Loading...
1998-12-22AGENDA MOUND CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, DECEMBER 22, 1998, 7:30 PM MOUND CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS *Consent Agenda: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the Council and will be enacted by a roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember or Citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence. 1. OPEN MEETING - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. PAGE 2. SPECIAL PRESENTATION TO MAYOR BOB POLSTON 3. APPROVE AGENDA. 4. *CONSENT AGENDA *A. APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 7, 1998, TRUTH IN TAXATION MEETING ...................... 4678-4680 *B. APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 8, 1998, REGULAR MEETING ............................... 4681-4696 *C. CASE 98-66: VARIANCE, FRONT YARD AND SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCES, TO CONSTRUCT A CONFORMING ADDITION AND ATTACHED GARAGE, FRANZ BURRIS, 4924 GLEN ELYN ROAD, LOTS 5 & 6, BLOCK 23, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID 13-117-24 11 0081 ....... 4697-4721 *D. RESOLUTION TO REDUCE LETTER OF CREDIT: SETON BLUFF ................................... 4722-4727 *E. PAYMENT OF BILLS ............................... 4728-4744 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: CASE 98-64: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, TO REVIEW THE USE TO ALLOW A BUILDING REMODEL PROJECT TO THE COMMUNITY CENTER TO INCLUDE RENOVATION OF THE GYMNASIUM AND AUDITORIUM, ADDITIONAL PARKING AND CHANGES TO THE SITE ACCESS, INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 277, 5600 LYNWOOD BLVD., PIDS 14-117-24 41 0010, 14-117-24, 41 0011, 14-117-24 41 0052, 14-117-24 41 0058 & 14-117-24 44 0007 ........................ 4745-4854 4676 o .CASE 98-67: MINOR SUBDIVISION: TO INCORPORATE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL LOT 18 TO THE COMMUNITY CENTER PROJECT AT 5700 LYNWOOD BLVD., INDEPENDENT SCHOOL D/STRICT 277, 5600 LYNWOOD BLVD., PID 14-117-24 44 0007 .................. 4855-4872 COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS. Ao November 1998 Financial Report as prepared by Gino Businaro, Finance Director ......................... 4873-4874 Be Memorandum from Gino Businaro, Finance Director, regarding cash balances by fund. .............................. 4875-4877 C. Letter from a Mound resident regarding recycling ................. 4878 De REMINDER: CITY OFFICES WILL BE CLOSED FOR THE HOLIDAYS AS FOLLOWS: THURSDAY, DECEMBER 24, 1998, 12:00 NOON FRIDAY, DECEMBER 25, 1998 THURSDAY, DECEMBER 31, 1998, 12:00 NOON FRIDAY, JANUARY 1, 1999 MERRY CHRISTMAS AND HAPPY NEW YEAR! 4677 MINUTES-TRUTH IN TAXATION MEETING DECEMBER 7, 1998 The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. Members Present: Mayor Bob Polston, Councilmembers: Ahrens, Hanus, Weycker and Jensen. Also Present: Jon Sutherland, Building Official; Len Harrell, Police Chief; Greg Pederson, Fire Chief; Joel Kmmm, Liquor Store Manager; Greg Skinner, Public Works Superintendent; Gino Businaro, Finance Director; Mayor-Elect Pat Meisel; Councilmember-Elect Bob Brown; Ron Motyka, Pam Amidon, Gene Adams, Tom Menken and Ed Shukle, City Manager. Purpose of Hearing Ed Shukle, City Manager, explained the purpose of the meeting. He indicated that this meeting is held annually by state statute. The purpose is to allow the public to address concerns regarding the city's proposed budget and levy for the coming year and how it impacts property in the city from a tax standpoint. General Information on Taxation Issues Shukle introduced Gino Businaro, Finance Director, who gave a brief presentation on taxation laws in the state of Minnesota and how they apply to Hennepin County and the City of Mound. Discussion Regarding the Proposed 1999 Final Budget and Levy_ Shukle reviewed the proposed budget and levy as it was adopted in September, 1998. He indicated that the City Council had approved a 12.37% levy increase at that time and that the City Council could reduce that levy amount but could not increase it. Shukle reviewed the four major issues of concern as the Council was contemplating what to approve for a budget and tax levy increase for 1999: 2. 3. 4. General Fund Capital Outlay General Fund Balance Mound Visions Westonka Community Center Shukle indicated that the Council should consider a 6% increase in the tax levy taking into account the above issue. He stated that to continue to spend from the general fund balance is not a good a financial path to take. The Council then discussed their issues: Need to establish a stormwater utility fund based upon the fact that the stormwater utility is in place. Truth in Taxation Meeting Minutes December 7, 1998 Page 2 2. Delete the computer in docks under capital outlay. 3. Use of planning and engineering consultants under Planning and Inspections. The City Manager responded by saying that the stormwater utility account could be established now if that is what the Council desires. The City Manager stated that the lap-top computer purchased about 2 years ago came out of the Parks and Planning budgets. Planning and engineering consultants are usually charged to Planning and Inspections as the majority of their work is generated within that department. Mayor Polston then opened the public hearing: Gene Adams, 6215 Bayridl~e Road: Mr. Adams gave examples of what cities in the metropolitan area are doing for 1999 with regard to tax levy increases. He mentioned Robbinsdale, Eden Prairie, Minnetonka and Mound. Para Amidon, 1909 Lakeside Lane: Concerned with storm sewer cleaning and pulling weeds from sidewalks. Bob Brown, 5453 Three Pts. Blvd.: Commented on the outstanding police department. Asked what happens ifa department, such as the Planning and Inspections Department, is over budget on a line item? Also commented on the operational costs of the Westonka Community Center. What is the minimum amount that the City will have to contribute after the buildings are renovated? Ron Motyka, 1545 Bluebird Lane: Commented on the Community Center project, salaries for employees, salary for the city manager and the sump pump inspection program. Tom Menken, 1720 Dove Lane: Mr. Menken had overall questions about the tax system in Minnesota. Pat Meisel, 5501 Bartlett Blvd.: Expressed her concerns over a 0% tax levy increase. She recognizes this as a problem as she begins her first term as Mayor. Truth in Taxation Meeting Minutes December 7, 1998 Page 3 The Mayor then closed the public hearing. Councilmember Liz Jensen stated her concerns regarding a 0% tax levy increase. She agreed with staff's recommendation on a 6% tax levy increase and indicated she would not support a 0% increase based upon the staff recommendation. Councilmember Weycker expressed the same concerns and thought that the levy could be more around 3%. Mayor Polston then moved and Ahrens seconded the motion, to approve a 0% increase in the tax levy and directed that a resolution be prepared to that effect to be considered at the December 8, 1998 regular city council meeting. Ayes - Polston, Ahrens and Hanus Nayes - Jensen and Weycker Motion carried. Polston then moved to cancel the scheduled continuation hearing of December 14, 1998. It was seconded by Jensen and carried unanimously. It was then moved by Weycker, seconded by Hanus and carded unanimously, to adjourn the Truth in Taxation meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m. City Manager MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - DECEMBER 8, 1998 The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, December 8, 1998, at 7:30 PM, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present were: Mayor Bob Polston, Councilmembers Andrea Ahrens, Mark Hanus, Liz Jensen, and Leah Weycker. Also in attendance were: City Manager Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Attorney John Dean, City Clerk Fran Clark, Assistant City Planner Loren Gordon, and the following interested citizens: Bob Messano, Tim Stauke, Dick Kryck, Frank Weiland, Becky Glister, Geoff Michael, Michael Mueller, Mayor Elect Pat Meisel and Councilmember Elect Bob Brown The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. APPROVE AGENDA. At this time items can be added to the Agenda that are not listed and/or items can be removed from the Consent Agenda and voted upon after the Consent Agenda has been approved. Councilmember Weycker stated that she had a correction on the bills. The bill from Crepeau Docks and a bill from Timesavers for minutes of the DCAC Meeting was charged to parks and should have been charged to docks. The City Manager stated that the corrections were made. Mayor Elect Pat Meisel asked that Item *B on the Consent Agenda be removed from the Consent Agenda. RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE PLANNING COMMISSION PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION ON CASE 98-64, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE WESTONKA COMMUNITY CENTER RENOVATION PROJECT FOR THE CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULED FOR DECEMBER 22, 1998. The City Manager stated there is an addition to the Agenda. To set a public heating for December 22, 1998, on amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, relating to telecommunications. Councilmember Hanus asked if this was to extend the moratorium. The City Manager stated it would be for bringing back the amendments to the telecommunications section of the ordinance. The Council discussed the fact that the moratorium expires on December 21st. Councilmember Ahrens stated she would be in favor of extending the moratorium to 1999 and considering the amendments at a January Meeting. Councilmember Hanus stated he has just returned from a conference and has some new information regarding telecommunication towers that he would like to share with Staff and the Planning Commission before these amendments are considered. The City Attorney advised that this moratorium was done by resolution and could be extended if the Council wishes. *CONSENT AGENDA MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Jensen to approve the Consent Agenda, as amended above, except for item //3 setting a public hearing on the telecommunications ordinance amendment. A roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. *1.0 APPROVE MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - DECEMBER 8, 1998 THE MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 24, MEETING. MOTION Hanus, Jensen, unanimously. 1998, REGULAR *1.1 RESOLUTION 98-RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL TO GRANT AN EXTENSION FOR THE COMPLETION OF THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO SEPTEMBER 30, 1999. RESOLUTION//98-131 RESOLUTION REQUESTING A NINE MONTH EXTENSION OF THE DECEMBER 31,1998 DUE DATE FOR REVIEW OF THE CITY OF MOUND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR CONSISTENCY WITH AMENDED METROPOLITAN COUNCIL POLICY PLANS Hanus, Jensen, unanimously. *1.2 PAYMENT OF BILLS. MOTION Hanus, Jensen, unanimously. 1.3 RESOLUTION 98-RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE PLANNING COMMISSION PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION ON CASE 98-64, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE WESTONKA COMMUNITY CENTER RENOVATION PROJECT FOR THE CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULED FOR DECEMBER 22, 1998. Mayor Elect Pat Meisel stated that one of the reasons, she requested this be removed from the Consent Agenda is that her term starts in January and this is a project that will fall into her term. She would like to have the opportunity to review it at its fullest and also to be able to vote on it. She felt that with the new Council coming in and new positions being taken, that they should all have input into it. She has some bits and pieces of the plan as it exists, by attending the Planning Commission Meetings and she would like to have a better understanding in how it all connects together with the renovation and things the City wants to do in downtown Mound. She further stated that she feels this is being pushed. She stated she was able to obtain copies of the letters that were sent by the City Manager to the Councilmembers, but she did not receive one. She also stated that Councilmember Elect Bob Brown did not receive the letters. She stated the following: "I felt kind of pushed aside on it and that is the way ! felt about it Ed. So I would like to have an opportunity to discuss it and to go over it. It's a major move for Mound and that building is a major part of Mound, downtown, and there are a lot of things that the EDC wants to do with downtown. I think Mound has to come together." 2 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- DECEMBER 8, 1998 Councilmember Elect Bob Brown stated the following: "I also feel the same as Pat about this subject. After reviewing the two letters that were sent out, I felt like, in a way, we were getting blamed that we were against this project and I want to make it clear, I'm not against anything that improves Mound. I'm against things that I don't know about and by being at the Planning Commission and looking at the way some of these things are being done, and projects being shoved and turned and pushed, such as buying land and not getting approval first from the Planning Commission and telling the Planning Commission that their not going to have a public hearing forum, that it is just going to be the Council. Using green space for their project right now, such as the football field and the baseball field in the initial project and after everything is done and paid, then they are going to split this project. Are we sure we have enough green space there? I'm not sure of that. Do we have parking solved? I'm not sure of that. None of this seems to be, want to be told up front and I do feel that we're being pushed with this. They want to jam it down our throats and as a taxpayer of Mound, I think it's time to stop, listen to the citizens and take a good look at everything and I feel that I should be a part, along with the new Mayor, in some of the decisions. I know you've been working very hard on this. You people have done a great job but, I need to know what's going on for my future references with the whole downtown project and I would appreciate this being changed." Michael Mueller, 5910 Ridgewood Road and member of the Planning Commission. He stated the following: "I appreciate the opportunity to speak in front of you all. I've been a member of the Planning Commission quite a long time, a little less than 10 years. At no time do I ever remember that the Council put a resolution forward to tell the Planning Commission to move forward with something that they felt they were doing a pretty good job on. They felt that they were doing a review that was requested by the Council, that they were put in those positions to do and that is hold public hearings and review projects. Conditional Use Permits and other projects that come in front of us in order to make sure that they meet with the codes and laws set forth by the City of Mound. The resolution that was on the Consent Agenda and that I do have in front of me at this time, basically tells us to do our job. Well, I believe we've been doing that. Some of the things that we've been requesting are very valid and very straight forward and the action needed to be tabled in order to get the answers resolved. We've never had a legal description for the property that the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) was being submitted on until this very last time. The submission was sent without the appropriate information. It was tabled to get that appropriate information. At no time, and I can hold my head high, unlike some people here, I would say that it's time for this Council to understand that this is a difficult decision. It's a decision that's going to take us into the next 50 years. We want to do the right thing. We don't want to be forced, by a Council, to make a decision without all the information. I've also submitted a Letter to the Editor which will be out this weekend, which states, and I will encapsulize it. We are asking for public input from outside citizens on this plan. The referendum that was passed was done by the Westonka School District voters. Yet it's happening in the City of Mound and the City of Mound is going to have to maintain that structure, according to the agreement, my understanding is. If that's the case, we in the City of Mound, our citizens in the City of Mound, want to do the right thing. Please don't pass this resolution, it's a slam to the Planning Commission.' Frank Weiland, member of Mound Planning Commission, citizen of Mound, stated the following: "The only thing that irks me is, if this is real important and we want to get it done tonight before anything else takes place so that we can get it passed and that, why didn't you have somebody appear at the Planning Commission to tell us about it, if it was this important. We got no information about the meeting tonight on this here. I think it wouldn't hurt if you were sending it out, I think the City Manager should have sent it out to the Planning 3 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- DECEMBER 8, 1998 Commission as well as anybody else that was interested in it. And again, we haven't received a thing. If the City Manager couldn't have done it, the City Attorney could have acted on it because it's through him that most of this stuff has to go to be sure that it is given out. So it struck me, very bad, that it was trying to be pushed through, railroaded. A Councilmember never said a thing about it, that it was so important and he's our representative from the City Council. We have had no information, telling us that we weren't doing a good job. By the look of this here, we haven't been doing the job at all. I really do think it falls back to the City Manager, that he didn't send out the right information." Counciimember Hanus, stated he has some problems with the proposed resolution as well, "particularly when we get into the 8th Whereas which reads as follows 'WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted two public hearings on this matter and has tabled the item to another meeting scheduled for December 14, 1998.' That's true, but the intention of that is clearly to make it appear as if this has been a long drawn out affair and I have to say that, and I sit on the Planning Commission as well, so I've been at those meetings as well. The first meeting that's referred to here, the Planning Commission was presented with what we know as Plan A. That was, if you recall, the plan without the two-way traffic along the alley way. Basically, that was that plan. There was not reference or mention, at that time, that Plan B existed. There was a reason for that because they hadn't negotiated any land on that next lot to the west, and so forth. But, the Planning Commission only knew about Plan A. That's what they were faced with, they wanted some more information, they tabled it for that information. Meeting number 2, which was on November 23rd, the plan changed completely and it changed from Plan A to Plan B. So now we were faced with an entirely new plan. The traffic flow changed in that plan. Landscaping requirements, the tree requirements, and so forth, were miscalculated the first time. They were completely, completely new and changed requirements at this time. So this was a brand new request that they were facing in meeting number 2. Again, there was missing information, that they wanted so they tabled it for that reason. I would note, as well, that the WCCB had not, at that time, and still has not ratified the purchase agreement so we don't even know if they have the land yet. Yet, we're asking the Planning Commission to approve a plan that includes land isn't even owned by the applicant. So this is getting the cart so far in front of the horse that the horse can't see it anymore, I don't think. Again, it was tabled. This is a very large and very complex project. We all know that. There's numerous variances required. It is a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) which with this kind of a structure and this kind of use is complex. There is a land subdivision required here and we don't know yet if it's a minor (if we get that change passed on that portion of the code where you can do an administrative redirection of lines. I don't know if this qualifies for it or not but, there has been no submission or no application for the subdivision yet. The new lot, if in fact it is acquired, requires attachment to the existing land. All of these are open issues and the Planning Commission is being asked to quick hurry up and approve this with all of these unknowns, not to mention what we all know about unknowns such as the ponding requirements, if there's going to be a pond required or not. I don't think there is anything you can do about that but, deal with that as best we can. But, I just wanted to highlight some of the stuff in this proposed resolution that is meant to say one thing and really there's all kinds of reasons for it going as long as it has. The resolution itself will, no doubt, be viewed by the Planning Commission as nothing but an irritant. If, in fact, they follow the requests of this, the underlying message of this resolution is - quickly get this done, if you can't, in fact it even states, 'If the Planning Commission needs to detail any concerns, conditions, issues, etc., to the City Council, it should do so in the form of their recommendation but, it is clear that the recommendation has to be at the next meeting whether we have all the information or not. In other words, if you don't have the job done, wrap it up as best you can, highlight your concerns and send it to the Council and 4 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- DECEMBER 8, 1998 let the Council make the decision for you. That is inappropriate. I have some real problems with this resolution. I think Mike made the comment that this hasn't been done before, not to my recollection either. I just don't know how appropriate it is and I do have some problems with this resolution." Councilmember Weycker. "I have several concerns, not necessarily about the resolution, but about delaying a process that has been started. Why should this project be treated any different than any other citizen or resident coming before us to drag out the process. Granted it has been changed. I sit on the Building Committee and that first proposal has always been our first proposal. I think it was a Staff call to not present it to the Planning Commission. I assumed it had been presented to the Planning Commission. For your information, Mark, there is a purchase agreement signed for that property." Councilmember Hanus, "But it hasn't been ratified." Councilmember Weycker. "Pending the CUP." Councilmember Hanus. purchase." "And pending the WCCB approval. Nobody's approved the Councilmember Weycker. "And you were speaking of putting the cart before the horse. Something has to go first. It's at a dead heat right now and I understand there is a terrible lack of communication between us, obviously, or the WCCB and the Planning Commission because the things that I heard coming out of the Planning Commission. I was surprised they didn't know who the WCCB was. They were surprised to hear that 3 Council people were on the WCCB. Terrible things have gone wrong here. I don't know how to account for it. I think the procedure is flawed, definitely." Mayor Polston. "Why would the WCCB or the School District purchase property without some assurance that they were going to get a Conditional Use Permit?" It would seem to me that would be putting the cart before the horse, Mark." Councilmember Hanus. "I don't necessary disagree with that but, what should be done is at least the purchase should be ratified so we know we're going to purchase it. We don't even know if we're going to buy it." Mayor Polston. "Mark, you sit on the WCCB, as well as I do and you know, as well as we know, as we're sitting here tonight, that the intent of the WCCB, with great assurance, that if, in fact they get the Conditional Use Permit, they're going to purchase the property if they have the agreement, which they do. So to sit there." Councilmember Hanus. "I don't know, I'm sorry, I don't know if I'm in favor of it. Mayor Polston. "Maybe you can't say it to absolute certainty but, that is certainly the intent and I believe is what's going to happen and I think that you have heard that also." Councilmember Weycker. "I believe that was the direction that the people were given, to pursue looking into purchasing this property." Councilmember Hanus. "We did tell them to go and see if you can negotiate a deal. That is correct. However, that deal." MOUND CIT~ COUNC~ MINUTES- DECEMBER 8, 1998 Mayor Poiston. "We didn't tell them to go see if they can negotiate a deal, we told them to go negotiate the deal and if they could get a purchase agreement, to bring it back to the WCCB for ratification and you know where the votes were and who the people are and you know what they were going to do because it was the choice of all the people sitting on the WCCB." Councilmember Hanus. "Uh huh." Mayor Poiston. "There was nobody against it, Mark. Councilmember Hanus. "That's conect but, that does not mean everybody will vote to purchase that property once they hear what the number is, cause it's significant. It's way over the value of the property and we have to move the people besides. So there are issues that have to be talked about, relative to the sale of that property, that I have to see before I'm willing to vote for it. Also, leah, as far as the issue you raised about the process. Early on, when this first started coming before the Planning Commission, I wanted to give the benefit ..... even at that point, there were rumblings about pushing this thing through quickly. First of all, I'm not opposed to this project but, my opinion of the process is changing quickly because if you read letters that we have all received, it has become apparent that this, in fact, is trying to be pushed through quickly before the next Council is seated. That's not a happy thing to say but, that is truly quite evident to me and to many other people. That does not represent government at its best. That's government at its worst, in my opinion, and that is really, really bothersome to me right now." Councilmember Weycker. "I believe it was Mr. Mueller, at the Planning Commission, who actually said, let's delay this until the new Council comes on. I think that is poor process." Mr. Mueller. "May I respond to the accusation?" Mayor Poiston. "Just a minute. She has the floor at this time. Let her get through." Mr. Mueller. "I said, I don't know that it's proper that it be sent to a Council where 3 members have sat on the community board and then 3 members can make a final decision with regards to the process as well. I don't know that it's proper. I did say, it may be better that it be delayed until the new Council is seated." Counciimember Weycker. "With the new Council, we will also have 3 members on the WCCB." Mr. Mueller. "I understand that, too." Councilmember Weycker. "This is going to be a continual process. How did we build City Hall? We had to vote on building City Hall as well. Mayor Poiston. "Leah, if you would, let him finish, please, then we'll give you a chance to respond." Mr. Mueller. "I would also like to say, that one of the things that you stated earlier, Leah, is that we treat this project as we do any other project. I've yet to know of a project that has come before the Planning Commission that does not have a legal description for the project. You don't have a legal description for this project. Lot 8 is not included in the legal description of 6 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- DECEMBER 8, 1998 the project that was submitted to the Planning Commission. The subdivision that will remove the football field and the Babe Ruth field from this, as it will be in the form that it's finally submitted, has not yet been submitted to the Planning Commission. Liz, who sat on the Planning Commission for a long time, is very well aware that you don't give a Conditional Use Permit on a piece of property that's not described. You can't give one. We aren't doing anything out of the norm. We are doing everything as to the book. It appears as though, from the letters that I've heard that have been written, and that it has been requested that we go in front of this Council, that is seated now, that that's inappropriate. That this should probably go to the next Council just to save face. Again, this resolution is a slam to the Planning Commission and don't think it isn't. I've been on this Commission a long time, as a volunteer, and I was asked by our City Manager to submit whether or not I want to be on it for another 3 years. I want to but, I also want good government practiced in this City and that's why we're here tonight. That's why there are other Planning Commission members here tonight. Please, understand where we're coming from." Councilmetnber Weycker. "About the subdivision. It is not intended to be subdivided until the project is completed in the year 2000 so it's a catch 22. We have to start with this project somewhere and where does it begin? I don't know. And where does the property description come in? Is that something... Who should have submitted that or is that a Staff issue? I don't know." Mr. Mueller. "You said we weren't treating it in the same way that we are treating all the others. We are treating it exactly the same. It's an incomplete proposal and incomplete proposals don't get acted upon. It would be the same thing as you saying, O.K. we're going to let Kromer Companies do anything they want in this building or not even in this building, anywhere in the City of Mound. That's what you're asking us to do." Councilmember Weycker. "No." Mr. Mueller. "You're asking us to give the WCCB a free hand to do whatever they want on any property that they decide they want in the future and that's wrong, Leah. That's wrong." Mayor Poiston. "Mike, in the notice that I received for the Planning Commission and City Council, on the public notice that was mailed out, there is, in fact, a legal description." Mr. Mueller. "And what public meeting was that for?" Mayor Poiston. "For the Planning Commission Meeting that was mailed out to all people who live within the 350 feet, there is a legal description included. Mr. Mueller. "And that's the one we're going to be reviewing on the 14th. We have not had that one yet." Mayor Polston. "The point is, that you said that you had no legal description." Mr. Mueller. "That is correct, we have not had that meeting yet, Bob. We don't have that legal description. This is a brand new legal description. This is a brand new proposal on the 14th. Mayor Polston. "O.K." 7 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- DECEMBER 8, 1998 Councilmember Weycker. "To clarify too, Mike. I am not asking for any special treatment in this project at all. I am asking ..... Mr. Mueiler. "If you pass this resolution, Leah, you're saying that you want special treatment for the WCCB over and above everybody else because this Council wants to hear it. That's special privilege." Councilmember Weyeker. "I think you're trying, attempting, to delay the process. Mr. Mueller. "I want to go through this project but, this is a project that's going to last for a good 50 years and that's hopeful. Hopefully, a good 50 years in the City of Mound. You don't do it slipshod and you don't have the Council directing you get it done. You do it in the correct manner and that's the correct process and the correct public hearings with the correct legal description that we're going to have now. And in my opinion and was requested at more than one or two meetings, that the future subdivision be submitted at this point, because we want to know what the hardcover is for this project. Not for this project plus the Babe Ruth field, plus Hadorff field, because that's not what the final project is going to be. The hardcover is going to be on that area which is subdivided off, which is going to be owned by the WCCB and not by the School District. That's hardcover that should be calculated based on what that is, not on something that's not going to be in the future." Mayor Polston. "Thank you Mike." Councilmember Elect Bob Brown. "Mr. Mayor and Council. One of the things that was brought up at the last Planning Commission Meeting and that's what I want to take a little issue with, but nothing personal, is that I believe our Planning Commission does treat everyone exact. I've watched them now, at the few meetings I've attended. They take pains to make sure everything is done the same way for everybody and they're really good at it. And as Mike said, one of the big things they do is, at the last meeting, they brought a different plan in, showing a whole different setup that they plan to do. That was a brand new program setup. It was a different design and everything. That's why it was tabled. It had new property without being acquired. It also shows, as Mike and Mark have said, they are including, as I said before, the baseball field and the football field as part of their green space. But all of a sudden that goes away. You could have as much as 85 or 90 percent hardcover if we don't know where the lines are. So I think the Planning Commission is really doing their job and they are treating people fair and equal, whether it's the school district or the everyday citizen that comes up. That group of people does a great job as far as treating everyone alike." Mayor Polston. "What's the consensus of the Council? I think we have a, obviously a split here, and looking for some direction from the Council. Councilmember Hanus. 'Tll move denial of the resolution, as presented. Councilmember Jensen. "Second." Mayor Polston. "It has been moved and seconded that the resolution be denied. So basically what are we saying here that you want to do here? Do you want to send it back to the Planning Commission and have them relook at the whole process? MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - DECEMBER 8, 1998 Councilmember Hanus. "No. All I'm saying is, just denying the resolution that was put in front of us. In other words, not approving it." Councilmember Jensen. "The other thing would be to let somebody else make a motion to pass the resolution and see what happens to that. That might be a more appropriate approach to take." Counciimember Hanus. "That's fine." Mayor Polston. "So here's I'm looking for, what do you want to happen here? Do you want to modify this resolution? Councilmember Hanus. "No, I don't like the thing at all. Frankly, it pressures the situation that I don't think should be pressured. So, I'll move approval of the resolution. RESOLUTION//98-132 RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE PLANNING COMMISSION PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION ON CASE 98-64, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE WESTONKA COMMUNITY CENTER RENOVATION PROJECT FOR THE CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULED FOR DECEMBER 22, 1998. Councilmember Jensen. "I second it for purposes of discussion, because I'm not going to vote for it for a couple of reasons. I want to take action on this. I'd really like to see this come back for our meeting on the 22nd. I understand, the newly elected officials wanting to be involved in it and I think that's great but, as someone who is leaving and who was involved in this, I would like to be able to take action on it. However, having been involved with the Planning Commission for 13 years, I know how hard the group works. I think that in another situation if we got a half baked recommendation from the Planning Commission, you'd be upset about it and what we're looking at, is potentially getting something half baked and we'll sit here on the 22nd. As the situation exists today, we could sit here on the 22nd trying to do the work that we would have expected them to do. I'm hoping that they will be able to do that anyway and we'll have something on the 22nd but, I would rather not pass something that would have a tendency to create unnecessary friction with a group that we depend on for their recommendations. So that's why I will not vote for the resolution." Councilmember Hanus. My disdain is not with the project being delayed or coming back on the 22nd, it was rather with what was apparent to me, as the process being manipulated to move it quicker than it would naturally move. That is where my unhappiness is relative to the process. Mayor Polston. "Any further discussion?" Councilmember Weycker. "I just think something goofy is going on here and I don't know if it's an attempt to second guess the voters that voted for this project by changing of the project in that sense, because that can't happen. So I would hope that the Planning Commission can work with the Building Committee or the WCCB, whoever comes up with the plans, to make it the best project possible and that is exactly what I said at the Planning Commission as well. I think it's very unfortunate, the huge loss of MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - DECEMBER 8, 1998 communication and I would hope, again, I offer you to call me anytime and discuss the plans." Mayor Polston. "The question I have is of the attorney. When was the date of application?" City Attorney, John Dean. "As I understand it, the deadline would have been December 21st, and there's another extension letter that has been sent out to go beyond December 22nd." Mayor Polston. "When you send out the extension letter, how much time does that actually give?" City Attorney. "I think we asked for another 60 days, beyond the 21st of December." City Planner. "We asked for 30 days in the letter." Councilmember Ahrens. "Doesn't the 60 days start counting all over again when they submit a new plan?" City Attorney. "October 22nd was, I believe, the date we used." Councilmember Hanus. "But they came in with a completely new plan on the 23rd of November so the clock, in fact, could, very easily ...... " City Attorney. "I guess I would caution us to be very careful on that because the Statute indicates that unless within 10 days after we've received the initial application, we inform them that the application is anything but entirely complete, the clock must start running and it doesn't stop running beyond that point so even though there may have been a decision later on to monkey with that, it doesn't necessarily change the clock." Councilmember Hanus. "Can you tell me what form that notice needs to take?" City Attorney. "Which notice?" Councilmember Hanus. "The notice that you just referred to within the ten days. Can it be verbal?" City Attorney. "Until about 45 days ago, it was written, but the court of Appeals recently ruled that an oral notice is sufficient." Councilmember Hanus. "And the reason I say that, is that it was clearly declared at the 23rd Planning Commission Meeting that the clock has stopped and started again as of that date. Now, whether that is a legal declaration or not, I don't know but, the applicant was there and heard that." City Attorney. "In view of that, we are in no peril of anything bad happening on December 21 st. 10 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- DECEMBER 8, 1998 Mayor Polston. "A word of caution that I would just like to issue is, that I hope the project can go forward and I hope that at the Planning Commission Meeting on the 14th, that they will find the answers to whatever questions that they are seeking and will come back with a recommendation. The project is an extremely important project for the community and I understand that there seems to be some feelings that the project is trying to be massaged or they're trying to be given better than normal treatment at the School District and I don't think that ....... That certainly is not the intent of the City Council and obviously not the intent of the Planning Commission. I think that there are some real time constraints with the School District in trying to get this project up and going so that they can get it done. I think it's an important project for the community and I've heard members of the Planning Commission say that tonight and I would urge them to, if this fails, to try to do what they can to help, not the City Council, or not the Planning Commission, or not the School District but, the community that that community center is going to serve which are the senior citizens, the head start program, the extended education, the School District offices and a whole host of other services that are very vital services to this community. I do want to caution those, if there are people, who would use this opportunity as an opportunity to try and stop the project. That is not something that would be taken lightly, by, I don't think, the School District, or citizens. I don't think that under law it's something that can be done and if that attempt is made, I think that they will.., particularly on the part of City Officials or whether they be Planning Commission Members, or members of the City Council, that they would, in fact, I think, expose this City to litigation that would be unnecessary. So, if that is the attempt, let me caution those who would make that attempt, to be very careful, because you could be leading this City into litigation that would be extremely costly and upsetting between, what I hope are two good neighbors, the School District and the City in trying to accomplish something good for the overall community. Is there any further discussion on the motion?" Geoff Michael, 1730 Avocet Lane. "Planning Commission Chair and Planning Commission Member for 15 or 16 years, Chair for the last 3. I recently got a memo also from the City Manager asking me to make a choice whether to serve again or not. It took some thinking. I'm not sure I returned that letter yet. We're still thinking about it. In the years that I've been on the Planning Commission, I've served with Liz, Ken Smith, Steve Smith and we've had our differences. I've served under several good chairs. All of them have been great chairs, not as good as the last one for 3 years. I have never seen that Planning Commission deviate from their job, I don't care who it was. I've never seen a Chair allow that to happen and I am the existing and current Chair and I will not allow that to happen. Never has, never will. The Planning Commission, Mayor, doesn't need to be cautioned about subversion. There is no one who sits on that Commission that trying is to subvert the plan. We're just trying to do our job and if the City Council, or the community as a whole, doesn't like that, I really don't care. What they then have to do, is come to the meetings and express their opinion. I serve on the Planning Commission at the pleasure of you Councilmembers. If you don't want me on there,then you vote to take me off. That's up to you. But, I'm not going to do a job on there that I'm told to do. I'm going to do it by the rules, which are in your desk drawer and that is that Mike has outlined a minute ago. We have certain rules that we have to follow. We vote on these rules every year in January. That's the guidelines we're working under. We don't have an attorney that sits with us and allows us to make choices. So I would urge all of you to think about this resolution. Leah, you've been at the meetings. We've asked some pretty hard questions and we've MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- DECEMBER 8, 1998 gotten some pretty loose answers. As you well know, we've gotten both projects, they've been 2 new ones. It's every right of every Planning Commission to ask for another plan. You can't make a decision right away. We've got another plan now. We're having a public hearing. Hopefully we'll have a lot of people come out, give us their input, and we'll turn it over to you guys. Hopefully, we'll move it on to you with a resolution for you guys to work on, but ......... I want to make one point. There's nobody on the Commission that's going to be subversive and if there are, I'll ask them to leave. The vote on Resolution//98-131 was 1 in favor with Ahrens, Hanus and Jensen voting nay. Weycker abstained because she didn't like either choice. Motion fails. 