirements outlined in the City of Mound Zoning Ordinance. For further information, conlact the City of Mound CO 0 1"-. 0 CD ,4- 0 0 :, . . ......... ~'~:L 53 '..a. o5,. 400 ~ I RESOLUTION #00- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND GRANTING APPROVAL FOR REZONING OF THE "OLD SCHOOL SITE" PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5600 LYNWOOD BLVD FROM R-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO "R-3" MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PDA (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AREA) AND "B-I" CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT AND "R-2" SINGLE AND TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO DESTINATION DISTRICT PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT) BY CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS, ALSO RECOGNIZING VARIANCES AND MINOR COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENTS FOR THE 'VILLAGES BY COOK'S BAY' AND 'MOUND MARKETPLACE' P&Z CASE #00-65 AND 00-66 WHEREAS, the applicant, MetroPlains Development, rezoning applications to allow residential and commercial development of property on the "Old School" site for development projectes called "The Villages by Cooks Bay" and "Mound Marketplace"; and, WHEREAS, the proposed development includes 18.97 acres of land that was previously the Westonka Community Center and ballfields and Westonka High School previously; and, WHEREAS, the development plan for the site calls for its development as multiple family residential and a commercial area along with land dedicated for park land dedication requirements; and, WHEREAS, The concept plan indicates 59 townhome units and 40 'flats.' The townhomes will provide a total of 4 parking spaces per unit including 2 indoor and 2 outdoor parking spaces. Underground parking will be provided for the flats at a ratio of 1 ½ spaces per unit. An additional 40 spaces will be scattered in bays along the private streets for visitor and guest parking. All streets within the residential area of the development will be private with a 24 feet width with no on-street parking because of the need to allow emergency access on this narrowed design; and, WHEREAS, as a planned development area, dimensional items such as building setbacks, lot area and width are approved and regulated under a conditional use permit. A Common Innterest Community (CIC) will be established to govern the further replatting and use of the land as individual units; and, WHEREAS, four 'big house' flats are shown on the eastern side of the development along Bellaire Road. The narrative talks about these units as single level with 4 units per level in these 2 - 3 story buildings. The developer indicates that the market for the flats would appeal to seniors which is a good 'fit' with the needs in Mound; and, WHEREAS, the following standards apply under the conditional use permit for the "Villages by Cook's Bay," PARCEL SIZE 12.27 ac PROPOSED UNIT # 99 DENSITY 8 units/acre ZONING (EXISTING) R-1 ZONING (PROPOSED) R-3 PDA Minimum Lot Width Not applicable Front Yard Setback Elm Road 60 feet Bellaire 100 feet Side Yard Setbacks As indicated on plans between buildings Rear Yard Setbacks As indicated on plans from property lines. LAND USE PLAN Downtown Residential (Medium to High Density Residential ~ 7 + units/acre) SUBDIVISION STREET DESIGN Right-of-way width NA- private streets Pavement width 24 feet Park Site Dedication 1.89 acres or 10% of total development land area - 18.97 acres GREENSPACE 57.4 percent HARDCOVER 36.2 percent , and WHEREAS, building elevations for the townhomes are provided with the development which also detail material standards to be followed on building exteriors; and, WHEREAS, the landscape plan for the residential portion of the development provides a total of 145 planting units which exceeds the 99 unit minimum. Plantings consist of shade, ornamental, and coniferous varieties. The park will be planted with 24 shade trees in addition to the 9 conifers that will be preserved; and, WHEREAS, a total of 1.89 acres, 10 percent of the total site area, will be dedicated to the City as parkland. Outlots 'B' and 'C' note these lands. Tot lot play equipment will also be provided C, and, by the developer and located in Outlot '" WHEREAS, the development proposes 67,000 square feet of commercial space called 'Mound Marketplace.' Anticipated tenants include a grocer, city liquor store, restaurants, and smaller retail shops. The buildings would be designed to consider the urban context of the downtown and the Mound Visions plan. Detailed exterior treatments, space relationships, and other design elements are provided in the development submittal which will encourage high quality building and site treatment; and, WHEREAS, the following standards apply through the conditional use permit for Mound Marketplace PARCEL SIZE 6.7 ac PROPOSED SQ. FT. OF 67,000 COMMERCIAL ZONING (EXISTING) B-l, R-l, R-2 ZONING (PROPOSED) Destination District PUD Minimum Lot Size NA Minimum Lot Width NA Front Yard Setbacks- Building fronting on Lynwood Per development plan Building fronting on Commerce Side Yard Setbacks- Building fronting on Lynwood Per development plan West building Rear Yard Setbacks Per development plan LAND USE PLAN Destination District SUBDIVISION STREET DESIGN Streets/Drives All private access PARKING 337 spaces provided Code requires 446 spaces 9 ½ feet by 18 feet stall Code requires 10 feet dimension by 20 feet HARDCOVER 92 percent ; and, WHEREAS, the landscape plan for the commercial portion of the development provides a total of 95 planting units which exceeds the 67 planting unit minimum. Plantings consist of shade, ornamental, and coniferous varieties. Screening and buffering of the parking and dock areas are provided to minimize impacts on the adjacent single family neighborhood; and, WHEREAS, a total of 313 parking spaces are shown plus 24 spaces adjacent to the Pond Arena which is a ratio of 1 space for every 197 square feet of commercial floor area. City Code requires 1 space for every 150 square feet of commercial floor area or 446 spaces requiring a variance of 109 spaces; and, WHEREAS, the City and County are currently reviewing plans for the relocation and upgrade of County Road 15 and the intersection of County Road 110. The results of the study are not yet complete, but will take into consideration the access locations proposed by the development plan. In reviewing the development, the City has considered traffic, circulation 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 development plan will convert 2 residential properties guided as Low Density Residential in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan to commercial use as regulated by the proposed Destination District PUD zoning district; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and City Council have studied the practicability of the residential and commercial planned developments, variances, taking into consideration the requirements of the City, giving particular attention to the arrangement and location of the street, their relation to topography, water supply, sewage disposal, drainage, building arrangements, the present and future development of adjoining lands and the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan and other official controls; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission on November 15, 2000 and November 27, 2000, held a public hearings pursuant to Minnesota State Statute and Mound City Code of Ordinances, to consider the approval of the requested rezonings and development plans as proposed for "The Villages by Cook's Bay" and "Mound Marketplace"located on property described on the Attachment "A"; 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 Comprehensive Plan and the existing land use in the area; and, WHEREAS, said plat is in all respects consistent with the City plan and the regulations and the requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and the City Code of Ordinances of the City of Mound. WHEREAS, at the Planning Commission has recommended City Council approval of the rezoning and conditional use permit for the information as contained in the development plans; and, NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota: mo Approves a Conditional Use Permit for the "The Villages by Cook's Bay" and "Mound Marketplace" with the following conditions: A variance is approved to allow the commercial parking spaces to meet 1 space per 200 square feet ratio plus a reduction of 23 spaces. o A variance is approved to allow the commercial parking spaces to be designed at 9 ½ feet width and a 60 feet 6 inch isle separation. o Relocate parking spaces along the rear of the grocery store to areas close to the clubhouse. A pedestrian easement between building facades along Lynwood and Commerce right-of-ways be provided. 5. Easements for recreation and maintenance of the multi-use trail system. 6. Indicate how private streets will be lighted. o Developer work with the City in developing a streetscape along Commerce and Lynwood to address landscaping, fagade, and other improvements complementary to the development of the Mound Visions Plan. o Ail streets within the proposed development shall be private streets serving the residential area shall be 24 feet wide, measured from back of curb to back of curb. Concrete curb and gutter shall be installed on all streets, drives and parking areas in both the commercial and residential areas. 9. Applicant provide fireflow analysis prior to the completion of the final utility plans. 10. The final plat shall include utility easements for the new sanitary sewer and watermains which will be public utilities. The final plat must also include utility easements for the existing public utilities which will remain in place. 11. Approval of right-of-way and access drives by Hennepin County. 12. Approval by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. 13. 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 public improvements 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 Attomey in the amount of 125% of estimated construction costs as per plans approved by the City Engineer. 14. The Developer shall secure and provide copies to the City's Building Official of all reviews and required permits from the Minnesota Department of Health and the ffEol Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, or any other applicable permits, prior to beginning construction. The Building Official will not authorize construction until permits are secured. 15. 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 Langdon Bay. 16. Prior to any occupancy the applicant shall secure Certificates of Occupancy from the Building Official. Certificates will not be issued for homes in the subdivision until utilities and access servicing the homes are approved by the City Engineer, Public Works Superintendent, and Building Official. 