1.4 PUBLIC HEARING: CASE 98-65: UTILITY EASEMENT VACATION TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW GARAGE, RICHARD KRYCK, 5986 SUNSET ROAD, PID 14-117-24 42 0065. The City Planner explained the request. The Planning Commission recommended approval. The Mayor opened the public hearing. Mr. Kryck asked for approval. The Mayor closed the public hearing. Councilmember Hanus stated he has a correction on the proposed resolution as follows: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota to hereby approve the request to vacate the utility easement as shown and described on the easement drawing dated 10-22-98 with the following condition: 1 The ~. 1_. The current easement remain active until the new easement, as described in the survey, is recorded at Hennepin County. The Council agreed. Ahrens moved and Hanus seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #98-132 The vote was unanimously in favor. RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VACATION OF AN UTILITY EASEMENT LOCATED AT 5986 SUNSET ROAD, LOT 30, MOUND SHORES, PID # 14-117-24 42 0065, P & Z CASE//98-65, AS AMENDED ABOVE Motion carried. 1.5 APPLICATION FOR AN OPERATIONS PERMIT, WELSH COMPANIES, ON BEHALF OF TRIAX CABLEVISION, 5308 SHORELINE DRIVE (BALBOA BUILDING). The City Planner reviewed his report dated December 8, 1998. The Staff and Planning Commission recommends approval with the following condition: 12 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- DECEMBER 8, 1998 The Fire Inspectors recommendation for compliance to any fire and safety code issues be adhered to by Triax Telecommunications. The Council asked if something was going to be done about the storage of items behind the Netka and Meisel property. Triax stated they are working on this. Jensen moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #98-133 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE AN OPERATIONS PERMIT TO ALLOW WAREHOUSE AND OFFICE SPACE FOR TRIAX TELECOMMUNICATIONS LOCATED AT 5308 SHORELINE DRIVE (BALBOA BUILDING) The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT. There were none. 1.6 APPROVAL OF FINAL 1999 BUDGET AND LEVY. The City Manager presented the resolution to approve the final 1999 Budget and Levy. He explained this reflects the discussion and direction that was given by the Council at last night's Truth in Taxation Heating. Hanus moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION g98-134 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FINAL GENERAL FUND BUDGET IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,893,580; SETTING THE LEVY AT $1,868,660 LESS THE HOMESTEAD AGRICULTURAL CREDIT (HACA) OF $491,790, RESULTING IN A FINAL CERTIFIED LEVY OF $1,376,870; APPROVING THE OVERALL BUDGET FOR 1999 Councilmember Jensen stated she would not be voting for this resolution. "Consistent with the vote that was taken last night, a zero percent increase in the levy is sometimes admirable but, again I believe it is short sighted on our part not to keep in mind that we have additional costs that we are facing because of the Community Center and because of the Mound Visions Program. We have seen that there is a need for painting City Hall, for carpeting City Hall and we are setting aside no funds for that at all so a zero percent increase is not a wise thing for us to do. Therefore, I will vote against this resolution." Councilmember Weycker stated she had one thing to add, too. "I forgot to bring it up last night and I wish I would have. None of the Park Commission's recommendations were included in this budget at all. I feel like that's just a general upkeep of our park systems and it was totally left off the budget. So a zero percent increase is not even maintaining. Consistent with last night's vote, also, I will not vote for it." 13 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - DECEMBER 8, 1998 Councilmember Hanus made the following comment relating to Councilmember Weycker's comment about the Parks. "That is an issue that probably does need resolufton and that's between the Park Commission and Staff. We adopted, essential/y, what was presented to us by Staff and you're aware of those discrepancies that we're not and if Staff is not presenting the budget items that the Park Commission thinks should be presented, I guess, I don't know if that means by passing through you or if that means, slapping somebody up along side the head. I don't know what it means you have to do but, we're taking what Staff is presenting to us and if that's not being done to your liking, I suggest you do something more. Bring it to us, do something." Councilmember Weycker. "I have tried and will continue to try." The Mayor asked if there was any further discussion. The City Manager explained that we start the budget in June with department heads coming in with their requests. The Dept. Heads and the City Manager sit down and go through their requests, analyze them and come up with a recommendation. He does not believe the Staff has anything against the Parks but they try to look at the budget as a whole and try to balance the figures and make sure we meet the system budget. He explained that in terms of the whole picture, some of those didn't appear to be a priority to him or the Staff and the Council has the option to change that in the budget process. Councilmember Hanus. "I don't~agree that there are some more things that we can, do relative to the Parks, to get them cleaner and neater and better kept but, I want to do that by plan rather than lets throw some money in this budget and let it work out the way it works out. We need to get a plan and we need to budget accordingly, not just throwing money into a fund. If that's done, I suspect things will happen a little more to your liking." Counciimember Weycker. "I do believe that was part of what was done. The recommendations come down as the oldest equipment needs replacing and pretty much all of our equipment, right now, is pretty old. It's not too hard to come up with that plan." Mayor Polston. "I would just like to say we started out with a 12% proposed increase and then we went to a 6%. Those of us who work in the private sector, a 12% increase anytime, would be a windfall, a 6% would be a windfall. A lot of times we are looking at reductions in earnings and earning capacity because of competition and because we are in the private sector. Even a 3 % increase, I think, is generous in this day and age. And every time any layer of government takes a dollar in taxes away from a family, they are taking money out of those families pockets and I think government, like individuals and like families, has got to tighten your belts and do more with less and cut where they have to. I'm proud of the fact that the time that I've sat on the City Council we've have one 0% increase, one 1.9% increase and now another 0% increase and the amount of taxes and the amount of dollars that we're going to take out of the working family's pockets in Mound. I challenge future Councils to take their responsibility seriously and do everything within their power to not take one more penny out of the taxpayer's pocket then is absolutely necessary to do the job and I know that we can always make things sound like we're going to do this or do that or do the other in order to make improvements but, the best thing that you can do for people, in government, is quit 14 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- DECEMBER 8, 1998 taking their tax dollars. Only take the very minimum that you absolutely have to take to get by." Counciimember Jensen. "And I would suggest that that's one of the differences of opinion that we are having. What you deem to be absolutely necessary, doesn't agree with what I deem to be necessary, and I think things like maintaining City Hall are important. Otherwise, we will be faced with a similar situation that we have at the community center. Where monies are not spent because we don't want to take anymore than we absolutely have to and we don't see the need to maintain what we have. That goes for parks as well and to not plan ahead for those expenses that we see coming, I just think that I see as things that we absolutely have to do." The vote on Resolution #98-133 was 3 in favor with Jensen and Weycker voting nay. Motion carried. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS: A. Department Head Monthly Reports for November 1998. Be Rules of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) adopted on November 24, 1998. Rule B - Erosion Control. Rule N - Stormwater Management for Land Development Projects. Basically Rule N covers the part of Rule B dealing with stormwater management ponding. It removes the fee that was charged previously and requires larger developments to have ponding on the development site. Smaller developments would not be required to have ponds but would require "Best Management Practices." Read them over and if you have questions, please contact me. Co REMINDER: ANNUAL TRUTH IN TAXATION HEARING IS SCHEDULED FOR MONDAY, DECEMBER 7, 1998, 7:30 P.M. PLEASE BRING YOUR COPIES OF THE PROPOSED 1999 BUDGET WITH YOU TO THE MEETING. DEPARTMENT HEADS WILL BE PRESENT TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THEIR BUDGET REQUESTS. Do REMINDER: THERE IS NO COMMI'I'TEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING ON DECEMBER 15, 1998. NEXT MEETING IS SCHEDULED FOR JANUARY 19, 1999. REMINDER: THERE WILL BE A SECOND REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING ON DECEMBER 22, 1998, 7:30 P.M. REMINDER: HRA MEETING IS SCHEDULED FOR TUESDAY, DECEMBER 8, 1998, 7 P.M., MOUND CITY HALL. REMINDER: WCCB MEETING IS SCHEDULED FOR THURSDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1998, 5:30 P.M., MOUND CITY HALL. 15 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- DECEMBER 8, 1998 REMINDER: ANNUAL CHRISTMAS PARTY IS SCHEDULED FOR SUNDAY, DECEMBER 13, 1998, BEGINNING AT 6:30 P.M., AL & ALMA'S. PLEASE RSVP TO JODI BY DECEMBER 8. REMINDER: CITY OFFICES WILL BE CLOSED FOR THE HOLIDAYS AS FOLLOWS: THURSDAY, DECEMBER 24, 1998, 12:00 NOON closed in the afternoon. FRIDAY, DECEMBER 25, 1998, closed all day. THURSDAY, DECEMBER 31, 1998, 12:00 NOON closed in the afternoon. FRIDAY, JANUARY 1, 1999, closed all day. 1.7 ADD-ON: TELECOMMUNICATIONS ORDINANCE. MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Weycker to continue the moratorium for the wireless telecommunications facilities in the City of Mound until the second regular Council Meeting in January of 1999. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Hanus to adjourn at 8:40 P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager Attest: City Clerk 16 December 22, 1998 PROPOSED RESOLUTION #98- 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, PID# 13-117-24 11 0081 P & Z CASE #98-66 WHEREAS, the applicant, Franz Burris, 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 Variance 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, December 22, Burris - 4924 Glen Elyn Rd Page 2 WHEREAS, the proposed improvements include a second story addition and renovation of the first floor; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and has unanimously recommended approval of 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 variance 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,with the following conditions: a. A 1.35 feet side yard for the house as requested. The detached garage be allowed to remain for a period 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 removal, if it is not in conformance with Code shall be provided and be acceptable to and approved by the City Attorney. The construction of a proposed attached garage be i~- ........... .... ~-,~,,,,,,~ .... ,uu~do,~ ~'*'J[~°"'~' ~ssociated grading and drainage plans shall be approved prior to building permit issuance. e. The applicant shall submit a drainage and grading plan to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior 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, SHADYWOOD POINT, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA. December 22, 1998 Burr/s - 4924 Glen EIyn Rd Page 3 This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. December 22, 1998 Burris - 4924 Glen £1yn Rd Page 2 WHEREAS, the proposed improvements include a second story addition and renovation of the first floor; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and has unanimously recommended approval of 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 variance 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 additionAwit.h_jLht~ fo[lowing conditions: a. A 1.35 feet side yard for the house as requested. b. ~Lru~liu ' ' ' . ~ ~' c. The detached garage be allowed to remain for a period 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 removal, if it is not in conformance with Code shall be provided and be acceptable to and approved by the City Attorney. d. The construction of a proposed attached garage be in a conforming location and associated grading and drainage plans shall be approved prior to building permit issuance. e. The applicant shall submit a drainage and grading plan to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior 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, SHADYWOOD POINT, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA. December 22, 1998 8urris - 4924 Glen EIyn Rd Page 3 o This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. Mound Planning Commission Minutes December 14, 1998 DRAFT MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, DECEMBER 14, 1998 Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Michael Mueller, Cklair Hasse, Frank Weiland, Orv Burma, Becky Glister, Jerry Clapsaddle, Bill Voss, and Council Liason Mark Hanus. Staff present: Assistant City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, and Secretary Kris Linquist. Public Present: Franz Burris, Peter Meyer, Leah Weycker, Bruce Charon, Bert Haglund, Brad Ethering Jr, Barb Zimmerman, DuWayne Dorfner, Cathy Bailey, Dan Iverson, Tom Reese, Pat Meisel, Norm Domholt, Dale Sherburne, Pam Meyers, Keith Aardhler, Bob Brown, Terri Lyons, Cindy Palm, Jim Funk, Davis Braslau, Tim Heyman. Meeting was called to order at 7:37 p.m. by Chair Geoff Michael. BOARD OF APPEALS: CASE # 98-66: VARIANCE, FRONT YARD AND SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCES, TO CONSTRUCT A CONFORMING ADDITION AND ATTACHED GARAGE, FRANZ BURRIS, 4924 GLEN ELYN ROAD, LOTS 5 & 6, BLOCK 23, SHADYVVOOD POINT, PID # 13-117-24 11 0081 Loren Gordon presented the case. The applicant, Franz Burris, has submitted a variance request to recognize existing setbacks in order to construct a conforming addition to the existing house. The associated variance requests are listed below. Side Yard (house) Front Yard (garage) Side Yard (garage) Existing/Proposed Required Variance 1.35' 6' 4.65' 3.95 20' 16.05' 2.2' 6' 3.8' The property is located at 4924 Glen Elyn Road on a 12,734 sf lot which exceeds the R-lA standard. The property consists of lots 5 and 6 Block 23 Shadywood Point subdivision and are combined as a single tax parcel. Current property improvements include a one-story house and a detached two-stall garage. The house has a full basement has a floor elevation of 933.8 feet which is above the regulated flood elevation for Lake Minnetonka of 933 feet. The lakeside setback is approximately 51.6 feet which is conforming. Hardcover as proposed with the garage and driveway is less than 29 percent for this lot of record which is allowed up to 40 17oo DRAFT Mound Planning Commission Minutes December 14, 1998 percent. The detached garage is nonconforming in both front and side yards. It is probably 40 years old or more and is constructed of concrete block. The doors face Glen Elyn Road. The submitted survey and variance application propose a two-stall attached garage. Because of the unresolved driveway location and drainage issues with the property, the garage is not being considered with this application but will be made at a latter time when new plans are acceptable to staff. The applicant is favorable to this approach and understands it will require an additional variance request if the existing nonconformities remain unchanged. The proposed improvements will add a second story to the house which includes a first and second story addition. First floor remodeling will incorporate an expanded kitchen, foyer, mud room and porch. A future garage will also enter on the first floor level. Second story improvements include three bedrooms, a study and two bathrooms. A crawl space is proposed under the new addition. The house has an old well pit in the basement that is currently not in use. It is filled over with dirt, but it is unclear is it has been properly abandoned. Rules for wells are enforced by the state and proper documentation by the owners should be secured, if it hasn't already, as part of the project to make future owners aware. The front yard of the property and the neighbors to the west drain to a storm drain intake at the southwest corner of the house. The intake is located on the neighbors property as it is the Iow point in the depression that encompasses both front yards. The pipe drains to the lake where it outlets on the Burris property. There are a number of walls and fences along the property lines. A wood and stone retaining wall along the west property line provides up to 3 feet of grade separation between the adjacent properties. The wall is necessary for proper grading of both properties. The front yard is enclosed a chain link fence the connects the house with the detached garage. Additional chain link and wood fencing is also located along the east property line. The chain link fencing appears to be the Burris's and the wood fence the adjacent neighbors. The proposed addition is being constructed in a conforming location on the property which advances the goals of the code. Staff supports the house addition as it should provide added livability to the house and extend its life. As always, the Building Official must approve all construction plans for the project. When the driveway and drainage concerns are adequately addressed and approved by the City Engineer, the owners would like to incorporate an attached garage. In the interim, the request is to use the detached garage for storage during construction. Ultimately, the applicant would like to have three garage stalls in some configuration on the property. To address the current status of the detached garage, there are a few options: 1. Require that it meet code requirements for garages. 2 Mound Planning Commission Minutes December 14, 1998 DRAFT Recognize its situation by approving the setback variances allowing it to remain. Allow it to remain as is on the property by recognizing its situation, but not grant variance approval. Require the garage conform after a time period to be determined. The first two options are standard approaches that either approve of the garages current condition or require it to conform to code. The third option could be used if the Planning Commission wishes to defer action on the garage until the attached garage variance application is submitted where it would be part of that review. Additional language could be added to provide assurances that if the garage status has not been resolved within a certain time period, it be required to conform to code. An easement or a letter of credit would provide the necessary means for the City to handle any enforcement. A forth option would be to set a time period it would be allowed to remain. Staffs recommendation would be to allow it to remain for some period of time to be determined then require conformity. This would allow time to use it for vehicle parking and storage during the construction. Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approve the following: A 1.35 feet side yard variance for the house as requested. Construction of the house addition excluding the garage. The detached garage be allowed to remain for the period of one year from the approval of this resolution. At the end of one year, the garage shall conform to code requirements. An easement or monies to secure its removal, if it is not in conformance with Code, would need to be acceptable to and approved by the City Attorney. DISCUSSION: Weiland asked about the well. Burris stated that it is completely empty. Weiland asked about the PVC pipe that drains directly into Lake Minnetonka, he would like to know what that is for. Weiland also asked how the tank behind the garage was being used. Burris stated that it was for fuel oil. Mueller commented about the drainage, he is concerned with the hardcover. Burris stated that the hardcover with the new driveway would be 28%. Weiland asked about a stake in the yard. Burris explained what it was for. Sutherland answered Weiland's question about the PVC pipe draining into the lake. He stated that it is probably from the gutter run off. Voss asked about the non conforming area of the house, why a variance was not issued at that time. Staff could not find one. A building permit was issued for it in 1987. Voss asked if the applicant was looking at working on that area of the house. Burris stated that it is his 3 Mound Planning Commission Minutes December 14, 1998 DRAFT daughter's room and it is in perfect shape. Burris explained his plans. Mueller asked the applicant if he intended to keep the existing garage. Burris stated that he would like to keep the existing garage for storage. Burris commented that he is willing to work with the city to complete the project. Mueller asked the time frame for the garage. Gordon stated that a year is just a suggestion and has worked well in the past. Mueller asked the proposed garage is part of the plan. Gordon stated Staff asked the applicant to remove the attached from the request. Weiland asked the applicant what a reasonable time frame would be for the existing garage to be removed or moved. Weiland asked if a two year time frame would work for the applicant. Burris said it would be acceptable. MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Clapsaddle to recommend staff recommendation with alterations to item 3 and an addition of an item 4. Item 3 would state: 3. The detached garage be allowed to remain for the period of two years from the approval of this resolution. At the end of two years, the garage shall conform to code requirements. An easement or monies to secure its removal, if it is not in conformance with Code, would need to be acceptable to and approved by the City Attorney. Item 4: The construction of a proposed garage be in a conforming location. Hanus asked the applicant when he planned to build the garage. Burris stated depended on the outcome of the meeting, he would contact a engineer. Sutherland asked for a friendly amendment to the motion. Item 5: The applicant shall submit a drainage and grading plan, to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to the Building Permit issuance. Weiland and Clapsaddle accepted the amendment. Hanus stated that with the recommendation as it stands, if the applicant does not build the garage, the existing garage would have to be removed in two years. Mueller stated that it is a compromise to get the addition. Clapsaddle stated that he feels that there should be a time constraint on the removal of a garage. 4 DRAFT Mound Planning Commission Minutes December 14, 1998 Burris asked if he wanted to keep the garage, could he move it to a conforming location. Sutherland stated as long as it is in a conforming location and meets all requirements. Chair called for a review of the recommendation. MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Clapsaddle to recommend staff recommendation with alterations and additions. Item 3 to state: The detached garage be allowed to remain for the period of two years from the approval of this resolution. At the end of two years, the garage shall conform to code requirements. An easement or monies to secure its removal, if it is not in conformance with Code, would need to be acceptable to and approved by the City Attorney. Addition of Item 4: The construction of a proposed garage be in a conforming location. Item 5: The applicant shall submit a drainage and grading plan to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to the Building permit issuance. Motion carried 9-0. This case will go to the City Council on December 22, 1998 PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: Decemberl 14, 1998 SUBJECT: Variance request - Front and Side yards APPLICANT: Franz Burris - 4924 Glen Elyn Road CASE NUMBER: 98-66 HKG FILE NUMBER: 98-5iii LOCATION: 4924 Glen Elyn Road ZONING: Residential District R-lA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant has submitted a variance request to recognize existing setbacks in order to construct a conforming addition to the existing house. The associated variance requests are listed below. Existing/Proposed Required Variance Side Yard (house) 1.35' 6' 4.65' Front Yard (garage) 3.95 20' 16.05' Side Yard (garage) 2.2' 6' 3.8' The property is located at 4924 Glen Elyn Road on a 12,734 sf lot which exceeds the R-IA standard. The property consists of lots 5 and 6 Block 23 Shadywood Point subdivision and are combined as a single tax parcel. Current property improvements include a one-story house and a detached two-stall garage. The house has a full basement has a floor elevation of 933.8 feet which is above the regulated flood elevation for Lake Minnetonka of 933 feet. The lakeside setback is approximately 51.6 feet which is conforming. Hardcover as proposed with the garage and driveway is less than 29 percent for this lot of record which is allowed up to 40 percent. The detached garage is nonconforming in both front and side yards. It is probably 40 years old or more and is constructed of concrete block. The doors face Glen Elyn Road. The submitted survey and variance application propose a two-stall attached garage. Because of the unresolved driveway location and drainage issues with the property, the garage is not being 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 p. 2 #98-66 Burris l/ariance Request December/0, 1998 considered with this application but will be made at a latter time when new plans are acceptable to staff. The applicant is favorable to this approach and understands it will require an additional variance request if the existing nonconformities remain unchanged. The proposed improvements will add a second story to the house which includes a first and second story addition. First floor remodeling will incorporate an expanded kitchen, foyer, mud room and porch. A future garage will also enter on the first floor level. Second story improvements include three bedrooms, a study and two bathrooms. A crawl space is proposed under the new addition. The house has an old well pit in the basement that is currently not in use. It is filled over with dirt, but it is unclear is it has been property abandoned. Rules for wells are enforced by the state and proper documentation by the owners should be secured, if it hasn't already, as part of the project to make future owners aware. The front yard of the property and the neighbors to the west drain to a storm drain intake at the southwest comer of the house. The intake is located on the neighbors property as it is the low point in the depression that encompasses both front yards. The pipe drains to the lake where it outlets on the Burris property. There are a number of walls and fences along the property lines. A wood and stone retaining wall along the west property line provides up to 3 feet of grade separation between the adjacent properties. The wall is necessary for proper grading of both properties: The front yard is enclosed a chain link fence the connects the house with the detached garage. Additional chain link and wood fencing is also located along the east property line. The chain link fencing appears to be the Burris's and the wood fence the adjacent neighbors. COMMENTS: A variance can be granted in Mound only on the basis of a finding of hardship or practical difficulty. Under the Mound Code, variances may be granted only in the event that the following circumstances exist (Section 350:530): Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity, and result from lot size or shape, topography, or other circumstances over which the owners of property since enactment of the ordinance have no control. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Ordinance would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Ordinance. C. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 p. 3 #98-66 Burris Variance Request December 10, 1998 applicant. That granting of the variance request will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. E. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. F. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Ordinance or to property in the same zone. The proposed addition is being constructed in a conforming location on the property which advances the goals of the code. Staff supports the house addition as it should provide added liveability to the house and extend its life. As always, the Building Official must approve all construction plans for the project. When the driveway and drainage concerns are adequately addressed and approved by the City Engineer, the owners would like to incorporate an attached garage. In the interim, the request is to use the detached garage for storage during construction. Ultimately, the applicant would like to have three garage stalls in some configuration on the property. To address the current status of the detached garage, there are a few options: 1. Require that it meet code requirements for garages. 2. Recognize its situation by approving the setback variances allowing it to remain. 3. Allow it to remain as is on the property by recognizing its situation, but not grant variance approval. 4. Require the garage conform after a time period to be determined. The first two options are standard approaches that either approve of the garages current condition or require it to conform to code. The third option could be used if the Planning Commission wishes to defer action on the garage until the attached garage variance application is submitted where it would be part of that review. Additional language could be added to provide assurances that if the garage status has not been resolved within a certain time period, it be required to conform to code. An easement or a letter of credit would provide the necessary means for the City to handle any enforcement. A forth option would be to set a time period it would be allowed to remain. Staffs recommendation would be to allow it to remain for some period of time to be determined then require conformity. This would allow time to use it for vehicle parking and storage during the construction. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approve the following: 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 p. 4 t498-66 Burris Variance Request December 10, 1998 A 1.35 feet side yard variance for the house as requested. Construction of the house addition excluding the garage. The detached garage be allowed to remain for the period of one year from the approval of this resolution. At the end of one year, the garage shall conform to code requirements. An easement or monies to secure its removal, if it is not in conformance with Code, would need to be acceptable to and approved by the City Attorney. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 Engineering · Planning ° Surveying RECEIVED D E C ~ .3 1998 MOUND PLANNING & INSR MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: MFRA NO.: Jon Sutherland, Planning and Zoning John Cameron, City Engineer December 2, 1998 City of Mound Variance Request - 4924 Glen Elyn Road Case No. 98-66 12286 As requested, we have reviewed the variance request for subject property and do not have any comments; however, if the variance is granted, the following revisions need to be made to the survey before issuance of any building permit. I have also discussed this property with Greg Skinner of Public Works; therefore, the following list is a combination of both of our requirements: 1. Meet all requirements listed for Certificate of Survey, including, but not limited to the following: items 6, 12, and 14. 2. Provide a complete grading and drainage plan for subject property. This property has a history of water problems and now is the time to make corrections. 3. Footprint of proposed garage is over what appears to be an old well pit. Has this well been abandoned properly and if so, provide documentation. 4. What is clean-out at southwest comer of existing bedroom connected to? 5. Show size and location of storm drain from inlet on adjacent lot to lake. It appears this may be the collection point for most of the runoff from the two homes and front yards. 6. If proposed garage is constructed over basement access, where will the new access be located? Building plans do not indicate. cc: Loren Gordon, Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc. cSmain:\12286~sutherland 12-2 15050 23rd Avenue North · Plymouth, Minnesota · 55447 phone 612/476-6010 · fax 612/476-8532 e-mail: mfra@mfra.com VARIANCE APPLICATION - CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 1 O0.00 (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) . /qq 5 -.. Planning Commission Date:~ Case No. q~)'-~]~ City Council Date: Distribution: i -I-q6 City Planner~ ~-I-fl~ DNR/ I~-I~ ~ City Engineer ~ -' Other SUBJECT Address 4924 Glen Elyn Road PROPERTY tot 5 & 6 LEGAL Block 23 DESC. Subdivision Shadywood Point PID~ 13-117-2411 0081 P[at~ 61980 ZONING DISIRICI R-1 R-lA R-2 R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3 PROPERTY Name Franz Burris OWNER Address 4924 Glen Elyn Road Phone (H) 472-4045 (W) 854-8948 ext 20 (M) APPLICANT Name (iF O/HSR Address THAN Phone (H) (W) (M) OWNSR) Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? (~ yes, ( ) no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. 6/15/87 This permit was approved to raise the walls in the SW Bedroom remove roof andceiling, replace with new roof and ceiling, and install new valleys. We are not building above this room. Detai~eddesCripti~n~fpr~p~sedC~nstruCti~n~ra~terati~n~size~number~fst~ries~type~fuse~etc~): We are adding a 2nd story above existing structure with exception to the SW bedroom. We are also adding an attached garage and 12 x 34 addition to east side of house. The upstairs will have three BR, 2 Baths. The main floor will have one exising bedroom and new kitchen and mudroom. · Variance Application, P. 2 NOV 2 Do the existing structures comply with all area., heigH~l~V~Pa~tback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No ~X~. If no, specify ~°~h non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): SETBACKS: REQUIRED REQUESTED VARIANCE ~ ~ ~ ~.--~//~)~j~.~ .~ :~,. (or existing) 'Fr'--0nt Yard: ( N(~E ~VV ) ~ ft. ~-~f~ 5,5 ft. I~ I ~ ft. Side Yard: (N S E~) ~' ~ ft. I ,~2c~ ft. ~r,~.~ ft. Side Yard: ( N S(~W) ___~ , ft. ft. ft. Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft. Lakeside: ((~S E W ) ~--~.~ ft. --~ i,/o ft. .~ ft. : (N SEW) ft. ft. ft. Street Frontage: ft. ft. ft. Lot Size: sq ft sq ft sq ft Hardcover: sq ft sq ft sq ft o Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No ~c~). If no, specify each non-conforming use: o Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil ( ) too small ( ) drainage ( ) existing situation ( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify Please describe: (Rev. 11/14/97) I Variance Application, P. 3 Was the hardship described above created by ~J~ac~' f~a y. one land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes'~L[ ~, ~(~[ ). Case No._. having property interests in the If yes, explain: Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No ~'. If yes, explain: Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes X), No (). If list no, some other properties which are similarly affected? I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Owner's Signature ~i ~~L Applicant's Signature ///~'~-~,._% Date Date CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) PROPERTY ADDRESS: OWNER'S NAME: ~-~>__ ~,. LOTAREA [-~?