17. Developer will reimburse the City for legal, engineering and planning costs incurred for review and approval of this plat. B. Approves the rezonings to R-3 PDA and Destination District PUD as requested. Co Approves a minor Land Use Plan revision to change lots 18, 19 and 20 of Lynwold Addition from Low Density Residential to Destination District consistent with the development plan and rezoning. The City will also approve a textual revision to the Downtown Residential designation in the Land Use Plan to better describe the development density and character of the portion of the site to be rezoned from R-1 to R-3 PDA. Such revision could specify its designation as Medium Density Residential. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember by Councilmember and seconded The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Pat Misel, Mayor Attest: City Clerk RESOLUTION #00- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND GRANTING PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL OF THE MOUND VISIONS 1sT ADDITION PRELIMINARY PLAT LOCATED AT 5600 LYNWOOD BLVD. P & Z CASE #00-64 WHEREAS, the applicant, MetroPlains Development LLC, have submitted an application for a preliminary plat titled Mound Visions 1 st Addition. The property encompasses approximately 18.97 acres or 826,400 square feet of property located on the northwest comer of the intersection of Lynwood Blvd and Commerce Blvd.; 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 18.97 acres of land as legally described in Attachment "A" of this Resolution; and, WHEREAS, the preliminary plat consists of Lot 1, Block 1 which is proposed for commercial development, Lot 2 Block 1 which is proposed for multi-family residential development, Outlots B and C which are proposed for dedication to the City for park purposes, and Outlot A for parking purposes; and, WHEREAS, the preliminary plat anticipates that all streets and access drives will be privately owned and maintained as identified in the development plan; and, WHEREAS, Hennepin County and the City of Mound are currently involved in discussions regarding the redesign of County Road 15 which will affect the amount of land dedicated along Commerce and Lynwood Blvd. for right-of-way purposes; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, on November 15, 2000 and November 27, 2000, held public heatings pursuant to Section 330:00 of the Mound City Code of Ordinances, to consider the approval of the Mound Visions 1st Addition Preliminary Plat; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended Council approval of the Mound Visions 1 s, Addition Preliminary Plat; and, NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota approves the Preliminary Plat for Mound Visions 1st Addition with the following conditions: 1. Include additional right-of-way as requested by Hennepin County with a maximum of 25 feet dedication on Lynwood Blvd. (County Road 15) and 10 feet on Commerce Blvd. (County Road 110). 2. The name of the plat shall be "Mound Visions 1 ~t Addition." 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: Pat Misel, Mayor Attest: City Clerk RESOLUTION #00- A RESOLUTION APPROVING A STREET VACATION OF A PORTION OF AN UNNAMED PUBLIC ALLEY ADJACENT TO LOTS 18, 19, AND 20 LYNWOLD PARK, LAKE MINNETONKA P & Z CASE #00-71 WHEREAS, the applicant, MetroPlains Development, LLC have submitted an application to a vacate portion of a public alley for purposes of developing it and the adjacent commercial property; and, WHEREAS, the alley currently serves as a driveway access to the single family residences located along the north side of Lynwood Blvd; and, WHEREAS, the portion of the alley proposed for vacation currently serves as driveway access to a single family residence located on lot 18 and a single family residence located on lots 19 and 20; and, WHEREAS, the development proposal would remove the two single family residences to allow for commercial development thus eliminating the need for the public alley; and, WHEREAS, the street vacation is legally described as: The north 30.00 feet of Lots 18, 19, and 20, 'Lynwold Park' Lake Minnetonka, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota" WHEREAS, the development proposal will cause the relocation and reconstruction of public utilities within the easement area of the public alley, requiring the need for the City to maintain the utility easement; and, ~, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 27, 2000 and an additional meeting on November 30, 2000 to review the proposal fmding that the alley would no longer be needed for public access purposes; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended Council approval of the street vacation with conditions; and, NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota approves the street vacation of Bush Road as described above with the following conditions: 1. All utility easements be reserved. 2. A mm around be provided on the public alley. 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: Pat Misel, Mayor Attest: City Clerk December 4, 2000 PROPOSED RESOLUTION ~}0- RESOLUTION TO DENY A REQUEST TO REVOKE OR EXTEND A REMOVAL AGREEMENT ESTABLISHED BY RESOLUTION//98-136 TO REMOVE A NON CONFORMING GARAGE AT 4924 GLEN ELYN ROAD, LOTS 5&6, BLOCK 23, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID 13-117-24 11 0081, P&Z CASE g00-60 WHEREAS, the applicant, Franz and Renee Burris, are seeking to revoke or extend an agreement to remove a detached garage that was established by City Council Resolution//98-136, and; WHEREAS, the staff and Planning Commission have reviewed the request and recommend the removal of the garage as per resolution # 98-136 and; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby deny the applicants request and directs staff to work with the applicant to obtain removal of the garage according to the removal agreement established by Resolution g98-136 The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Councilmember The following voted in the affirmative The following voted in the negative: and seconded by ATTEST: Acting City Clerk Mayor NOVEMBER '13. 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES CASE #00-60 VARIANCE, FRANZ BURRIS 4924 GLEN ELYN ROAD In December of 1998 the applicant received variance approval from Council to rebuild the existing home. As a part of the conditions of approval, the existing detached garage was to be removed within two years which will expire on December 22, 1998. The owners are now requesting the City to allow one of two options they are suggestions: 1. Allow the garage to remain or 2. Another extension of about 2 ½ years. The resolution approved by the City Council provides the City the ability to remove the garage if the owners have not after the two-year window. A signed agreement providing for the removal is on file. The history of past practice on similar detached garage situations is that the Council has almost without exception, upheld the resolution requiring approval. In this case, the applicant states that a change of building plans is the reason for the variance request. The property currently has three building setback nonconformities, two of which are for the interim use of the garage. Based on the present material, there doesn't appear to be new circumstances about the property that warrant granting a variance. RECOMMENDATION' Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council deny the request upholding the previously approved Resolution #98-136 and Removal Agreement. Commissioner Mueller questioned whether the streamlining would make a difference from what this was. Building Official Jon Sutherland informed the Board that the applicant received a building permit to build his house and his house is in a conforming location. Also under streamlining the house would be able to be built and the garage would not have to be removed. Motion by Commission Weiland that we take Staff recommendation and deny the request and have the removal agreement in force, seconded by Hasse DISCUSSION ~,:?~ AYES 5 (Clapsaddle, Hasse, Weiland, Glister, Hanus) '"~'¥-.¢~'~" NAYES $ (Michael, Burma, Mueller) Motion carried. Chair Michael requested notion for the City Council review. Chair Michael feels it should definitely come down; but some sort of extension is appropriate. PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. Illlrl TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: November 13, 2000 SUBJECT: Variance Request APPLICANT: Franz Burris CASE NUMBER: 00-60 IIKG FILE NUMBER: 00~5 LOCATION: 4924 Glen Elyn Road ZONING: Residential District R-IA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Low Density Residential BACKGROUND: In December of 1998 the applicant received variance approval from Council to rebuild the existing home. As a part of the conditions of approval, the existing detached garage was to be removed within two years which will expire on December 22, 1998. The owners are now requesting the City to allow one of two options they are suggesting: 1) 2) Allow the garage to remain or Another extension of about 2 ½ years. The resolution approved by the City Council provides the City the ability to remove the garage if the owners haven't after the 2 year window. A signed agreement providing for the removal is on file. The history of past practice on similar detached garage situations is that the Council has almost without exception, upheld the resolution requiring removal. In this case, the applicant states that a change of building plans is the reason for the variance request. The property currently has three building setback nonconformities, two of which are for the interim use of the garage. Based on the presented material, there doesn't appear to be new circumstances about the property that warrant granting a variance. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council deny the request upholding the previously approved Resolution #98-136 and Removal Agreement. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road~ Mound~ MN 55364 Phone: 472-0607, Fax: 472-0620 ClT~l~iOi1~ee: $100.00 (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Distribution: City Planner l O/l./~/0'/') City Engineer ,-L- Public Works DNR PARK Other SUBJECT PROPERTY LEGAL DESC. PROPERTY OWNER APPLICANT (IF OTHER THAN OWNER) Address Lot R-3 B-1 Block /~ ~ ZONING DISTRICT R-1 R-lA R-2 Plat# B-2 B-3 Name Address Phone (H) ~'~'"~ .(M) Name Address Phone (H) (W) (M)_ ~plication ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and Has an a for this property? ~¢~'yes, ( ) no. provide copies of resolutions. Detailed description of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): Revised 07-11-00 Vadance 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 area', etc.): SETBACKS: REQUIRED REQUESTED VARIANCE (or existing) Front Yard: ( N S E W ) Side Yard: ( N S E W ) Side Yard: ( N S E W ) Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) Lakeside: ( N S E W ) (NSEW) Street Frontage: Lot Size: Hardcover: sq ft .sq ft .sq ft .sq ff 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: 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 07-11-00 Vadance Application, P. 3 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 (). If yes, explain: o 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? ~ce~at al~ of thJ~ve~te~~nd the statements contained ,n any requ,red papers or plans submi~ed herewith are tree and accurate. I consent to the ent~ in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the Ci~ of Mound for ~e pu~ose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Signature Applicant's Signature Revised OT-11-QO ~/ ~ Date REMOVAL AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made this ~l,~n' day of ~'~(~[~. ~, , 1999 by and between FRANZ & RENEE BURRIS, husband and wife, and CITY OF MOUND, a Minnesota municipal corporation. I. RECITALS 1.01. Franz and Renee Burris (the "Owners") are the owners of certain property located at 4924 Glen Elyn Road in the City of Mound (the "City"), County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, legally described on the attached Exhibit A (the "Property"). 1.02. Owners desire to construct a house (the "House") on the Property in accordance with plans submitted to the City pursuant, in part, to a variance granted by the City Council as resolution #98-136 (the "Variance"). 1.03. A garage (the "Garage") currently exists on the Property, and such Garage is not in conformance with the City's land use regulations. 1.04. As a condition of the Variance, the Garage must be removed or brought into conformance with the City's land use regulations. 1.05. Pending completion of the House, Owners desire to continue using the Garage for storage purposes on a temporary basis and the City is willing to permit such temporary use as a matter of public convenience. II. AGREEMENT NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises contained herein, the parties hereto agree and stipulate as follows: 2.01. The City agrees to permit Owners to maintain and use, but not expand, the Garage until December 21, 2000. 2.02. In consideration of the City's agreement under paragraph 2.01 of this Agreement, Owners waive the right to litigate, appeal, or otherwise challenge the City's right to require removal of the Garage as a condition of the Variance. 2.03. Owners agree to reimburse the City for its legal costs incurred in negotiating and preparing this Agreement. 2.04. Owners agree to demolish (such demolition to be accompanied by removal of all debris) or bring the Garage into compliance with all provisions of the City code by no later than December 21, 2000. Owners agree that time is of the essence for the purpose of this section 2.04. DJG144!45 MU200-30 2.05. Owners hereby grants the City an irrevocable license to enter onto the Property for the purposes of demolishing and removing the Garage and any resulting debris from the Property if Owners does not strictly complied with the terms of section 2.04. 2.06. If the City exercises its fights under section 2.05, Owners agree: to defend, protect, indemnify, and hold harmless the City from any and all claims, litigation, causes of action, and any other obligation imposed upon or asserted against upon the City, or its officers, agents, or employees arising out of this Agreement or the City's exercise of its rights hereunder; and to reimburse the City, upon demand, for any and all costs and expenses incurred by the City in exercising its rights, including but not limited to legal and contractors fees, and further agrees that the City may exercise any and all rights under law or equity to collect such costs and expenses, including but not limited to treating such costs and expenses as a lien upon the Property pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 514.67. 2.07. Without limitation of any provision set forth in section 2.06, Owners agree to pay to the City any costs or expenses, including without limitation attorney fees, incurred by the City in enforcing any provision of this Agreement. 2.08. The City may at its discretion record this Agreement, and Owners shall pay all costs associated with doing so. 2.09. This Agreement shall terminate automatically and have no further effect upon Owners' compliance with the obligations set forth in section 2.04. 2.10. Except as expressly set forth herein, nothing in this Agreement shall constitute a limitation or waiver of the City's fight to enforce any ordinance, law, rule, or regulation. 2.11. Nothing in this Agreement shall constitute a waiver or limitation of the City's immunities or limitations on liability as set forth in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 466 or other~vise. 2.12. A notice, demand, or other communication under this Agreement by either party to the other shall be sufficiently given or delivered if it is dispatched by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, or delivered personally; and in the case of Owners, is addressed to or delivered personally to Owners at 4924 Glen Elyn Road, Mound, Minnesota 55364; and in the case of the City, is addressed to or delivered personally to the City at City Hall, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, Minnesota 55364, Atto: Building Inspector; or at such other address with respect to either such party as that party may, fi.om time to time, DJG144145 MU200-30 designate in writing and forward to the other as provided in this section 2.12. 2.13. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall constitute one and the same insmanent. 2.14. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the state of Minnesota. Any disputes, controversies, or claims arising out of this Agreement shall be heard in the state or federal courts of Minnesota, and all parties to this Agreement waive any objection to the jurisdiction of these courts, whether based on convenience or otherwise. [THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK] DJG144145 · MU200-30 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Agreement as of the date written above. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ~ t,';:~;j MY COUU~SS[ON EX.~RES } JANUARY 31 2000 COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this __ 1999 by Franz Burris and Renee Bun'is, husband and wife. NOtary P~:LI~C day of CITY OF lvIOUND By ~,;..t,~.?~-~J:J~:) MY COMMISSION EX?IRES ~ JANUARY 31, 2000 Its -- STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this/~'ff 1999 by andz2". $;4,~,,r ~ ~ thq,~, ¢/~,~,.,q_ and , respectively, of the City of Mound, on behalf of the City. ~c~--~ ~''--~- ~...~<.~_~......~ .~ ~:~: ~.~.~, '"'~qot~ Public This document drafted by: Kennedy & Graven, Chartered 470 Pillsbury Center Minneapolis, MN 55402 DJG144145 MU200-30 4 CERTIFICATE City of Mound STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )SS COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) 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. ! have carefl21!y compared ~a/d ext_mct wi~h sa/d odgl. na! record. o 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 ~8-136 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE IN ORDER TO ALLOW FOR CONSTRUCTION A CONFORMING ADDITION, AT 4924 GLEN ELYN ROAD, LOTS 5 & 6, BLOCK 23, SHADYWOOD POINT, PII~ 13-117-24 11 0081, P & Z CASE ~t98-66 Said meeting was duly held, pursuant to call and notice thereof as required by law on DECEMBER 22, 1998. WITNESS my hand officially as such Clerk, and the seal of said City, this 9th day of February, 1999. SEAL CITY CLERK December 22, 1998 RESOLUTION ,~<J8-136 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE IN ORDER TO ALLOW FOR CONSTRUCTION A CONFORMING ADDITION, AT 4924 GLEN ELYN ROAD, LOTS 5 & 6, BLOC~( 23, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID# 13-117-24 11 0081 P & Z CASE ~98-66 WHEREAS, the applicant, Franz Bun'is, has applied for front yard & side yard (garage), and a side yard (house) setback variances as listed below in order to allow construction of a conforming addition at 4924 Glen Elyn Road; and, WHEREAS, the following lists the requested setbacks: Existinq/Proposed Required Vadance Side yard (house) Front yard (garage) Side yard (garage) 1.35' 6' 4.65' 3.95' 20' 16.05' 2.2' 6' 3.8' ; 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, 40 feet of lot frontage, front yard setback of 20 feet, lakeside setback of 50 feet, and the balance of setbacks as listed above for lots of record; and, WHEREAS, the proposed addition would be built in a conforming location and would meet all required setbacks; and, , WHEREAS, the hardcover after construction will be less that 29 percent for this lot of record which is allowed up to 40 percent with an approved drainage plan; and, WHEREAS, the existing detached garage is nonconforming in both front and side yards; and, WHEREAS, the proposed improvements include a second story addition and renovation of the first floor; and, ~' December 22, 1998 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and has unanimously recommended approval 0t the variance recommend by staff with alterations and additions; and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby grant a vaxiance for the garage of 16.05 feet for the front yard and 3.8 feet for the side yard and a variance for the dwelling of 4.65 feet for the side yard as recommended by the Planning Commission in order to construct a conforming addition and attached garage with the following conditions: ao 1.35 feet side yard for the house as requested. The construction of a proposed attached garage be conforming in all respects, to include hardcover. Co The detached garage be allowed to remain for a pedod of two years from the approval of this resolution. At the end of the two years, the garage shall conform to code requirements. An easement or monies to secure its removai, if it is not in conformance with Code shall be provided and be acceptable to and approved by the City Attorney. do Associated grading and drainage plans shall be approved prior to building permit issuance. The applicant shall submit a drainage and grading plan to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer pdor to the Building permit issuance. The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth in this resolution, pursuant to Section 350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the structures described in the resolution 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 improvements: Construct a conforming addition to the existing dwelling. This variance is granted for the following legally described property as stated in the Hennepin County Property Information System: LOT 5 & 6, BLOCK 23, SHAOYWOOO POINT, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA. This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. o Deconber 22, I995 The property owner shall have the responsibility of filin~j this resolution with HennepJn County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Ahrens and seconded by Counciimember Hanus. The following Counciimembers voted in the affirmative: Ahrens, Hanus, Jensen, Polston and Weycker: The following Councilmembers voted in the negativei.~. none. Mayor Attest: City Clerk EXHIBIT A (Legal Description of Property) Lot 5 & 6, Block 23, Shadywood Point, Hennepin County, Minnesota. DJG-I58756 MU220-5 (iII'Y I)F M(.)UNi) ZONIN(. SURVEY ON I:IIE'~ lOT OF RF_COIH)? { YES)I NO YARD~ I IIIREI'I'IIIN INFORMATION SIIEET ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH: ~_._~1o,000/60 BI V,500/O R1A 6,000/405 B2 20,O00/BO R2 6,000/40 B3 XOo000/60 R2 14,000/80 R3 ~EE ORD. I1 30,000/100 I11(QI Jill I;.1! EXISTING/I'ROPOSED EXISTING LOT SIZE: LO'I' WIDTII: LOT DI:,I' I] I: VARIANCE IIOIISE ......... FR()N F FRONt SIDE N S F, W N S E W N S L: W SIDE N S E w I{F. AR N S F. W LAKE N S F. W TOP OF BI,IJFF I0' ()R 30' GAl{AGE, .