_~%/ SQ. FT. X 30% = (for all lots) .............. LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 40% = (for Lots of Record*) ....... LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only) *Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted and approved by the Building Official. HOUSE DETACHED BLDGS (GARAGE/SHED) DRIVEWAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. LENGTH DECKS Open decks (1/4" min. opening between boards) with a pervious surface under are not counted as hardcover OTHER WIDTH SQ FT TOTALHOUSE ......................... X = X = TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS X = X = X = TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC .................. X = X = X = TOTAL DECK .......................... X = X = TOTALOTHER ......................... TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE UNDER / OVER (indicate difference) ............................... PREPARED BY ~¥-_c~- ~ ~'~ ---'~-~'>-- ~:~ DATE I LOCAT1 ON .OF PROPOSED BUILDING PEi~IT APPLICATION CITY OF HOUND 5341Maywood Road, Mound, Minnesota 472-1155 IHPROVEHENT STREET ADDRESS ADDITION ': J-,;~,Iv,.~ ..... PLAT LOT "BLOCK OWNER PARCEL !"i.o 7578 RECEIVED 'NOV 2 ~ unllNO PLANNING & tNSP. .... ESTIMATED VALUE ZONING DISTriCT COHPL~ION DATE DATE ~-' I ] -~ PHONE. NO. ~72-2A9~ PHONE NO. '~77.- ] ~ ZiP ADDRESS BLDR.-CONT. ADDRESS TYPES OF CONSTRUCTION t"~ Si ng le Family - t-'~ Mult l-Faml ly ~ Co~m'~r c 11 ! ~lndustrial ,?'-",r-q Garage - Size :~ Deck - Size .~Patlo - Size ~Fcnce - Size Sq,Ft, Sq,Ft, , Sq. Ft, Sq, Ft.,. Sq. Ft, Sq. Ft. · Scl ..Ft. La,Ft, 01-3151 PERMIT FEE $ 01-3151 PLAN CHECK FEE $ 01-2222 SURCHARGE $ 78-2304 78-3774 S.A.C. $ 73-3155 WATER CONN. FEE $ 73-3744 TAPPING FEE $ r-qAdditlon - Scl,Ft, t-qlnterior - Sq,Ft, r-I Sub, Level - Sq,Ft, t"~Rooflng - Sq,Ft, C:3Slding A~u,I1. - Sq,Ft,. r-qUtlllt¥ Bldg, - Slze r-~Councl! Resolution Ne, Sq. F t, PERMIT APPROVAL FINAL 78-3158 SEWER CONN. FEE $ OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE 73-3842 STATIONARY ROD FEE $ DATE TOTAL $ ~',,~ :~r~ ARE ADDITIONAL PERMITS NEEDED: ELECTRICAL ,~s PLUMBING HEATING 'd~en permit is granted, I hereby agree to do the proposed ~,ork in accordance with description above set forth and according to the provisions of all ordinances or' the City oF ~ound and of all statutes of the State of Minnesota in such cases made and provided. All building permits expire, one year after date of i~suance. '../' .' ' ' :' ;:,7 '" ," '~ ~:J ' APPLICANT ' ~ ,' Established in 1962 LOT SURVEYS COMPANY, INC. LAND SURVEYORS REGISTERED UNDER THE LAWS OF STATE OF UINNESOTA 7801 73rd Aveuu* North 812-550-3093 Fez No. 580-3522 ~ururgnrs (gt, rtifirntr RENEE & FRANZ BURRIS I ~* dabrcH 'OAI2 Lots 5 and 6, BLock 23, $11ADY~OOD POINT INVOICE NO. 5]460 F.B.NO. 817-10 SCALE: 1 · 000 0 Denotes Wood Hub Set for excavation only Donates Existing Elevation Deaotes Proposed [levotlon Denotes Surface Drolnage Proposed Top of Block PrOpoled Goroge irloor __.Propoeed Loweet Floor Type of Bulldin9 Proposed building information must be checked with approved builctin [)ion before excavation and construction. 1he only easements shown are from plots of record or information provided by client, We hereby certify that this is o true omi correct representotinn of o survey ol the botsndories of the above described land sod the Iocolion Of 011 hJildings and visible encroachments, if any, tlor11 or on Surveyed by us this llth day ot November t9._._98 Signed RECEIVED Charles ir. Andereon. Minn. Reg. No.25753 .GA I'-,OI '1 CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SItEET LOT OF RECORD?~S)I NO YARD I DIRECTION I IIOUSE ......... FRONT FRONT ZONING DISTRICT. LOT SIZE/WIDTH: R1 10, O00/6J~ Bi ~, 500/0 ~Ri~ 6,000/40>B2 20,000/00 R2 6,000/40 B3 10,000/60 R2 14,000/80 R3 SEE ORD. I1 30,000/100 REQUIRED EXISTING/PROPOSED EXISTING LOT SIZE: LOT WIDTIt: LOT DEPTtI: VARIANCE SIDE NS E W NS E W N S E W SIDE N S E W REAR N S E W LAKE N S E W 10' OR 30' TOP OF BLUFF GARAGE, SIIED ..... DETACIIED BUILDIN¢;S FRONT N S E W FRONT N S E W SIDE N S E W 4' OR 6' SIDE N S E W 4'OR6' REAR N S E w 4' LAKE N S E W 50' TOP OF BI.UFF I0' OR 30' 30% OR 40°5, ,11ARI)CO.~VER f Planning Department at 472-06{}0. summarizes a portion of fl~e requirements outlined in die City of Mouud Zoning Ordinance. For fi~rOler information, contact the City of Mound PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 98- RESOLUTION RELEASING A PORTION OF LETTER OF CREDIT - SETON BLUFF SUBDIVISION WHEREAS, the City of Mound has received a letter from Coffin and Gronberg, the engineer for Seton Bluff Development Cop. requesting a partial release of funds from the letter of credit (original amount $110,000.00)for work completed to date on said project; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has reviewed the request and has concluded that there is approximately $8,000.00 of work left on the project; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer is therefore recommending that 125 % of that amount or $10,000.00 be retained to guarantee completion of the project; and WHEREAS, the original Letter of Credit expired on November 11, 1998, but it also contained an automatic six month extension which makes it good until May 11, 1999, but the remaining work will probably not be completed by then; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer is also recommending that the original Letter of Credit be extended an additional four months to September 11, 1999. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby authorize releasing a portion ($100,000.00) of the $110,000.00 Letter of Credit under the following condition: 1. The original Letter of Credit be extended an additional four months to September 11, 1999. Engineering ° Planning · Surveying RECEIVED ;,-':-¢_, 8 1998 December 7, 1998 Mr. Edward J. Shulde, Jr., City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 SUBJECT: City of Mound Seton Bluff Letter of Credit MFRA # 11542 Dear Ed: Enclosed is a copy of a letter from Mark Gronberg of Coffin and Gronberg, the engineer for Seton Bluff Development Corporation requesting a partial release of funds from the letter of credit for work completed to date on said project. They have not requested an amount, only listed the remaining work. We have reviewed the project and put dollar amounts to the incomplete items and have concluded there is approximately $8,000.00 of work left on the project. We are recommending that 125% of this amount or $10,000.00 be retained to guarantee completion of the project. The original letter of credit was for $110,000.00; therefore, we are approving release of $100,000.00. We have also reviewed this project with CJreg Skinner and he agrees with our findings. In reviewing the file, I discovered that the original Letter of Credit had an expiration date of November 11, 1998, but it also contained an automatic six month extension; therefore the Letter of Credit should be good until May 11, 1999. The problem with this date is that the bituminous wear course probably can not be applied by then because of weather and the bituminous plants may not be open by that date. I would recommend that this release of funds also require that the original Letter of Credit be extended an additional four months to September 11, 1999. This will give the developer most of the summer to construct homes before installing the final wear course. Attached is a copy of the original Letter of Credit. 15050 23rd Avenue North · Plymouth. Minnesota · 55447 phone 612/476-6010 · fax 612/476-8532 e-mail: mfra@mfra, com Mr. Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager December 7, 1998 Page 2 If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact us. Sincerely, McCOMBS FRANK ROOS ASSOCIATES, INC. John Cameron City Engineer JC:aam Enclosure cc: Tom Stokes, Seton Bluff Development Corporation Mark Gronberg, Coffin and Gronberg Jon Sutherland, City of Mound e2main:\115425shukle12-7 12/04/iBBB 16:24 473-4435 COFFIN & GRONBERG PAGE 82 COFFIN & GRONBERG, INC. December 4, 1995 Mr. John Cameron McCombs Frank Roos 15050 23rd Avenue N,mh Plymouth, MN Dear John: · The utilities and street~ for SETON BLUFF have been constructed according to the approved plans and specificatkm;. 'l'he only remaining work is the bitttminous wear coarse and the final work on the sedimen! .:,onci and baffled weir. The owner would like the bond reduced accordingly. Sincerely, COFFIN & GRONBERG, INC. Mark S. G-ronber.u. P !' & 1.. S. MSG/cr J~/19/98 ! 11:16 CITY OF MOUND ~ ENG. STATE BANK OF LONG LAKE 1964 W. WAYZATA BLVD.- P.O. BOX ~ LONG LAKE, MINNESOTA 55F56-0636- 612/473-7347- FAX: 612/473-02SZ June 19, 1998 .IRREVOCABLE LETTER OF CREDIT NO. 061998 City of Mo~d 5341Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Gentlemen: We hereby establish our Irrevocable Letter of Credit in your favor for Seton Bluffs ("Project") of Seton Bluffs Development Corporation, Inc. ("Developer") in an amount not greater than One Hundred ten Thousand and no/100 U.S. Dollars ($110,000.00), for completion of the following items: Plans & Specs -Seton Bluffs Drafts under this Letter of Credit must be accompanied by: A. This Letter of Credit; 'B. A notarized draft executed by a duly authorized representative of the City of Mound stating that the Developer has failed to complete the requirements. Such statement shall set forth the amount required to cure the defect in performance for the Project. Ail drafts drawn under this Letter of Credit must: i. Be signed by an authorized representative of the addressee hereof; 2. Be in an amount as set forth in B above, which amount shall not exceed $110,000.00. 3. Bear on its face the clause "DRAWN.UNDER LETTER OF C~LEDIT NO. 0601998 DATED: June 19, 1998." Be presented for ~aymen: during regular business hours at The State Ban~ of Long La~e, 1964 Wes% Wayz&:a Boulevard, P.O. Box 636, Long Lake, MN 55356, no later than 2:00 p.m. on November 1'1, 1999 after w~ich time this Letter of Credit will be null and void. C~,'nuou~Bank~gancel~5 o6/19/98 11:16 FA/ CITY OF ~OUND -,-,-, ENG. [~012 It is a condition of this Letter of Credit that it shall be deemed automatically extended without change for six months from the expiration date(s) unless 30 days prior to the expiration date (s) we shall notify you in writing by certified mail, that we elect not to consider this Letter of Credit renewed for an additional period. This Letter of Credit is subject to The Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits (most recent revision), International Chamber of Commerce Publications Number 400. We hereby agree that drafts drawn under and in compliance with the terms of this Letter of Credit will be duly honored upon presentation. We shall no= be called upon =o resolve issues'of fact or law between the City of Mound and Developer. STATE BANK OF LONG LAKE Ld~n~O f ricer MJB:hj' Bills December 22, 1998 Batch 8102 121,349.35 TOTAL BILLS 121,349.35 x Z ,~, ZZ ,1'-- '~'"~ :3: m ;;~ Z r- z Z 3,, ,, ??'.???,?? r-!r-F-i-- ::0 0 0 0 I .! 7. o?° Z I'- 0 0 Zl '-ir" Z m~ Jo 0 I~J -lCD I-. --lC: .-lC> · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ,::;om ! o o n Z -4 Z m 0 Z I-- Z O"t3 CZ),. Z~-'* "~' I,,n c.r~ Z I"- o ~ I o ~ <t m · · · · · · · -~_rl~ Z '"'Jr' ~,., I AZ ~ Zl~,, Z~ Z-'~'' AC: Ail ; I 'm I0 Z I I ,r I m I Z I ~ I I~ '1 I ~1 ~1 I ~l I Ii 'I I ~l il ! ~l ~1 :l ~l ' ~t~l~le ~1=1~1e ~lml=lm ~l=l~l~ · 1~1~1'~ ~l~l~l~ :l~l~i~ ~I~I~IN ~t~1~1~ rtl Z m m z r'rl ill rtl r'rl r"rl 133 Z,Z trim :~ {3o (313 z ~ ~ ~Z ~0 z I rtl 0 <I I · I {:2> Z Z 0 0 r- ? 0 Z 0 ZZ Z~ (:3 mi -'~0 131 , &, ,,.I I , I I 0 ~ il-* 49 4"~'- ' m t~ C Z i,-- [! ,il, I& 7-. ~ ZT. oo CZ Z RESOLUTION NO. 98- A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND ASSOCIATED VARIANCES FOR THE WESTONKA COMMUNITY CENTER AS APPIED FOR BY THE WESTONKA SCHOOL DISTRICT 277, 5600 LYNWOOD BLVD., PIDS #14-117-2441 0010, #14-117-2441 0011, #14-117-2441 0052, #14-117-24 41 0058, & #14-117-24 44 0007 WHEREAS, the Westonka Community School District 277, (the "Applicant"); has submitted an application for approval of a conditional use permit and associated variances for renovation of the Westonka Community Center. The project generally includes interior renovation to the "old" school building and newer "pods" and site improvements to accommodate parking needs on property located at 5600 Lynwood Boulevard ("the Property"); and, WHEREAS, the existing use of the building is a community center and will remain as such with the proposed improvements. User of the community center will be Westonka Public Schools district offices and programs, a senior center, WeCAN, Headstart, and a cable TV studio. Additional use of the building includes the existing auditorium and gymnasium; and, WHEREAS, the applicant is requesting parking related variances for a 9 feet by 18 feet stall size and a space variance of 185 spaces from the 465 required by code. Overstory tree planting variance of 32 trees from the required 123 code plantings; and, WHEREAS, Section 350:530 of the Mound City Code provides the requirements for the granting of variances, and, WHEREAS, Section 350:525 of the Mound City Code provides the requirements for the granting conditional use permits; and, WHEREAS, the Mound Planning Commission conducted public hearings on November 9, 1998, November 23, 1998, and December 14, 1998 on the Applicant's request for a conditional use permit and variance. The Planning Commission has tabled action on the matter and has made no recommendation to the City Council; and, WHEREAS, Staff has recommended approval of the conditional use permit and associated variance as submitted with the following conditions: 1. Approve a variance of 185 parking spaces. 2. Approve a variance for a 9 feet by 18 feet parking stall size. 3. Designate an area on-site to land bank an additional 40 parking spaces for future use if necessary. 4. Approve a landscaping variance of 32 over story trees. 5. Allow the 7 Silver Maples, 8 Red Sunset Maples, and 2 Imperial Locusts along the boulevard edge of Commerce and Lynwood to be credited in the landscaping count and plantings to occur in the future. The monies which would be spent on these trees shall be placed in an escrow account which will be used for future streetscape work on the property. This account could be a joint Community Center/City account. 6. The storm water ponding facility be approved by the MCWD. 7. Approval from Hennepin County for driveway access from the parking lot to Commerce Boulevard. 8. Approval of a 14 feet driveway curb cut width variance of along Commerce Blvd. to accommodate three lanes as recommended by Hennepin County. 9. Approval be conditioned on ownership transfer of lot 18 to the Westonka Community Schools. 10.Approval be conditioned on approval of the minor subdivision boundary adjustment. ;and, WHEREAS, A variance can be granted in Mound only on the basis of a finding of hardship or practical difficulty. Under the Mound Code, variances may be granted only in the event that the following circumstances exist (Section 350:530): A. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity, and result from lot size or shape, topography, or other circumstances over which the owners of property since enactment of the ordinance have no control. B. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Ordinance would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Ordinance. C. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. D. That granting of the variance request will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. E. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. F. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Ordinance or to property in the same zone. ;and, WHEREAS, there is evidence for finding of practical difficulties to warrant granting of variances described as follows: 1. A demand parking study showing the a demand for 280 spaces has been performed and provided by the applicant. 2. Due to the limited site area and available parking on site and in the downtown area, a parking stall reduction to 9 feet by 18 feet maximizes parking space efficiency. 4. ; and, Available greenspace areas for additional overstory tree plantings is limited. Additional trees will be planted on site with a future streetscape project. Three lanes for ingress/egress will better facilitate traffic movements. WHEREAS, The code establishes the following criteria that may be used as findings in granting a conditional use permit (Section 350:525): A. That the conditional use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the immediate vicinity. B. That the establishment of the conditional use will not impede the normal and ordedy development and improvement of surrounding vacant property for uses predominant in the area. C. That adequate utilities, access roads, drainage, and other necessary facilities have been or are being provided. D. That adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide sufficient off- street parking and loading space to serve the proposed use. E. That adequate measures have bee or will be taken to prevent or control offensive odor, fumes, dust, noise and vibration, so that none of these will constitute a nuisance, and to control lighted signs and other lights in such a manner that no disturbance to neighboring properties will result. F. The use, in the opinion of the City Council, is reasonably related to the overall needs of the City and to the existing land use. G. The use is consistent with the purposes of the zoning code and the purposes of the zoning district in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use. H. The use is not in conflict with the policies plan of the City. I. The use will not cause traffic hazards or congestion. J. Existing adjacent uses will not be adversely affected because of curtailment of customer trade brought about by intrusion of noise, glare or general unsightliness. ; and, 3. 4. 5. 6. ; and, WHEREAS, The following are findings for granting a conditional use permit: The use will improve the property and not be of any detriment to the adjacent uses. Access, off-street parking, and drainage will be improved with the proposal. A parking demand study shows that adequate measures have been taken to accommodate parking demands on-site. The use will not create offensive odors, noise, fumes, dust, light, or other nuisance situations. The proposed use of the community center is consistent with city policy and meets the needs of the community. Adequate measures are addressed to minimize traffic hazards and congestion. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED By the City Council of the City of Mound that the application of Westonka Public School District 277 for a conditional use permit and associated variances for renovation and site improvements at the Property is hereby granted with the following conditions: 10.Approval be adjustment. 1. Approve a variance of 185 parking spaces. 2. Approve a variance for a 9 feet by 18 feet parking stall size. 3. Designate an area on-site to land bank an additional 40 parking spaces for future use if necessary. 4. Approve a landscaping variance of 32 over story trees. 5. Allow the 7 Silver Maples, 8 Red Sunset Maples, and 2 Imperial Locusts along the boulevard edge of Commerce and Lynwood to be credited in the landscaping count and plantings to occur in the future. The monies which would be spent on these trees shall be placed in an escrow account which will be used for future streetscape work on the property. This account could be a joint Community Center/City account. 6. The storm water ponding facility be approved by the MCWD. 7. Approval from Hennepin County for driveway access from the parking lot to Commerce Boulevard. 8. Approval of a 14 f~t driveway curbcut width variance eCalong Commerce Blvd. to accommodate three lanes as recommended by Hennepin County. 9. Approval be conditioned on ownership transfer of lot 18 to the Westonka Community Schools. conditioned on approval of the minor subdivision boundary This variance is granted for the following legally described property as stated in the Hennepin County Property Information System: PID #14-117-24 41 0010: THAT PART OF S 200 FT OF NE 1/, OF SE ¼ LYING E OF NLY EXT OF W LINE OF LOT 17 LYNWOLD PARK ALSO LOTS 1 TO 17 INCL LYNWOLD PARK INCL ST AND ALLEY VAC EX ROAD, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA PID 3 14-117-24 41 0011: BEG AT A POINT IN THE N LINE OF S ¼ OF NE ¼ OF SE ¼ DIS 458 FT W FROM THE NE COR THEREOF TH W TO A POINT 220 FT E FROM NW COR THEREOF TH S TO THE NW COR OF LOT 30 LYNWOLD PARK LAKE MTKA TH E TO THE NW COR OF LOT 21 LYNWOLD PARK LAKE MTKA TH N ALONG THE W LINE OF SAID LOT 21 EXTENDED TO A POINT DIS 225 FT S FROM N LINE OF S ¼ OF NE ¼ OF SE ¼ TH E TO A POINT DIS 458 FT FROM THE E LINE THEREOF TH N TO BEG EX ROAD, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA PID # 14-117-24 41 0052: LOTS 90 TO 101 INCL AND LOTS 104 TO 115 INCL ALSO THAT PART OF LOTS 102 AND 103 LYING E OF A LINE 200 FT E OF AND PAR WITH W LINE OF NE ~ OF SE ¼ T 117 R 24 INCL ADJ VAC ST, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA PID if '14-117-24 4'1 0058: COM 225 FT S OF NE COR OF S ¼ OF NE ¼ OF SE ¼ TH WLY PAR WITH N LINE OF SAID S ¼ DIST 398.63 FT TO ACT PT OF BEG TH DEFLECT LEFT 90 DEC 158.39 FT TH DEFLECT 89 DEC 57 MIN 22 SEC 390.86 FT TO E LINE OF SE ¼ TH S TO A PT 200 FT N OF N LINE OF LYNWOLD PARK TH W TO E LINE OF LOT 18 SAID ADDN N TH S TO NE COR OF LOT 18 TH W TO NE COR OF LOT 22 TH NLY ALONG EXTS OF E LINE OF LOT 22 TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH A LINE DRAWN FROM PT OF BEG PAR WITH N LINE OF S ¼ OF NE ¼ OF SE ¼ TH E TO BEG EX ROAD PID if 14-117-24 44 0007: S 220 FT LOT 18, LYNWOLD PARK LAKE MTKA, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA Bo This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. ~ED 470 pillsb,~v Center 200 South Sixth Street Mmnopolis MN 55402 (612) 337-93~0 telephone (612) ~37-'.)310 Ir~ e-m,:l.' at .n,s@kcnnedy-gravcn.com D&,~I}'.L J. GREIiNSWEIt Du~ct Dial (61 ;) 337-9~31 ¢'~D~.11' d gr¢¢ns~cig~.'kcn~cdy-~'ave~-¢O~ December 18. 1998 Mayor and CiD: Council City of Mound 5341 May'wood Road Momnd. Minnesota 5536,L1687 RE: Legal Opinion Regarding CiD' of Mound Conditional Use Permit Process Dear Mayor Potston ~d Councilmembers: ISSUE You bare asked our office to provide the city council w~th a legal opinion addressing whether the city council may proceed to consider and act upon a conditional use permit application prior to receiving a recommendation from the city's planning commission. SU~VIMARY ANSWER Subject to certain processes that arc directory and not mandatory, the city coulacH may ~ant or deny a conditional use permit application before the planning commission has issued its recommendation, ANALYSIS The state statutes ~ovem/ng the issuance of conditional use permits (the "Munimpal Plann/ng Act" or the "Act") do n~t in and of themselves prohibit a city council from considering a conditional use permit ("CUP") prior to receiving a recommendation from the city's planning commission. See Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.3595, subd. ! ("Conditional uses may be approved by the governing body orr other designated authority" after public hearing held in accordance with Minnesota Statutes. Section 462.357. sub& 3) (emphasis added); Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.357. subd. 3 (public heating must be held in front of governing body or planning commission') (emphas~s added). In short, the more important state law consideratmn is that a public hearing must be conducted in accordance with the procedures set forth in thc .Act. S_e_e id., subd. 2. The city's CUP reg-alations contain provisions requiring a public hearing before the city,' courier, however, and DJC.,.1553~ 1 MU2O0-6a g?$0 Mound M~yor and Counc,lmembers December 18, 1998 P*g~ 2 of · thcrc is hence no concerp that the planning commission's failure to take final ~tion has interfered with thc public heanng requircment.: See Mound Zoning Ordinance, Section 350:414, subd. 3.B. Thc questions then become ,,~'bether the planning commission's recommendation is a necessary, prcrcquisite under other parts of the Act or under the city's own code of ordinances. The answer to each of these is no. The Act contains a number of references to thc duties of a p)arming commission. Perhaps most significantly, the planning commission is deemed to "be advisory, except as other powers and duties are imposed on it by [the Act], by statutes, by charter, or by ordinance consistent with the municipal charter." Mintlcsota Statues. Section 462.351, sub& 1. In other words, absent an express pant of authority in state or local law, a planning commission has no indepcndent power to ~ant or deny a CUP, As previously noted, a city council may by ordinance delegate this authority to a planning commission. Minnesota Statutes, Section ~t62.3595. Here, though, the Mound City Council has reserved that authority to itself. The Act also contains a number of provisions in which a planning commission recommendation is a prerequmte to council action. For example, in a city that has adopted a comprehensive plan. no "publicly owned interest in real property wi~n the municipality shall be acquired or disposed of' without the planning commission first pro'~ading a whttcn report on such action to the council. Minnesota Statutes, Section ~t62.356, subd. 2. Similarly, planning commission action is required before amendments to a comprehensive plan or zoning ordinance may be adopted by a council. Mirmesota Statues, Sections ~62.355, sub& 3. 462.357. subd. 4. In all of these s~tuations, however, the statutes provide that the planning commission's failure to act within certain defined timc periods allows thc council to take action without having received the otherwise required report or recommendation fi'om the commission. Minnesota Statues, Sections ~t62.356. sub& 2;, 462.355. subd. 3. '~62.357. sub& 4. Taking the language of the Act as a whole, then. it is apparent that the legislature intended to require that city councils reft'am from acting until first receiving information from the city's planning commission. It is equally apparent that the l%mslatum did not intend that city councils find their hands tied by the fa/lure of those same planning commissions to act. As a result, state law provides that even when planning commission action is otherwise a prereqmme to council action, the council may act if' the planning commission fails to perform tis responsibilities within the time defined by statute. It is difficult to conceive that the legislature meant to give more power to planmng commissions with rcgard to CUPs, where commission action is not a necessary prerequisite under the Act for council consideration, than tt d/d to commissmns in situations wher~ commission action is generally required. ' Please note that the phrase "failure to act" as used m this opimon means only ex,stence of the fact of the planning commission's not ha.vi:ag provided thc council w~th a recommendahon. It is not intended to have an5. other connotation. JPD.152601 KG~OO-i J, J~ ,J,, ,I d , Ij ~ou~d ~yor ~nd Co~cilmembers ~ceem~er 15. 1995 A city council could still arguably decree by ordinance that planning commission action on a CUP is a prerequisite to the council's ovm decision-making? The issue is whether the city of Mound's ordinxnces do so. Thc city's zoning ordinance generally parallels the related provisions of the Act. For example, the council cannot act upon a zoning amendment until the earlier of its recmpt of the planmng commission's report or the passage of 60 days fi.om the date the amendment is referred to the commmsion. Mound Zoning Ordinance, Section 350:520, subd. 2.D. This provision is virtually ~dentical to the one set forth in the Act. Sce Minnesota Statues, Sectmn ,162.357, subd, 4. Nevertheless, thc Mound Zoning Ordinance does grant the planning commission more authority than is required by the Act. Specifically, the city's regulations rcquire that CUP applications be referred to the planning commission before being considered by the council. The exact wording of the relevant language bears quotation: The Zoning Administrator shall refcr the application to the Planning Corrtmission for rcvicw. The City Council shall hold a public hearing on the proposal .... The report of the Planning Commission shall be placed on the agenda of the Mound City,' Council at a regular meeting following referral from thc Planning Commission. The City Council must take action on the application after receiving thc report of the Planning Commission. Mound Zoning Ordinance, Section 350.525, subd. 3.B-E. The issue is whether this language prohibits the council from acting before it receives the referenced report from the plarming commission. The better interpretation is that it does not. Absent an express in&cation of its intent, a council should not be presumed to have delcgatcd authority granted to it by the Act. Cf. Frybcrger-v--Iownship of Freden.bem, 428 N.W.2d 601,604 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988). There is no suggestion that the Mound city council intended to make its authority over CUPs contingent on planning commission action. If planning commission action was a prerequisite, thc "60-day rule" set forth in state law would effectively transfer CUP authority to the planning commission in any case in wDch the planning commission failed to act within thc time limits set forth by this state statute. See~ee~erall¥ Minnesota Statutes. Section 15.99. C_rivcn that nothing in the Mound Zoning Code indicates such a far-reaching delegation of authority to the planning commission, it seems mom likely that the Mound Zoning Ordinance simply permits the planning commission to act in an advisory, capacity, not a decision-making one. and that thc planning commission cannot convert the nature of its role through its o,vn failure to act. : If a council can delegate all CUP decision-making authori~' to a planning comm~smon, it can likely delegate a portion of that power $¢__~e Mhmesota Statutes. Sectio~ ~62.3595. jPD-152601 KOaOO-I t22-~ 5O/tO'd OLE6Z££ZLg+ Mound Mayor and Councllmcmbers December lg, 1995 Page ~ of 4 Finally. judicial interpretations of similar language in state statutes suggests that planning commission action is not required prior to the council's consideration of a CUP. "Where the act provided for is merely incidental or subsidiary to some chief purpose of the law and is not designed for the protection of third persons and the statute docs not declare the consequences of a failure of compliance, the statute will ordinarily be construed as directory and not as mandatory." Wend, er v. Wengcr. 27~ N.w. 517, 519 ('Minn. 1937). In Mound's case, the planning commission's review of and recommendation concerning a CUT arc secondary to thc council's review and vote to grant or deny the permit. The more reasoned interpretation of thc Mound ordinance lau~age in question is that it is directoD' w~th regard to the planning commission and mandatory with regard to the council. That is, subject to the understanding that the planning commission sc~es only as an advisory body iu this context: (i) the council should generally refrain from a~ting before it receives the planning commission's report, but is not prohibited from doing so: and (ii) the council must act aim- receiving the planning commission's report. CONCLUSIOn, Thc Mound Planning Commission plays only an advisory role with respect to CUP applications. Neither state law nor thc Mound Zoning Ordinance prohibits the city council from acting on a CLIP application prior to receipt of the planning commission's recommendation. Please feel free to contact mc if you have any qucstions or would like additional information. Very truly yours, Enclosure cc: JPD.l$26ot l).).-:l ~O/~O',l OIE6ZE£ZIg+ 86-8I-:s~ PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. k-tn TO: Mound Council FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: December 18, 1998 SUBJECT: Community Center CUP, Minor Boundary Adjustment and Associated Variances APPLICANT: Westonka Public Schools CASE NUMBER: 98-64 HKG FILE NUMBER: 98-5111 LOCATION: 5600 Lynwood Blvd. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Public BACKGROUND: To this date the Planning Commission has held three public hearings on the CUP for renovations and site improvements to the Community Center. The case has been tabled at each of the three meetings pending additional information be submitted for review. Prior to the third Planning Commission public hearing, the Council advertised for public hearing to be held on December 22"a. Although the Planning Commission has not forwarded a recommendation for approval or denial, a public hearing has been advertised and scheduled. It is within the Council's power to hold hearing or not to hold hearing on the case at this time. If the Council elects to hold a hearing, the following staff report should assist your review of the issues in the case. Staff has written a recommendation which is consistent with the previous recommendation submitted to the Planning Commission. A resolution supporting staff's recommendation has also been prepared if the Council wished to entertain such motion. Based on Staff's review of the submittal, all information needed for review of the project has been submitted and is adequate staff's review and approval with the conditions as stated in the recommendation. At the last Planning Commission meeting, five items were identified by the Planning Commission as reasons for tabling. The following indicates the status of these 5 items: 1. Items that were requested at the November 23~d meeting were not provided This item relates to the if storm water ponding would be required. The plans show storm water ponding as per Rule N requirements. Letter of explanation from the City Attorney justifying the on vacation of a public right of way. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 t~35 ~ p. 2 #98-64 Westonka Community Center renovation CUP - Council report December 18, 1998 A letter.from the City Attorney is provided in .vourpacket. 3. A copy of Tom Reese's Task Force report for review. The Planning Commission has requested copy o-f the previous building study. Sta-f-f does not have this document.for review. 4. A certified survey showing the proopsed boundary lines and new legal descriptions. This was available at the last Planning Commission meeting and is included-for your review. To allow the continuance of hearing Loren Gordon's report on the Minor Subdivision. Due to time constraints at the last Planning Commission meeting, this case was not voted on. DISCUSSION: An application has been submitted for remodeling and site improvements to the Westonka Community Center. The building provides space for a number of public and quasi public uses including the School district offices, senior center, WeCAN, Headstart, and cable t.v. studios. The major portion of the interior renovation is to the auditorium and gymnasium. Other internal layout changes will be made to hallway corridors and entrance points to provide better circulation patterns and spaces for each of the users. The main entrance will be shifted to the west side of the pods. Loading areas will continue on the north side of the building. Site plan modifications to be reviewed by the conditional use permit are discussed below. Parking/Circulation The proposed parking plan provides for 280 parking spaces including 8 handicapped accessible spaces. These spaces are shown at a 9 feet by 18 feet stall size. As per code, a variances of 185 parking spaces and a stall size variance would be needed to accommodate the request. A parking demand study was prepared for the facility to understand what amount of parking was needed based on interviews with the users. The study shows a peak demand of 260 spaces on the weekend and 280 on weekdays with an auditorium event. Based on these numbers, the applicant provided spaces to meet the projected demand. Staff feels the applicant has a practical difficulty in meeting the code requirements of 465 parking spaces due to available site area. Because the Pond Arena will place some additional demand on the parking lots, it may be wise to designate additional areas for parking. In previous discussions, staffhas recommended an additional 40 parking spaces be placed into a parking land bank for future needs. Although storm water management is now a requirement, there is enough area within the site for these spaces. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 £. 3 #98-64 PVestonka Community Center renovation CUP- Council report December 18, 1998 Hennepin County recommended approval of the access drives to Commerce for three lanes to include a right and left tum egress lanes, and one ingress lane. Access on Lynwood would include one ingress and one egress lane. The Lynwood access incorporates parking, a drop-off area and a two-way drive. This arrangement allows cars to enter and exit the site without conflicting with drop-offs. Convenient parking adjacent to the entrance for handicapped and elderly is a positive as well. Landscaping The proposal is to provide 91 trees which includes existing trees, new over story trees, and conifers. This is a variance of 32 trees as required by code. The 22 indicated in the letter is incorrect. The plan also proposes additional shrubs, bushes, and ornamental trees located generally at building entry points, around the playground area, and within the courtyards. The plan reflects an updated plantings and screening along the new access drive to Lynwood. To better integrate the site into an overall downtown landscape concept, those trees planted along Commerce, Lynwood and the comer plaza area will be left out. Again, staff is suggesting that the monies that would be spent on these trees be placed in an escrow account until a downtown planting plan can be implemented. The trees would include: 7 Silver Maples, 8 Red Sunset Maples, and 2 Imperial Locusts. Play_mound Area The playground shown at the northwest comer of the building replaceS the current area in the play fields. The new location is a better location to increase safety by preventing the children from crossing the driveway. It will be fenced and landscaped. Lighting The lighting plan shows locations exterior luminary locations and intensities. The parking areas will be illuminated with more typical pole mounted lighting. The Lynwood entry and pedestrian entrance from Commerce will use pedestrian scale lighting. Additional wall mounted sconces will be use for building lighting. Soffit lighting is used at building entrances. The lighting plan meets code requirements for intensity at property lines. Stormwater Ponding Facility To control stormwater created from the new parking lot, the site plan incorporates a ponding facility to retain and treat storm water runoff. The pond would be located north of the parking lot and would require that the hockey rink be moved a short distance to the north. The MCWD has reviewed the facility at a staff level at this time per the newly adopted Rule N requirements. Based on my conversations with Jim Haffner, MCWD staff, and the applicant, the facility will satisfy new storm water requirements. Staff has suggested that because of the site constraints, an underground facility would provide 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 p. 4 #98-64 Westonka Community Center renovation CUP - Council report December 18, 1998 additional flexibility for site needs, especially parking. As situated, the ponding area is awkward on the site with the baseball field, hockey rink and pond very close to one another. The applicant has indicated that this alternative has not been explored thoroughly enough to know if this may be an option. Hardcover As the ownership of the site currently exists, the hardcover of the site, including the football and baseball fields, is about 28 percent. This is below the 30 percent hardcover requirement currently enforced by the City and Watershed District. The applicant has delineated a boundary that shows a potential property division line that would divide Westonka School and Community Center parcels. The applicant anticipates a property transfer will occur sometime in or after the year 2000. The hardcover calculations and letter submitted show the Community Center parcel would have 63.8 percent hardcover. The new site would satisfy the MCWD requirements for up to 75 percent hardcover when the City's stormwater management plan is approved. Minor Subdivision Boundary. Ad_iustment The Westonka Public Schools have submitted an application for boundary adjustment to expand their property to include lot 18 of Lynwood Park addresses as 5700 Lynwood Blvd. The property is currently zoned R-2, One and Two Family Residential District and has an occupied residence currently. The lot measures 50 feet by 230 feet encompassing approximately 11,500 sf. In the rear of the property is a public alley used for access purposes. The Westonka School District has a signed purchase agreement for the property which is conditioned on approval of the Community Center CLIP. As per the submitted plans for the community center, the existing house will be removed to incorporate the lot into the site. Section 330:20 subd. I(B) Minor Boundary Adjustments states that "The relocation of a boundary line between two abutting, existing parcels of property; such relocation not causing the creation of a new parcel or parcels and such relocation not violating the Zoning Ordinance." Based on the Community Center proposal, the incorporation of lot 18 will not violate the Zoning Ordinance. Staff has discussed the possibility of replatting the property to create one PID for the property. This is an option to make the property "cleaner", but is not necessary for any approval of the project as proposed. Additionally, rezoning the property to have one district rather than 3 was discussed. This too would make the site "cleaner" from an administrative review standpoint, but is not needed from a use standpoint. RECOMMENDATION: Staff would recommend the Council approve the conditional use permit and minor subdivision minor boundary adjustment as submitted with the following conditions. Conditional Use Permit: 1. Approve a variance of 185 parking spaces. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 p. § #98-64 Weston~ Community Center renovation CUP- Council report December 18, 1998 2. Approve a variance for a 9 feet by 18 feet parking stall size. 3. Designate an area on-site to land bank an additional 40 parking spaces for future use if necessary. 4. Approve a landscaping variance of 32 over story trees. 5. Allow the 7 Silver Maples, 8 Red Sunset Maples, and 2 Imperial Locusts along the boulevard edge of Commerce and Lynwood to be credited in the landscaping count and plantings to occur in the future. The monies which would be spent on these trees shall be placed in an escrow account which will be used for future streetscape work on the property. This account could be a joint Community Center/City account. 6. The storm water ponding facility be approved by the MCWD. 7. Approval from Hennepin County for driveway access from the parking lot to Commerce Boulevard. 8. Approval of a 14 feet driveway curbcut width variance of along Commerce Blvd. to accommodate three lanes as recommended by Hennepin County. 9. Approval be conditioned on ownership transfer of lot 18 to the Westonka Community Schools. 10. Approval be conditioned on approval of the minor subdivision boundary adjustment. Minor Subdivision Minor Boundary. Adjustment: 1. Approval be conditioned on ownership transfer of lot 18 to the Westonka Community Schools. 2. Approval be conditioned on approval of the conditional use permit and variances for the Westonka Community Center, case #98-64. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 CHARTERED 470 Pillsbury Center 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis MN 55402 (612) 337-9300 telephone (612) 337-9310 fax e-mail: attys@kennedy-graven.com RECF. NF..13 7 lg98 JOHN B. DEA~ Attorney at Law Direct Dial (612) 337-9207 ernaih jdean~kennedy-graven.corn December, 16, 1998 Ed Shukle, Jr. City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound MN 55364 Re: Community Center Project Dear Mr. Shukle: At its December 14, 1998 meeting, the Mound Advisory Planning Commission requested that I respond to its request for "an explanation ... justifying the non vacation of the public right of way." Because this matter is now before the City Council, it would seem appropriate that my response be directed primarily to it. The Commission's reference is to the alley shown as running across the north 30 feet of lots 18 through 30 in the plat of Lynwold Park; and more particularly to the portion of that alley running across the north 30 feet of lot 18. To assist in visualizing the situation I am enclosing a diagram showing lot 18 and its surroundings. As I understand the situation, lot 18 is proposed to be utilized to provide for a driveway which will be part of the redesigned entryway to the south side of the building. The design is generally as is shown on page 37 of the December 14, 1998 Commission agenda packet. (Page enclosed) The School District has a purchase agreement to purchase the south 220 feet of lot 18. The purchase agreement does not cover the north 30 feet of lot 18. The alley hms across the north 30 feet of lot 18. If the alley in the north 30 feet of lot 18 were vacated, it is our opinion that both the city and the school district would lose the right to possession and use of that area. Consequently, the proposed driveway, which is important to the proposed development, would not be available. JBD-155144 , s, ma, ,,al~ A J, , it Ed Shukle December 16, 1998 Page 2 of 2 My review of the enclosed documents suggests that the use of the unvacated portion of the alley for driveway would be a use not inconsistent with the city's dedication, and could be established on the city's right of way. Therefore, it was my recommendation that, if it is the intention of the city to promote the proposed development, it would probably not be advisable to vacate the alley. I hope that this responsive to the very valid question which has been raised by the Commission. I will be available to provide further comments on this matter at the meeting on the 22"a. Respectfully yqurs, JPD-152601 KG400- I E,r ' :OI~ENiP~G' 25 6 ? 9 ~: :"' :" j[!ll:ili II o DRAFT Mound Planning Commission Minutes December 14, 1998 MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, DECEMBER 14, 1998 Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Michael Mueller, Cklair Hasse, Frank Weiland, Orv Burma, Becky Glister, Jerry Clapsaddle, Bill Voss, and Council Liason Mark Hanus. Staff present: Assistant City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, and Secretary Kris Linquist. Public Present: Franz Burris, Peter Meyer, Leah Weycker, Bruce Charon, Bert Haglund, Brad Ethering Jr, Barb Zimmerman, DuWayne Dorfner, Cathy Bailey, Dan Iverson, Tom Reese, Pat Meisel, Norm Domholt, Dale Sherburne, Pam Meyers, Keith Aardhler, Bob Brown, Terri Lyons, Cindy Palm, Jim Funk, Davis Braslau, Tim Heyman. Meeting was called to order at 7:37 p.m. by Chair Geoff Michael. BOARD OF APPEALS: Chair Michael recited the procedure for Public Hearings. PUBLIC HEARING: CASE # 98-64: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, TO REVIEW THE USE TO ALLOW A BUILDING REMODEL PROJECT TO THE COMMUNITY CENTER TO INCLUDE RENOVATION OF THE GYMNASIUM AND AUDITORIUM, ADDITIONAL PARKING, AND CHANGES TO THE SITE ACCESS, INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT #277, 5600 LYNWOOD BLVD, PIDS # 14-117-24 41 0010, 14- 117-24 41 0011, 14-117-24 41 0052,14-117-24 41 0058 & 14-117-24 44 0007 Loren Gordon presented the case. Since the Commission heard this case at the November 23rd meeting, the architects have again revised the plans to address those site plan changes based on code and Planning Commission input. The revised plan incorporates the adjacent lot 18 into the site. In addition to the CUP, a minor subdivision boundary adjustment is being requested to incorporate the adjacent lot 18 into the site plan. Parking/Circulation The proposed parking plan provides for 280 parking spaces including 8 handicapped accessible spaces. These spaces are shown at a 9 feet by 18 feet stall size. As per code, a variances of 185 parking spaces and a stall size variance would be needed to accommodate the request. As you can see on the site plan, the parking lot is reconfigured to allow the isles directly connect to the access drive. This design provides more spaces than the previous plans in the same area. Parking demand numbers remain unchanged showing a peak demand of 260 spaces on the DRAFT Mound Planning Commission Minutes December 14, 1998 weekend and 280 on weekdays with an auditorium event. Staff feels the applicant has a practical difficulty in meeting the code requirements of 465 parking spaces due to available site area. Because the Pond Arena will place some additional demand on the parking lots, it may be wise to designate additional areas for parking. In previous discussions, staff has recommended an additional 40 parking spaces be placed into a parking land bank for future needs. Although storm water management is now a requirement, there is enough area within the site for these spaces. Hennepin County recommended approval of the access drives to Commerce for three lanes to include a right and left turn egress lanes, and one ingress lane. Access on Lynwood would include one ingress and one egress lane. The incorporation of lot 18 into the plan allows the west entrance to incorporate parking, a drop-off area and a two-way drive. From a circulation standpoint, this is a much better plan than the previous as it allows cars to enter and exit the site without conflicting with drop-offs. Convenient parking adjacent to the entrance for handicapped and elderly is a positive as well. Storm water Ponding Facility Staff made contact with Jim Hafner of the MCWD after last meeting about storm water retention. Mr. Hafner indicated that the Board has directed their staff to review all proposals as per Rule N requirements. He stated that based on the new rules would require A letter to this regard was to be submitted to the applicant and the City. At this time, we have not received any correspondence. Because of the site constraints, an underground facility would provide additional flexibility for site needs, especially parking. Staff would highly encourage this approach. As situated, an typical graded ponding area is awkward on the site with the baseball field, hockey rink and pond very close to one another. Landscapinq The proposal is to provide 91 trees which includes existing trees, new over story trees, and conifers. This is a variance of 32 trees as required by code. The 22 indicated in the letter is incorrect. The plan also proposes additional shrubs, bushes, and ornamental trees located generally at building entry points, around the playground area, and within the courtyards. The plan reflects an updated plantings and screening along the new access drive to Lynwood. To better integrate the site into an overall downtown landscape concept, those trees planted along Commerce, Lynwood and the corner plaza area will be left out. Again, staff is suggesting that the monies that would be spent on these trees be placed in an escrow account until a downtown planting plan can be implemented. The trees would include: 7 Silver Maples, 8 Red Sunset Maples, and 2 Imperial Locusts. Hardcover Mound Planning Commission Minutes December 14, 1998 DRAFT The applicant has delineated a boundary that shows a potential property division line that would divide Westonka School and Community Center parcels. The hardcover calculations and letter submitted show a Community Center parcel would have 70 percent hardcover. This number is inflated. Staff's review of the hardcover shows a number close to 65 percent hardcover. In any event, the new site would satisfy the MCWD requirements for up to 75 percent hardcover when the City's Storm water management plan is approved. Staff would recommend the Planning Commission approve the conditional use permit as submitted with the following conditions. Approve a variance of 185 parking spaces. Approve a variance for a 9 feet by 18 feet parking stall size Designate an area on-site to land bank an additional 40 parking spaces for future use if necessary. Approve a landscaping variance of 32 over story trees. Allow the 7 Silver Maples, 8 Red Sunset Maples, and 2 Imperial Locusts along the boulevard edge of Commerce and Lynwood to be credited in the landscaping count and plantings to occur in the future. The monies which would be spent on these trees shall be placed in an escrow account which will be used for future street scape work on the property. This account could be a joint Community Center/City account. The storm water ponding facility be approved by the MCWD. Approval from Hennepin County for driveway access from the parking tot to Commerce Boulevard. Approval be conditioned on ownership transfer of lot 18 to the Westonka Community Schools. Approval be conditioned on approval of the minor subdivision boundary adjustment. DISCUSSION: Mueller questioned (on page 29) Gordon about his recommendation about parking spaces. Gordon stated that Staff's position has always been to have 320 parking spaces, provided in paved spaces and future land banked areas. Mueller asked about the Storm water ponding. Gordon stated that they asked the applicant about an underground storage tank. He stated that it would give much more flexibility to the site. Mueller asked what the pond would entail, how deep is it, etc. Gordon stated that after a storm it will hold some water but it not designed to have water in it at all times. Mueller stated that it looks about 10 feet deep. Gordon explained how the intake would be a couple feet above the bottom of the pond which would cause standing water for periods after a storm. Mueller had a question on page 41 regarding hardcover and the total square footage of the entire site. Gordon stated that those figures are accurate for the entire site. Mueller commented that the commission is tired of receiving incomplete information. He also stated that DRAFT Mound Planning Commission Minutes December 14, 1998 when the commission does not have accurate information regarding hardcover, how are ensured that it will stay under 75%. Bert Haglund, TSP/EOS, demonstrated on the overhead (page 36 of packet) and presented a handout to the commission showing a 63% hardcover for the community center site after the ownership transfer. Haglund stated that the existing parcel A & B on the Boundary & Location survey does not represent the proposed division lines. It only addresses existing situations. Weiland asked about the ponding, if it is going to be on parcel A, parcel B, or both. Haglund stated that the ponding area is only to address the parking lot. The parking lot will be mostly on parcel A. Weiland asked if and when the subdivision access, would it require another calculation. Haglund responded "No". Weiland inquired how it would be handled then. Haglund stated that there is no storm water run off issue, it will all be green space. Weiland asked about where the buses will be parked. Gordon stated that for drop off and loading, there is room for two buses in front of the West entrance with cars being to pass along side of them. Weiland asked if the buses would stay there. Gordon responded "No". Weiland stated that the parking of the buses have not been addressed at all and how many parking spaces does a bus take up. Weiland asked if there are any provision about the buses stopping at the old entrance of the school for unloading. Haglund stated that provisions are being made on the West side of the building. He stated that the drop off site would be two lanes in width so that vehicles can pass the drop off vehicles. Weiland asked if the area directly south of the ponding area be designed for bus parking. Haglund stated that bus parking would be infrequent at best. Mueller asked what about football games. Hasse asked about the unshaded pod areas. Gordon stated that they will be courtyards. Hasse asked if it would be covered with glass. Gordon stated that it would be open. Clapsaddle asked about the detention pond. He questioned why the underground detention would not be an option. Haglund stated that they did not bring it up with the Watershed district, they have provided a plan for a pond within the guidelines of the Watershed district. Haglund stated that the option for an underground pond had not been explored. Clapsaddle stated he has a difficult time dealing with a pond being left there with water standing in it for a period of time, we all have seen intersections around here on all the freeways and places of nature that have. a tendency to develop their own micro ecological system. He is very concerned about the buses with the asking of substantial request for parking spaces. He commented on the exit out of the front parking lot. Haglund stated that the exiting system was required by Hennepin County. Haglund stated that they did not have this discussion with staff. They have not had the discussions with the watershed district on it. DRAFT Mound Planning Commission Minutes December 14, 1998 Hanus questioned the new two way drive. What criteria does it fall under. Is it a public street, an alley, or a driveway. Haglund stated it is not a public street or an alley. He feels that it is a driveway. Gordon stated that a driveway can be 22 feet. Hanus questioned the entrance on Commerce. It would possibly require a variance. A five minute break was taken. Chair Michael opened the Public Hearing. Leah Weycker, on the City Council, on WCCB, and tonight before you as being on the Building Committee. She recited who is on the Building Committee. She stated she was going to give a brief overview, the project goes back to 1993. A survey was brought to the citizens, with a favorable response to having a community center. Last December 4, a bond referendum went to vote. She recited what the ballot stated. The vote came back with a yes vote to renovate the community center. That is how the WCCB came about. She stated that as a Building Committee they have been working hard for the people of the community. Mueller asked if the Building Committee looked into only renovating a portion of the building. Weycker stated that the current Building Committee did not look at that option. She stated other task forces in the past have. The referendum clearly states that the renovation includes the entire site. Mueller asked who was able to vote. Weycker stated all the residents of the cities within the School District. Mueller commented that the only people on the Joint Powers Agreement is the School Board and the City of Mound. Weycker stated that is correct. Mueller stated that it is his understanding that the City of Mound is going to share the cost of the maintenance with the School District. Weycker stated that was correct. Clapsaddle asked the estimated cost of the project. Weycker stated that 7.7 Million from the bond referendum, 200 Thousand from Senior Center, 1.4 Million from School District, totaling 9.3 Million. Voss asked about a Fitness Center. Weycker stated that they had talked about it on earlier task forces and there just isn't a dense enough population to support a fitness center or a center like the one Chaska has. Hanus stated that if he remembers correctly, a survey was sent out to the School District public asking what they would like to see. The response was that the this is the direction the public (district wide) wanted to go. Bob Brown asked about the cost cuts that would have to made. Weycker stated that the public was not informed of some of the "wish items." Weiland asked about the cuts. Weycker stated that in the locker rooms the coaches room would be eliminated, WeCAN doesn't want a conference room. Most of the items are a wish list by the tenants of the community center. DRAFT Mound Planning Commission Minutes December 14, 1998 Bob Dorfner, Outdoor Facilities of the School District. He feels that the community has been mislead. He doesn't recall the Girls Gymnastics will be eliminated, the softball fields being eliminated, having ponding, or this amount of parking space. I think there are so many changes along with the acquiring of the lot next door that is going to cost an extra amount. He feels that it should be sent back to the public for another vote to see if it is what the community really wants. He thinks the auditorium should go up to the High School where it was originally designed for. He commented that the boys need a wrestling room, the girls need a gymnastics room. He doesn't think that the City or the School District should be in the position to design a building for tenant use, they should not be in that business. That is for the private sector. Terri Lyons, 3219 Gladstone Ln. 11 year resident. Her vote was to renovate the site. Questioned hardcover vs. green space. Mueller stated that the Planning Commission asked for the subdivision line showing the new proposed line to properly calculate the hardcover. Tom Reese, 5643 Bartlett Blvd. He was on the original task force reviewing the Community Center. He stated that they begged the Cities in the School Dist to join the project. As a task force, they found the building is of no use. They wrote a report and did not know how to send it to. That task force still has the letter and no one asked for their recommendation. They stated they designed a new center, including items that the people of community wanted. He stated that to defer the costs, memberships could be sold. They got a quote of $80 per sq ft to build a new building. He stated that there is no way that the remodeling project will stay under the budgeted amount. He stated that he is a contractor by trade. Your neighboring communities are not with you. It will be a Mound Center. It is a flawed process. Mueller asked about the pods vs the old building. Reese stated that the Old Building is in better shape than the pods. The roofs in the pods are almost impossible to repair. Clapsaddle asked about the study they did, was it taken into consideration the size of the building. Reese stated that the new building would be almost half of the current floor plan. The plan that they designed could be built in phases showing the people of Mound that we are planning ahead for the future. Mueller asked about the maintenance and operating costs. Reese stated that the plan they designed could be covered by membership dues. Reese commented that with the current proposal, he does not what to be taxed twice. Once by the City and Once by the Schools. Brown asked about the conditions of the pods and if there was ever a spores and mold count take on the building. Reese stated they did have a spores and mold specialist come in. There is a severe mold and spores problem with that building because it has been wet for so long. It is a very labor intensive process to remove that condition in the building and one can never really get it out the building for good. Mueller asked if it was in the whole building or just in the pod structure. Reese stated that it was only in the pod structure. Clapsaddle stepped down from the Commission. Tim Heyman, 6070 Painter Rd. Minnetrista resident. Agrees with Tom Reese. He feels that the open space proposed on the pods should be expanded to the whole pods. He feels that it was not presented properly originally. He would like to see a old town theme. DRAFT Mound Planning Commission Minutes December 14, 1998 Dan Iverson, 4640 North Arm Dr. He doesn't understand why more thought was not done into the entire project. He feels that the elderly were scared and felt compelled to vote the referendum in. He also felt that more of the general public was also mislead. He questioned the inside of building. He would like to know what the public is getting for their money. He feels that the kids of the community are not being considered. He feels the youth's interest should also be targeted not only the elderly and childcare facility. Peter Meyer, 5748 Sunset Rd. He also worked on the same task force with Mr Reese and Mrs Meisel. He felt that funding a new center was not possible. He commented that a theater was to be put at the High School in a phase type plan. It has been 26 years and there is still no theater. He feels that this is the best scenario for the project. Cindy Palm, 2695 Westedge Blvd. Are we really planning for the future. Are we going to review this in 10 years. Is this really the best plan. She has heard that ECFE may still have to rent space next to Jubilee. The new plan eliminates a whole gym. Will the Auditorium be able to house a Graduation with everyone that wants to attend, be able to attend. Why wasn't the building maintained throughout the years. She doesn't feel that this plan is the best plan. She supports having the new City Council be able to review these plans and be 100% supportive of it. Pat Meisel, 5501 Bartlett Blvd. Mayor-Elect. She felt she needed to voice her opinion, I came in front of the City Council once before and asked for it not be voted on this year. The idea is that if this project is allowed to proceed, they will be able to occupy in the year 2000. This falls into her term and she would like to be able to have some input on the plan. She would like to meet with the Economic Development Task Force because they too are looking at renovating downtown. Does it go together? I would think so. Is it for the betterment of Mound, I don't know that answer for sure. She would like to look at it in general. She was told not to long ago that there would not be a room to have school board meetings in the newly renovated building. Dr. Pam Meyers confirmed that was correct. There are a number of issues that keep coming up that she was not aware of. She is not against doing something with this building. She would love to see a new building because she thinks it can be done for the same amount of money or less. Bob Brown, 5450 Three Points Blvd. Newly elected Council member. He also agrees with Meisel. He stated that there are letters sent around stating that he is opposed to this project. He stated that he is not against the project. He would like to have some input on this project. He stated that the Planning Commission has worked very hard on this. He takes offense to people saying that they were treated differently. He doesn't think that the School District has ever been treated differently by this board. He also would like to see a newer building that would benefit the whole community and maybe Minnetrista would come back in. He would like to see a new referendum with a different design going out to the people giving the a choice and people would get behind it, he stated he would, if they had an alternative choice. He has a problem with the hardcover. DRAFT Mound Planning Commission Minutes December 14, 1998 Dale Sherburne, 6511Bayridge Rd. Opposed to the project. He doesn't feel that there is common sense to it. He has lived in the community for 21 years. He feels that this is an opportunity to have a project to get excited about. Chair Michael closed the Public Hearing. Mueller wondered if it is in the Planning Commission's spectrum to review the interior spaces of the project. Who will be using the facility. Gordon stated that a list was provided with current and proposed tenants. Mueller asked how big is the theater going to be. He commented about the memories he had growing up. He does not like the pods. Michael stated that he would like to see legal counsel at these meetings. This item has been voted on by the people. The item has come to the Planning Commission to decide whether a CUP is right for this property, not for how it is built. It is the responsibility of the Planning Commission to decide whether it is right for this area. Gordon stated that what the Planning Commission is reviewing is a Conditional Use Permit for the School Building to be converted to a Community Center type of facility with a number of users in it. Gordon stated the Planning Commission's responsibility is to review the project based on its merits, applicable codes, not to determine how it is designed. Mueller asked if the EFC wanted to be in the old Tonka Toy Building, the warehouse district, would we allow that with a renovation of a portion of that. That comes under the role of the commission. He feels that the commission has some responsibility to the Community in regards to the facility that will eventually be partly owned by the City of Mound. Burma commented hypothetically, lets say that the commission had a concern that maybe there would be a cost over run and that there was a contingency plan that would take care of a 15% cost over run and no bid have let or come in yet and the costs come out to 50% and we trim back. We don't get the people in there to help pay the freight with the City of Mound that we anticipate as taking care of the 50% of maintenance that Mound has. Is that in the obligation of this commission to say, I'm acting in the best interest for the community for that reason since the other alternative to building it at budget and lesser value is boarded up half the way through. He questioned if it is the Planning Commission's obligation to police that. Hanus would tend to argue "No". We do not ask any other applicant if they have the financial means to construct their project. Burma stated that the City is going to pay 50% of the maintenance and the City does not fund individual's projects. Mueller stated that it is different from a private party project. We have been told by people here that there is a limited amount of dollars to be spent here. If we pass a Conditional Use Permit on the total project and the total project does not happen, there is nothing we can do to change that once it is passed here. Say a individual does not have enough money to complete their DRAFT Mound Planning Commission Minutes December 14, 1998 project they have an option to sell the property to someone else who would have enough money to see it through and that is not the case here. Voss stated that on our November 9th meeting, a time constraint was mentioned. He would like to know how this effects this CUP. Gordon stated that it expires December 21, 1998 and a request of thirty days was presented with a date of January 21, 1999 with the option of another 30 day extension for a total of 60 day extension. Voss commented that he would like to see this be continued into the new year so the new Council will be able to review this project also. He also stated that Mr Reese brought up good points. Weiland asked about the driveway/alleyway. MOTION by Voss to table the case. Died for a lack of second. Mueller requested to move on to the next agenda item before voting on the CUP. CASE # 98-67: MINOR SUBDIVISION: TO INCORPORATE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL LOT 18 TO THE COMMUNITY CENTER PROJECT AT 5700 LYNWOOD BLVD, INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT #277, 5600 LYNWOOD BLVD, PID # 14-117-24 44 0007 Loren Gordon presented the case. The Westonka Public Schools have submitted an application for boundary adjustment to expand their property to include lot 18 of Lynwood Park addresses as 5700 Lynwood Blvd. The property is currently zoned R-2, One and Two Family Residential District and has an occupied residence currently. The lot measures 50 feet by 230 feet encompassing approximately 11,500 sf. In the rear of the property is a public alley used for access purposes. The Westonka School District has a signed purchase agreement for the property which is conditioned on approval of the Community Center CUP. As per the submitted plans for the community center, the existing house will be removed to incorporate the lot into the site. Section 330:20 Subd. I(B) Minor Boundary Adjustments states that "The relocation of a boundary line between two abutting, existing parcels of property; such relocation not causing the creation of a new parcel or parcels and such relocation not violating the Zoning Ordinance." Based on the Community Center proposal, the incorporation of lot 18 will not violate the Zoning Ordinance. We have discussed the possibility of replatting the property to create one PID for the property. This is an option to make the property "cleaner", but is not necessary for any approval of the project as proposed. Additionally, rezoning the property to have one district rather than 3 was discussed. This too would make the site "cleaner" from an administrative review standpoint, but is not needed from a use standpoint. DRAFT Mound Planning Commission Minutes December 14, 1§§8 The Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the minor subdivision as requested with the following conditions. Approval be conditioned on ownership transfer of lot 18 to the Westonka Community Schools. Approval be conditioned on approval of the conditional use permit and variances for DISCUSSION: Mueller questioned the subdivision process. Gordon explained the procedure. Sutherland further explained the process they took to determine that it is a Minor Boundary Line Readjustment. Mueller stated that we are setting precedence. MOTION by Burma, seconded by Mueller to extend the meeting to 11:15 p.m. Motion carried 6-2. Opposed: Weiland & Michael. Hanus stated that a Minor Boundary Alignment is fairly new. Hanus stated that by eliminating the boundary line, it changes the use. By adding Lot 18 to the site, it will now incorporate 3 different zoning districts. Gordon stated that he would like to walk the Planning Commission through the process in how they came about with the Minor Boundary Alignment. Gordon stated that this was addressed with the City Attorney and they concur this is the process to be used. Mueller questioned to vacation of the public alley. Gordon stated that the City Attorney has reviewed the status and the records on the status of the alley are sketchy. Weiland commented on the use of the alley by the general public. Gordon stated that he and the City Attorney discussed how they should handle the vacation of the alley and determined that it would not be necessary. Hanus asked if the alley would be open onto the new driveway or would it end at the beginning of lot 18. Gordon stated that it would end. There was a request to have the City Attorney be present to answer some of the questions. Mueller questioned the letter which he asked to be written from staff to MCWD to determine if ponding would be required. Gordon stated he has spoken with Jim Hafner, MCWD on numerous occasions, Mr Hafner indicated they would be performing a staff level review of the project to determine the applicability of new storm water rules. It was determined that it would DRAFT Mound Planning Commission Minutes December 14, 1998 be required. Gordon felt this addresses the Planning Commission concerns. He stated that he has spoken with Jim Hafner, MCWD. They discussed how the ponding was suppose to happen. It was scheduled for a Staff review, at that point, it was determined that it will be reviewed and action will be taken. Weiland commented on the alley again. He stated that at one time the residents along that alley did not want to have it upgraded, that they just wanted to use it themselves. MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Hasse to adjourn. Motion carried 6-2. Opposed: Hanus & Mueller. Voss called for a roll call vote on the Motion to Adjourn. Burma - No Mueller - No Glister - No Michael - Yes Weiland - Yes Hasse - Yes Voss - No Hanus - No Motion failed 5-3. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Voss to table based on the following conditions: 1) Items that were requested at the November 23rd Meeting were not provided. 2) Letter of explanation from the City Attorney justifying the non vacation of a public right of way. 3) A copy of Tom Reese's Task Force report for review. 4) A certified Survey showing the proposed Boundary lines and new Legal Descriptions. 5) To allow the continuance of hearing Loren Gordon's report on the Minor Subdivision. Motion carried 8-0. MOTION by Voss, seconded by Burma to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 8-0. Meeting adjourned at 11:30 p.m. Architects & Engineers FAX TRANSMITTAL 21 WATER STREET EXCELSIOR, MIN~$OTA 55331 PHONE 612-474-3291 FAX 612-474-3928 R EC EI YE D MOUND PLANNING & INSP. DATE: December 11, 1998 TO: Loren Gordon Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc. RE: Westonka Community Center NUMBER OF PAGES ( 2 ) INCLUDING COVER SHEET: Original will be sent via: ( )Mail ( )Messenger ( ) Federal Express ( X FAX # 338-6838 TSP One Project # 96708.6 ) Will Not Be Sent COMMENTS: 1. 2. Loren, as a follow-up to our submittal, here is the information you have requested. The number of trees that we are asking a variance for is 32, not the 22 as stated in our cover letter. The future possible property division is illustrated on the Site Plan. You have asked that we provide more information about the hardcover percentage. Based on the future property division line shown on the Site Plan, a sketch of which is attached, the hardcover percentage would be as follows: Total Site Area 361,805 sf Building 91,803 sf Asphalt 126,856 sf Sidewalk 10,690 sf Concrete Cap 287 sf Total Hardcover 229,636 sf = 63.5% Please note that this is less than the 70% that was noted in our cover letter. SIGNED: Bertil'~ PLEASE CALL IF THERE ARE ANY PROBLEMS WITH THIS FAX RECEIVED MOUND PLANN~G & INSP a~VA3~oa ~] 00~ NX] 0 0 NIISIX':Ix ~J3 C]q¥ PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. l ln TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: December 14, 1998 SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit and Variance - updated report//2 APPLICANT: Westonka Public Schools CASE NUMBER: 98-64 HKG FILE NUMBER: 98-5kkk LOCATION: 5600 Lynwood Blvd. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Public BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Since the Commission heard this case at the November 23rd meeting, the architects have again revised the plans to address those site plan changes based on code and Planning Commission input. The revised plan incorporates the adjacent lot 18 into the site. In addition to the CUP, a minor subdivision boundary adjustment is being requested to incorporate the adjacent lot 18 into the site plan. Parking/Circulation The proposed parking plan provides for 280 parking spaces including 8 handicapped accessible spaces. These spaces are shown at a 9 feet by 18 feet stall size. As per code, a variances of 185 parking spaces and a stall size variance would be needed to accommodate the request. As you can see on the site plan, the parking lot is reconfigured to allow the isles directly connect to the access drive. This design provides more spaces than the previous plans in the same area. Parking demand numbers remain unchanged showing a peak demand of 260 spaces on the weekend and 280 on weekdays with an auditorium event. Staff feels the applicant has a practical difficulty in meeting the code requirements of 465 parking spaces due to available site area. Because the Pond Arena will place some additional demand on the parking lots, it may be wise to designate additional areas for parking. In previous discussions, staff has recommended an additional 40 parking spaces be placed into a parking land bank for future needs. Although storm water management is now a requirement, there is enough area within the site for these spaces. Hennepin County recommended approval of the access drives to Commerce for three lanes to include a right and left turn egress lanes, and one ingress lane. Access on Lynwood would 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 p. 2 #98-64 Westonka Community Center renovation CUP - updated report #2 December 14, 1998 include one ingress and one egress lane. The incorporation of lot 18 into the plan allows the west entrance to incorporate parking, a drop-off area and a two-way drive. From a circulation standpoint, this is a much better plan than the previous as it allows cars to enter and exit the site without conflicting with drop-offs. Convenient parking adjacent to the entrance for handicapped and elderly is a positive as well. Stormwater Ponding Facility Staff made contact with Jim Haffner of the MCWD after last meeting about storm water retention. Mr. Haffner indicated that the Board has directed their staff to review all proposals as per Rule N requirements. He stated that based on the new roles would require A letter to this regard was to be submitted to the applicant and the City. At this time, we have not received any correspondence. Because of the site constraints, an underground facility would provide additional flexibility for site needs, especially parking. Staff would highly encourage this approach. As situated, an typical graded ponding area is awkward on the site with the baseball field, hockey rink and pond very close to one another. Landscaping The proposal is to provide 91 trees which includes existing trees, new over story trees, and conifers. This is a variance of 32 trees as required by code. The 22 indicated in the letter is incorrect. The plan also proposes additional shrubs, bushes, and ornamental trees located generally at building entry points, around the playground area, and within the courtyards. The plan reflects an updated plantings and screening along the new access drive to Lynwood. To better integrate the site into an overall downtown landscape concept, those trees planted along Commerce, Lynwood and the comer plaza area will be left out. Again, staff is suggesting that the monies that would be spent on these trees be placed in an escrow account until a downtown planting plan can be implemented. The trees would include: 7 Silver Maples, 8 Red Sunset Maples, and 2 Imperial Locusts. Hardcover The applicant has delineated a boundary that shows a potential property division line that would divide Westonka School and Community Center parcels. The hardcover calculations and letter submitted show a Community Center parcel would have 70 percent hardcover. This number is inflated. Staff's review of the hardcover shows a number close to 65 percent hardcover. In any event, the new site would satisfy the MCWD requirements for up to 75 percent hardcover when the Ci .ty's stormwater management plan is approved. RECOMMENDATION: Staff would recommend the Planning Commission approve the conditional use permit as submitted with the following conditions. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 p. 3 #98-64 V~estonka Community Center renovation CUP - updated report #2 December 14, 1998 1. Approve a variance of 185 parking spaces. 2. Approve a variance for a 9 feet by 18 feet parking stall size. 3. Designate an area on-site to land bank an additional 40 parking spaces for future use if necessary. 4. Approve a landscaping variance of 32 over story trees. 5. Allow the 7 Silver Maples, 8 Red Sunset Maples, and 2 Imperial Locusts along the boulevard edge of Commerce and Lynwood to be credited in the landscaping count and plantings to occur in the future. The monies which would be spent on these trees shall be placed in an escrow account which will be used for future streetscape work on the property. This account could be a joint Community Center/City account. 6. The storm water ponding facility be approved by the MCWD. 7. Approval from Hennepin County for driveway access from the parking lot to Commerce Boulevard. 8. Approval be conditioned on ownership transfer of lot 18 to the Westonka Community Schools. 9. Approval be conditioned on approval of the minor subdivision boundary adjustment. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 TSP One, Inc. 21 Water Street Excelsior, MN 55331 phone (612) 474-3291 fax (612) 474-3928 Architecture Engineering Interior Design Offices in Minneapolis and Rochester, MN AFFILIATED OFFICES Minneapolis, MN Rochester, MN Denver, CO Marshalltown, IA Rapid City, SD Sioux Falls, SD Gillette, WY Sheridan, WY December 9, 1998 RECEIVED DEC; O 1998 MOUND PLANNING & INSP. Loren Gordon, AICP Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. 123 North Third Street Suite 100 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401-1659 Re: Westonka Community Center Renovation TSP #96708.6 Conditional Use Permit Review Dear Loren, The School District has obtained a purchase agreement for the adjacent residential property. Because of the inclusion of this property in the project site area, and in response to the Planning Commission meeting of November 23rd, we are submitting some amended documents for review. These are listed below, and a copy of each is enclosed. 1. Drawing SD-02: Site Plan 2. Drawing C-l: Grading and Drainage Plan 3. Drawing L-l: Landscape Plan 4. Drawing E-l: Site Lighting Plan 5. Minor Subdivision App!ication The site survey is in the process of being updated to include the adjacent residential property in the project site area. Although the survey is not available to submit at this time, it will be provided prior to the December 14th Planning Commission meeting. Parking The parking study conducted by David Braslau Associates indicates that the maximum weekday parking demand for the Westonka Community Center is 280 spaces and the maximum weekend parking demand is 260 spaces. The enclosed Site Plan provides 280 parking spaces, including 8 accessible spaces. This is a variance of 185 spaces from the 465 required by the ordinance. This variance is requested based on the mixed use nature of the facility, in which peak demands of the users occur at different times. The parking study illustrates the various day and time-of- day demands of the users. As before, we are also requesting a variance to the parking stall size to allow use of a 9' x 18' stall. Access to Commerce and Lynwood Boulevards An Equal Opportunity, Affirmative Action Employer Mr. Loren Gordon December 9, 1998 Page 2 RECEIVED MOUND PLA 611C G & I SP. Both Commerce and Lynwood Boulevards are Hennepin County Roads. We have submitted to Hennepin County the proposed new access to Commerce and the revised access to Lynwood. Hennepin County has given their approval, with the requirement that the access to Commerce be three lanes wide: one entrance lane and two exit lanes. The Site Plan shows this configuration. Stormwater Ponding An application has been submitted to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District based on the enclosed Grading and Drainage Plan, which provides a stormwater pond based on the proposed "Rule N" guidelines. Landscaping The enclosed Landscape Plan provides the same number of new plantings as in the original CUP application. The number of overstory trees in this plan was originally identified as 56, however, when credit is taken for existing trees and conifers, the actual number of overstory trees is 91. This is a variance of 22 trees from the 123 required by the ordinance based on gross building area. This variance is requested based on the limited area around the building and parking areas that is available for landscaping. The trees along Commerce Boulevard, Lynwood Boulevard, and at the corner of Commerce & Lynwood are included in the plan, but would be provided in the future. We understand that the City will be preparing an overall streetscape plan for the downtown area. Any new planting along Commerce and Lynwood Boulevards could be in conflict with the City's future streetscape plan. Therefore, we recommend that these areas be left alone until the appropriate time. Minor Subdivision Application We are submitting a Minor Subdivision Application to incorporate the adjacent residential property, Lot 18, into the project site area. Future Property Division It is the School District's intent that, once the Westonka Community Center Renovation project is complete, the affected site area will be Mr. Loren Gordon December 9, 1998 Page 3 RECEIVED MOUND PLANNING & INSP. deeded to the Westonka Community Center Board. The remaining site area, including football and baseball fields, will remain school district property. The enclosed Site Plan shows a possible property division line. Using the property division line as shown, the hardcover amounts to 70 percent of the site area. If you have any questions, please give either Bert Haglund or myself a call. TSP ONE, INC. Mark Thiede, Architect BH:bh Jon Sutherland, City of Mound Dr. Pam Myers, Westonka Public Schools I ,. ,,, lid ~l,h(lI,LJIlh !111111111111111 I ~ 0~¥A391908 O00~ANA9 | I I . , t I I I I I ' l-I, II""I'"I1 0 IIII III 111111 llllllllll-I IIl~U  OVO~ ~309¥ ! o I I ! ! ~hh,ll,!,dlh !11111111tltll 11 OVOU o I 0~1 ~--9~ z~ '1 I: ,~' /> a-¥~0 U ....... ::'>U '~ a '1 o ;~ v A ] q ri 0 ~ O OM NA 3 y 12/04/98 15:0~ FAX 612 647 4120 NELSO~-RUDIE oo2 .__~' C O M M E R C E B O U L E V A R D cc ,u~ ~-~ COUNTy ~ 22 LOT AREA LOT AREA LOT AREA CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS PROP..ERTY ADDRESS: 5~:~0 OWNER'S NAME: U~ ~ 5TOI~ I'M g iS~ll'Z- so. rt. x RECEIVED DEC 1 0 1998 (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE~ ,I = flor all Io~) .............. I'~q'L, .. FS~_i = (for Lots of Record*) .......I~g: o~ I = (for detached buiidin~ only) .. I I~t~ I eExisting Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques .are utilized, es outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,$ubd. 6. B. 1. (see back)· A plan must be submitted and approved by the Building Official. HOUSE DETACHED BLDGS (GARAGE/SHED) DRIVEWAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. DECKS Open deck= {1/4" min. opening between boarde} v~ a perviou~ .urfnoe under ere not counted ~ he.cover OTHER LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT X X = X = TOTAL HOUSE .................... ' '. X = X = TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ................. X = X = X = TOTAL DRIVE'WAY, ETC .................. X = X = TOTAL DECK .......................... X = TOTAL OTHER ......................... u~ch~'~fle¢T TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE pA.:EOVER. (indicate difference) ' I D BY 'T$'~' ~)t,l~/ ~klc.~, DATE Eos Architects and Engineers 21 Water Street Excelsior, MN 55331 TEL (612) 474-3291 FAX (612) 474-3928 JOB T/TLE DESCRIPTION RECEIVED DEC 1 0 1,998 SHEET NO. MADE BY ~ CK'D BY__ ]5~,F"~DL DO~-0Crl-~ ~oo ~ Creative Solutions for Land Planning and Design December 7, 1998 DEC MOUNDpLANI ING&i Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. Pamela J. Myers Westonka Public Schools 5600 Lynwood Boulevard Mound, MN 55364 RE: Westonka Community Center Conditional Use Permit - Case/:/98-64 Dear Ms. Myers: Please accept this letter as notice from the City of Mound that the review period for the Westonka Community Center Conditional Use Permit application will be extended an additional 30 days as prescribed by Minnesota Statute 15.99. The initial 60 day time window will expire on December 21, 1998 and because a decision has not been reached, the City feels it is in the best interest of all parties involved to extend the review period another 30 days to allow ample time for the matter to be resolved. As you are aware the case is scheduled to be brought back to the Planning Commission at the December 14, 1998 meeting. Assuming a recommendation is forwarded to the City Council, a public hearing will be held at their December 22, 1998 meeting. Although it appears that a decision could be made at that Council meeting, extending the review period will ensure proper public review is provided. If you have any questions, please call me. Sincerely, Loren Gordon, AICP Assistant City Planner Cc~ Ed Shukle, City of Mound Jon Sutherland, City of Mound John Dean, Kennedy and Graven Bert Haglund, TSP One, Inc. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, MN 55401-1659 Ph (612) 338-0800 Fx (612) 338-6838 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUN D, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 CASE #98-64 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO REVIEW THE USE OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A BUILDING REMODEL PROJECT TO THE COMMUNITY CENTER TO INCLUDE RENOVATION OF THE GYMNASIUM AND AUDITORIUM, ADDITIONAL PARKING, AND CHANGES TO THE SITE ACCESS LOCATED WITHIN THE B-1 CENTRAL BUSINESS ZONING DISTRICT AND WITHIN THE R-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, LENGTHY LEGAL, LYNWOLD PARK, AT 5600 LYNWOOD BLVD PID # 14-117-24 41 0010, 14-117-24 41 0011, 14-117-24 41 0052, 14-117-24 41 0058 & 14-117-24 44 0007 P & Z 98-64 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 Tuesday, December 22, 1998 to review the use of a Conditional Use Permit to allow a Community Center at 5600 Lynwood Blvd located within the B-1 Central Business Zoning District and within the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District. ~--, ,. -.,_ ~-~ .. -- ,.. -~~~ ._~,,,,, '= (~ ':!!!::.::;::~;:!i.::~!:!~.~!:'::::!:i:~::::ili;;:::i~i'::::.::: 5= * ~ ~ ~, .. All persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above will be given the opportunity to be heard at thismeet'~ Mailed to property owners within 3§0 feet of affected property on December 2, 1998 Published in the Laker, December 5, 1998 printed on recycled paper PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 CASE #98-64 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO REVIEW THE USE OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A BUILDING REMODEL PROJECT TO THE COMMUNITY CENTER TO INCLUDE RENOVATION OF THE GYMNASIUM AND AUDITORIUM, ADDITIONAL PARKING, AND CHANGES TO THE SITE ACCESS LOCATED WITHIN THE B-1 CENTRAL BUSINESS ZONING DISTRICT AND WITHIN THE R-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, LENGTHY LEGAL, LYNWOLD PARK, AT 5600 LYNWOOD BLVD PID Ct 14-117-2441 0010, 14-117-2441 0011, 14-117-2441 0052 14-117-24 41 0058 & 14-117-24 44 0007 P & Z 98-64 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the Planning Commission of the City of Mound, Minnesota, will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 p.m. on Monday, December 14, 1998 to review the use of a Conditional Use Permit to allow a Community Center at 5600 Lynwood Blvd located within the B-1 Central Business Zoning District and within the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District. ~-.-~,~ , ' All persons appearing at said hearing with refereqce to th~ will be given the opportunity to be heard at~ ~quist>l~Secr;tar~ Mailed to prope~y owners within 350 feet of affected prope~y on December 2, 1998 Published in the Laker, December 5, 1998 printed on recycled paper ! NOU-20-1998 1~:54 Gray Freshwater Center Hwys. 15 & 19, Navarre Mall: 2500 Shady~vood Road Excelsior, MN 55331-9578 Phone: (612) 471-0590 Fax: (~12) 471-0682 Emall: admtn@mlnnehahacreek.org Web Site: www.minnehahacreek.org Board o! ManagBrs: John E. Thomas President C. woodrow Love Vice President PameLa G. Blixt Treasurer Monica Gross Secretary Thomas W. LaBounty Thomas Maple, Jr. Malcolm Reid District Office: Diane P. Lynch District Administrator , i., ,~, Jl,~ , t d, 11, Ii i , MINNEHRHR CREEK klRTERSHED 6124710682 P.01/02 Minnehaha Creek Watershed District From: Jim Hafner, District Technician .We have received the attached permi~ application for a project within your city. This application is tentatively scheduled for a MCWD Board of Managers If you have any concerns, comments or objections rcgarding this project please ' contact .Tim Hafner, District Tcchnicie.r~., at 471-8226 within five days of receipt of this notice. You m,~y also FAX comments to 4'/1-0682 or send a message via E-mail to: jhafncr~minnchahacreck.org Thank you for your cooperation. NOU-20-199S 16:54 MINNEHt::IHI~ CREEK hIFITERSHED 6124710682 P.B2/B2 "' CO~INED JOlT NOT~ICATION FO~ - WATER ~SO~CE APPLICATION ,~p~ Use ~is go~ to nofi~/apply to thc Minneh~a Creek Wamrshed Diztfic~ (MC~). ~cir enginee~ng consult~, thc DN~ ~d ~c I-I~nncp~n Conse~fion Dis~fic~ ora proposed watcr/w~I~d project or work which may f~l wkhin ~cir jurisdiction.. These agencies should advise you of their jurisdiction or permit requirements within 10 days. Fill out this form completely mail a copy, with plan, maps, etc.., the MCWD, Gray Freshwater Center, Navarre., 2500 Shadywood [Road, Suite 37, Excelsior, MN 5533 I. Keep a copy for your records. YOU MUST OBTAIN ALL REQUIRED tAUTHORIZATIONS BEFORE BEGINNING WORK. 1. Applicant's Name (Last, First. M.I.) Phone No. Ad.ess (Sweet. ~, Box ~. Ci~, S~te, Zip) ~. Location ogpmposed projg~ (A~ach d~wing w/dircc~ons co ~i~c): ~ CO~ Q~ SECTiON(s) SEC~ON(s) TO~SH~(s) RANGE(s) PRO.CT ~DRESS: CIW: Lot. Block, Subdivision 3. LENGTH OF SHORE AFFECTED (h~ feet): VOLUME OF FILL OR EXCAVATION (Cubic yards): AREA FII.LED OR EXCAVATED IS Acres, OR Square Feet. 4. T~E OF PER.MIT BEING APPLlliD FOR; (Check all that ai~ply): [] STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN [] FLOODPLAIN ALTERATION [] W'ETLAND ALTERATION [-ISHORELINE IMPROVEMENT a.[]RIPR.AP b. FISANDBLANKET c.[DRETAIN1NG WALL OTHER (DESCRIBE) ~STORM SEWER OUTFALLS Ii]ICE RIDGE REMOVAL ~BRIDGE & CULVERT CROSSrNOS EXCAVATION (DREDGING) a.[-] WILDLIFE b.[-] NAVIGATION c.[2 BIOENGINEERING 4a. APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: (Licensed Contractor, Engineer, etc...) Include name. address & phone number. 5. PROJECT PURPOSE (why is this project needed - what benefits will it provide?) 6. ALTERNATIVES (describe a~y other sires or methods fl,at could be used to achieve tl~e purpose or minimizing water/wetland impams. Attach additional sheets, if needed. 7. DATES: Proposed start of activity: ~,6~.~,.,aa ~t~e~ Proposed completion: (Identify any completed work on attached drawing) 18. NAIvI~S & ADDRESSED OF ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS (Att~ch'ligt if more) NOV .2.. 0 1998 9. PER_MITS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED (R) OR APPLIED FOR (A) FROM: DNR __ COUNTY ~ CITY __ MN POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY A.RMY CORPS OF ENGR are obtained naa5' be subject to Feder~l. State 0nd/or local administrative, civil m~d/or crimthal'penalties. Signatm:e of Person Proposin~P'~qject or Agent ~c~.u-te- ~,cl~. Date I hereby notify thc recipients of tllis fom~ of the proje~ proposed herein and request I be advised of m~y pcmfits or othcr determinations concerning this prqiect flint I must obtain. I understand that proce~ing wifl~ work before all required amhod~qtions :::,1 Mound Planning Commission Minutes November 23, 1998 DRAFT MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 1998 Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Michael Mueller, Cklair Hasse, Frank Weiland, Becky Glister, Bill Voss, Orv Burma, and Council Liason Mark Hanus. Staff present: Assistant City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, and Secretary Kris Linquist. Absent and Excused: Jerry Clapsaddle. Public Present: Dr Pam Myers, Bob Bittle, Bob Brown, Leah Weycker, Bill Pinegar, Richard Kryck, Duane Norberg, Bert Haglund, Vern Brandenburg, and David Braslau. Meeting was called to order at 7:34 p.m. by Chair Geoff Michael. MINUTES - APPROVAL OF THE NOVEMBER 9, 1998 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. Weiland stated that on page 4 under "Submittal page A-2" ¢f4, should state, "Designate an area on-site to land bank an additional 74 parking spaces for future use if necessary." MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Hasse to approve the corrected Minutes of the November 9, 1998 Planning Commission Meeting. Motion carried 8-0. Chair Michael recited the procedure for Public Hearings. BOARD OF APPEALS: CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING: CASE #98-64: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, TO REVIEW THE USE TO ALLOW A BUILDING REMODEL PROJECT TO THE COMMUNITY CENTER TO INCLUDE RENOVATION OF THE GYMNASIUM AND AUDITORIUM, ADDITIONAL PARKING, AND CHANGES TO THE SITE ACCESS, INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT #277, 5600 LYNWOOD BLVD, PIDS# 14-117-24 41 0010, 14-117-24 41 0011, 14- 11724 41 0052, & 14-117-24 41 0058 Loren Gordon presented the case. Since the Commission heard this case at the November 9th meeting, the architects have revised the plans to more closely reflect those items needing additional review. The letter in your packets addresses those site plan changes based on code and Planning Commission input. Landscaping Mound Planning Commission Minutes November 23, 1998 The new proposal is to provide 123 trees to meet code requirements based on floor area. The previous submittal was incorrect stating a tree count of 80 which included only the building footprint rather than the total gross floor area. The new landscaping plan meets code requirements based on the buildings gross floor area. The applicant also indicates that those trees shown along the boulevard edge of Commerce and Lynwood be planted at a future time. Staff and the architect discussed the idea of putting the money that would go to the trees in an escrow account. At the point when a tree planting plan for downtown is approved, the escrow dollars could be used to purchase specified trees for the site. Parking The parking required by code is 465 parking spaces. This was incorrect at the last meeting. A previous 1997 memo addressing the parking needs was the basis for these numbers and did not include the auditorium seating. The architect has been asked to break out the uses as prescribed by code to more accurately show the demand from each user. The updated plan shows 320 parking spaces, which assumes the hockey rink will be relocated and no storm water ponding facility. The weekday and weekend parking demand numbers are updated to exclude the Pond Arena spillover. New parking demand numbers show a peak demand of 260 spaces on the weekend and 280 on weekdays. Staff feels the applicant has a practical difficulty in meeting the code requirements of 465 parking spaces due to available site area. Because the Pond Arena will place some additional demand on the parking lots, it may be wise to designate additional areas for parking. If ponding is not required staff would recommend 280 spaces be paved and an additional 60 be placed into a parking land bank for future needs. Storm water Pondinq Facility Although a determination on the pond will not be made by the MCWD until the City has granted approvals, chances are a retention facility will be required. There are some alternatives to a pond such as underground vaults that could work (Norwest Bank utilizes vaults on their property). This may alleviate space concerns for parking and the hockey rink. Staff would recommend the Planning Commission approve the conditional use permit as submitted with the following conditions. Approve a variance of 145 parking spaces. Approve a variance for a 9 feet by 18 feet parking stall size. Designate an area on-site to land bank an additional 60 parking spaces for future use if necessary. Allow a landscaping variance of 17 trees for those located along the boulevard edge of Commerce and Lynwood. The money which would be spent on these trees shall be AFT Mound Planning Commission Minutes November 23, 1998 o placed in an escrow account which will be used for future street scape work on the property. This account could be a joint Community Center/City account. A favorable recommendation for storm water discharge from the MCWD. Approval from Hennepin County for driveway access from the parking lot to Commerce Boulevard. DISCUSSION: Mueller asked based on staff recommendation, if MCWD does require a pond then the 60 parking spaces will disappear, would the case at that time come back to the Planning Commission. Gordon stated that the 60 spaces would be gone and the pond would be located where the hockey rink is located. If the MCWD requires the pond, requirement #3 for the land banking would be taken off the recommendation. The case would not come back to the Planning Commission. Mueller asked if the applicant changes the plan does that start the 60 days over. Gordon stated that the School District is in the process of a purchase agreement with the owners for lot 18, and use the plan on page 68 of the packet for their plans. Gordon stated that staff prefers the plan on page 68, and the recommendation could reflect a contingency with the purchase of the land to the west, lot 18. Mueller asked if the new proposed access off of Commerce be the most heavily traveled access. Braslau stated that when County Road 15 is relocated, more traffic will be using the access off of Lynwood Blvd. Mueller asked if there was a traffic study done on the new proposed plan. Braslau commented on the flow of traffic from each exit. Weiland asked about handicapped parking on the north side of the complex and the main entrance on the west. Bert Haglund, TSP, stated that on the new plan has handicapped parking on the west along with handicapped parking on the north. Glister asked how many handicapped spaces will be provided. Haglund stated that it is done on a sliding scale. He stated that handicapped parking will definitely remain at the required 6 or 7 spaces to the north and then add additional handicapped spaces to the west. He stated that they would have more than the required handicapped spaces for the public that they serve. Weiland asked about the parking spaces that went into land bank. Haglund stated that if parking spaces were added, more handicapped spaces would be needed. Weiland asked what the school owns. Dr. Pam Myers, Superintendent of the School District stated that they own the land that the baseball field, football field, outdoor hockey, and the proposed new parking lot is located. Weiland asked if the parking spaces for the baseball field were included in the land banking. Myers stated that they had not. DRAFT Mound Planning Commission Minutes November 23, 1998 Glister asked if there was a study done on the parking spaces if a 10 X 20 stall would be used instead of a 9 X 18 since this is a sports utility world and not a escort world. Gordon showed a diagram with the differences. Hasse asked where would a bus stop. Michael stated in the old plan no. In the new plan there would possibly be a place. Hanus questioned where staff came up with the required spaces. Hanus asked how the code came up with the requirements. Mueller stated that Koegler had a book that showed the percentage. Hanus stated that the traffic study shows that they will only require 280 parking spaces. Mueller asked when adult education take place. Myers stated that during the day and in the evening after the work day. Mueller referred to required parking used for education. Myers stated that the figures were reported by the persons running the programs. Myers explained the different programs and the required parking spaces that would be needed for each of those. There was some more discussion on the chart provided by Braslau on page 34 of the packet. Mueller felt the numbers are a bit conservative. Burma stated that we have talked parking to death. There are charts and reports from professional people in the field and that as a commission, we can either take to information and consider it valid and vote accordingly. He feels we should move this on to the Council. Weiland stated that the trees should be planted now and not be put into a land bank. Weiland asked if the steps facing Commerce Btvd are going to be removed. Myers stated that they are going to be removed. Mueller questioned the 60 day limit on the plan that was proposed. What happens when the plan changes does it change that initial 60 day point, when does a plan change enough. Gordon stated that some elements of the plan are more engineering related. If a storm water pond is required, the design will be driven mostly be the engineering and staff would be comfortable not requiring it to come back to the Planning Commission. The access drive is a new element to the plan. He feels that the plan incorporating lot 18 is a much better plan. If the Planning Commission agrees with it, they could entertain to include it in their recommendation. What is staffs understanding that when a plan changes enough to restart the 60 day clock. Gordon stated that he believes the Planning Commission could come up with enough reasons to restart the clock. Mueller than asked the same question to Hanus. Hanus stated that it is a collective decision amongst staff, the commission, and council. Hanus stated that there are 2 ways to declare an extension, 1) the council can declare an extension, a one time only. 2) The applicant can request an extension. 'il, i? I, ,J .fl. s ,i , ItL ,1 Mound Planning Commission Minutes November 23, 1998 There was some discussion on the differences of the two plans. Gordon stated that he can not answer for the City Manager, City Attorney, or the City Engineer. He stated that if the ,~chool wants to add the adjacent lot 18, it may be required that a new application may be submitted. Mueller stated that he feels there are too many unknowns to make a decision. Chair Michael opened the Public Hearing. Bob Brown, 5453 Three Points Blvd, He feels that the Planning Commission is being pushed through this. He questioned if a public hearing was needed since the schools are adding a parcel of land and the residence 350 feet were not notified. He also questioned the handicapped parking. Hanus commented that with the new plan the handicapped parking is adjacent to the new senior center where most of the handicapped parking will be needed. He commented on the current parking situation on Lynwood. There were other people in town asking for variances for parking and they were turned down and here we are going to grant variances to the parking. He feels as a citizen and a tax payer this is being slammed down our throats. Hanus commented on the drop off parking. He stated that there is a drop off lane and a by pass lane. Myers stated that there is a purchase agreement for lot 18. Bert Haglund, TSP: Explained the two proposed plans. He stated that the second one is the one that they had hoped to have the direction of the community center go. He explained the landscaping for the original plan. He stated that the 56 trees represented the new trees it did not included the existing trees. That total would be 85. The revised plan shows 123 trees. The trees along Commerce Blvd, Lynwood BIvd, and at the corner of Commerce and Lynwood are included in the number, but would be provided in the future. In reference to the Parking, the code requirements are 465. He referenced Braslau's peak parking demand by user group. He displayed the revised parking spaces on page 26, it shows 320. Their submittal is requesting 280, it would take off the last two rows of parking. Weiland asked if the parking lot could be angled to be incorporated in the ponding issue. Haglund stated that it could but would not help with the quality of water. Sutherland asked how many handicapped spaces were on the north side of the building. Haglund stated that there was at least 7 or more. Sutherland asked if that met the Building Code Requirements. Haglund stated that he did not have the chart in front of him. Haglund stated that they feel that 280 parking spaces is a reasonable use. DRAFT Mound Planning Commission Minutes November 23, 1998 Gordon stated that the 320 spaces shown in the previous submittal includes the pond arena on the weekend. There was more discussion on parking spaces. Michael questioned Myers what the school district actually owns. She stated the football field, baseball field, the land between the football field and the community center, the community center, the parking lot between the community center and the pond arena, and as of tonight lot 18. There was discussion on the subdivision of the property after the project is completed. Mueller commented that he feels this should be tabled until it is determined if the subdivision should be included with this proposal. Mueller asked if a new building that was well designed would that give you more parking spaces. Haglund stated that by having a smaller building it would create more land which in turn would create more parking spaces. Haglund talked about the handicapped parking with the plan that included lot 18. Gordon made a suggestion to include items in staff recommendation 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, adding new items 7: If the storm water ponding facility is required a) land bank would not be required b) the city engineer review and approve the storm water facility as per the MCWD, and item 8: Contingent approval of a new site plan including lot 18, to include all the elements relating to the new plan including new circulation, parking design, lighting, landscaping and any other information relating to the project. Chair Michael reminded the commission that the public hearing is still open. Bob Brown, asked if the property is separated and the new property will be allowed 75% hardcover, where is the 25% green space. He also asked about the elevator Leah Weycker, 2750 Halstead Ln, She commented that the public voted on whether to build a new building or renovate the old one. Bill Pinegar, 1347 Rest Point Cir, Thanked the commission for making sure everything is clean to move the project forward. Chair Michael closed the public hearing. Hanus asked about the minor realignment. Sutherland stated that it would be a minor subdivision and would not require a public hearing but would go to the Planning Commission and City Council. DRAFT Mound Planning Commission Minutes November 23, 1998 Hanus commented on the landscaping plan and the trees requirements. He commented that the code needs to be readdressed. Glister commented that she does not feel that it is a very future oriented plan. Mueller questioned the tree plan. Haglund explained the tree plantings on page 30. Mueller questioned that the plan submitted is not what the applicant wants to do. Haglund stated that is not the plan they wish to implement. Mueller feels that the minor subdivision should become part of this application. Mueller asked if there were other sites that have more than one PID under the same ownership that have a CUP. There were comments that there is Al & Alma's, the lighting standards at the Football fields. Gordon stated that staff gave the School the direction to proceed the way they are going. The decision for a new boundary realignment will not be determined until the MCWD acts on the case and ponding needs are known. Weiland commented on the location of the trees. He asked staff to address the issue on site distance from the corner of the lot. Sutherland stated that there is a 30 foot sight distance requirement. There was more discussion on hardcover issues. Comments were made that Norwest Bank and Our Lady of the Lake are two other cases that have 75% hardcover. Michael commented that he feels that it is a poor plan. He commented on other community centers in other cities. He felt that this project could have been done for a lot less money with a new facility but that is not what the people voted for. He really does not like the proposal. Chair Michael asked why a variance was requested for parking spaces. Gordon stated that the Schools did not want to take away the ballfield. Leah Weycker, commented that as a commission, whether you are for or against the project, must look at the plans and vote on it accordingly. Bob Brown, stated that we are commented to the people of the community. Hanus commented why were parking space variances for Norwest and Jubilee Foods. Michael stated that they did not have the extra land for parking. MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Hasse to extend the meeting to 11:30 p.m. Motion failed 4-4. Opposed: Mueller, Glister, Michael, Burma. DRAFT Mound Planning Commission Minutes November 23, 1998 MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Voss to adjourn. Motion failed 4-4. Opposed: Michael, Hanus, Burma, Weiland. MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Voss to extend the meeting to 11:15 p.m. Motion carried 6-2. Opposed: Glister, Mueller. Voss made some comments about what was discussed tonight. MOTION by Voss, seconded by Michael to deny the Conditional Use Permit. Motion failed 4-4. Opposed: Glister, Mueller, Burma, Hanus Burma commented about the number of trees required. He stated that the Commission needs to their job and move it on to the Council regardless to who is sifting on the council. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Glister to table to the next meeting. Motion failed 4-4. Opposed: Hanus, Voss, Michael, Burma MOTION by Voss, seconded by Burma to approve staff recommendation with alterations as stated above with a minor boundary adjustment of lot 18 be included in condition # 8. Motion failed 3-5. Opposed: Hasse, Weiland, Michael, Glister, Mueller. MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Weiland to extend the meeting to 11:30 p.m. Motion carried 5-3. Opposed: Glister, Mueller, Burma. Myers stated that there is a contingent on the purchase agreement that it is contingent on the CUP approval at the December 8 City Council meeting. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Glister to table based on the following conditions:l) the new plan brought to the commission tonight, 2) If storm water ponding is required, 3) Proper notification was not sent out to the property owners 350 feet from lot 18.4) Identifying the proper boundary line and hardcover of the new proposed parcels. 5) The City notify the MCWD requesting they make a decision if a pond will be required. 6) Review the over story tree issue Motion carried 5-3. Opposed Hanus, Michael, Burma. This case will come back to the Planning Commission Meeting on December 14, 1998. J, J, iii, I, 4, II, ,~ PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: November 24, 1998 SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit and Variance - updated report APPLICANT: Westonka Public Schools CASE NUMBER: 98-64 ItKG FILE NUMBER: 98-5ggg LOCATION: 5600 Lynwood Blvd. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Public BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Since the Commission heard this case at the November 94 meeting, the architects have revised the plans to more closely reflect those items needing additional review. The letter in your packets addresses those site plan changes based on code and Planning Commission input. Landscaping The new proposal is to provide 123 trees to meet code requirements based on floor area. The previous submittal was incorrect stating a tree count of 80 which included only the building footprint rather than the total gross floor area. The new landscaping plan meets code requirements based on the buildings gross floor area. The applicant also indicates that those trees shown along the boulevard edge of Commerce and Lynwood be planted at a future time. Staff and the architect discussed the idea of putting the money that would go to the trees in an escrow account. At the point when a tree planting plan for downtown is approved, the escrow dollars could be used to purchase specified trees for the site. Parking The parking required by code is 465 parking spaces. This was incorrect at the last meeting. A previous 1997 memo addressing the parking needs was the basis for these numbers and did not include the auditorium seating. The architect has been asked to break out the uses as prescribed by code to more accurately show the demand from each user. The updated plan shows 320 parking spaces, which assumes the hockey rink will be relocated and no stormwater ponding facility. The weekday and weekend parking demand numbers are 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 p. 2 #98-64 Westonka Community Center renovation CUP- updated report November 24, 1998 updated to exclude the Pond Arena spillover. New parking demand numbers show a peak demand of 260 spaces on the weekend and 280 on weekdays. Staff feels the applicant has a practical difficulty in meeting the code requirements of 465 parking spaces due to available site area. Because the Pond Arena will place some additional demand on the parking lots, it may be wise to designate additional areas for parking. If ponding is not required staff would recommend 280 spaces be paved and an additional 60 be placed into a parking land bank for future needs. Stormwater Ponding Facility_ Although a determination on the pond will not be made by the MCWD until the City has granted approvals, chances are a retention facility will be required. There are some alternatives to a pond such as underground vaults that could work (Norwest Bank utilizes vaults on their property). This may alleviate space concerns for parking and the hockey rink. RECOMMENDATION: Staff would recommend the Planning Commission approve the conditional use permit as submitted with the following conditions. 1. Approve a variance of 145 parking spaces. 