~IIEI} ..... IH:.'I'A¢'III!I} IIIIll I)INI ;3; FRONI' N S F. W FRONI' N S E W SIDE N S F. W 4' {JR 6' SIDI,'. N S l{ W 4' ()R 6' IH:.AR N S l{ W 4' LAKF, N S Ii W .ill)' I'OP i)F lll.lIFF I(1' IIR 30' 3il,v,, {}R 41)% ('{)NI:I)ItMIN(;'? YES I I'lalmi.g Depattmen! al 472-0600. -/.,al. ' SUlIIIII;~tiZCS a Imlti:,n ,H lilt lCqllilt'lllClll.~ olillillCd ill IJl¢ (:il!/ of MouIlll Zonin§ Ordinance. Fol' I'tlldlo' infoflnalion, toolart the (;ily of Mound ARM) C,TYOF OU. DRAFT DOGK AND GOM~ON,~ ADVh~ORY NOVEMBER 16, 2000 Present were: Chair Jim Funk (arrived at 8:35 pm), Commissioners Mark Goldberg, Frank Ahrens, and Greg Eurich, and Council Representative Mark Hanus. Also present were Park Director Jim Fackler and Dock Inspector Tom McCaffrey. Absent and excused: Commissioner Gerald Jones Acting Chair Goldberg called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. 1. MINUTES Motion made by Ahrens, seconded by Eurich, to approve the minutes of the September 20, 2000 DCAC meeting as presented. Motion carried unanimously. AGENDA CHANGES Agenda approved with the following amendments: Councilmember Hanus asked to pull item ~ offthe agenda as the Council does not believe it is time to deal with this at the Commission level since the Council still does not have its direction firmly established. Commissioner Goldberg expressed concern that some changes would get passed at the Council level without come back for discussion and recommendation from the DCAC. Councilmember Weycker addressed the Commission, stating that there is a deadline for the City Council and if the DCAC wants input into the decisions, it should probably be discussed tonight. Councilmember Hanus stated the deadline for this year has already been dropped, and there most likely will be no changes for the 2001 season. Commissioner Eurich stated he would prefer that the DCAC discuss this issue in order to have their views and recommendations on the record and forwarded to the City Council before any decision was made. Commissioner Ahrens stated there is a balance in the Dock fund right now, so an increase does not have to happen immediately. Mr. Paul Schultz, 5967 Ridgewood, asked if the discussion on agenda changes could be delayed and item #3 be discussed, as there are people present who wish to address this issue and need to leave soon. November 16, 2000 Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Comm'ss'°rD~ Aj::T Motion made by Goldberg, seconded by Ahrens, to table agenda item #4. Motion failed 212 (Ayes: Hanus, Ahrens. Nays: Goldberg, Eurich). Commissioner Goldberg suggested adding a last agenda item to discuss abutter versus non abutter fee structures. DISCUSS: RE-CONFIGURATION OF THE MULTIPLE SLIP DOCK/ABUTTING DOCK SITES AT HIGHLAND END AND TVVlN PARK ACCESS Park Director Fackler and Dock Inspector McCaffrey summarized the requested changes by the dock site holders and Highland End and Twin Park Access, and presented a new configuration for the multiple docks. Councilmember Hanus expressed concern about adhering to the LMCD rules regarding staying parallel to the lot lines. The configuration shows parallel to each other, and perpendicular to the shoreline which may not meet LMCD standards. Mr. Paul Schultz, 5967 Ridgewood, asked if there was any reason the multiple dock has to be out 88 feet. Park Director Fackler stated that water depth has been a problem in the past couple years, which is why an extension was added. If water depth was not a problem, the dock could be out 60 feet. Commissioner Eurich stated this solution seems workable, and with the continuance of Iow water, the LMCD will have to step in anyway. Commissioner Ahrens stated he would not vote for a motion on this issue until David Mengen, the abutting dock holder, is heard from. The multiple dock issue is taken care of, but the solution for the two abutting docksite holders is still undecided. Cathy Olson, 3146 Highland, requested that if Mr. Mengen suggests any changes that are not discussed and approved upon here, another meeting be held to inform all other dock site holders and abutters. Also, before any docks go in, the City may want to have a hand in the process to make sure the docks go in as planned. Commissioner Goldberg directed staff to note the request that the City have a hand in the process of putting docks in and to facilitate the process. Motion made by Eurich, seconded by Hanus, to adopt the plan for Highland End as presented. Motion failed (Ayes: Goldberg, Eurich; Nays: Hanus, Ahrens; Abstained: Funk [arrived late].) Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission November 16, 2000 D AFT 4. DISCUSS: PROPOSED 2001 THRU 2005 DOCK/SLIP FEE OPTIONS = m Discussion took place summarizing the earlier discussion for Chair Funk. Councilmember Hanus reiterated his recommendation to table this discussion until the Council offers some direction. Commissioner Eurich expressed his desire that the DCAC has input regarding the philosophical discussions on all issues entailed in the dock fees. Consensus was that these discussions will be put off on the Commission and Council level until 2001, as there is not time to make these kinds of decisions in 2000. Motion made by Funk, seconded by Goldberg, to recommend that dock fees for 2001 remain unchanged for 2000. Motion carried unanimously. UPDATE: STAIRWAYS TO WIOTA COMMONS Park Director Fackler summarized the proposal for the Commons. stairways to Wiota REVIEW: 2001 DOCK APPLICATION FORMS Dock Inspector McCaffrey presented the letter and application form that will be sent out for the coming season, highlighting any changes that have been implemented from earlier discussions. Discussion took place on some of the changes that were discussed but not implemented this year, such as the use of the dock, as there are many that do not have boats every year. Consensus was reached that dock application forms and the information requested on them should be placed on the DCAC agenda on a yearly basis. Commissioner Goldberg suggested adding to the letter that each year a party is on the waiting list, their priority for getting a dock site goes up. REVIEW: ORDINANCE 437 Park Director Fackler stated this item is up for discussion every year in case any changes need to be made. Commissioner Goldberg pointed out that about six months ago this ordinance was brought up-to-date. 8. REVIEW: ORDINANCE #108-2000 PER MARK GOLDBERG'S REQUEST 10. 11. 11a. Commissioner Goldberg stated this ordinance was revised in Subd. 7 by the Council a few months ago, and the DCAC had not received a copy of it. The encroachment issue is the one that was changed. UPDATE: ADDITIONAL BUDGET CHANGES Park Director Fackler stated that the funds replaced in the Park Fund did change the Dock Fund slightly. Discussion followed by all regarding specific line items, and concern was expressed that these items need further discussion at the Council level. Motion made by Goldberg, seconded by Funk, to approve the budget as proposed, contingent upon review of the items discussed tonight: Revenue: Line Item 3105; Line Item 3130; General Liability Insurance; Workers Comp Insurance; Reduction of LMCD Fee. Also, the Dock Commissioners should receive detail on these items by mail prior to the December 4, 2000 Council budget meeting. Motion carried unanimously. DISCUSS: 2001 DOCK LOCATION MAP CHANGES Commissioner Ahrens stated that a list has not been distributed in a couple years of all names, dock location numbers, boat sizes, and so on. Ahrens requested a copy of this list be distributed for the December meeting, to use for this discussion. Dock Inspector McCaffrey summarized some of the changes that will be under discussion next month. DISCUSS:DECEMBER DCAC AGENDA Some items to be included on the December agenda are: 1. Discuss: 2001 Dock Location Map Changes 2. Discuss: Reconfiguration of multiple dock at Twin Park Access 3. Conversation with Dave Mengen regarding multiple dock at Highland End 4. Review: 2001 Approved Budget DISCUSS: ABUTTER VERSUS NON-ABUTTER FEE STRUCTURES Commissioner Goldberg requested a copy of the letter that had been sent out regarding dock fees. He stated his concern that it may have created some fears or bad feelings so he would like to draft a letter from the DCAC stating that they are trying to stay neutral regarding the abutter and non-abutter issues. Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission DRAFTNOv mb :~ooo 12. 13. 14. 15. Councilmember Hanus stated he may have a copy, and will get a copy to Goldberg before the next DCAC meeting. NOVEMBER CALENDAR FYI 1) 2) 3) 4) S) 6) 7) HRA & City Council Minutes October 24, 2000 Park & Open Space Advisory Commission Minutes Sept. 14 & Oct. 12, 2000 Planning Commission Minutes September 11, 2000 Letter from TimeSaver Letter from City Manager Kandis Hanson Fundamentals Memo from Dock Inspector, Tom McCaffrey REPORTS A) CITY COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE No report at this time. B) PARK DIRECTOR No report at this time. ADJOURN Motion made by Ahrens, seconded by Funk, to adjourn the meeting at 10:00 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. ROGER W. REED Real Property Lcnv Specialist* *Certified by the Minnesota State Bar Association October 24, 1988 REED & POND, LTD. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 5424 SHORELINE DRIVE P.O. BOX 9 MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-0009 PHONE 952/472-2222 1-800-876-7080 (MN Only) FAX 952/472-2254 PAUL L. POND Certified Civil Trial Specialist* SARA B. KAUFHOLD Legal Assistant Mayor, Council and City Manager of the City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound MN 55364 Dear Friends: In order for the Gillespie Center to be operated in a financially sound manner, it is important that this building be tax exempt. Minnesota Statute 272.02 Subd. 14 ( listing exempt property) reads as follows: Subd. 14. Property of seniors citizens' groups; local option. If approved by the governing body of the municipality in which the property is located, property not exceeding one acre is exempt if it is owned and operated by any senior citizen group or association of groups that in general limits membership to persons age 55 or older and is organized and operated exclusively for pleasure, recreation, and other nonprofit purposes, no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholders; provided the property is used primarily as a clubhouse, meeting facility, or recreational facility by the group or association and the property is not used for residential purposes on either a temporary or permanent basis. The Gillespie Addition is divided into two lots. The lot upon which the building is being constructed is Lot 1, Block 1, Gillespie Addition and it does not exceed one acre. On behalf of the owner of the property, Westonka Senior Citizens Foundation, I request a resolution from the City of Mound approving tax exemption for Lot 1, Block 1, Gillespie Addition. Your cooperation will be deeply appreciated by myself and the members of Westonka Senior Citizens Foundation. Very truly yours, REED & POND, LTD. Roger Vff Reed RWR:nr cc: Westonka Senior Citizens Foundation we018-01/moundcouncil 1 NOU-2~-2000 14:00 REED g POND, LTD. 612 47g 2254 P.01×02 Roger W. Reed Reed & Pond, LTD. P.O. Box 9 5424 Shoreline Drive Mound, MN 55364 November 22, 2000 RE: Westonka Senior Citizens Foundation Dear Mr. Reed: After having reviewed the preliminary documentation that you have provided it is my opinion that the property would first qualify for property tax exemption, under M.$. 272.02 subd. 14, for the 2001 assessment for taxes payable in 2002. My decision is based upon the following qualifications: 1. That ownership of all relevant parcels is under "West Tonka Senior Citizens Foundation" prior to 3uly 1, 200].. 2. The City of Mound acknowledges approval of the project. 3. The project exemption does not exceed one acre in size. 4. The property is primarily used as a clubhouse, meeting or recreational facility by the Westonka Senior Citizens, Inc. 5. The property is operated exclusively for nonprofit purposes. Please be advised that Lot 2 of the proposed "Gillespie" Addition is in excess of the one acre and will remain taxable. The exemption will continue for as long as the property is operated consistent with the conditions you have described and meets the qualifications stated above. If you have any additional questions concerning your properties exempt status, feel free to call me at 348'-3388. Very truly yours, William Effertz, SAt~A~ Assessment Supervisor, Hennepin County Cc: John Dehn, Mound City Arty. County Assessor Department A-2103 Hennepin County Oovcrnmcnt Ccncer Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487-0,213 MOUND RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING EXEMPTION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY FROM PROPERTY TAXATION DRAFT WHEREAS, the City has received a request from the Westonka Senior Citizens Foundation that a parcel of land legally described as Lot 1, Block 1, Gillespie Addition (the "Subject Property"), be exempted from ad valorem taxation; and WHEREAS, the City has reviewed the request, and solicited comment from other taxing jurisdictions impacted by the request, and the public; and NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Mound: I. Makes the following Findings of Fact: The Subject Property: a. contains square feet. b. is located within the corporate limits of the City of Mound. c. is owned in fee and operated by the Westonka Senior Citizens Foundation. d. is to be used primarily as a clubhouse, meeting facility, or recreational facility by the Westonka Senior Citizens Foundation. e. is not to be used for residential purposes on either a temporary or permanent basis. o The Westonka Senior Citizens Foundation: a. generally limits membership to persons age 55 and older. b. is organized and operated exclusively for pleasure, recreation and other nonprofit purposes. 3. No part of the net eamings of the Westonka Senior Citizens Foundation inure to the benefit of any private shareholder. II. Makes the following Conclusions of Law: The Subject Property meets the requirements contained in Minnesota Statutes § 272.02 Subd. 14 to qualify it for consideration as tax exempt property. III. Makes the following Decision: The request for tax exemption of Lot 1, Block 1, Gillespie Addition is hereby APPROVED. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mound this __ JBD-188390vl MU220-5 day of ,2000 ATTEST: Pat Meisel, Mayor Fran Clark, City Clerk JBD-188390vl MU220-5 cC ities Bulletin Number 29 November 8, 2000 Big Plan Update: Dept. of Revenue discusses exempt entities Contributions Andrea Steams Should local governments have the option to require entities that are exempt from paying the property tax to contribute some type of fee or payment towards the costs of local services? Whether to grant this type of authority to local governments was a topic of lengthy discussion and contentions debate at a public meet- ing held by the Dept. of R. evenue on Oct. 18 as part of their examination of the overall state tax system. One of the principles that underlies the governor's initiative is to close and limit tax exemptions and special preferences that cause everyone to pay higher tax rates, and create unequal and unfair benefits for narrow indus- tries and groups. The challenges faced by local units of government with significant amounts of tax exempt property within their jurisdictions was articu- lated to members of the governor's staff as they gathered feedback as part of their assessment of the tax system. Concerns were identified by both local officials and taxpayers who bear the burden of higher taxation' that results from exemptions extended to certain properties. One of the solutions under discus- sion would require exempt entities to contribute a fee or an in lieu payment to help pay for the local services they receive. Currently, Minnesota law does not require any mandatory payment. However, some local units of govern- ment have been able to enter into voluntary agreements with exempt entities within their jurisdiction for some level of contribution toward the local services they consume. During the meeting, Dept. of R. evenue staff offered this mandatory payment concept for discussion purposes. They identified the advantages of such an option to include fairness, spreading the property tax burden across more properties, and diversifying local tax bases. Some of the identified disadvan- tages included the possibility it could result in variations among taxing jurisdictions, reduce the resources available to exempt entities to fulfill their charitable missions, decrease the portion of donors' gifts spent for the purposes the donation was made, and not result in any significant Contribution to local revenues. The meeting was well attended by many representatives of exempt entities who spoke against authoriz- ing local governments to require exempt entities to make any sort of contribution to local services. Many of the comments focused on the many benefits exempt entities bring to the communities in which they reside. The League expects more details on the Big Plan will be available shortly after the late-November budget forecast is announced. In any event, the governor has indicated the final recommendations will be finalized and introduced during the 2001 legislative session. ~ League ofMinnesotaCities 2 0 0 0 Policy Adoption Confer r c-e November 17, 2000 · Ramada Plaza Hotel, Minnetonka · 8:30 a.m.-2:30 p.m. Set the course for Minnesota cities' legislative efforts! See page 12 for more details and register today! This redlined draft, generated by CompareRite (TM) - The Instant Redliner, shows the differences between - original document · J:\DMS\JBD\412C02!.DOC and revised document: J:\DMS\JBD\412C03 !.DOC CompareRite found 3 change(s) in the text Deletions appear as Overstrike text surrounded by { } Additions appear as Bold text surrounded by [] JB D- 188004v 1 MU220-2 I1-~0-00 04:14pm ' From-KENNeDY & ~RAVEN +61~3~9310 T-O00 P OZ/09 F-~34 [11/29/001 CITY OF MOUND ETHICS GUIDELINES FOR CITY COUNCIL [AND ADVISORY BOARDS AND COI~LMISSIONS] BACKGROUND: The Mound City Council makes the following findings: 1. The confidence that the community h~s in its public insn:_ufions is directly related to The standards followed b:y the elected [and appoint,:d] oftXci~-~ Not only is it important that elected [and appointed] officials act ethically in their public lives; but it is equ'411y important that they establish aa3 ioii~v, clear pnnciples and guidelines to guide them in their actions. 3. The existence and adherence to such guidelines tim result tn a high level of public trust and acceptance in the actions of elected [and appointed] officials_ 4. For the foregoing reasons, the City Council has ~,dop:ed the following Ethtcs Guidelines, to be obser~.ed and followed by the City Council [and the members of the advisory boards and commissions of the CiB,', (collectively, "Officials")l. ETHICS GUIDELINES 1. No ~r- ....... ,~ --~-~' [Official] shall misuse the offic2 ~.~' s~:,~re special pnvileges or exemptions for such person or any other person. 2. No {Cauncil ~"~ [Official] shall directly {ot'j [or] ~n,.:.,:,~rl> receive or agree to rece~w or solicit, ~m~ compensation, gift, reward or gratmty in pas-::.t:':: :'or the perI'ormance of his or her officio.1 duties except ~s may be provided by law[; nor shall an?' Ollicial gi~-e or offer to give any compensation, gift, reward or gratuity to any individuals in connection to their official capacity.]-b-}- "~ N'z r- ....... n ~-.-~---~ [3. No Official] shall emer into any contract with the City that is prohibited b~, law. Any public oflicial who has a proprietary interest ia a.n entity doing business with the City shall m~e known that interest in writing to the City Co;_ncil and the City Clerk. m,.. .....} [Ollieial'sl 4, Any {C. cuacil ..... ~--' [Offieial,] who in the d~schar~e of said { =~'"~ duties would be required to take an acnon or make a decision which would substantiall5 affect such official's financial interest or those of a business with which such official is associated l. except as the Cit3"s representative), unless the effect on such official is no gre~t~r than on any IBD-I~53gI,~2 2 MU22u- 1 1140-00 04:14pm From-KENNEDY & ~RAVEN +61Z~379310 T-O00 P.03/09 F-534 other citizens or other members of such official's business c[ass:,~,cxt~orl, profession., or occupation, shM1 [not pamdpa~ in eider ~scu~ion or vo~ on ~e manet, ~d shall additionally] ~ the following ~tions: a. A wfitmn statement sh~l be prepped which will xncl~de One nme, address, office held, action presenting the pomnual conflic~ of interest, ~e nature of 2~e fin~ci~ interest, person notified of ~e potenti~ conflict of interest, the member's signature ~d the date; b. Said member sh~l dehver copies of the sta~ment to the City Clerk; c. ~' ~ potemiM conflict presems iuelf ~d ~ere is insufficient time to comply wi~ the provisions of clauses "a" ~O "b" of ~is section, ~e member shMt verbMty info~ ~e City ~-~-~-~ [Offidal] shill een file a written statement Clerk of ~e potential confl~ct. ~e t- ....... ~e City Clerk wi~in one week ~ter the potenUfl conllict presents i~lf which statemen~ shM1 sram the re,on for ~e del~y. lite provihons of ~is p~agraph 4 should not, absent ~usu~ ~rcu~m~, prevent ~e Official from appe~ng betBre ~e City Coundl or ~) board or ~m~ssion on a mater where such Offid~ is, ~ prope~y owner, requesting some action or ded~on from ~e City on su~ prope~', prodding ~at such p~pa~n B ~ a member of public ~d not ~ ~ Official. 5. An Offid~] ' - .... :, ......... ~ must not act ~ ~ ae=::: ¢: ~tto~,ey for ~other before the City Council or a board or commission in a mater where a c:,nr]ict of inmrest exisB or may exist. Cc ...... ~~ lan Offid~] may ~cept compensa~t6i, ~r expense rem~bursement for the pe~om~mc2 of ~e ~ [Ot~d~'s] public ~mies ~r~ mc~a,~., only from ~e sources lis~d below. a. Compensation and expenses paid by the City. b. Compensation and expenses from other employment, if the person happens to conduct public business while being paid for the other employment m-,d ii' the other employment does nor interfere with, influence, or compromise the person's pubhc position, and c. Compensation and expenses paid by another governmental ~gency or municipal association to {a Co,~r.c:.l m~m~.