2. Approve a variance for a 9 feet by 18 feet parking stall size. 3. Designate an area on-site to land bank an additional 60 parking spaces for future use if necessary. 4. Allow a landscaping variance of 17 trees for those located along the boulevard edge of Commerce and Lynwood. The money which would be spent on these trees shall be placed in an escrow account which will be used for future streetscape work on the property. This account could be a joint Community Center/City account. 5. A favorable recommendation for stormwater discharge from the MCWD. 6. Approval from Hennepin County for driveway access from the parking lot to Commerce Boulevard. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 November 18, 1998 TSP One, In(:. 21 Water Street Excelsior, MN 55331 phone (612) 474-3291 fax (612) 474-3928 Architecture Engineering Interior Design Offices in Minneapofis and Rochester. MN AFFILIATED OFFICES Minneapolis, MN Rochester, MN Denver, CO Marshalltown, IA Rapid City, SD Sioux Falls, SD Gillette, WY Sheridan, WY Loren Gordon, AICP Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. 123 North Third Street Suite 100 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401-1659 Re: Westonka Community Center Renovation TSP #96708.6 Conditional Use Permit Review Dear Loren, In response to the Planning Commission meeting of November 9th, we are submitting some amended documents for review. These are listed below, and a copy of each is enclosed. 2. 3. 4. Drawing SD-02: Site Plan Drawing C-l: Grading and Drainage Plan Drawing L-l: Landscape Plan Parking Study by David Braslau Associates This letter provides an explanation of how the amendments address the City's concerns. Landscaping The original Landscape Plan provided 56 overstory trees based on the perimeter of the site area affected by the project. At the November 9th meeting, the ordinance requirement for overstory trees based on the building floor area was said to be 80. This was incorrect in that it only accounted for the building "footprint". Based on the gross building area of 123,000 square feet, the ordinance requires 123 overstory trees. The revised Landscape Plan shows 123 overstory trees. The trees along Commerce Boulevard, Lynwood Boulevard, and at the corner of Commerce & Lynwood are included in this number, but would be provided in the future. We understand that the City will be preparing an overall streetscape plan for the downtown area. Any planting along Commerce and Lynwood Boulevards that we would do now could be in conflict with the City's future streetscape plan. Therefore, we recommend that these areas be left alone until the appropriate time. An Equal Opportunity, native Action Employer Mr. Lorcn Gordon November 18, 1998 Page 2 Parking The original Site Plan provided 246 parking spaces based on the parking study conducted by David Braslau Associates. This number included the parking demand of the Pond Arena, but proposed that "peak" demand be handled by off-site parking. At the November 9th meeting, the ordinance requirement for parking was said to be 320. This was incorrect in that it did not account for the auditorium use. Based on a reading of the ordinance the parking requirement is 465. The table below shows the parking requirement as defined by the ordinance in comparison with the "actual" peak parking demand as defined by the users themselves. --Ordinance-- Users --- Requirements --- Peak Users Class Parking Demand School District Alternative School (2 classrooms + 40 students) Youth Center (1,800 sf/50 -- 36 students) Head Start (1 classroom + 20 students) Cable TV (4,320 sO WeCAN (5,000 sO Storage (18,000 sf) Senior Center (250 seating) Various 67 105 High School 12 23 Assembly 12 10 Elem School 3 3 Office 11 2 Office 13 15 Storage 9 0 Restaurant 84 85 54 30 200 260 Gymnasium (4 teams x 15 -- 60 + 100 spectators)Assembly Auditorium (600 seating) Assembly TOTAL 465 533 Please note that the parking totals shown in the above table assume that the peak parking demands for all of the users will occur at the same time, which they will not. The parking study conducted by David Braslau Associates evaluated the parking need by weekday versus weekend and by time of day. A copy of David Braslau's parking study is enclosed. It has been amended to remove parking for the Pond Arena. It is our understanding that parking for the Pond Arena was addressed under its own conditional use permit, and that it need not be a burden to the Westonka Community Center Renovation project. As described in the parking study, the maximum weekday parking demand is 280 spaces and the maximum weekend parking demand is 260 spaces. Mr. Loren Gordon November 18, 1998 Page 3 The revised Site Plan shows 320 spaces, as was directed by the Planning Commission on November 9th. There is no stormwater management pond, the outdoor ice rink has been relocated. Based on the parking study, we feel that only 280 spaces should be required. Stormwater Ponding The submittal to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District is based on the revised Site Plan, with no stormwater pond. It is our understanding that, if the Watershed District does require a pond, the Planning Commission will reconsider the number of parking spaces required. Three different scenarios are envisioned: 1. No Pond: The outdoor ice rink will be relocated, leaving space for up to 320 parking spaces. 2. Half-Size Pond: Depending on the size and location of the pond, the outdoor ice rink may or may not be relocated. As many parking spaces will be provided as possible. 3. Full-Size Pond: The outdoor ice rink will be relocated. As many parking spaces will be provided as possible. If you have any questions, please give either Mark Thiede or myself a call. TSP ONE, INC. Principal BH:bh cc: Jon Sutherland, City of Mound 0~¥A39~08 O00~NA] a¥oa a3a]v 111t11111111t111 Ill III IIIIII III III ~JJJ,,J J J] ~JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ~ z o o o o i -I{ i: i B FROM : SCHOELL & M;:IDSON 19~8,11-18 10:27 #001~ P.02/0~ CITY OF MOUND ,. HARDCOVER CALCULATIONR {IMPeRViOUS SU.FACE COVERAGe ADDRESS: LOT AREA ~e. 2~,/,~ I ?.. LOT AREA. '.~ D ~_: G,I 2 Fr. 'x 30~ = {for alllatr,} ......... FT. X 40% - (for Lots of Recotd*] ....... LOTAREA ~:~./~.l~- SO. FT. X 15% - (fmdetachad buildings only) .. I/2=~3~,z. I' *Existing .Lnl3 of Record may have 40 percent cmmmoe provided that l~=hnimms-are utilized, as out~ined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225, Subd. E; B. 1. (see back}. A'plan must be submitted and appraved by the BuDding Official. · ~" ..... LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT DETACHED BLDGS {GARAGE/SHED) O"IVEWAY. PA"KING AREAS, $1DEWALK~, : · DECKS Op.n d.=k~ {114,' m;n. ' opening between boerde)"~ m p~ou~ surface under, ere · OTHER. TOTAL House X X X = TOi~TAL DETACHED BLDGS ................. X X TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC X X X TOTAL DECK TOTAL OTHER X B TOTAL HARDCOVEB.I, IMPERVIOUS SURFACE UND~'I~'I OVER {indicate difference) "- I 4-00 . q~lo d~A~]no~ OOM NA ] /~il{ltl 'l David Braslau Associates, I~., 1313 5th Street S.E. Suiu~ 322 Minneapolis, MN $5414 Telephone: 612 331-4571 Fax: 612 )31-4572 ATTENTION: MARK THIEDE/BEKT I-IAGL~ COMPANY NAME: TSP One, Inc. PHONE #: 474o3291 FAX #: 474.3928 Number of pages i~luding this cowr sheet (-4-) FROM: David Braslau DATE: 13 November, 1995 SUBIECT: Westonl~ Community Center Revised Parking Demand by Time of Day The attached charts and table w~-re gencra~d by "zeroiag out" the Pond Aren~ parking demand. Th~ maximum w~ekday parking demand of 280 spa~s at 2000 hours (8 pm) is based upon an auditorium demand of 260 spaces and the Senior Center demand of 20 spaces. Weekday parldng demand for the Pond Arena had been assumed at 40 spaces from 1500- 2000 (3 to $ pm). Thc maximum Saturday parking demand of 260 spaces is for the Auditorium only. Weekday parking der~snd for the Pond Arena had been assumed at $5 spaces from 1400- 2000 (2 to g pm). This provides a reasonably well parking demand balance betwe~'n daytime and eveniag activities and does not require a large number of additional spaces that are only used in the evening I0 to 12 times per year. Please let me know ff you need any additional information or data. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL OF THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL US BACK AS SOON AS POSSIBLE! E:~lobk9807 IITSP 1113 .f~x.doc ($~:~eds) puewaC] §u!~lJed (saoeds) puetuecl §u!)lJl~d NOV 13 1998 12:~? FIR DAVID BRASLAU ASSOC 612 331 45?2 TO 4?43928 W~ESTONKA COMMUNITY CENTER PARKING DEMAND WEEKDAY PARING DEMAND HR END Business Educa~on Centers Se~ices Facilifias TOTAL 7 16 83 23 $ 0 125 8 16 106 23 5 0 150 9 16 106 88 17 15 242 10 18 110 88 '17 30 26~ 11 18 110 88 16 10 242 12 18 110 88 4 10 230 13 18 61 88 10 10 187 -' 14 18 61 98 10 15 202 15 18 38 98 8, 20 182 16 8 42 33 8 20 111 - 17 8 35 33 5 35 116 18 0 4 20 2 85 111 19 0 4 20 I 130 155 20 "0 0 20 0 260 280 SATURDAY pARKING DEMAND H--~END Business Education Cen~m Services Facil~es TOTAI~ 7 0 83 23 11 0 117 8: 0i 106 33 11 20 170 - 9 0 106 98 11 20 235 10 0 110 98 11 20 239 11 0 110 113 11 20 254 12 0 110 113 11 20 254 -" 13 0 61 113 11 20 205 '14 0 61 98 11 20! 190 15 0 38 98 11 20 167 16 0 42 33 11 20 106 17 0 35 113i 0 45 193 18 0 4 100 0 85 189 19 0 4 100 0 130 2~ 20 0 0 0 0 260 260 Business (Business office, Pemonnel, Administration, Fa~li§es Managemen~ Education (Corem Ed, Special sewices, ECFE, ALC, Adult Ed) Centem (Youth Cenl~r, Head S~, Senior Cente~ Services 0NECAN, CabS) [ I Fa~l~es (Gymna~um, Aud~dum) P.04/04 11113198-12:11 PM-parlmopcLxl$ David Brazlau Associates, Inc.. 1313 5th gtreet S.E. Suite322 Uinneapolis, MN 55414 Telephone: 612 331-4571 Fax: 612 331-4572 ATTENTION: BERT HAGLUND COMPANY NAME: TSP One, Inc. 474-329I PHONE ii: FAX #: FROM: DATE: SUBYECT: 474-3928 Number of pages including this cover shoet (-2-) David Braslau 17 November, 1998 Wcstonlca Commu~iW Center Table of Peak Parking Demand The attached table shows the peak parking demand for each of the uses in the Westonka Comm-nity Center. While the hour of peak demand may overlap for some of the uses, the peak Auditorium demand (which occurs at 8 pm) overlaps only with an estimated 20 spaces associated with the Senior Center. The peak parking demand during daytime hours is es'dmated to be 273 spaces. Please let me know if you need any further information. [11~ YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL OF THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL US BACK AS SOON AS POSSIBLE{ E:~jobL98071 \TSP t 117-f~ato~ NOU 17 1998 16:47 FR DAUID BRASLRU RSSOC 612 331 4572 TO 4743928 P.02/02 WESTONKA COMMUNITY CENTER PEAK PARKING DEMAND (SPACES) BY USER GROUP USER GROUP PEAK PARKING DEMAND Business office 6 Personnel 2 Rdministration 2 Facilities 8 CommunitY, Ed 10 Special Services 7 ECFE 65 A, LC 23 Adult Ed 5 Youth Center 10 Head Start 3 Senior Center 85 WeCAN 15 Cable 2 Auditodum' 260 Gymnasium 30 TOTAL 533 Westonka Community Center user groups and David Braslau Associates, In=. peakdmd.doc 98071 TOTAL Mound Planning Commission Minutes November 9, 1998 MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 1998 Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Michael Mueller, Cklair Hasse, Frank Weiland, Orv Burma, and Council Liason Mark Hanus. Staff present: Assistant City Planner Loren Gordon and Secretary Kris Linquist. Absent and Excused: Becky Glister, Jerry Clapsaddle, Bill Voss, and Building Official Jon Sutherland. Public Present: Bob Bittle, Ann Hunt, David Braslau, Pat Meisel, Bill Pinegar, Bob Brown, Ed Shukle, Bob Hunt, Mark Theide, and Dr. Pam Myers. Meeting was called to order at 7:31 p.m. by Chair Geoff Michael. MINUTES - APPROVAL OF THE OCTOBER 26, 1998 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. Burma stated that on page 11, fourth paragraph down should read, "Burma didn't recall that a stipulation was that the Geyen's could not use the vacant lot for their personal use." MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Weiland to approve the corrected Minutes of the October 26, 1998 Planning Commission Meeting. Motion carried 6-0. Chair Michael recited the procedure for Public Hearings. BOARD OF APPEALS: PUBLIC HEARING: CASE #98-64: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, TO REVIEW THE USE TO ALLOW A BUILDING REMODEL PROJECT TO THE COMMUNITY CENTER TO INCLUDE RENOVATION OF THE GYMNASIUM AND AUDITORIUM, ADDITIONAL PARKING, AND CHANGES TO THE SITE ACCESS, INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT #277, 5600 LYNWOOD BLVD, PIDS# 14-117-24 41 0010, 14-117-24 41 0011, 14-11724 41 0052, & 14- 117-24 41 0058 Loren Gordon presented the case. An application has been submitted for remodeling improvements to the Westonka Community Center. The building provides space for a number of public and quasi public uses including the School district offices, senior center, WeCAN, Headstart, and cable t.v. studios. The major portion of the interior renovation is to the auditorium and gymnasium. Other internal layout Mound Planning Commission Minutes November 9, 1998 changes will be made to hallway corridors and entrance points to provide better circulation patterns. The main entrance will be shifted to the west side of the pods. Loading areas will continue on the north side of the building. Site plan modifications to be reviewed by the conditional use permit are discussed below. Parking and Circulation Parking and circulation improvements to the site are proposed to better handle parking demands and drop off. The loop drive along Commerce will be removed and a new two-way access will be added. A permit From Hennepin County will need to be approved for this driveway and curb-cut. The current access from Lynwood will be a one-way entrance to the site. This will be the main entrance and also serve as the drop-off area at the main entrance. The connection to Alder Road will remain as it exists today. Two on-site parking areas are provided to accommodate a total of 246 parking spaces at a 9 feet by 18 feet size. Code requirements are for 320 spaces which would require a variance of 74 spaces as well as a stall size variance. The existing parking area between the community center and pond arena will be redesigned with parking islands to provide 78 spaces. The new parking area located between the community center and the football field will provide 168 spaces. This is shown in the submittal information on page A-1. The applicant also shows on page A-lA, the parking areas with a 10 feet by 20 feet parking stall size. As you notice the large parking lot would be expanded north causing the hockey rink to be displaced. A new location for the rink is not shown. A parking demand study was completed for the community center which analyzes parking demand over the course of a normal weekday and Saturday from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. The study breaks out the parking needs of each use in the center and aggregates all by hour. What the study shows a peak demand during the day for 270 spaces occurring between 10 to 11 a.m. Parking needs are less during other hours of the daytime. The peak parking demand occurs when during auditorium events. During the weekday performance an estimated 320 spaces are needed. On the weekend, the demand is greater. Playground Area The playground shown at the northwest corner of the building replaces the current area in the play fields. The new location is a better location to increase safety by preventing the children from crossing the driveway. It will be fenced and landscaped. Landscaping A landscaping and screening plan is proposed for the site which has very few trees. The code requires over story trees for the greater of 1 per square feet of gross floor area (80 trees) or 1 per lineal feet of site perimeter (56 trees). The site area where improvements are proposed was used for as perimeter for landscaping purposes. The applicant is proposing to plant 56 trees of Mound Planning Commission Minutes November 9, 1998 various varieties including maple, ash, hackberry, locust, spruce and others as shown on the landscaping plan. To provide screening between the parking lot and the adjacent homes, a row of spruce is proposed. Additional plantings along the Lynwood access would provide additional screening. Because the code requires that 80 trees would be needed for the site, a variance of 24 trees is proposed. Lighting The lighting plan shows locations exterior luminary locations and intensities. The parking areas will be illuminated with more typical pole mounted lighting. The Lynwood entry and pedestrian entrance from Commerce will use pedestrian scale lighting. Additional wall mounted sconces will be use for building lighting. Soffit lighting is used at building entrances. The lighting plan meets code requirements for intensity at property lines. Hardcover At the time of this report, the impervious surface calculations were not available. They are anticipated to be ready prior to the meeting. Draina.qe The City Engineer's report addresses site grading and drainage. The applicant will be applying for a permit from the MCWD for discharge and rate control. This site plan assumes a permit will be approved. If ponding facilities are required, changes to the site plan would occur. The ponding area would in all likelihood be located north of the proposed parking lot. Its size has not been engineered but is estimated that it would take up much of the area between the ball diamond and hockey rink. Staff is comfortable with the project except for the parking and possible stormwater ponding facilities. Parking and Circulation As proposed, a variance of 74 spaces at 9 feet by 18 feet is needed. The parking lots would accommodate most daytime parking situations. The applicant is proposing that overflow during events be handled by adjacent commercial parking lots along Commerce and municipal lots along Shoreline for the short term. With the development of a parking ramp or other parking facility in the downtown, additional parking could overflow there in the future. For the short term parking is problematic. In reality there is not a surplus of parking for sharing arrangements. Many events at the community center, pond arena, and neighboring church will compete for parking at times. The holiday seasons will place the largest demand on those areas when shopping and social events are going on at the same time. During the course of a year there are probably less than 10 events at the community center that would need all of the projected demand spaces. Mound Planning Commission Minutes November 9, 1998 There is adequate area on-site to accommodate 320 parking spaces. To accommodate the parking lot, the hockey rink would probably need to be moved. There is a possibility that parking could be designed around it, but would need to be explored further. The larger question which cannot be answered at this time is the storm water pond which could impact parking and the hockey rink. Its approval will only occur after City Council approval. The pond could use all open space adjacent to the hockey rink which will impact a code size parking lot and hockey rink (re)location. One option that could be entertained to preserve code requirements for parking spaces is to approve the parking plans as submitted and require that an additional area north of the lot be land banked. The idea being that this would preserve an area for parking if needed. The hockey rink would be allowed to remain until the parking was needed. This option would also remove any unforeseen changes to parking with the downtown redevelopment project. Submittal page A-2 The concept plan shown on sheet A2 is for informational purposes at this time. The Board is currently engaged in negotiations to purchase lot 18. If an agreement can be worked out, it is the intent of the WCCB to resubmit these plans for approval. At that time this plan would be submitted for approval to amend the CUP. Staff would recommend the Planning Commission approve the conditional use permit as submitted with the following conditions. 2. 3. 4. Approve a variance for a 9 feet by 18 feet parking stall size. Approve a variance for 24 over story tree plantings. A favorable recommendation for storm water discharge from the MCWD. Designate an area on-site to lank bank an additional 74 parking spaces for future use if necessary. DISCUSSION: Weiland asked what size the current parking spaces are. Gordon stated that they are 9x18 and code states 10x20. Mueller questioned why the parking spaces adjacent to the pond arena was not included. Gordon stated that the pond has seasonal parking and school district does not own that parking lot. Mueller questioned the trees adjacent to the pond arena were included in the landscape plan. Gordon stated they were not. Mueller questioned why there is a need for the variance for the trees. Gordon stated that the trees were more useful around the building. There was some more discussion about the trees location on the site. Mueller commented on that he doesn't Mound Planning Commission Minutes November 9, 1998 believe there has been an variance given for overstory tree plantings. Mueller commented that he can not see a hardship. Burma asked about the parking issue. If it did become a problem, how would it be handled. Gordon stated that after the project was done, possibly do a study of the parking when events are going on. Gordon stated that most of the time, .that parking would be adequate. Weiland questioned the traffic control on page 33. He commented that he feels there will be a problem when all the exits are coming out onto Commerce Blvd. He commented that if the outdoor hockey rink was moved to the north, more parking could be added to the parking lot. He stated he did not like the newly creating exiting system out onto Commerce Blvd. Weiland questioned if the existing parking lot by Lynwood and Commerce intersection would remain. Gordon stated that it would become a sidewalk and a pedestrian entrance. Mueller asked where the new entrance to the parking lot would be. Mark Theide stated that it would be directly across from Church Rd. Chair Michael opened the public hearing. Bob Brown, 5450 Three Points Blvd: He asked about handicapped parking spaces. He also asked about the two practice fields for softball and baseball, if they are to be eliminated- is there a plan to construct new ones. Mark Theide addressed the handicap parking stalls, he stated that there are currently 7 handicapped spaces in the plan. Pam Myers, Superintendent of School District #277, stated that she is looking forward to this project. Pat Meisel, 5501 Bartlett Blvd, questioned the landscaping plan and asked Mueller to clarify. Mueller stated that the schools are asking for a variance for trees and the Planning Commission has not issue a variance for trees in the past that he could remember. He feels that there is not a hardship or practical difficulty present. Bob Brown stated that Weiland had a good idea with moving the hockey rink, he commented that there is a possibility a baseball diamond could be located there. Pam Myers stated that the reason the parking lot is located where it is, is so it would be closer to the west door. Hasse questioned if the fiberoptic cable would be moved out of the middle of the second pod. Myers stated that if the Senior Center wants it moved, there is money in the budget to move it. Bob Bittle, 2927 Halstead Ln, is a alternate for the WCCB Westonka Community Center Board, stated that when the Pond Arena got their CUP, their variance for parking was off site. Mueller asked what about football games. Bittle stated that it would remain the same. Mound Planning Commission Minutes November 9, 1998 Mueller questioned about the alley way adjacent to Lynwood Blvd. Mark Theide stated that at the request of the Fire Department the alley will be 20 feet wide. Mueller asked why are they requesting to make the front entrance to the Community Center on that Alleyway. Theide commented that there were several reasons 1) with moving parking lot down it would be closer to that entrance. 2) With the garbage reciprocals and deliveries being made on the north side they feel its not a desirable location for the entrance. 3) They feel that the new location of the entrance would be centrally located in the building. Mueller commented that he is not comfortable with having the main entrance on an alley way. He feels that the deliveries and the waste reciprocals could be relocated to an alleyway. Theide stated that they feel this is the best option with working with the site. Pam Myers commented on the daily uses of the building. She stated that there is handicapped parking on the north side of the building. Mueller questioned why the elevator is located on the opposite end of the building from the main entrance. Myers stated that they will have to address adding an addition elevator in the middle of the building. Mueller made further comments on the design for the ECFE playground, parking, and possibly relocated the roadway. Hasse questioned moving the playground, Myers stated that it would block a fire exit. Chair Michael questioned why this project could not have been brought before the planning commission for recommendation. He wanted to know why its trying to be forced through. Bill Pinegar, 1347 Resthaven: Stated that it is not just the School Board, it is the WCCB. He stated that they want to keep things on schedule and that they are used to staying on a time line. He stated that this is a WCCB project. Michael questioned who makes up the WCCB. Pinegar stated that it is a joint powers agreement with the School District and the City of Mound. Hanus stated that he has heard many times the planning commission is not here to design projects. He reminded the commission of the request brought to the commission. He stated that the applicant has followed the appropriate procedure to bring the Conditional Use Permit in front of the Planning Commission. Mueller questioned the traffic flow on the alley way. David Braslau, the Engineer for traffic flow displayed an inbound and outbound traffic flow chart. He stated that most of the traffic would be coming from the south and the east. He felt with the traffic light at the intersection at Lynwood and Commerce, it would be easy for people to turn onto Lynwood and enter the alleyway. Their primary purpose is to get the traffic off the main roads. He commented that the traffic flow is less on Lynwood than on Commerce. Weiland questioned when the traffic study was done. Brasiau stated the study was done 2 years ago and has a projected date to the year 2000. Weiland questioned if the new development in Minnetrista was accounted for. Bralau stated a new study was not done for this project. Mound Planning Commission Minutes November 9, 1998 Mueller questioned the alley adjacent to the football field. Ed Shukle, City Manager stated at this time the City Attorney is researching whether that alley is a public or private alley. As of right now it appears to be a private alley until deemed otherwise. Weiland asked if there was any discussion about the hockey rink being moved to the north. Myers stated that initially when it was discussed, that area may have to be used for storm water ponding. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Weiland to table this case. Motion carried 4-2. Opposed: Hanus and Michael. Hanus commented that there is a time line for tabling a CUP is 60 days and if it is not acted upon within that the 60 days it will move forward. Weiland stated the reasons why he seconded the motion. He does not feel that there is not enough information brought to the commission. One issue is the storm water ponding. He does not agree with the proposed new entrance to the Community Center from the alley to adjacent Lynwood Blvd. He feels the exist onto Commerce from the existing parking lot needs to readdressed. Hanus commented that the Watershed usually does not act on case until the City has. He suggested that those who were in favor of tabling this come up with a list of items that they would like to have addressed. Burma stated why he was in favor of tabling, 1 ) he could not find the hardship or practical difficulty in the over story of trees. 2) He was also concerned about the parking spaces and the issue of when this would be brought back for review. 3) The issue of ponding - whether it would be needed or not. Weiland commented that the parking issues is a very important part of this project. Meyer asked if the consensus of the planning commission would be to remove the hockey board and put in parking. Burma stated that he is concerned with overflow parking and possibly making a condition to review the parking issue in a timely manner after the project is completed. Hasse and Michael had no further comments. This case was tabled until a further date. PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. I111 k-tH TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: November 9, 1998 SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit and Variance APPLICANT: Westonka Public Schools CASE NUMBER: 98-64 HKG FILE NUMBER: 98-5fff LOCATION: 5600 Lynwood Blvd. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Public BACKGROUND: An application has been submitted for remodeling improvements to the Westonka Community Center. The building provides space for a number of public and quasi public uses including the School district offices, senior center, WeCAN, Headstart, and cable t.v. studios. The major portion of the interior renovation is to the auditorium and gynmasium. Other internal layout changes will be made to hallway corridors and entrance points to provide better circulation patterns. The main entrance will be shifted to the west side of the pods. Loading areas will continue on the north side of the building. Site plan modifications to be reviewed by the conditional use permit are discussed below. Parking and Circulation Parking and circulation improvements to the site are proposed to better handle parking demands and drop off. The loop drive along Commerce will be removed and a new two- way access will be added. A permit From Hennepin County will need to be approved for this driveway and curb-cut. The current access from Lynwood will be a one-way entrance to the site. This will be the main entrance and also serve as the drop-off area at the main entrance. The connection to Alder Road will remain as it exists today. Two on-site parking areas are provided to accommodate a total of 246 parking spaces at a 9 feet by 18 feet size. Code requirements are for 320 spaces which would require a variance of 74 spaces as well as a stall size variance. The existing parking area between the community center and pond arena will be redesigned with parking islands to provide 78 spaces. The new parking area located between the community center and the football field will provide 168 spaces. This is shown in the submittal information on page A-1. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 p, 2 #98-64 Westonka Community Center renovation CUP November 9, 1998 The applicant also shows on page A-lA, the parking areas with a 10 feet by 20 feet parking stall size. As you notice the large parking lot would be expanded north causing the hockey rink to be displaced. A new location for the rink is not shown. A parking demand study was completed for the community center which analyzes parking demand over the course of a normal weekday and Saturday from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. The study breaks out the parking needs of each use in the center and aggregates all by hour. What the study shows a peak demand during the day for 270 spaces occurring between 10 to 11 a.m. Parking needs are less during other hours of the daytime. The peak parking demand occurs when during auditorium events. During the weekday performance an estimated 320 spaces are needed. On the weekend, the demand is greater. Playground Area The playground shown at the northwest comer of the building replaces the current area in the play fields. The new location is a better location to increase safety by preventing the children from crossing the driveway. It will be fenced and landscaped. Landscaping A landscaping and screening plan is proposed for the site which has very few trees. The code requires overstory trees for the greater of 1 per square feet of gross floor area (80 trees) or 1 per lineal feet of site perimeter (56 trees). The site area where improvements are proposed was used for as perimeter for landscaping purposes. The applicant is proposing to plant 56 trees of various varieties including maple, ash, hackberry, locust, spruce and others as shown on the landscaping plan. To provide screening between the parking lot and the adjacent homes, a row of spruce is proposed. Additional plantings along the Lynwood access would provide additional screening. Because the code requires that 80 trees would be needed for the site, a variance of 24 trees is proposed. Lighting The lighting plan shows locations exterior luminary locations and intensities. The parking areas will be illuminated with more typical pole mounted lighting. The Lynwood entry and pedestrian entrance from Commerce will use pedestrian scale lighting. Additional wall mounted sconces will be use for building lighting. Soffit lighting is used at building entrances. The lighting plan meets code requirements for intensity at property lines. Hardcover At the time of this report, the impervious surface calculations were not available. They are anticipated to be ready prior to the meeting. Drainage The City Engineer's report addresses site grading and drainage. The applicant will be applying for a permit from the MCWD for discharge and rate control. This site plan 123 North Third Stxeet, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 I p. 3 #98-64 Westonka Community Center renovation CUP November 9, 1998 assumes a permit will be approved. If ponding facilities are required, changes to the site plan would occur. The ponding area would in all likelihood be located north of the proposed parking lot. Its size has not been engineered but is estimated that it would take up much of the area between the ball diamond and hockey rink. COMMENTS: Staff is comfortable with the project except for the parking and possible stormwater ponding facilities. Parking and Circulation As proposed, a variance of 74 spaces at 9 feet by 18 feet is needed. The parking lots would accommodate most daytime parking situations. The applicant is proposing that overflow during events be handled by adjacent commercial parking lots along Commerce and municipal lots along Shoreline for the short term. With the development of a parking ramp or other parking facility in the downtown, additional parking could overflow there in the future. For the short term parking is problematic. In reality there is not a surplus of parking for sharing arrangements. Many events at the community center, pond arena, and neighboring church will compete for parking at times. The holiday seasons will place the largest demand on those areas when shopping and social events are going on at the same time. During the course of a year there are probably less than 10 events at the community center that would need all of the projected demand spaces. There is adequate area on-site to accommodate 320 parking spaces. To accommodate the parking lot, the hockey rink would probably need to be moved. There is a possibility that parking could be designed around it, but would need to be explored further. The larger question which cannot be answered at this time is the stormwater pond which could impact parking and the hockey rink. Its approval will only occur after City Council approval. The pond could use all open space adjacent to the hockey rink which will impact a code size parking lot and hockey rink (re)location. One option that could be entertained to preserve code requirements for parking spaces is to approve the parking plans as submitted and require that an additional area north of the lot be land banked. The idea being that this would preserve an area for parking if needed. The hockey rink would be allowed to remain until the parking was needed. This option would also remove any unforeseen changes to parking with the downtown redevelopment project. Submittal page A-2 The concept plan shown on sheet A2 is for informational purposes at this time. The Board is currently engaged in negotiations to purchase lot 18. If an agreement can be worked out, it is the intent of the WCCB to resubmit these plans for approval. At that time this plan would be submitted for approval to amend the CUP. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 p. 4 #98-64 }Vestonka Community Center renovation CUP November 9, 1998 RECOMMENDATION: Staff would recommend the Planning Commission approve the conditional use permit as submitted with the following conditions. 1. Approve a variance for a 9 feet be 18 feet parking stall size. 2. Approve a variance for 24 over story tree plantings. 3. A favorable recommendation for stormwater discharge from the MCWD. 4. Designate an area on-site to lank bank an additional 74 parking spaces for future use if necessary. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 Engineering · Planning · Surveying RECEIVED N0V - 3 1998 MOUND PLANNINb INSP. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Jon Sutherland, Planning and Zoning John Cameron, City Engineer November 2, 1998 City of Mound Plan Review - CUP Application Westonka Public School (ISD #277) 5600 Lynwood Boulevard Case No. 98-64 MFRA NO.: 12252 As requested, we have reviewed the civil drawings submitted with the Conditional Use Permit application and have the following comments and recommendations: Utilities The plan calls for a new six-inch water service to be connected to the six-inch City watermain in Commerce Boulevard. This main was replaced with a ten-inch DIP when County Road 110 was reconstructed; therefore the connection will be to a ten-inch City watermain. The new six-inch gate valve on the service should be located behind the sidewalk at the right-of-way line. A permit from Hennepin County will be required for this utility work. We are assuming that no changes are planned for the exterior sewer service, since none are shown. 15050 23rd Avenue North · Plymouth, Minnesota · 55447 phone 612/476-6010 ° fax 612/476-8532 e-mail: mfra@mfra, com · ....... I ,1~ ,,-,, t iii iii ,I Jon Sutherland, Planning and Zoning November 2, 1998 Page 2 RE ,EIVED 0 - .t 1.998 Grading and Drainage The plan shows storm sewer to be installed in the new parking lot, with a direct connection to the City's storm sewer main. This does not allow for any type of rate control, which is normally a requirement of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD). A permit will need to be acquired from the MCWD for the grading and storm sewer work. Some type of erosion control will need to be installed around the existing and new catch basin to keep silt from entering the storm sewer system during construction. Parking and Driveways The new entrance proposed from Commerce Boulevard (County Road No. 110) will require a permit from Hennepin County. If any changes are made to the existing driveway to Lynwood Boulevard (County Road No. 15) then a permit will also be required at this location. Concrete curb and gutter (MN/DOT B612) will be required for the new drives and parking lot perimeter, including the landscape islands. e:hmain:\ 12252\sutherland 11-2 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 CASE #98-64 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO REVIEW THE USE OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A BUILDING REMODEL PROJECT TO THE COMMUNITY CENTER TO INCLUDE RENOVATION OF THE GYMNASIUM AND AUDITORIUM, ADDITIONAL PARKING, AND CHANGES TO THE SITE ACCESS LOCATED WITHIN THE B-1 CENTRAL BUSINESS ZONING DISTRICT AND WITHIN THE R-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, LENGTHY LEGAL, LYNWOLD PARK, AT 5600 LYNWOOD BLVD PID # 14-117-24 41 0010, 14-117-24 41 0011, 14-117-24 41 0052 & 14-117-24 41 0058 P & Z 98-64 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the Planning Commission of the City of Mound, Minnesota, will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 p.m. on Monday, November 9, 1998 to review the use of a Conditional Use Permit to allow a Community Center at 5600 Lynwood BIvd located within the B-1 Central Business Zoning District and within the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District. ': ....... ~ ,, ,,_ ~ 7~ ~-:., ~ .