~r] [an Official] who ser~es ~ -~ City representative for that agency, but only if the City does not also pay the person for the s~n~,e zcti~ity. 7. kA C'c'~r~il n-~e~,.z-E6-,~ [An Official] mast not use public r~:e. ney, Urea, personnel, tacilities, or equipment for private gain or political campaign acr~','a,e~ rxcept w[~zn: a. the use is required or authorized by law, or b. the use is no greater than that allowed for the general panic. MU22U- ! llqO-O0 04:lSpm From-KENNEDY & ~RAVEN +~1Z~79310 %000 P04/Og F-~34 This p~ragraph does not prohibit correspondence at any time to indi~'idu~ rasiderlN ill regp0llge to the resident's specific inquiries, or general sun, eys of residents that are conducted before the time of filing for candidacy for elective office. 8. It is importunt to public confidence in the operation of go~,ernm~n~ that decisions of the City Council [and the advisory boards and commissions oi' the city] (un!ess subject to certain specific exceptions) be made in public, following discussion among men:bets al~o taking place in public. For that reason, the Ibllowing guidelines w~ll be follo~.e~ by tC ................. , [Officials]: a. Ar any gathering that is attended by a majority or' the Council[, or of an advisor~' board or commission] {, unless such gathering has been duly noticed ~ a meeting of the Council {), r~c. mzm~ar-.;l [or such advisory board or commisrdon), such OtBcials] will refrain from participating[, as a group,] in any discussion, either between thernse!v~s, or others in attendance at the gathering, involving matters that are pending, or are likely ro cotr:e beI'or~ the Council [or such advisory board or commission]. b. At any speci'~l meeting of the CounciL[ 't ..... ~--~,'~ [or or- an advisor)' board or commission, the Oflieials] will refrain from engaging in discussion or taking action on any matter which was not contained on, or rea>onably related to, the items in the meetino notice. c. The Council [and each advisory board and comndssion] will, t-rom time to time, and at the recommendation of the City Manager, conduct study sessions to familiarize new '-~-~'- [OIIicials] ~mct update other ~ [Offidals] ~,iih thc requirements of the Minnesota Open Meeting Law. 9. While openness is an ~mportant cornerstone of good goven:~:-=ent, it is occ~ionally necessary to limit disclosure of certain types of data that may con,e ~;::.~ g",e ha~ds or' iCc,'azc~,l ,r',. .... 4~ ~-~- ..... [OfficiOs] will become familiar ~ [Officials]. For that reason, ~ ................ ) with the requiremems of the Minnesota Data Practices Act, a:~3 ~.ill seek ~dv~ce prior to disclosing data in their possession that might be considered a.s ~a,: ? :51:.c. Further, ~ ~ [an Ol'fidal] must not disclose information recci,',ed~ ,5i-;c~sged, or decided in conference with the City Attorney that is protected by the atto,mey/c!ie-,nt privilege, unless a majority of the icily] Council has authoriTed tha~ disclosure. DISCLOSURES: Within 30 days after taking the oath of oftice, each {.C-ouac-4~-~'7,-~--'~ [Official] must file a report with the Cit~. Clerk, on a form prepared by the clerk, v~hich contains the information specified belo~ for the preceding year. Subsequently, each persnr, must file ~t supplemental report on the first day of February of each year in office and ~,,irhin 50 days after any change in informanon provided under ' .......... ~- q~- [this section]. The int'ormation must be for the individu',d, the individual's spouse, all minor children (collectively referred to belo~ as "person"). a. A bu~ines~ entity in employee, and the position held. -; ..... director, member, or which the person is ~.'~ =,: .... ,: .~BI2~- 1~5351v2 4 11-30-00 04:lSpm From-KENNEDY & GRAVEN +61Z35?g310 T-O00 P 05/Og F-534 b. A business entity in which the person ha~ an ownership ~[c. The n~e ~d ad.ess of ea~ ~nd[y [rum wh[~ ~e pe~ua receives] mcom~, co.per.dom ~coA~ o[ co~[ss~ons [ha ~c r~c~J ffo~ emplo)~cnt, fo[ se~k~s ~e~dc~d, or from pensions, ~xcep[ the ~mp[oymem of minor d. Non-profit or~h~dons in wNch ~e pc~son sc~es on ~e position held, except if semng in ~a~ cap.ky ~ ~e City's represenutive. e. Re~ property within ~e City owned by ~e person or benet'icifl interest ..... ' ' - .... ~ ' " The ~ "business entity" includes ~y business, pr~,~et~cshp, fim~, pam~ership, person in representative or fiducia~ capacity, ~soci~tion, venture, tt~s: IBD-l~53~l~ MU220-1 11-30-00 04:16pm From-KENNEDY & GRAVEN +G1Z3379310 T-O00 P06/09 F-534 CITY OF MOtJND ETHICS GUIDELINES FOR CITY COUNCIL AND ADVISORY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS BACKGROUND: The Mound City Council makes the following finclings: 1. The contidence that The commumty has in its public insmutions is direcdy related to the standards followed by The elected and appointed officials. o Not only is it important that elected ~nd appointed o~:';ci~s act etkically in their pubic tic, es; but it is equally important that they estabhsh and follo',~ cie~ principles ~d guidelines to guide them in Their actions. 3. The existence and adherence to such guidelines cs resck itl a high level t.¥ public trust and azceptance in the actions of elected and appointed officials. 4. For the foregoing reasons, the City Council h~ ~dc?r,d the following Ethics Guideknes, to be observed and followed by the City Councd ~d th~ members or' the ad~,4.sory boards and commxssions ot' the City, (collectively, "Officials"). ETHICS GU1DELLNES 1. No Official shall misuse the office m secure special prM!eges or exemptions for such person or any other person. No Official shall directly or indirectly receive or a~ee t~ receive or solicit, compensation, gift, rew~d or gratuity in payment for The performance c~' ~s or her official dtiues except as may be provided by law; nor shall any Official give or offer t~ give any compensation. gift, reward or gratuity to any indi,riduals m connection to their official capacity. 3. No Official shall emer into any contract with the City ¢,at i_~ ~r.:~r:5~i-'-~J by law. A.ay pubic official who has a propriet~a'y interest in ~n entity doing business v, ~C-,, 2,~: City shall make known that interest in writing [o the City Council and the City Clerk. 4. Any Official, who in The discharge of said Official's du:~es v,'.z.,~ be requixed to take action or make a decision which would substantially affect such offici~J's 7m,,.ncial interest or tho~ of a business with which such official is associated (except as the City's representative), unless the effect on such official is no greater th~ on any other citizens or other members of such official's business classification, profession, or occupation, shall not participate m either discussion or vote on the matter, and shall ~ditionally take ~e following actions: 11-30-00 04:16pm From-KENNEDY & GRAVEN +61Z33?g310 T-O00 PO?/og F-534 a. A written statement shall be prepared which ,,v,ll mcludg Line name, addpsss, office held, action presenting ~ potential conllict of interest, the nature of the financial interest, the person noliticd of ~e potential conflict or' interest, the member's mgnature- ~nd the date; b. Said member shall deliver copies of the sta~.ment to the Ci~?? Clerk; c. If a potential conflict presems itself and there is insufficicr~:, fi.me to comply with the provisions of clauses "a" ~nd "b" of this section, the member shall ~erbailS' inform the City Clerk of the potential conlhct. The Official shall then ftc a whrmn statement with the City Clerk within week after the potential conflict presenB ir_self which statement shall s~ce :M' reason tbr the delay. The promsions of ~his paragraph 4 should not, absent unusual circumsunces, prevent the Official from appearing before the City Council or any board or commission cna matter where such Ot'Iici~ is, ~s propert~ owner, requesting some action or decision from 2e City on such property, providing tha~ such pamcipafion is as a member or' the public and not ~ z-.~ Official. 5. Aa Official mast no~ act as an agent or attorney for another before the City Council or board or commission in a mat-mr where a conflict of interest exisu or m:~y exist. 6. An Official may accept compensation or expense reimbursement for the performance of the Official's public duties only from the sources l/smd below. Compensation and expenses paid by the City. b. Compensation and expenses from other emplc>.wr, e:,~- ~:' t.h~ person happens ~o conduct public business wl~le being prod for the other emplo.,,~c:~: ,~,..i if [he other empla?aent ctoes not interfere wkh, influence, or compromise the persoffs public pos~rior~, and c. Cornpensation and expenses p~id by another govcrr~,n'~:-r~d agency or municipal association to aa Official who serves as a City representative for that af~ncy, but only if the City does not also pay the person for the sarae acUvity_ 7. An Official mast no[ use public money, time, personnel. ' '~'" ~< equipmm~t t'or private gain or political campaign activities except when: the use ~s required or authorized by law, or b. the use is no greater th~m that allowed for the gener.~l public. This paragraph does no, prohibit correspondence at any time to indi~.idu~l residents La response to ~ resiclent's specilic inquiries, or general surveys of residenIs that are conducted before the time of filing for candidacy for elective at'rice. 8. I~ is imporm.m ~o public confidence in the operation or' goverma~enr tha~ decisions of the City Co~ncil and the ~dvisory boards and commisstons of bhe city (unle;s subject to certain specific exceptions) be macle in public, t'ollo~vin~ discussion among ~ ~'~ "~'; ~,c tal~ng place in pablic. For that re,son, thc following gui~lb~es will be Ibllowed b>' Of~,ci~Zs IBt>-I ~538 i ,r2 2 MI~20-1 bo~d o~ ~omm~ss~on ( ~X~s such ~a~enng h~ ~en d~y nouccd such adv~o~ bo~d or comm~sion), such Offic~ wiB r~r~ from any disc~on, eider be~n t~mselves, or others in a~nd~ce a~ fine g~efing, invol~ng matmrs that ~e pending, or ~ l&ely m come before ~e Co~nc~ cr such advisoU bo~d or commission. b. At ~y specifl m~fing ol' ~e Council or of ~ aavisoD, bo~d or commi~ion, ~e Offici~N ~1 refr~ tgom engag~g in discmssion or ~ng action on ~qy manet which w~ not con,ed on, or re~onably reload to, ~e items in ~e meet~g nofi~. c. T~e Cou~ :nd e~h advisory bo~d ~d commission the r~ommen~fion of ~e Ciw M~ager, conduct study s~sions ta I'~q'nii~6~ new ~fici~s and upda~ o~er Ot'fici~s wi~ ~e ~mremeats of ~e Mmnesot~ O~:~ 9. WNle open~ N ~ impo~r comemtone of good n~s~y to hmit d~closure o~ cen~n t~s of daa ~at may come mic, One h~ds of O~ficiats. For ~at reason, OfficiOs will b~ome f~ili~ wi~ ~e r~ukemenu ~ t~:c MLn~som Dam Pr~ces Act, ~d wi~ seek advice phor m di~los~g dam in ~eir po~essien ~ar .,~- be co~idered as not pubhc. F~er, ~ Offici~ must not disclose imb~afion recciv:~ 3~c,ass~, or de,dca in conference wi~ ~e City Attorney ~at is pro~ by the attorney/client 7nvtlege, ~tess a majo~ty of ~e City Council h~ au~ofized ~t disclosure. DISCLOSURES: Within 30 days alter taking the oath of office, each Offici',d must file a re,on with the C~ty Clerk, on a form prepared by the clerk, which contains the information specified below for the preceding year. Subsequently, each person must file a supplemental report on the first d~.~ of Februars' of each year in office and within 30 days 'Meet any change in mformanon provtd,~ under this section. The infom~ation must be for the indb4dual, the individual's spouse, 'all mir, or chil~ea (collectively referred to below as "person"). a. A business enttty in which the person is an officer, dirc,.:or, membe:, or employee, and the position held. b. A business entity in which the person has ~ ¢'.~.'~-~>.;:: m~eres:, either legal or equitable. c. The name ~nd address of each enti(y from ,~':-,ich ~x: p~r~on r~eivcs income, compensation, tees, or commissions that are received from emplo?n-~=nr, for se~'tce, s rendered, or from pensions, except the employment of minor children. d. Non-profit organizations in which the person serves on t~e ~overnLqg body, ~d the positron held, except if serving in that capacity as the City's representa¢'.':. e. Real property within thc City owned by the person or in which the person has a benefiCaal interest. jl~D-l$5381vZ 3 M b~20-1 11-30-00 O4:l?pm From-KENNEDY & GRAVEN +6123379310 T-O00 P09/09 F-534 The term "business entity" includes any business, proprietorship: lira. partnership, person in representative or fiduciary capacity, association, venture, trust or cot? :~ :.~'. - 4 City of Mound Financial Disclosure Statement Within 30 days after taking the oath of office or being appointed to a position, each Council member and member of a City advisory board or commission must file a report with the City Clerk on a form prepared by the clerk, which contains the information specified below or the preceding year. Thereafter, each person shall file a supplemental report on the first day of February of every year and within 30 days of any change in information provided in the disclosure. The information shall be for the individual, the individual's spouse, and all minor children (collectively referred to below as "you"). Name Address City State Zip Office phone IHome phone 1. List any business entity in which you are an officer, director, member, or employee, and the position held. List any business entity in which you have an ownership interest, either legal or equitable-{-~ ~thO/A / o List name and address of each entity from which you receive income, compensation, fees, or commissions for employment, for services rendered, or from pensions, except the employment, services rendered or pensions of minor children. 4. List all non-profit organizations in which the person serves on the governing body, and the positions held, except if serving in that capacity as the City's representative. 5. List all real property within the City owned by you or in which you have a beneficial interest [ Prepared 9/20/00} [ Prepared 11/29/00] JBD-188004v I MU220-2 Hou 7_9 7_888 13:26:48 Via Fax -> I{andis Xanson Page 881 0£ 001 AMM FAX EWS November 27 - December 1,2000 Association of Hetropolitan Hunicipalities Governor's St. Cloud meeting survey results available On November 1.3 the Governor hosted a meeting in St Cloud to discuss the "Big Plan" As part of the meeting the approximatel y 300 attendees responded to a survey The atlendees answered a series of questions by using an eleclronic keypad. A series of answers were displayed and the attendee selected the appropriate response The following a summary of some of the results. A complete report can be found at le Department of Finance's web site (w'wwfir~ance state mn us) Most of the respondents were local government officials. County, town and school officials were evenly represented (22%) while city officials comprised 26% of the total Private sector representatives accounted for 8% of the respondents Of the respondents. 29% were from the metropolitan area Morethan a third (37'%) of the respondents were from centrai Minnesola The respondents idenlified roads and highways as the most under-funded public activity. The linking of the state budget growth to the rate of economic growth was the most preferred guideline to develop the state budget. The respondents view the purpose of state aid to pay for mandates and assist/equalize less wealthy com- munities. General purpose aid was favored over targeted (categorical) aid. If the local 9ovemment revenue base was expanded the respondents favored by a sIight margin payment in lieu of property taxes and a local sales tax over several other options. AMM and the Pollution Control Agency (PCA) Continue Phase II Storm Water Permit Meetings Or, Tuesday l'..ov 21 the second meeting of tr~e AMM-PCA ¢.,or:-~;ng group on storm water permit- ting reel The meeting inc, luded present,stlons~"'., PCA and the Board of',A,'ater and Sci! Resources BOWSIR~ regarding lhe federal guidelines and state waler planning law The ensuing discussion raised several issues regarding the permit process For ' the e×amp~e work group '¢.,iI[ need to study the role of the water managerr~ent organizations and watershed districts in the permit process Methods to measure water quality progress and the role of the various state agencies in the permit process are olher topics under study. The work group v.,iII meet again in Jan;da,% .vith a goal of completing its work by the end of 2001 Mayor's Housing Task Force to Present Report to Metropolitan Council AMM .¥en's Fax is faxed to all AM. il city managers aad ad,ninistrators, legislative coatacts a,~d Board tne~nbers. Please share this fax ,*'ith yo.r tna.Fors, cot~ttc[Itnetnbers attd staff to keep them abreast of impor- tant tttelro cil. y issues. Uaiverslty Avetme West Paul, ,¥1:%' 55103-2044 Phot~e: (651) 215-4000 Fax: (651) 281-1299 E-mail: OnWedr, esday Nov 29 2000 members of the Mayor's task force will present its final report to the Metropolitan Council. The report recommends several actions to be taken by cities, the Metropolitan Council, and the Legislature, Among the recommended city actions are the following: Work with other cities lo raise the visibility and support for affordab!e housing Ensure trial zon;ng and subdivision re::../,st::~ns are compatible with t,te nousing goals of the comprehensive plan Review developmenl and permit fees The report should be posted within the next two weeks on the Metropoli- tan '~ouncii's wed site It is also antic:paled that a series of meetings to discuss the repod will be sponsored by the task force and Metropolitan Council rot. xvzz NO zz ' I'iI'NI:IT ; PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE November 21, 2000 Dear Members and Friends, As I promised last month, I would like to update you about the progress of our new senior center. As of November 21st, the land has been cleared and construction started. We are one week ahead on construction and one week behind on grading of the property. The backfill and rough-grading should be completed by December 1st. e sidewall, should be started and with completion be shot for the middle of December. We know that all of you are so excited and anxious to see how construction is going, but Yanik and Associations have asked us not to come on the property until they have competed the groundwork to make it safe for all us. We are planning a field trip to the site just as soon as the developer gives us the OK! So in the meantime, please keep out. (Anyway, it is so muddy at the site that you might stick and we'll have to get cranes to dig you out! !) On the fundraising side, we still are many thousands of dollars behind. We still need enough to equip the building to provide our programs and services. A new letter asking for help is being sent this week to all of our Westonka community citizens. We have enclosed a copy of this letter in this issue of the Hi-Notes. hope you all have a Happy Holiday Season, Marilyn Byrnes President 4v45 ~ANDBOOK FOR ,V~INNESOTA CITIES Minn. Stat. § 4.12.191, subd. 2. Minn. Stat. § 412.19t, subd. 2. Although anyone can attend council meetings, citizens cannot speak or otherwise participate in any discussions unless the mayor or the presiding officer recognizes them for this purpose. The decision to recognize speakers is usually up to the presiding officer, but the council can overrule this decision. The council itself can. through a motion, decide to hear one or more speakers from the audience. The council should not sample public opinion by asking for a show of hands at the meeting. The majority opinion of those attending the council meeting does not necessarily represent general public opinion. It is likely to express only the opinion of a special group. v/Maintaining order Although meetings must be open to the public, individuals who are noisy or unruly do not have the right to remain in council chambers. When individuals abuse their right to be present in the council chamber, the mayor, as presiding officer--subject to overrate by the council--should order their removal from the room. If the presiding officer hils to act. the council may. by motion, issue such an order. The council has authority to presetwe order at council meetings. The council can use necessary force, including use of the marshal or police, to carry out the mandate. If a person is excluded from a meeting, the council should provide an opportunity for the excluded person to give his or her side of the exclusion to a designated city staff member to satisfy any due process questions. If the entire audience becomes so disorderly' that it is impossible to carry on a meeting, the mayor should declare the meeting continued to some other time and place if necessary.. The council may also move for adjournment. No matter how disorderly a meeting may be, it is a legal meeting and any action the council takes in proper form is valid. Questions have arisen as to whether city councils can issue contempt citations against individuals whose disorderly conduct disrupts or interferes with the transaction of city business. The council cannot issue such contempt citations. V/Rules of procedure The city council has the power to regulate its own procedure. While many councils have operated without written rules or regulations, written rules facilitate the conduct of city business and reduce the risk of mishandling important matters. 