~,..";~; . ~ ~:~:i~i:.i?::::::.!;~,~:::ii!::ii:li:::':i?::.:,:::'::.i~...;~?;'t :~ I~::,~'~' All persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above will be given the opportunity to be heard at thisbe./ quist, Mailed to property owners within 350 feet of affected property on October 27, 1998 Published in the Laker, October 31, 1998 pr~nled on recycled paper Rev. 11-14-97 Application for CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 City Council Date.'~~.~j~ 15..~' Conditional Use Permit Fee: $250.00 Distribution: City Public Works: Other~ ;- Please type or print the following information: PROPERTY Subject Address 5600 LYNW00D BOULEVARD INFORMATION Name of Business Westonka Public Schools (ISD ~/277) LEGAL Lot See enclosed description Block Plat// DESCRIPTION Subdivision PID~/ 14-117-24 41 0010, 0011, 0052, 0058 X APPLICANT The applicant is: owner other: Westonka Public Schools (ISD ~/277) Name Address 5600 LYNWOOD BOULEVARD, MOUND, MN 55364 Phone (H) (W) 491-8001 (M) Name OWNER {if other than Address applicant) Phone (H) (W) (M) Name TSP ONE, ARCHITECT, SURVEYOR, OR Address 21 WATER STREET, EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 ENGINEER Phone (H) (W) 474-3291 (M) ZONING Circle: R-1 R-lA R-2 R-3 ~ B-2 B-3 v DISTRICT CHANGE OF FROM: USE TO: Conditional Use Permit Application Page 2 DescriptionofProposedUse: The current function of the facility as a community center is intended to continue in that manner. The building will house Westonka Public Schbols district offices and programs, a senior center, WeCAN, Headstart, and a cable TV studio. The building will also include new locker rooms and the renovation of an existing auditorium and gymnasium. 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, a.nd describe the steps taken to mitigate or eliminate the impacts. Use patterns of the building remain unchanged with exception of increased parking demand because of the auditorium. This will be handled with additional parking stalls and additional parking lot access from Commerce Boulevard. See the enclosed site plan and traffic study. If applicable, a development schedule shall be a~ached to this application providing reasonable guarantees for the completion of the proposed development. Estimated Development Cost of the Project: $9,165,314 Has an application ever been made for zoning, vaziance, conditional use pennit, or other zoning procedure for this propemy? ( ) yes, g) no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action token, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. This application must be signed by all owners of the subject property, or an explanation given why this is not the case. Print Applicant's Name Print Owner's Name Applicant's Signature Owner's Signature ~ | Date Date Print Owner's Name Rev. 11-14-97 Owner's Signature Date Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, $, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16and 17, "LynwoldPark"LakcMinnctonka, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hcmaepin County, Minuesota; vacated Ridgewood Avenue and vacated alley originally delineated and dedicated in said plat of"Lynwold Park" Lake ~rmnetonka. Also Lots 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101,104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, "MOUND", according tO the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. A]so Those parts of Lots 102 and 103, "MOUND", according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, which lie easterly of the east linc oft. he west 200.00 feet of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 14, Township 117 North, Range 24 West of the 5th Principal Meridian. Also That part of Meadow Lane, as delineated and dedicated on thc plat of"MOUND", according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, and now vacated, which lies easterly of the west 200.00 feet of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 14, Township 117 North, Range 24 west of the 5th Principal Meridian, 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 o£"MOUND" ' The South Half of the Northeast quarter of the Southeast Quaxter of Section 14, Township 117 North, Range 24 West of the 5th Principal Meridian, except the west 200.00 feet thereof, except that part within the plat of''MOUND", according to the recorded plat thereo/; Hennepin County, Minnesota, and except that part described as follows: Commencing at the northeast comer of said South Half of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter; thence southerly, along the east line of said Southeast Quarter, a distance of 225.00 feet; thence westerly, parallel with the north line of said South Half of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter, to the intersection with the southerly emension of the west line of Dewey Avenue, now known as Bellaire Lane, as delineated and dedicated in the plat of"MOUND"; the. nee northerly a~ong said southerly extension to the north line of said South Half of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter; thence easterly, along said north line, to the point of beginning. TSP One, Inc. 21 Water Street Excelsior, MN 55331 phone (612) 474-3291 fax(612) 474-3928 Architecture Engineering interior Design Offices in Minneapolis and Rochester, MN TRANSMITTAL DATE: TO: ATTN: RE: WE ARE SENDING: FOR YOUR: ( ) USE October 22, 1998 City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 Chris Westonka Community Center ( X ) HEREWITH ( )FILES ( TSP Pjt. # 96708.6 ( ) UNDER SEPARATE COVER ) INFORMATION ( X ) APPROVAL QTY DATE DESCRIPTION 1 10-22-98 1 10-22-98 I 10-22-98 1 10-22-98 1 10-22-98 1 10-22-98 1 10-22-98 1 10-22-98 1 10-22-98 1 10-22-98 Check for Application Fee 1 10-22-98 Conditional Use Permit Application 1 10-22-98 Property Legal Description 1 10-22-98 Certified Property Owner's List and Labels 1 10-22-98 Traffic Study REDUCED SIZE DRAWINGS (8-1/2" x 11") I 10-22-98 Site Survey C-1 Grading and Drainage Plan L-1 Landscape Plan SE-! Site Lighting Plan A-I Site Plan A-la Site Plan (10x20 Stalls) A-2 Alternative Site Plan (informational only) A-3 Main Level Floor Plan A-4 Upper Level Floor Plan A-5 Exterior Elevations FULL SIZED DRAWINGS (30" x 42") 3 10-22-98 Site Survey 3 10-22-98 C-1 Grading and Drainage Plan 3 10-22-98 L-I Landscape Plan 3 10-22-98 SE-1 Site Lighting Plan 3 10-22-98 A-1 Site Plan 3 10-22-98 A-la Site Plan (10x20 Stalls) 3 10-22-98 A-2 Alternative Site Plan (informational only) 3 10-22-98 A-3 Main Level Floor Plan 3 10-22-98 A-4 Upper Level Floor Plan 3 10-22-98 A-5 Exterior Elevations AFFILIATED OFFICES Minneapolis. MN Rochester. MN Denver, CO Marshalltown, IA Rapid City, SD Sioux Falls. SD Gillette. WY Sheridan. WY · ~" ~ :fl Opporlunity, ~8~ ;,,on Employer REMARKS: SIGNED: Mark Thiede, Architect TRANSMITTED BY: ( ) FED EX ( ) MAIL ( ) MESSENGER ( X ) HAND DELIVER COPIES TO Dr. Pam Myers, Westonka Public Schools COUNTy ROAD NO. I ill i + I 1 db david bramlmu ammoola~m, in~orl~or~ed 1313 5th~-Cre~cs.e. · ~3~2 ·minneapolis. mnS~14 ~l~ho~: 612-331~571 · fsx: MEMORANDUM TO: Bert Haglund Loren Gordon Bruce Chamberlain RECEIVED OCT 14 October 1998 FROM: Dave Braslau Revised Parking Demand and Related Information The original parking demand estimates were based upon preliminary Pond Arena information. At the WCCB meeting last month, it was suggested that at least 85 spaces are needed during peak events at the arena. The previous parking demand estimates were adjusted to assume 40 spaces beginning at 2 pm during on weekdays and 85 spaces beginning at 1 pm on Saturdays. The following information is attached: Weekday Parking Demand by Major Use Parking during most daytime hours still peaks at about 260 spaces while nighttime peak event parking is around 320. This would mean 60 cars would have to park offsite. Saturday Parking Demand by Major Use Estimated parking demand is around 270 spaces during the daytime hours on Saturday because of the assumed increase in Pond Arena demand. This demand may be a bit overstated, however, so that 260 spaces may still satisfy parking demand. It should be noted that 95% is commonly considered to be a practical capacity ora parking area because spaces are then hard to f'md. This suggests that 260 spaces will accommodate from 245 to 250 cars. A demand of 270 might mean that 15 to 20 ears may have to park on the street or in adjacent lots if the assumed demand occurs. A peak evening demand of 350 is estimated with the increased Pond Arena demand of 85 cars. This means that on Saturday night, about 100 cars will have to park offsite. Westonka Community Center - Revised Parking Demand 14 October 1998 Page 2 Location of Possible Overflow Parking Areas The downtown visions map shows a future Public Parking Ramp (254 spaces) just one block west of the walkway to the auditorium. This should provide a reasonable overflow location for parking. However, this may not be available in the immediate future. On Saturday night, some parking may also be available across the street to the east if appropriate arrangements can be made. Another factor not previously considered is the potential for off-site parking at restaurants and other entertainment facilities in the new downtown area, where people attending events may go before or after the event. This type of activity could be encouraged through discounts and even shuttles. Estimated Inbound and Outbound Trips by Hour This chart shows estimated inbound and outbound trips by hour of the day, based upon the parking demand information provided. There will be an outbound flow of nearly 160 vehicles in the PM Peak Hour (4-5 pm). During the other time periods (except after a peak event), inbound and outbound flows will be relatively small. Estimated PM Peak Hour Outbound Traffic from Community Center Based upon my earlier study of CSAH 15 and CSAH 110, examination of the aerial photographs, and my best judgement, I have estimated the distribution of departing trips from the Center. These are shown as arrows with percentages and the number of vehicles departing during the PM Peak Hour. Also shown in the estimated traffic (for 1995 - it may be a bit higher now) assuming the new intersection at Commerce and Lynwood, as well as the additional traffic from the Center. It can be seen that the additional trips are not expected to have a major impact on the background traffic volumes. Additional traffic on Lynwood will increase volumes by a large percentage but with relatively small volumes. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments on the attached materials. bert 1014-mem.doc 98071 ~ n O~ (se31~ds) puemecI §u!~J~d u_ to o w .~E ,-E t~ 0 '- 0 (sa3eds) puewaa §u!~ed e° . , Z 0 Z (:3 ~lnOH ~13d S=I'IOIH=~^ Z U,I "- 0 I I I i / I ! i 1 .... : .... ~ ..... L ............... LYNWOOD I ! ~! lis' I11tllt111111111 ~/ ~V N O_L _q N N I hl/ o/ 0~¥A~08 O00~N~ ~30qV l iillililiilliii OVO~I 1993 o o o o {J 4%47 ~¥A3qnoa O00MNA~ Illlll l"~'",', ',0 Illlll 01,,~, 0 ~]Oq¥ ' ,,, llllllllllllllll ~3 0 0 0 0 11 O00~NXl UIlIlIltlIIltll ~4'13 o o o o n i (~]) .~, (26) ~ ?,~.~ (52) (31) (5) (28) ~oo (29) (4) 1~25 (12) 2oo (13) (~4) (~5) (~6) (6) (~) (24) 80.64 LYN'~;GGD BLVD , {~') (~) I j (I) (77) RAI~ RD ~7~ (~) SURVEY ON FILE? YES / NO LOT OF RECORI)? YES I NO YARD I DIRECTION ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH: R2 6,000/40 B3 10,000/60 R2 14,000/80 R3 SEE ORD. I1 30,000/100 REQUIRED I EXISTING/PROPOSED EXISTING LOT SIZE: LOT WIDTH: LOT DEPTH: VARIANCE IiOUSE ......... FRONT FRONT SIDE SIDE REAR LAKE TOP OF BI.UFF N S E W N S E W N S E W NS E W N S E W N S E W 15' 50' I0' OR 30' GARAGE, SIIED ..... DETACIIED BUILDINGS FRONT FRONT SIDE SIDE REAR LAKE TOP OF BIIIFF IIARDCOVER CONFORMIN(;? YES / NO N S E W N S E W N S E w N S E W N S E W N S E W 4' OR 6' 4' OR 6' 50' I0' OR 30' 30% OR 40% ? lin': I DATED: This Zoning lufi,rmafion Sheet only summarizes a portion of rite requirements outlined in rite Cily of Mound Zoning Ordinance. For furdter information, contact Ibc City of Mound 5.5 '53) (~) :V~TEO G- / / / / / ,,' / ,ER,'.. RD (57) · . % PROPOSED RESOLUTION #98- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A MINOR SUBDIVISION MINOR BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT TO INCLUDE 5700 LYNWOOD BOULEVARD WITHIN THE PROPERTY ADDRESSED AS 5600 LYNWOOD BOULEVARD, PIDS #14-117-24 41 0010, #14-117-24 41 0011, #14-117-24 41 0052, #14-117-24 41 0058, & #14-117-24 44 0007 P & Z CASE #98-67 WHEREAS, the applicant, Westonka Public School District 277, has submitted a Minor Subdivision Minor Boundary Adjustment to include Lot 18 Lynwood Park as part of the Community Center property, an existing parcel, by relocating boundary lines that is in full compliance with the City Zoning Code, Section 330:20, Subd. 1 .B; and, WHEREAS, the property located at 5700 Lynwood Blvd. and is currently used for residential purposes with and existing residence; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is located within R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District; and, WHEREAS, the new site would meet zoning and subdivision standards and would be developed as proposed by the Westonka Community Center CUP proposal; and, WHEREAS, the Mound Planning Commission conducted public hearings on December 14, 1998 on the Applicant's request for a conditional use permit and variance. The Planning Commission made no recommendation to the City Council; and, WHEREAS, Staff has recommended approval of minor subdivision minor boundary adjustment as submitted with the following conditions: 1. Approval be conditioned on ownership transfer of lot 18 to the Westonka Community Schools. 2. Approval be conditioned on approval of the conditional use permit and variances for the Westonka Community Center, case #98-64. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby grant a minor subdivision of the property pursuant to Section 330:20, Subd. 1 .B. with the following conditions:  cc,;-,~n ownership tra nsf er of lot 18 to t~ chools.j.J · _, ~,ppTuva~ De concliti&ned on approval of the conditional use permit and variances for the Westonka Community Center, case #98-64. This Minor Subdivision is granted for the following new legally described property: PID #14-117-24 41 0010: THAT PART OF S 200 FT OF NE ¼ OF SE ¼ LYING E OF NLY EXT OF W LINE OF LOT 17 LYNWOLD PARK ALSO LOTS I TO 17 INCL LYNWOLD PARK INCL ST AND ALLEY VAC EX ROAD, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA PID 3 14-117-24 41 0011: BEG AT A POINT IN THE N LINE OF S ½ OF NE 1/~ OF SE ¼ DIS 458 FT W FROM THE NE COR THEREOF TH W TO A POINT 220 FT E FROM NW COR THEREOF TH S TO THE NW COR OF LOT 30 LYNWOLD PARK LAKE MTKA TH E TO THE NW COR OF LOT 21 LYNWOLD PARK LAKE MTKA TH N ALONG THE W LINE OF SAID LOT 21 EXTENDED TO A POINT DIS 225 FT S FROM N LINE OF S ½ OF NE ¼ OF SE ¼TH E TO A POINT DIS 458 FT FROM THE E LINE THEREOF TH N TO BEG EX ROAD, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA PID # 14-117-24 41 0052: LOTS 90 TO 101 INCL AND LOTS 104 TO 115 INCL ALSO THAT PART OF LOTS 102 AND 103 LYING E OF A LINE 200 FT E OF AND PAR WITH W LINE OF NE ¼ OF SE ¼ T 117 R 24 INCL ADJ VAC ST, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA PID # 14-117-24 41 0058: COM 225 FT S OF NE COR OF S ½ OF NE ¼ OF SE ¼ TH WLY PAR WITH N LINE OF SAID S ½ DIST 398.63 FT TO ACT PT OF BEG TH DEFLECT LEFT 90 DEG 158.39 FT TH DEFLECT 89 DEG 57 MIN 22 SEC 390.86 FT TO E LINE OF SE ¼ TH S TO A PT 200 FT N OF N LINE OF LYNWOLD PARK TH W TO E LINE OF LOT 18 SAID ADDN N TH S TO NE COR OF LOT 18 TH W TO NE COR OF LOT 22 TH NLY ALONG EXTS OF E LINE OF LOT 22 TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH A LINE DRAWN FROM PT OF BEG PAR WITH N LINE OF S ½ OF NE ¼ OF SE ¼TH E TO BEG EX ROAD PID # 14-117-24 44 0007: S 220 ft LOT 18, LYNWOLD PARK LAKE MTKA, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. Mound Planning Commission Minutes December 14, 1998 DRAFT MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, DECEMBER 14, 1998 Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Michael Mueller, Cklair Hasse, Frank Weiland, Orr Burma, Becky Glister, Jerry Clapsaddle, Bill Voss, and Council Liason Mark Hanus. Staff present: Assistant City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Suthertand, and Secretary Kris Linquist. Public Present: Franz Burris, Peter Meyer, Leah Weycker, Bruce Charon, Bert Haglund, Brad Ethering Jr, Barb Zimmerman, DuWayne Dorfner, Cathy Bailey, Dan Iverson, Tom Reese, Pat Meisel, Norm Domholt, Dale Sherburne, Pam Meyers, Keith Aardhler, Bob Brown, Terri Lyons, Cindy Palm, Jim Funk, Davis Braslau, Tim Heyman. Meeting was called to order at 7:37 p.m. by Chair Geoff Michael. BOARD OF APPEALS: CASE # 98-67: MINOR SUBDIVISION: TO INCORPORATE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL LOT 18 TO THE COMMUNITY CENTER PROJECT AT 5700 LYNWOOD BLVD, INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT #277, 5600 LYNWOOD BLVD, PID # 14-117-24 44 0007 Loren Gordon presented the case. The Westonka Public Schools have submitted an application for boundary adjustment to expand their property to include lot 18 of Lynwood Park addresses as 5700 Lynwood Blvd. The property is currently zoned R-2, One and Two Family Residential District and has an occupied residence currently. The lot measures 50 feet by 230 feet encompassing approximately 11,500 sr. In the rear of the property is a public alley used for access purposes. The Westonka School District has a signed purchase agreement for the property which is conditioned on approval of the Community Center CUP. As per the submitted plans for the community center, the existing house will be removed to incorporate the lot into the site. Section 330:20 Subd. I(B) Minor Boundary Adjustments states that "The relocation of a boundary line between two abutting, existing parcels of property; such relocation not causing the creation of a new parcel or parcels and such relocation not violating the Zoning Ordinance." Based on the Community Center proposal, the incorporation of lot 18 will not violate the Zoning Ordinance. We have discussed the possibility of replatting the property to create one PID for the property. This is an option to make the property "cleaner", but is not necessary for any approval of the project as proposed. Additionally, rezoning the property to have one district DRAFT Mound Planning Commission Minutes December 14, 1998 rather than 3 was discussed. This too would make the site "cleaner" from an administrative review standpoint, but is not needed from a use standpoint. The Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the minor subdivision as requested with the following conditions. 1. Approval be conditioned on ownership transfer of lot 18 to the Westonka Community Schools. 2. Approval be conditioned on approval of the conditional use permit and variances for DISCUSSION: Mueller questioned the subdivision process. Gordon explained the procedure. Sutherland further explained the process they took to determine that it is a Minor Boundary Line Readjustment. Mueller stated that we are setting precedence. MOTION by Burma, seconded by Mueller to extend the meeting to 11:15 p.m. Motion carried 6-2. Opposed: Weiland & Michael. Hanus stated that a Minor Boundary Alignment is fairly new. Hanus stated that by eliminating the boundary line, it changes the use. By adding Lot 18 to the site, it will now incorporate 3 different zoning districts. Gordon stated that he would like to walk the Planning Commission through the process in how they came about with the Minor Boundary Alignment. Gordon stated that this was addressed with the City Attorney and they concur this is the process to be used. Mueller questioned to vacation of the public alley. Gordon stated that the City Attorney has reviewed the status and the records on the status of the alley are sketchy. Weiland commented on the use of the alley by the general public. Gordon stated that he and the City Attorney discussed how they should handle the vacation of the alley and determined that it would not be necessary. Hanus asked if the alley would be open onto the new driveway or would it end at the beginning of lot 18. Gordon stated that it would end. There was a request to have the City Attorney be present to answer some of the questions. Mueller questioned the letter which he asked to be written from staff to MCWD to determine if 2 DRAFT Mound Planning Commission Minutes December 14, 1998 ponding would be required. Gordon stated he has spoken with Jim Hafner, MCWD on numerous occasions, Mr Hafner indicated they would be performing a staff level review of the project to determine the applicability of new storm water rules. It was determined that it would be required. Gordon felt this addresses the Planning Commission concerns. He stated that he has spoken with Jim Hafner, MCWD. They discussed how the ponding was suppose to happen. It was scheduled for a Staff review, at that point, it was determined that it will be reviewed and action will be taken. Weiland commented on the alley again. He stated that at one time the residents along that alley did not want to have it upgraded, that they just wanted to use it themselves. MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Hasse to adjourn. Motion carried 6-2. Opposed: Hanus & Mueller. Voss called for a roll call vote on the Motion to Adjourn. Burma - No Mueller - No Glister - No Michael - Yes Weiland - Yes Hasse - Yes Voss - No Hanus - No Motion failed 5-3. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Voss to table based on the following conditions: 1) Items that were requested at the November 23~ Meeting were not provided. 2) Letter of explanation from the City Attorney justifying the non vacation of a public right of way. 3) A copy of Tom Reese's Task Force report for review. 4) A certified Survey showing the proposed Boundary lines and new Legal Descriptions. 5) To allow the continuance of hearing Loren Gordon's report on the Minor Subdivision. Motion carried 8-0. MOTION by Voss, seconded by Burma to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 8-0. Meeting adjourned at 11:30 p.m. PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. illla TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: December 14, 1998 SUBJECT: Minor Subdivision Boundary Adjustment APPLICANT: Westonka Public Schools CASE NUMBER: 98-67 HKG FILE NUMBER: 98-5jjj LOCATION: 5600 and 5700 Lynwood Blvd. ZONING: R-2 Single Family Residential BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The Westonka Public Schools have submitted an application for boundary adjustment to expand their property to include lot 18 of Lynwood Park addresses as 5700 Lynwood Blvd. The property is currently zoned R-2, One and Two Family Residential District and has an occupied residence currently. The lot measures 50 feet by 230 feet encompassing approximately 11,500 sf. In the rear of the property is a public alley used for access purposes. The Westonka School District has a signed purchase agreement for the property which is conditioned on approval of the Community Center CUP. As per the submitted plans for the community center, the existing house will be removed to incorporate the lot into the site. Section 330:20 subd. I(B) Minor Boundary Adjustments states that "The relocation of a boundary line between two abutting, existing parcels of property; such relocation not causing the creation of a new parcel or parcels and such relocation not violating the Zoning Ordinance." Based on the Community Center proposal, the incorporation of lot 18 will not violate the Zoning Ordinance. We have discussed the possibility of replatting the property to create one PID for the property. This is an option to make the property "cleaner", but is not necessary for any approval of the project as proposed. Additionally, rezoning the property to have one district rather than 3 was discussed. This too would make the site "cleaner" from an administrative review standpoint, but is not needed from a use standpoint. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the minor subdivision as requested with the following conditions. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 p. 2 Case #98-67 Westonka Community Schools Minor Subdivision Boundary Adjustment December 14, 1998 1. Approval be conditioned on ownership transfer of lot 18 to the Westonka Community Schools. 2. Approval be conditioned on approval of the conditional use permit and variances for the Westonka Community Center, case #98-64. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 ': Rev. 11-14-~ RECEIVED DEC .S ..... kAOUND ~i~iNG & IN~P. Application for t~. Ou4 MINOR b~jBD~ION OF LAND City of Mound, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Distribution: (- ..... ~' - .. l O -~ ~, Public Works - Othe~ Case No. Application Fee: Escrow Deposit: Deficient Unit Charges? Delimlueat Taxes7 $75.00 $1,000 · ~ L, -' c. /.~ , _ VARIANCE REQUIRED? .... ............................................................................. : .................... Please t~pe or print the following informatiom PROPERTY Subjeat Address ~ 700 LYNWOOD BOULEVARD INFORMATION -- ]' :- EXISTING Lot 18 Block Plat LEGAL DESCRIPTION Subdivision LYNWOLD PARK PID# ZONING DISTRICT Cimle: (,..~) R-lA R~2 R-3 B-2 B-3 APPUCANT The spplioam is: X owner other. Name WE$~'0NYCA. PLTBLIC SCHOOLS Address 5600 T,¥NW00D BOU'LEVAILD, MOUND, ~ ..55364 Phone iH) iW) 491-8001 OWNER Name {if ot~er than applicant) Address Phone (H), (W) (M) Name $CHOELT, A_kTD I'IAD$ON, INC, SURVEYOR/ ENG,NEER Address 10580 WAYZA?A BLVD., SUITE 1, MINNETONKA, ~ 55305 Phone iH} ON). 546-7601 Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use perm~ or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, ~) no. If yes, list data(s) of application, action taken, resolution number{s) and I~ovide copies of resolmions. This application must~ be signed by all owners of the subjec~ property, or an explanation given why this/s not the case. Owner's Signature // Date Owner's Signature Date /eHno ~Z]HDNOO 77~',~ 6'!,g6 6'196 X i,'81,6 9'g~'6 X ~, HInlO . L'Z~6 6'9~,6 ... -----_.__~ X 6'9~,6 ;/'Y4,D ~7..ON/?/' /07 /o .~au.~o~ ~N x C,.VI~',q WI') {If Ill Ill , !il III I !iil Ii ! ,hh(JI,L~llh 1111111111111111 PURCHASE AGREEMENT REALTOR~'. which disc~aims any I~ablrn'y arising out -' t. Date 2. Page 1 of Pages _ ^ · ...... ,~x_.,v_ ....... Dollars ($ / t ,5-0 O. O(~ ) 6. ~~,~H-NOTE as earnest n~ney to be deposited upon acceptance of Purchase Agreement by all parties, on or 7. before the third business day after acceptance, In the trust account of listing broker but to be returned to Buyer If Purchase 8. Agreement Is npt. accepted by Sel~er. Said earnest money is part payment for the purchase of the property located et: ' 9. Street Address: 10.11. CitYLegallyof describedT'~ sa~.~.~,~ .... ~ - ' ~ , CountY of ~o~,~ M ~.~ ,~,~' ! , State of Minnesota, 12. 13. including the follow~"~)roperty, if any, owned by Seller and used and located on said property: garden bulbs, plants, shrubs, and 14. trees; storm se~ ,~lorm doors, screens and awnings; window shades, blinds, traverse and curtain and drapery rods; attached lighting 15. fixtures and bulbs; plumbing fixlures, water heater, heating plants (with any burners, tanks, stokers and other equipment used in 16. connection therewith), built-in air condihoning equipment, electronic air filter, Water Softener OWNED / RENTED / NONE built-in humidifier 17. and dehumidifier, liquid gas tank and controls (if the property of Seller), sump pump; attached television antenna, cable TV jacks 18. and wiring; BUILT-INS: dishwashers, garbage disposals, trash compactors, ovens, cook top stoves, microwave ovens, hood fans, 19. intercom's; ATTACHED: carpeting; mirrors; garages do~r open.~rs a@d all/~:ontrols; smoke de~,ectors; fireplace screens, doors and 20. he?lators,;,,ANO:thefol~owingpersonal;properly: /'JI J~.A ) "~L~,,~ ;/'~ ~ , ~-~lJt.~' ~-~ /~.~-e~ . 23. all of which 13~operty Seller has this day agreed to sell to Buyer for sum of ($ / OC~, C~O ~ .~:~k~ which Buyer agrees to pay in the following manner: E~rnest money of $ 7/-,'"-L~=:~-) /~--C-~ O O O r', ~ r7c~.4- ~ Dollars, 29. This Purchase Agreement 15,~15 N,,,.~N~subject to a Contingency Addendum for sale of Buyer's properly. (If answer is IS, see attached aedendum.) 30. This Purchase Agreement I._~ubject to cancellation of a previously written Purchase Agreement dated 32.31' atBuyerBuyer'shaS ex..been made aware of the availability of property inspections. Buyer electro__ have a property inspection performed 33. This Purchase Agreement !~ubject to an Inspection Addendum. (If answer is IS, see attached addendb'"r~.) 34. Attached are other addenda which are made a part of this Purchase Agreement. (Enter page or pages on line 2) 35. DEED/MARKETABLE TITLE: Upon performance by Buyer, Seller shall deliver al~'[~[~.~'~__p ~',~,49~_4xt ~/~L. Warranty Deed 36. joined in by spouse, if any, conveying marketable title, subject to: 37. (A) Building and zoning laws, ordinances, state and federal regulations; (B) Restrictions relating to use or improvement of the property 38. without effective forfeiture provisions; (C) Reservation of any mineral rights by the State of Minnesota; (DJ UtilitY and drainage easements 39. which do not interfere wilh existing improvements; (E) Rights of tenants as follows (unless specified, not subject to tenancies): 40. 41. (F) Others (Must be specified in writing): /~n/t)~" ', 42. SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS sh_j~tlLbe.paid.e..Sfollows: 43. BUYER AND SELLER SHAI~L. PRORATE AS OF :r~lE DATE OF CLOSI---~ SELLER SHALL PAY ON DATE OF CLOSING all installments 44. of special assessments certified for payment with the real estate taxes due an, d payable inI the year of closing. ~. BUYE~R SHALL A~?ELLER SHALL PAY on date of closing all other special assessments le;ied as of the date of this Agreement ~. B[JYER SHALL ASS~'~E~ SELLER ........ SHALL PROVIDE FOR PAYMENT OF special assessments pending as of the date of this Agreement 47. for improvements that have been ordered by the City Council or other assessing authorities. (Seller's provision for paymenl shall be by 48. payment into escrow of two (2) times the estimated amount of the assessments, or less as required by Buyer's lender.) 49. BUYER SHALL ASSU<,~ELLER SHALL P-'~ on date of closing any deferred real estate taxes (i.e. Green Acres, cio.) or special 50. assessments payment of which is required as a result of the closing of this sale. Buyer shall pay real estate taxes due and payable in 51. the year following closing and thereafter and any unpaid special assessments payable there~J3-m:td thereafter, the payment of which is 52. not otherwise provided. As of the date of this Agreement, Seller represents lhat Seller HA~ NO~eceived a notice of headng for a 53. new public improvement I~ect from any govemrne~al assossirtg a~, b~e c~sts of which p~ject may be assessed against the p~. If a 54. no~e of pending special assessment is issued after the date of this Agreement and on or before the date of closing, Buyer shall assume 55. payment~1 NONE~,~ ~,/OTHER:~_..~_ of any such special assessments, and Seller shall provide for 56. payment on date of closing ALL~N~ON~,~ OTHER: of any such special assessments. If such special 57. assessments or escrow amounts for said special assessments as required by Buyer's lender shall e:~ed $/~O. 0 58. Seller and Buyer lnitial: Selior(s) .~"~,~.._ .~,,,~-: Date /~-~'~-~' Buyer(s)~"'~-~'~(j~ Date PURCHASE AGREEMENT 60. Page 2 61. then either party may agree in writiog on or before the date of closing to assume, pay or provide for the payment of such excess. 62. In the absence of such agreement, eilher party may declare this Purchase Agreement null and void; the parties shall immediately 63. sign e cancellation of Purchase Agreement and afl earnest money paid hereunder shall be refunded to Buyer. 64. TITLE & EXAMINATION: Seller shall, at Seller's option, within a reasonable time alter acceptance of this Agreement, provide 65. evidence el title in tile Iorm of either (1) a commitment for an owner's policy of title insurance in lhe amount of the purchase price 66. on a cunent ALTA term issued by an insurer licensed to write title insurance in Minnesota; or (2) an abstract et title or a registered 67. property abstract certified Io date. Evidence of title shall include proper searches covering bankruptcies, state and federal 68, judgements and liens, and levied and pending Special Assessments. Seller shall (1) pay fha entire premium Ior such lille 69. insurance policy if no lender's policy is obtained, and only the additional cost of obtaining a simultaneously issued owner's policy if 70. a lender's policy is obtained (Buyer shall pay the premium for the lender's policy); or (2) pay all costs of providing the abstract. 71. If Seller provides a commitment for an owner's policy el lille insurance, Seller shall surrender any abstract in Seller's possession or 72. conlrol to Buyer at closing, 73 Seller sh,qll tree Seller's besl efforts to provide marketable title by the date of closing. In the event Seller has nol provided 74. n~mketnhle title by the date el closing. Seller shall have an additional 30 days to make lille markelable or, in the alternative. Buyer 75 may w,~ive titl~ deicers by written notice 1o the Seller. In addition 1o the 30 day extension, Buyer and Seller may by mutual 76 agreement tt~lhm ~xtnn(I lite closing dale. Lacking such extension, eilher parly may declare Ibis Purchase Agreement null and 77 void; neilher party sh,3ll b~ hablo to~ damages hereunder 1o the other and earnest money shall be refunded to Buyer; Buyer and 78. Sellm shall immedialely siqna cancellation et Purchase Agreemenl, 79 SUBDIVISION OF LAND: If this sale constitutes or requires a subdivision of land owned by Seller. Seller shall pay all subdivision R0 ¢,xpenses and ohlain all necessary governmental approvals. Sellm warrants the legal description of the real properly to be 81. conveyed has been or will be approved for recording as of the dale of closing S~-,llo* ,.','at,ants thai the huildinqs ate et will be constructed entirely within tire bo~Jndary line,:; nf the p~operty. Seller warrant~ Illqt them is a uaht of .q~'cess to tile property from a public righl of way These warranlJes shall survive the delivery el lh~, deed or contracl t~r 85 S~llor w~qlr(nlt" Ihat p~ior lo the closing, paymenl in full will have been made for all labor, materials, machiuery. R6 l~-'tH~p.; r~ tr~,~h; hltnished wilhin Ihe 120 days immediately preceding the closing in conneclion with construction, 87 alleralion or ~cpa~r of any structule on or iotprovement to the property. 8[{. St, liar wananls that Seller ha~ n()l Jeceived any notice from any governmental authority as to violation el any law. ordinance of' 89. regut,"llior~ II the propc, rly is srlhject to reshictive covenants, Seller warrants that Seller has not received any notice Item any person go. or authority as to R broach of the covenants. Any notices received by Seller will be provided to Buyer immediately. 91. Seller agrees to allow ~easouable access to the property for pedormance of any surveys or inspections agreed lo herein 92 RISK OF LOSS: I! throe is any Ios'~ or damage to the properly between the date hereof and the dale of closinq, for nny reason 93. inchJding fire. vand;llism flood, eadhquake or act of God. the risk of loss shall be on Seller. If Ihe property is destroved or 94. substantially damaged before the closing date. this Pt~rchase Agreement shall become null and void. al Boyer's option, and 95 earnest motley shall be refunded to Buyer; Buyer and Seller shall immediately sign a cancellation of Purchase Agreement. 96. TIME OF ESSENCE: Time is of the essence in this Purchase Agreement. 97. ENTIRE AGREEMENT: This Purctlase Agreement, any attached exhibits and any addenda or amendments signed by lhe parties. 98. shall constitute the entire agreement between Seller and Buyer. and supercedes any other written or oral agreements between 99. Seller and Buyer. This Pumhase Agreement can be modified only in writing signed by Seller and Buyer. 100.ACCEPTANCE: Buver understands and agrees that this Purchase Agreement is subject to acceptance by Seller in writing The 101.delivery of all papers and monies shall be made al the listing broker's office. 102 DEFAULT: If R~yer defaults in any of the agreements herein, Seller may Ierminale this Purchase Agreement. and payments made 103.hereunder may be rnlained by Seller as liquidated damages. If lhis Purchase Agreement is nol so terminated. Buyer or Seller may 104.seek actual damages for breach cf this Agreement or specific performance of this Agreement; and. as to specific performance. 105. such action must be commenced within six months after such right of action arises. ~ 106. Address .~70 0 ~ lO7. Pag~3Data ,40,/. ~,), 106, REAL ESTATE TAXES shall ba paid as follows: 109. Buyer shall p~ED FROM D~12THS ALL, NONE real estata taxes due and payable in the year ,9~ 11o. S*l,er.h.,, p4 PR___ORATEO TO DAY O~~I.T.S, AL,...OR. r.a,..tat, la... da*.nd p.y..,. ,n ,h. y*.r t.lf . .t,h. 111. closing date is changed the real estate taxes paid shall, if prorated, be adjusled to the new closing date. Seller warrants taxes due and 112 payabe n heyear 19~ ~ ...m~.. =u,, ~ ............... ~1(: ........ ..... ~--~-~--~c,;c,'~'~*~ ........................ at,u[,. [] Malt ur [~v[[-,,~,,.,~...%;lll ;,.~,,,~,~, 115~e. No representations are made conceding t~ ~m~unt-of subse ue a x ; ...................... ' ~POSSESSlON: Seller shall deliver possession of the propedy nol latar than ~~ ~~ _ _ . . ~ aRer closing. 117. All intaresl, homeowner ass~ialion dues, renls, fuel oil, liquid petroleum gas and all charges lor cily water, cily sew~ electricity, and natural 118. gas shall be prorated between the pallas as of date of cl~lng. Seller agrees to remove ALL DEBRIS AND ALL PERSONAL PROPERTY 119. N~T INCLUDED HEREIN from the propeMy by possession date, 120. EN~RONME~AL CONC~NS~ To the ~st of t~ ~llefs k~ ~re are ~ hazards surtaxes, or undergrou~ slora~ tanks, excel. 121. herein noted: ~O~ ~ MO ~ ~. 122 1_27 _S_E.L.LER~Ts THAT THE PROPERTY IS DIRECTLY CONNECTED TO: CITY SEWER IDY'~'ES E1 .O CITY WATER I~'~S [] .O z4. ~_~.~I~I~..~GREES TO PROVIDE WATER QUALITY TEST RESULTS IF REQUIRED BY GOVERNING AUTHORITY AND/OR LENDER. 125.~SELL,E~R~GREES,., TO PROVIDE, IF REQUIRED BY THE TERMS OF THIS PURCHASE AGREEMENT OR BY GOVERNING 126 AUTHORITY AND/OR LENDER, A LICENSED INSPECTOR'S SEPTIC SYSTEM INSPECTION REPORT OR NOTICE INDICATING IF 127. THE SYSTEM COMPLIES WITH APPLICABLE REGULATIONS. NOTICE: A VALID CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE FOR THE SYSTEM MAY 128. SATISFY THIS OBLIGATION. NOTHING IN LINES 125 TO 129 SHALL OBLIGATE SELLER TO UPGRADE, REPAIR OR REPLACE THE 129. SEPTIC SYSTEM UNLESS OTHERWISE AGREED TO IN THIS PURCHASE AGREEMENT. 130, SELLER WARRANTS THAT CENTRAL AIR CONDITIONING, HEATING, PLUMBING AND WIRING SYSTEMS USED AND LOCATED ON 131. SAID PROPERTY WILL BE IN WORKING ORDER ON DATE OF CLOSING, EXCEPT AS NOTED IN THIS AGREEMENT. 132 BUYER HAS THE RIGHT TO A WALK-THROUGH REVIEW OF THE PROPERTY PRIOR TO CLOSING TO ESTABLISH THAT THE 133. PROPERTY IS IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME CONDITION AS OF THE DATE OF PURCHASE AGREEMENT. t34. BUYER ACKNOWLEDGES THAT NO ORAL REPRESENTATIONS HAVE BEEN MADE REGARDING POSSIBLE PROBLEMS OF WATER 135. IN BASEMENT, OR DAMAGE CAUSED BY WATER OR ICE BUILD-UP ON ROOF OF THE PROPERTY AND BUYER RELIES 136. SOLELY tN THAT REGARD ON THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT BY SELLER: 137. SELL~,/,~,H. ~A~ NOT HAD A WET BASEMENT, A~A~ NO.__.T HAD ROOF, WALL OR CEILING DAMAGE CAUSED BY WATER 138. OR ICE BUILD-UP. BUYER ~ECEIVED A SELLER'S PROPERTY DISCLOSURE STATEMENT.-~.~ ~ 139. BUYER HAS RECEIVED THE INSPECTION REPORTS, IF REQUIRED BY MUNICIPALITY. 140, BUYER HAS RECEIVED THE WELL DISCLOSURE STATEMENT OR A STATEMENT THAT NO WELL EXISTS ON THE PROPERTY, 141 AND A SEPTIC SYSTEM DISCLOSURE STATEMENT OR A STATEMENT THAT NO SEPTIC SYSTEM EXISTS ON OR SERVES THE 142. PROPERTY, AS REQUIRED BY MINNESOTA STATUTES. 