154 CH^PTF. R 7 Council bylaws usually cover the place and time of regular council meetings, the order of business, parliamentary rules governing council procedures, minutes, and standing and special committees and their powers. Many councils also include other provisions in their bylaws. Agendas The bylaws should establish an order of business and a process for placing items on an agenda. Many councils have found the following order of business convenient: · Call to order · Minutes of previous meetings · Consent agenda · Presentations of petitions and complaints · Reports of officers, council committees and citizen committees · Reports from standing committees · Reports from special committees · Reports from administrative officers (including, in Plan B cities, the manager) · Notices and communications · Unfinished business · Presentation of claims · New business (including the introduction of ordinances and resolutions) · Announcements · Adjournment Consent agenda By council resolution or through its bylaws, a council may establish a consent agenda containing routine, non-controversial items that need little or no deliberation. The clerk or person responsible for placing items on the agenda prepares the consent agenda. By a majority or higher vote, the council can approve all actions on the consent agenda with one vote. ~A~DBOOK FOR MINXE~OTA CITIES Tips for shortening meetings In addition to the consent agenda, councils may consider the following suggestions to shorten meetings: Council bylaws may set a closing date tbr the agenda. For example, the clerk must receive all requests to include items on the agenda five days before the meeting. This is especially important if councilmembers need to review written material before the meeting. The council might make an exception in emergency situations by a unanimous vote, for example. The council should set a definite time for adjournment and observe this rule. When the council is going to discuss a major punic issue, the bylaws or the council, by resolution, may allot a limited, specific amount of time for each side to express its views. The council may also follow this procedure for all items on the agenda. Parliamentary procedure Parliamentary, procedure is a system of rules that make it easier to transact business. Parliamentary rules can be very, simple or very complex. The complexity of rules should vary in direct ratio to the size of the group: i.e., as the number of people in the group increases, the complexity of the rules should increase. Accordingly. the rules for city councils should be simple. Any attempt to introduce a high degree of formality into the proceedings of a city council will probably reduce its ability to operate effectively. The rules of parliamentary procedure apply to council proceedings only if the council formally adopts such rules in its bylaws. A council, however, can informally follow these rules while conducting meetings. An informal application of these rules, together with the common sense of the councilmembers, may be the only guidelines many councils need in order to conduct their business in an orderly manner. The following discussion introduces a few rules of parliamentary procedure that can simplify the work of the council. These rules are contained in Roberts Rules of Order. The council can adopt them by inserting the following clause in the bylaws: "In all points not covered by these rules, the council shall be governed in its procedure by Roberts Rules of Order (or some other similar code of parliamentary, procedure)." 156 CHAPTER 7 Motions The council transacts business through motions made by councilmembers. These motions are seconded, at times, and subsequently passed or rejected by council vote. Each motion has different rules. For example, councils can debate some motions, while they must vote on others immediately. Some motions require a simple majority for passage, others need a two-thirds majority. (See Chart V for a summary of the motions councils use most frequently and important information relating to them.) These are the typical steps to make and act on a motion: · A member of the council addresses the presiding officer. The presiding officer recognizes the member. The councilmember states his or her motion. (Usually in the following form: "I move.., text of the motion.") A motion should always be in positive, rather than negative, terms. For example, if the motion is to deny X a permit and the council defeats the motion, there may be some confusion as to whether or not X has been granted a permit. Even if the consensus of the council is to deny the permit, the motion should be to grant the permit and the council should then vote it down. The councilmember making a motion does not need to favor it or vote for it. If necessary,, another councilmember then seconds the motion by saying: "I second the motion." (Seconds are not needed for meetings of small bodies like city councils unless required in the bylaws.) Neither the making of a motion nor the seconding of a motion places it before the council. Only the presiding officer can place the motion before the council by stating the motion. The presiding officer repeats the motion or states the question to the council. (When the presiding officer has stated the question, the motion is pending and it is then open to debate.) A discussion follows, if the motion is debatable. A councilmember may make subsidiary motions in the same form as the original motion. (See Chart V.) The council votes on the original motion or on any of the subsidiary motions. The presiding officer announces the result of the vote on each motion immediately after the vote count is complete. 157 HANDBOOK FOR MINNF~OTA CIT1ES A councilmember may not make a second main motion while the council is discussing the first one. Any councilmember may, however, make a privileged motion even if a main motion is currently before the council. A privileged motion is one to adjourn, to recess or to ask a question of privilege--such as to restate the motion or ask for order. In this case, a vote on the privileged motion precedes the one on the main motion. Simultaneous motions When several motions are before the council at the same time, the council should vote on them in the ~bllowing order: · Adjourn · Recess · Question of privilege · Postpone temporarily (lay on table) · Vote immediately (previous question) · Limit debate · Postpone to a definite or indefinite time · Refer to committee · Amend ° Substitute · General main motion ~/Role of the officer presiding In any group or assembly, the presiding officer has an extra measure of power. As the chair of the meeting, the presiding officer has the responsibility to guide the group toward the conclusion of pending business in good time. while also giving major issues enough consideration. To accomplish this, the presiding officer has two special powers. The first power is to interpret and apply the rules of procedure. The presiding officer must decide whether or not motions are proper: whether motions are in order; whether the body should grant questions of special privilege; and what procedure is proper in any given instance. The presiding officer should maintain order and expel disorderly individuals from the meeting. 158 CHAPTER 7 The presiding officer does not have complete freedom in exercising this authority. Any member of the council may appeal the decision of the chair. To do this, a councilmember must say: "I appeal the decision of the chair," immediately after the chair announces the decision. (Recognition from the presiding officer is not necessary when making an appeal.) The appeal must be seconded, is debatable, and cannot be amended. After the debate, the assembly votes on the chair's decision. A majority of"yes" votes upholds the decision of the presiding officer, and a majority of "no" votes overrules the decision. A tie vote sustains the ruling. The presiding officer may vote to uphold his or her own ruling. If no one appeals a ruling as soon as the presiding officer makes it. it becomes the rule of the council. The presiding officers's second power is to recognize speakers. The presiding officer may not. however, refuse to receive a motion after recognizing the maker, nor refuse to call for a vote on any motion that has been properly made and seconded. The power to recognize speakers still gives the presiding officer considerable influence over the course of the discussion and consequently over the eventual decision on any matter. When the council invites comments from the audience, the presiding officer continues to recognize speakers. In statutory cities, presiding officers play a dual role. They preside, make and second motions, and vote on all questions before the council. The presiding officer usually steps down From the position as chair in order to make a motion. To do this, the presiding officer tums over the duties of presiding officer to another member of the council. The mayor or other presiding officer may then make a motion, and should not assume the duties as presiding officer until the council has taken a final vote or postponed the motion until another time. Special motions Several motions deserve special consideration. They include the following: The motion to reconsider This motion enables a council to set aside a vote it previously took, and to consider the matter again as though it had not voted on the issue. If the council uses Roberts Rules, only a person who originally voted on the prevailing side may move to reconsider. Otherwise, any member may make the motion by saying, "I move to reconsider... HANDBOOK FOR MINNESOTA CITIES stating the motion to be reconsidered.. "The council may debate this motion. If the council passes the motion to reconsider, it must then reconsider the original motion and take another vote. [f the council defeats a motion to reconsider, no further action is necessary. A motion to postpone indefinitely There is an important difference between the motion to postpone indefinitely and the motion to postpone temporarily. The motion to postpone temporarily is more commonly called a motion to "lay on the table" or "to table." The motion to postpone, postpones consideration of the motion until some undetermined future time. The council may consider a tabled motion whenever a majority of the members decide to do so. A motion to postpone indefinitely, however, is the equivalent to a negative vote on the main motion. A motion to postpone indefinitely, permanently suppresses any future consideration of the main motion. A motion to limit debate A council may limit debate by: placing a time limit on debate, such as a limit of 15 minutes to consider a particular motion: limiting the number of people who may speak for and against a certain motion, such as a limit of three speakers in favor and three speakers opposed. The motion to amend Councilmembers may offer amendments to a main motion at any time. In addition, it is possible to amend an amendment currently under consideration. Beyond this. councilmembers can offer no further amendments. When a member has made a motion to amend, the vote on the amendment must precede the vote on the original motion. After the council has accepted or rejected the amendment. another vote on the original motion is necessary. The motion to substitute This is a motion to replace one motion with another on the same subject. A councilmember may move to substitute a main motion or an amendment to a main motion. One form for making a substitute motion is to say, "I wish to introduce the following substitute motion ·.. present the substitute motion..." When a substitute motion is before the council, the council must decide which of the two motions, the original motion or the substitute motion, it wishes to consider. The council must vote on this question· A "yes" vote favors considering the substitute motion. A "no" vote favors considering the original motion. The council must then discuss and vote upon the selected motion. 160 ~E 0 o