143. I ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE RECEIVED AND HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW 144. RESIDENTIAL REAL PR, OPERTY~GREEMENT. ~l THE ARBITRAT~RE AND [146. SELLE~J~Sr- ~~ BUYER(S).. 147, ~ (Ucensee) 149. {Company) 151. 152. NOTICE (Licensee) (Company) THIS NOTICE DOES NOT SATISFY MINNESOTA STATUTORY AGENCY DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS. 153. DUAL AGENCY REPRESENTATION 154. DUAL AGENCY REPRESENTATION ~ APPLY IN THIS TRANSACTION. 155. Broker represents bolh the Seller(s) and the Buyer(s) of the property involved in this transaction, which creales a dual agency, This 156. means that Broker and its salespersons owe fiduciary duties 1o both Seller(s) and Buyer(s). Because the parties may have conflicting 157. interests, Broker and its salespersons are prohibited from advocating exclusively for either party. Broker cannot act as a dual agent in this 158. transaction wilhout the consent of both Seller(s) and Buyer(s). Seller(s) and Buyer(s) acknowledge that: 159. (1) confidential information communicaled to Broker which rega~ls price, terms, or motivalion IQ buy or sell will remain confidential 160. unless Seller(s) or Buyer(s) tnstrucls Broker in writing to disclose this information. Other information will be shared; 16t. (2) Broker and ils salespersons will nol represent the interest of either party to the detriment of the olher; and 162. (3) within the limits of dual agency, Broker and its salespersons will work diligently to facilitate the mechanics of the sale. 1 ~ _..d-":~t_-:;,~:.z; :f .'he --7~-~!_--~ _'~c_--.':, ~,~;;.,~s~ ..d ~z~,~;~) &~;;,..,;~,:. -:,: i~;;,~, ~,uk=r ~ Seller - --'~ .... 167. Date 170. OTHER: PURCHASE AGREEMENT 168. Address ~""7OO · ~ 171. 172. 173. 174. 175. I, the owner of the property, accept this Agreement and 176. authorize the listing broker to withdraw said property from 177. the market, unless instructed othen~vise in writing and 178. I have reviewed all pages of this Purchase Agreement. I agree to purchase lhe property for the price and in accordance with the trams and conditions set forth above and I have reviewed all pages of this Purchase Agreement. (Seller's Prinled Name) (Buyer's Prinled Name) 181. X ' ' ' X ; (social secudly Number - optional) (Martial Status) (Social Security Number - optional) (Marital Status) {S~ller's Signature? ~ ' (Date) (Seller's Prinled Name) (Buyer's Signature) (Date) X (Bu~;~;'s P~tnted Neme) 184. (social security Number - optional) (Marital Status) (Social Security Number - oplmnal) (Marital Status) 185. FINAL ACCEPTANCE DATE 186. THIS IS A LEGALLY BINDING CONTRACT BETWEEN BUYERS AND SELLERS. 187. MN:PA-4 (9/97) IF YOU DESIRE LEGAL OR TAX ADVICE, CONSULT AN APPROPRIATE PROFESSIONAL. 5, 7. & 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. l& 17. 18. 19. 20. · 21. 22. 23, 24. 25. 2& 27. ADDENDUM TO PURCHASE AGREEMENT BU~NK Thi~ form ~ by Ih~ Mlnn~ot~ ~l~tlon R~L~: Mln~ ~i~ ~ R~L~ 1. Date 7~~ ~l / ~ ~ 2. ~ of .ACdendum to Purchase Agreement between parties dated "~-~d". ~ o~. ,19 ~dd~ pertaining to the purchase and sale of the pmpmly at, /'h/, ,r- / , ~ . .,- ,,~ ~¢] ., . 31. 32. , , ~v 5""~ ,- e-. '"~ THIS IS A LEGALLY BINDING CONTRACT BETWEEN BUYERS AND ~ MN'.APA (SM) IF YOU D~EIRE I.EOAL OR TAX Afl/ICE, CONSULT AN AI~RO~RiATE iq~FE~81ONAL 3. Addendum to Purchase Agreement between parties dated 4. and sale of the property at . ~'~70 D BUYER PURCHASING "AS IS" ADDENDUM This form approved by the Minnesota Association of REAL[ORS", which disclaims any liability arising out of use or misuse of this form 1, Date "~ <:~*~,,..~.' 2. Page of ___ Pages __ pertaining to the purchase ; 6. CONDITION OF PROPERTY: The property being purcha.=ed by Buyer, including the dwelling, other improvements, fixtures, 7. appliances and personal property, is not new, and is being purchased "AS IS." 8, RIGHT AND DUTY OF INSPECTION: Buyer shall have the right end duty to inspect the property or to have them inspected 9. by a person of Buyer's choice, at Buyer's expense. Buyer shall have the right to make a pre-closing inspection of the 10. property, to determine that the property is in the same condition as of the date of this addendum. 11. SETTLEMENT IS FINAL: It is understood the Buyer accepts the property "AS IS." ANY WARRANTIES OF PHYSICAL 12. CONDITION OF THE PROPERTY CONTAINED IN THIS PURCHASE AGREEMENT ARE VOID. The Seller has no further 13. responsibility or liability with respect to the condition of the property. This provision shall.survive delivery of the deed or 14. contract for deed. 15. OTHER: ADDENDUM TO PURCHASE AGREEMENT ~LANI~ This k)rm N:)Droved bV the Minne~a'~ta A~so.':tation of REALTOR~: Minnesela A. seoC~alion of REALTORS'~ disclaims any liability arising out of use o~ misuse o~ Ihts fo~m. 1. Date -/~,,v.~.,,_~..J &d, ~'~'; ~ 2. Page of Pages Addendum to Purchase Agreement between parties dated and sale of the property at pertaining to the purchase 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. ~-~, //' ~_~, Ii .t.~,tc ~, THIS IS l LILLY BINDING ~N~ l~N BUYERS AND S~s, ~* ~:~ (~) IF ~U ~SIRE LEaL OR ~ A~, ~ULT AN A~ ~NAL. CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SHEET SURVEY ON FILE? YES /(NO / LOT OF RECORD"t~YES /~ NO YARD DIRECTION II()USE ......... W SIDE N SIDE E W N S E~ N S E w REAR LAKE N S E W TOP OF BLUFF ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZEPNIDTH: R1 10,000/60 B1 7,5OO/O R]a 6,ooo4J~ e2 2o,ooo/so ~ ' 6~ooo/4o,~.3 ~o,ooo/6o R2 14,000/~ R3 SEE ORD. I1 30~000/100 REQUIRED 0'~R 30' EXISTING/PROPOSED EXISTING LOT SIZE: ® LOT DEPTH: VARIANCE GARA(;E, SllED ..... OR OTItER DETACHED FRONT N s E w FRONT N S E W SIDE N S E W SIDE N S E W REAR N S E W LAKE N S E W TOP OF BLUFF BUILDINGS _ 3o~ o~4o%")/ ~ , HARDCOVER CONFORMING? YF~5 / NO / Y: This Zoning luformation Sheet only summarizes a portion of the requirements 0'atlined Planning Depmtment at 472-0600. / 4' OR 6' 4' OR 6' 4' 50' ~R 30' in the City of Mound Zoning Ordinance. For further information, contact the City of Mound CiTY OF MOUND BUDGET REVENUE REPORT Nov. 1998 91.67% GENERAL FUND Taxes Business Licenses Non-Business Licenses and Permits Intergovernmental Charges for Services Court Fines Other Revenue Transfers from Other Funds Charges to Other Departments Nov. 1998 YTD PERCENT BUDGET ~ V_RE_Y_F=_N..U~ ~ RECEIVE.______~D 1,271,520 0 638,479 (633,041) 50.21% 4,780 0 4,173 (607) 87.30% 105,300 16,079 122,870 17,570 116.69% 950,850 95,974 668,438 (282,412) 70.30% 50,650 40,096 50,739 89 100.18% 85,000 3,803 71,501 (13,499) 84.12% 71,000 312 29,359 (41,641) 41.35% 43,500 0 0 (43,500) 0.00% 194.350 948 12.405 (181.945) 6.38% TOTAL REVENUE 2.776.950 628,813 1.597.964 (1.178.986) 57.54% FIRE FUND RECYCLING FUND LIQUOR FUND WATER FUND SEWER FUND CEMETERY FUND DOCK FUND 360,220 19,010 377,083 16,863 104.68% 118,920 6,254 110,285 (8,635) 92.74% 1,530,000 124,107 1,504,932 (25,068) 98.36% 451,000 40,007 409,122 (41,878) 90.71% 924,000 89,552 921,360 (2,640) 99.71% 5,100 2,050 8,550 3,450 167.65% 77,300 0 73,689 (3,611) 95.33% 12/14/1998 rev98 G.B. CITY OF MOUND BUDGET EXPENDITURES REPORT Nov. 1998 91.67% GENERAL FUND Council Promotions Cable TV City Manager/Clerk Elections Assessing Finance Computer Legal Police Civil Defense Planning/Inspections Streets City Property Parks Summer Recreation Contingencies Transfers Nov. 1998 YTD PERCENT BUDGET EXPENSE EXPENSE VARIANCE EXPENDED 71,610 3,512 70,836 774 98.92% 4,000 0 4,000 0 100.00% 3,000 140 4,361 (1,361) 145.37% 210,970 14,000 187,497 23,473 88.87% 13,200 3,893 10,282 2,918 77.89% 62,450 2 62,287 163 99.74% 172,710 10,618 161,373 11,337 93.44% 18,550 880 17,255 1,295 93.02% 86,460 14,656 101,931 (15,471 ) 117.89% 990,170 77,152 836,645 153,525 84.50% 4,250 22 5,400 (1,150) 127.06% 173,280 14,936 168,834 4,446 97.43% 420,820 28,352 402,912 17,908 95.74% 103,380 8,272 89,539 13,841 86.61% 192,380 11,848 189,768 2,612 98.64% 37,290 0 0 37,290 0.00% 45,000 1,529 42,203 2,797 93.78% 167.430 13.953 153.478 13.952 91.67% GENERAL FUND TOTAL 90.34% Area Fire Service Fund 360,220 Recycling Fund 126,830 Liquor Fund 215,200 Water Fund 445,400 Sewer Fund 981,020 Cemetery Fund 6,710 Dock Fund 76,660 28,174 264,103 96,117 73.32% 8,389 131,580 (4,750) 103.75% 14,562 194,037 21,163 90.17% 14,158 372,550 72,850 83.64% 78,342 948,520 32,500 96.69% 173 5,713 997 85.14% 1,600 87,728 (11,068) 114.44% Exp-98 12114/1998 G.B. Memo To: From: Date: Subject: City Council and City Manager Gino Businaro December 17, 1998 Cash Balances by Fund Attached please find a schedule of cash/investments balances by fund for the months of January to November of this year. The fund name column lists the name of all the city funds. The months' column shows the amount of cash/investment for each fund as of the end of that month. The amounts reflect balances as recorded in the city general ledger. These balances are not adjusted for receivables, payables, authorized transfers, encumbered funds, or dedicated/reserved resources, etc. Only some transfers are reflected. Investment income will be distributed to the funds at the end of the year and is not included. At the end of the year, before we close the city books, a long and thorough process is followed to record all transactions. In addition, the audit from the independent auditors is performed and an official Comprehensive Report will be presented to the City Council and made available to interested parties. The attached schedules are in no way intended to represent balances of funds available for spending. If you have questions on this report or on other financial matters, feel free to call me at 472-0608. OCTOBER 1998 INDEX ~ Date Index to events, ideas, thoughts, etc., occurring during this month December 21, 1998 Mound City Council Members 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Fax: (612) 472-0620 Re: Misconduct by City of Mound Planning Commission Dear City Council Members, On Monday, December 14, 1998, the City of Mound Planning Commission conducted a meeting which appears to be in clear violation of the open meeting law. The Westonka Public Schools protests this misconduct and asks that the Mound City Council proceed with censure of this Commission. At least three violations of the open meeting law appear to have occurred: 1. The Commission reconvened a.Rer adjournment with no public notice; 2. The meeting continued with no vote to extend the meeting time; and o A motion that passed during this illegal reconvention was recorded in the minutes as though the motion was legal. The following is an account of the December 14, 1998 meeting ofthe Planning Commission. The Commission discussed the Westonka Public Schools' application for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the Westonka Community Center renovation project. Discussion regarding this item occurred from approximately 8:15 p.m. to 11:15 p.m. At, or about, 11:10 p.m., the Chair asked the Council members if a fii~een minute extension would bring the discussion to closure for a vote On the application. He observed Commission members shaking their heads indicating "no." A motion to adjourn passed 6-2. ~O'd TE99~6~T9 0~3EN3£S · W~HDNINN~3, W~ ST: T I Dr. Pamela I. Myers, Superintendent of Westonka Public Schools, represents the applicant for the CUP that was under discussion a adjournment. Dr. Myers was present at the meeting in question. She stayed until the end of the meeting, which adjourned at 11:15 p.m. At that time, Dr. Myers observed Commission members stand up and prepare to leave the room. She went into the hallway to retrieve her coat. She put on her coat and then returned to the Commission meeting room. People continued to mill about the room, talk, and put on their coats. City staff, who regularly attend the Planning Commission meetings, includint~ the City Planner and Buildin~ Inspector, lei~ the buildlnB. Dr. My~'s, the applicant, retrieved her purse from the meetinB room and continued to observe people milling about. She then entered the hallway, again, and spoke with a new Council member and a current Council member. Then, Dr. Myers also lei~ the building. According to the minutes of the meeting, a Commission member called for a roll call vote to adjourn. At that time, the vote changed and the adjournment failed 5-3. Then, a Commission member made a motion to table the Westonka Public Schools' application with certain conditions. A motion to adjourn passed 8-0 at 11:30 p.m. The actions of the Planning Commission appear to be highly irregular. The Commission, along with '/he general public, stood up, milled about, put on their coats, and several people even lei~ the building as a consequence of the first passing motion to adjourn at 11:15 p.m. h is obvious tha~ people believed The meeting had officially ended. There was absolutely no indication of any intention by The Planning Commission to resume the meeting. At no poi;': did a Plartnir~ Commission member come to the door of' the meeting room to announce '/o those in the hallway that the m~ting would "continue" a./ter adjournment. Number twelve of The City ofM0und Plarmin_~ Commi~io.n Work Rules states, "All meetings shall be public." The request for a roll call vote was obviously not a true roll call vote questioning how Commissioners had voted. The names of those who had vo'/ed "no" are recorded in the minutes. It seems as though the request was an attempt to circumvent the open meeting law in order to reopen discussion without public notice. Number two of The City of Mound Planninu Corn~sgon Work Rules states that all meetings "...shall conclude at 11:00 p.m. unless waived by the majority. Any business uniinished at the scheduled closing time, shal[ be taken up at a subsequent meeting designated by `/he Chair." The minutes do not show any vote to extend the meeting beyond the 11:15 p.m. extension. Yet, the Commission reconvened. In addition, the Commission took action on the Westonka Public Schools' CUP application during the reconvention. The minutes also do not in any way rdlect the lapse of time between thc first adjournment and the reconvention. I~ appears in the minutes that the roll call vote to adjourn occurred immediately followir~ the/irst vote to adjourn. Tltis is definitely not thc case. There was time to leave `/he room, pu'/on a coat, go back into the room, leave the room again, converse with others, and then leave the building before the Commission member called for a roll call vote. This mc~in$ was recorded on audio tape, Perhaps the tape may indicate the lapse of time between adjournment and the request for a roll call vote. ~0'8 I~99~6~19 D~3EN31S ~ W~HDNINNR3 W~ ~l : t I 86--1~--93~ There are some other considerations you need to be awaxe of. Dr. Myers 'was pr¢$em, ~,~ me~ing of the Westorika Community Center Board on Thursday, December 17, 1998. A City Council member explained that the Commission's action lasted about 60 seconds. He did not explain what occurred between 1 I' 15 p.m. and 11:29 p.m. In addition, at the two prior Planning Commission meetings, November 16, 1998 and November 30, 1998, when the application for thc CUP had been discussed, a Em'ming Commission member reminded Commission members not to vote either in favor or against the CUP because it would then be forwarded to the City Council. He reminded the Commission members at those meetings that the only method which the Planning Commission had for assuring that the CUP would not move forward to the City Council was to table the application. He encouraged the Commission to delay any action until January when a new City Council will be seated and, perhaps, will vote the way he hopes they will, to deny the CUP, which he believes is the proper vote. Dr. Myers believes the December 14, 1998 Planning Commission meeting was illegally ~'~ended because the Commission had adjourned without a motion to table. Without a vote to table, the application would indeed go forward to the City Council for action on December 22, 1998. In order to prevent the CUP from moving forward, a member appears to have convinced the Commission to illegally reconvene and illegally vote to table the issue. This illegal vote could delay action to approve the CUP until January delaying the selling of bonds to finance this project and delaying the renovation.project itself. Please notify me of your actions to sanction the Planning Commission for breaking the open meeting law. DAC:js Sincerely, Dan Cunningham, Legal Counsel Ed Shukle, City Manager Mr. ~Iohn Dean, Attorney Dr. Pamela I. Myers, Superintendent, Westonka Public Schools Bill Pinegar, School Board Chair, Westonka Public Schools ~O 'el ~99~6~I9 D~3EN3.L$ ~ W~dHDNINNFI3. W~d 6~ : ~ ~ $6--~--~31/ December 21, 1998 Mound City Council Members 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Fax: (612) 472-0620 Re: Misconduct by City of Mound Planning Commission Deer City Council Members, On Monday, December 14, 1998, the City of Mound Planning Commission conducted a meeting which appears to be in clear violation of the open meeting law. The Westonka Public Schools protests this misconduct and asks that the Mound City Council proceed with censure of this Commission. At least three violations of the open meeting law appear to have occurred: 1. The Commission reconvened after adjournment with no public notice; 2. The meeting continued with no vote to extend the meeting time; and A motion that passed during tiffs illegal reconvention was recorded in the minutes as though the motion was legal. The following is an account of the December 14, 1998 meetin8 of the Planning Commission. The Commission discussed the Westonka Public Schools' application for a Conditional Use Permit (CLIP) for the Westonka Community Center renovation project. Discussion regarding this item occurred from approximately 8:15 p.m. to 11:15 p.m. At, or about, 11:10 p.m., the Chair asked the Council members if a fifteen minute extension would bring the discussion to closure for a vote on the application. He observed Commission members shaking their heads indicating "no." A motion to adjourn passed 6-2. gO'd I~99DD6~I9 ~3~N315 ~ WUHDNINN~3 WU 8I : I I Dr. Pamela $. Myers, Superimendent of Westonka Public Schools, represents the applicant for the CUP that was under discussion at adjournment. Dr. Myers was present at the meeting in question. She stayed until the end of the meeting, which adjourned at 11:15 p.m. At that time, Dr. Myers observed Commission members stand up and prepare to leave the room. She went into the hallway to retrieve her coat. She put on her coat and then returned to the Commission meetin8 room. People continued to mill about the room, talk, and put on their coats. City staff, who re~alarly attend the Planning Commission meetings, including the City Planner and Buildin~ Inspector, left the building. Dr. Myers, the applicant, retrieved her purse from the meeting room and continued to observe people milling about. She then entered the hallway, again, and spoke with a new Council member and a current Council member. Then, Dr. Myers also left the building. According to the minutes of the meeting, a Commission member called for a roll call vote to adjourn. At that time, the vote changed and the adjournment failed $-3. Then, a Commission member made a motion to table the Westonka Public Schools' application with certain conditions. A motion to adjourn passed 8-0 at 11:30 p.m. The actions of the Planning Commission appear to be highly irregular. The Commission, along with the general public, stood up, milled about, put on their coats, and several people even left the building as a consequence of the first passing motion to adjourn at 1 l: 15 p.m. It is obvious that people believed the meeting had officially ended. There was absolutely no indication of any intention by the Planning Commission to resume the meeting. At no point did a Planning Commission member come to the door of the meeting room to announce to those in the hallway that the meeting would "eominue" alter adjournment. Number twelve of Th~ City ofldound Planning Commission Work Rules states, "All meetings shall be public." The request for a mil call vote was obviously not a true roll call vote questioning how Commissioners had voted. The names of those who had voted "no" are recorded in the minutes. It seems as though the request was an attempt to circumvent the open meeting law in order to reopen discussion without public notice. Number two of The City_ of Mound Planning Com~ssion Work Rules states that all meetings "...shall conclude at 11:00 p.m. unless waived by the majority. Any business unfinished at the scheduled closing time, shall be taken up at a subsequent meeting designated by the Chair." The minutes do not show any vote to extend the meeting beyond the 11:15 p.m. extension. Yet, tha Commission reconvened. In addition, the Commission took action on the Westonka Public Schools' CUP application during the reconvention. The minutes also do not in any way reflect the lapse of time between the first adjournment and the reconvention, h appears in the minutes that the roll call vote to adjourn occurred immediately followin~ the first vote to adjourn. This is definitely not the case. There was time to leave the room, put on a coat, go back into the room, leave the room again, converse with others, and then leave the building before the Commission member called for a roll call vote. This meeiing was recorded on audio tape. Perhaps the tape may indicate the lapse of time between adjournment and the request for a roll call vote. ~0"8 1~99~6aI9 D~3EN31$ ~ W~HDNINN~3 W~ 8I : I I There are some other considerations you need to be aware of. Dr. Myers was presem at meeting of the Westonka Community Center Board on Thursday, December 17, 1998. A City Council member explained that the Commission's action lasted about 60 seconds. He did not explain what occurred between 11:15 p.m. a~d 11:29 p.m. In addition, at the two prior Planning Commission meetings, November 16, 1998 and November 30, 1998, when the application for the CUP had been discussed, a Plinning Commission member reminded Commission members not to vote either in favor or against the CUP because it would then be forwarded to the City Council. He reminded the Commission members at those meetings that the only method which the Planning Commission had for assuring that the CUP would not move forward to the City Council was to table the application. He encouraged the Commission to delay any action until lanuary when a new City Council will be seated and, perhaps, will vote the way he hopes they will, to deny the CUP, which he believes is the proper vote. Dr. Myers believes the December 14, 1998 Planning Commission meeting was illegally extended because the Commission had adjourned without a motion to table. Without a vote to table, the application would indeed go forward to the City Council for action on December 22, 1998. In order to prevent the CUP from moving forward, a member appears to have convinced the Commission to illegally reconvene and illegally vote to table the issue. This illegal vote could delay action to approve the CUP until January delaying the selling of bonds to finance this project and delaying the renovation project itself. Please notify me of your actions to sanction the Planning Commission for breaking the open meeting law. DAC:js CC: Sincerely, Dan Cunningham, Legal Counsel Ed Shukle, City Manager Mr. Iohn Dean, Attorney Dr. Pamela I. Myers, Superintendent, Westonka Public Schools Bill Pinegar, School Board Chair, Westonka Public Schools ~0'4 I~99~6~9 ~3~H315 ~ W~HDNINNR3 W~ 6~: ~ ~ 86--~--33E MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - DECEMBER 22, 1998 The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular se~ on Tuesday, December 22, 1998, at 7:30 PM, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywo~ Road, in said City. Those present were: Mayor Bob Polston, Councilmembers Andrea Ahrens, Mark Hanus, Liz Jensen and Leah Weycker. Also in attendance were: City Manager Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Attorney John Dean, ity Clerk Fran Clark and the following interested citizens: The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 1. OPEN MEETING - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. 2. SPECIAL PRESENTATION TO MAYOR BOB POLSTON *Consent Agenda: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the Council and will be enacted by a roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember or Citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence. APPROVE AGENDA. At this time items can be added to the Agenda that are not listed and/or items can be removed from the Consent Agenda and voted upon after the Consent Agenda has been approved. I *CONSENT AGENDA *A. 4678-4680 APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 7, 1998, TRUTH IN TAXATION MEETING. *B. 4681-4696 *C. 4697-4721 *D. 4722-4727 *E. 4728-4744 APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 8, 1998, REGULAR MEETING. CASE 98-66: VARIANCE, FRONT YARD AND SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCES, TO CONSTRUCT A CONFORMING ADDITION AND ATTACHED GARAGE, FRANZ BURRIS, 4924 GLEN ELYN ROAD, LOTS 5 & 6, BLOCK 23, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID 13-117-24 11 0081. RESOLUTION TO REDUCE LETTER OF CREDIT: SETON BLUFF. q ~' I ~ 5 PAYMENT OF BILLS. 4745- CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: CASE 98-64: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, TO REVIEW THE USE TO ALLOW A BUILDING REMODEL PROJECT TO THE COMMUNITY CENTER TO INCLUDE RENOVATION OF THE GYMNASIUM AND AUDITORIUM, ADDITIONAL PARKING AND CHANGES TO THE SITE ACCESS, INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 277, 5600 LYNWOOD BLVD., PIDS 14-117-24 41 0010, 14-117-24, 41 0011, 14-117-24 41 0052, 14-117-24 41 0058 & 14-117-24 44 0007. 4854 2 5. CASE 98-67: MINOR SUBDIVISION: TO INCORPORATE ADJACENT q . RESIDENTIAL LOT 18 TO THE COMMUNITY CENTER PROJECT AT 't/' 5700 LYNWOOD BLVD., INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 277, 5600 LYNWOOD BLVD., PID 14-117-24 44 0007. 4855-4872 II ~'~6. COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT. 7. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS: A. November 1998 Financial Report as prepared by Gino Businaro, Finance Director. 4873-4874 B. Memorandum from Gino Businaro, Finance Director, regarding 3 4875-4877 Co 4878 cash balances by fund. Letter from a Mound resident regarding recycling. De REMINDER: CITY OFFICES WILL BE CLOSED FOR THE HOLIDAYS FOLLOWS: THURSDAY, DECEMBER 24, 1998, 12:00 NOON FRIDAY, DECEMBER 25, 1998 THURSDAY, DECEMBER 31, 1998, 12:00 NOON FRIDAY, JANUARY 1, 1999 MERRY CHRISTMAS AND HAPPY NEW YEAR! AS MOTION made by ~3~, seconded by ¥~0~to adjourn at vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. P.M. The Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager Attest: City Clerk 4 December 21, 1998 Mound City Council Members 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Fax: (612) 472-0620 Re: Misconduct by City of Mound Planning Commission Dear City Council Members, On Monday, December 14, 1998, the City of Mound ?larming Commission conducted a meeting which appears to be in clear violation of the open meeting law. The Westonka Public Schools protests this misconduct and asks that the Mound City Council proceed with censure of this Commission, At least three violations of the open meeting law appear to have occurred: 1. The Commission reconvened after adjournment with no public notice; 2. The meeting continued with no vote to extend the meeting time; and A motion that passed during this illegal reconvention was recorded in the minutes as though the motion was legal. The following is an account of the December 14, 1998 meeting of the Planning Commission. The Commission discussed the Westonka Public Schools' application for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the Westonka Community Center renovation project. Discussion regarding this item occurred from approximately 8:15 p,m. to 11:15 p.m. At, or about, 11:10 p,m., the Chair asked the Council members it' a fifteen minute extension would bring the discussion to closure for a vote on the application. He observed Commission members shaking their heads indicating "no," A motion to adjourn passed 6-2. Dr. Pamela J. Myers, Superintendent of Westonka Public Schools, represems the applicant for the CUP that was under discussion at adjournment. Dr. Myers was present at the meeting in question. She stayed until the end of the meeting, which adjourned at 11:15 p.m. At that time, Dr. Myers observed Commission members stand up and prepaze to leave the room. She went into the hallway to retrieve her coat. She put on her coat and then returned to the Commission meeting room. People continued to mill about the room, talk, and put on their coats. City staff, who regularly attend the Planning Commission meetings, including the City Planner and Building Inspector, lei~ the building. Dr. Myers, the applicant, retrieved her purse from the meeting room and continued to observe people milling about. She then entered the h~llway, again, and spoke with a new Council member and a current Council member. Then, Dr. Myers also left thc building. According to thc minutes of the meeting, a Commission member called for a roll call vote to adjourn. At that time, the vote chansed and the adjournment failed 5-3. Then, a Commission member made a motion to table the Westonka Public Schools' application with certain conditions. A motion to adjourn passed 8-0 at 11:30 p.m. The actions of the Planning Commission appear to be highly irregular. The Commission, along with the general public, stood up, milled about, put on their coats, and several people even let the building as a consequence of the first passing motion to adjourn at 11:15 p.m. It is obvious that people believed the meeting had officially ended. There was absolutely no indication of' any intention by the Planning Commission to resume the meeting. At no point did a Plannir~ Commission member come to the door of' the meeting room to announce to those in the hallway that the meeting would "continue" ai~ter adjournment, Number twelve of Th~ (~itv of Mound Planning Commission Work Ruins states, "All meetings shall be public." The request for a roll call vote was obviously not a true roll call vote questioning how Commissioners had voted. The names of those who had voted "no" are recorded in the minutes. It seems as though the request was an attempt to circumvent the open meeting law in order to reopen discussion without public notice. Number two of The City of Mound Planning Co~ssion Work Rules states that all meetings "... shall conclude at 11:00 p.m. unless waived by the majority. Any business unfinished at the scheduled dosing time, shall be taken up at a subsequent meeting designated by the Chair." The minutes do not show any vote to extend the meeting beyond the 11:15 p.m. extension. Yet, the Commission reconvened. In addition, the Commission took action on the Westonka Public Schools' CTJ1~ application during the reconvention. The minutes also do not ~n any way reflect the lapse o£time between the first adjournment and the reconvention, h appears in the minutes that the roll call vote to adjourn occurred immediately following the first vote to adjourn. This is definitely not the case. There was time to leave the room, put on a coat, go back into the room, leave the room again, converse with others, and then leave the building before the Commission member called for a roll call vote. This meeting was recorded on audio tape. Perhaps the tape may indicate the lapse of time between adjournment and the request for a roll call vote. ¢'O 'd Da3EN3£S '~ Wt~HDNINNFI3 Nfl 8I : I I 86--I~--3~(I There axe some oXher considcr~.tions you need to be amexe of. Dr. M~s m~s presenx me~in8 of the Westo~a Commu~ Cemer Bo~d on Thursday, Decemb~ 17, 1998. A Council memb~ ~plained that the Co~ssion's action last~ about 60 s~onds. He did not expl~n what occu~ b~ween 11:15 p.m. ~d 11:29 p.m. In addition, at the two prior Planing Co~ssion meetings, November 16, 1998 ~d Nov~b~ 30, 1998, wh~ the application for the C~ had be~ dis~ssed, a Pl~n8 Co~ssion member re~nded Com~ssion members not to vote either in favor or ag~nst the C~ because k would then be fo~gded to the Ci~ Council. He re~nd~ the Co~ssion members at those me~ings that the only m~hod w~ch the Pla~ng Comssion had for assuring t~t the C~ would not move fo~d to the City Council was to table the application. He encouraged the Com~ssion to delay any action until lanu~ when a new Ci~ Council ~11 be seat~ ~d, perhaps, ~ll vote the way he hopes they ~11, to deny the C~, w~ch he beli~es the proper vote. Dr. Myers believes the December 14, 1998 Planting Co~ssion me,in8 was illeg~y ~ended because the Co~ssion had adjourned without a motion to table. Without a vote to table, the application would indeed go fo~d to the Ci~ Council for action on D~ember 22, 1998. In ord~ to pr~ent the C~ ~om mo~nt fo~ard, a member appe~s to have con~nced the Co. ss/on to illegflly r~onvene ~d illeg~ly vote to table the issue, T~s illegfl vote co~d delay action to approve the C~ until lanua~ dela~ng the selling of bonds to finance t~s project ~d dela~ng the r~ovationproj~t itself. Please noti~ me ofyo~ actions to s~ction the Planing Co~ssion for bre~n~ the op~ meeting law, DAC:js CC: Sincerely, Dan Cunninghan% Legd Counsel Ed Shukle, City Manager Mr. 1ohn Dean, Attorney Dr. Pamela I. Myers, Superintendent, Westonka Public Schools Bill Pinel~ar, School Board Chair, Westonka Public Schools 2:-~3EI [ .te m December 21, 1998 Mound City Council Members 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Fax: (612) 472-0620 Re: Misconduct by City of Mound Planning Commission Dear City Council Members, On Monday, December 14, 1998, the City of Mound Planning Commission conducted a meeting which appears to be in clear violation of'the open meeting law. The Westonka Public Schools protests this misconduct and asks that the Mound City Council proceed with censure of this Commission. At least three violations of the open meeting law appear to have occurred: 1. The Commission reconvened after adjournment with no public notice; 2. The meeting continued with no vote to extend the meeting time; and 3. A motion that passed during this illegal reconvention was recorded in the minutes as though the motion was legal. The following is an account of the December 14, 1998 meeting of the Planning Commission. The Commission discussed the Westonka Public Schools' application for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the Westonka Community Center renovation project. Discussion regarding this item occurred from approximately 8:15 p.m. to 11:15 p.m. At, or about, 11' 10 p.m., the Chair asked the Council members if a fifteen minute extension would bring the discussion to closure for a vote on the application. He observed Commission members shaking their heads indicating "no." A motion to adjourn passed 6-2. ~0'8 TE99~6ET9 D~EN~$ ~ W~HDNINN~3. W~ 8T : I T $6--TE--93~ Dr. Pamela J. Myers, Superintendent of Westonka Public Schools, represents the applicant for the CUP that was under discussion at adjournment. Dr. Myers was present at the meeting in question. She stayed until the end of'the meeting, which adjourned at ! 1: ! S p.m. At that time, Dr. Myers observed Commission members stand up and prepare to leave the room. She went into the hallway to retrieve her coat. She put on her coat and then returned to the Commission meeting room. ?eople continued to mill about the room, talk, and put on their coats. City staff, who regularly attend the Planning Commission meetings, including the City Planner and Building Inspector, leR the building. Dr. Myers, the applicant, retrieved her purse fi.om the meeting room and continued to observe people milling about. She then entered the hallway, again, and spoke with a new Council member and a current Council member. Then, Dr. Myers also left the building. According to the minutes of the meeting, a Commission member called for a roll call vote to adjourn. At that time, the vote changed and the adjournment failed 5-3. Then, a Commission member made a motion to table the Westonka Public Schools' application with certain conditions. A motion to adjourn passed 8-0 at 11:30 p.m. The actions of the Planning Commission appear to be highly irregular. The Commission, along with the general public, stood up, milled about, put on their coats, and several people even left the building as a consequence of the first passing motion to adjourn at 11:15 p.m. It is obvious that people believed the meeting had officially ended. There was absolutely no indication of any intention by the Planning Commission to resume the meeting. At no point did a Planning Commission member come to the door of the meeting room to announce to those in the hallway that the meeting would "continue" after adjournment. Number twelve of The City of' Mound Planning Commissign Work Rule,_~_ states, "Ail meetings shall be public." The request for a roll call vote was obviously not a true roll call vote questioning how Commissioners had voted. The names of'those who had voted "no" are recorded in the minutes. It seems as though the request was an attempt to circumvent the open meeting law in order to reopen discussion without public notice. Number two of The City of Mound Planning Corru~ssion Work Rules states that all meetings "...shall conclude at 11:00 p.m, unless waived by the majority. Any business unfinished at the scheduled closing time, shall be taken up at a subsequent meeting designated by the Chair." The minutes do not show any vote to extend the meeting beyond the 11:15 p.m. extension. Yet, the Commission reconvened. In addition, the Commission took action on the Westonka Public Schools' CUP application during the reconvention. The minutes also do not in any way reflect the lapse of time between the first adjournment and the re¢onvention. It appears in the minutes that the roll call vote to adjourn occurred immediately following the first vote to adjourn. This is definitely not the case. There was time to leave the room, put on a coat, go back into the room, leave the room again, converse with others, and then leave the building before the Commission member called for a roll call vote. This meeting was recorded on audio tape. Perhaps the tape may indicate the lapse of time between adjournment and the request for a roll call vote. There are some other considerations you need to be aware of. Dr. Myers ')vas present at a m¢cting of thc Wcsto~a Community Center Board on Thur~/ay, December 17, 1998. ,4 City Council member explained that the Commission's action lasted about 60 seconds. He did not explain what occurred between 11:15 p.m. and 11:29 p.m. In addition, at the two prior Planning Commission meetings, November 16, 1998 and November 30, 1998, when the application for the CUP had been discussed, a PIa.nning Commission member reminded Commission members not to vote either in favor or against the CUP because it would then be forwarded to the City Council. He reminded the Commission members at those meetings that the only method which the Planning Commission had for assuring that the CUP would not move forward to the City Council was to table the application. He encouraged the Commission to delay any action until .Ianuary when a new City Council will be seated and, perhaps, will vote the way he hopes they will, to deny the CUP, which he believes is the proper vote. Dr. Myers believes the December 14, 1998 Planning Commission meeting was illegally extended because the Commission had adjourned without a motion to table. Without a vote to table, the application would indeed go forward to the City Council for action on December 22, 1998. In order to prevent the CUP from moving forward, a member appears to have convinced the Commission to illegally reconvene and illegally vote to table the issue. This illegal vote could delay action to approve the CUP until lanuary delaying the selling of bonds to finance this project and delaying the renovation, project itself. Please notify me of your actions to sanction the Planning Commission for breaking the open meeting law. DAC:js cc; Sincerely, Dan Cunningharn, Legal Counsel Ed Shulde, City Manager Mr. Iohn Dean, Attorney Dr. Pamela I. Myers, Superintendent, Westonka Public Schools Bill Pinegar, School Board Chair, Westonka Public Schools ~0'~ l~99~6~19 ~a~aN~i$ ~ W~H~NINN~3' W~ 6T:TT