2000-12-27AGENDA
JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
WEDNESDAY DECEMBER 27, 2000, 7:30 PM
MOUND CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
1. OPEN MEETING - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: MAYOR MEISEL
2. APPROVE AGENDA, WITH ANY RELATED AMENDMENTS
RESOLUTION
PAGE ONLY
OTHER PAGES:
SUPPORTING
DOCUMENTS
3. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS: CHAIR GEOFF MICHAEL
AG
CASE # 00-66: ZONING AMENDMENT - METROPLAINS
DEVELOPMENT - NW CORNER OF LYNWOOD BLVD AND
COMMERCE BLVD* 4937-4938
Bo
CASE #00-71: STREET/EASEMENT VACATION - METRO
PLAINS DEVELOPMENT - NW CORNER OF LYNWOOD
BLVD AND COMMERCE BLVD*
*The public hearings on these cases were closed at the November 27, 2000 Planning
Commission Meeting. Case #00-64 (Preliminary Plat) was approved at that meeting.
4. CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS: MAYOR PAT MEISEL
PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUATION FROM DEC 19, 2000 MEETINC
AG
MINOR COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN
AMENDMENT: LOTS 18,19, & 20, LYNWOOD
PARK: ACTION ON RESOLUTION
4935-4936
B. CASE # 00-66:
ZONING AMENDMENT - METROPLAINS
DEVELOPMENT ~ NW CORNER OF LYNWOOD
BLVD AND COMMERCE BLVD: ACTION ON
RESOLUTION
4937-4938
CUP AND VARIANCES - METROPLAINS
DEVELOPMENT - NW CORNER OF LYNWOOD., ,
BLVD AND COMMERCE BLVD: CONTINUE TO
JANUARY 9, 2000 COUNCIL MEETING
CASE # 00-64: PRELIMINARY PLAT - METROPLAINS
DEVELOPMENT - NW CORNER OF LYNWOOD BLVD AND
COMMERCE BLVD: CONTINUE TO JANUARY 9,
2000 COUNCIL MEETING'
ADDITIONAL MATTERS
Ao
FINAL APPROVAL OF MINOR COMPREHENSIVE LAND
USE PLAN AMENDMENT - "OLD SCHOOL SITE" AND
ASSOCIATED ATHLETIC FIELDS: ACTION ON
RESOLUTION
4939-494O
AUTHORIZATION FOR CITY STAFF TO REVIEW EAW
PETITION AND PROVIDE REPORT FOR JANUARY 9,
2000 COUNCIL MEETING
5. ADJOURN
Current meeting agendas may be viewed at City Hall or at the City of Mound web site:
www. cityofmound, com.
COUNCIL BRIEFING
December 2'7, 2000
Planning Commission Members
This portion of the meeting should be very brief. You have already held your public hearing.
All you need to do to make things right is repeat the action on the items listed under your portion
of the agenda. Geoff is expected at a prior engagement at 8:00 p.m., and needs about 20 minutes
to get there. Members are excused following this portion of the meeting, but may feel free to
stay, should they wish to do so.
City Council Members
The public hearing will be continued from the December 19, 2000 meeting, and should follow
this format:
Continue public hearing
Presentation by MetroPlains Development
Staff comments
Public testimony
End public testimony
Council member comments
Continue hearing on CUP and variances and preliminary plat to January 9 meeting
Action on three resolutions in packet
Call me in advance of the meeting with any questions. 952-472-0609
RESOLUTION #00-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF MOUND GRANTING APPROVAL OF A
MINOR CA).MP-RE~ENSIVE LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT
FOR THREE RESIDENTIAL LOTS LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS
LOTS 18, 19, AND 20, LYNWOLD PARK, LAKE MINNETONKA
WHEREAS, MetroPlains Development has made development applications,
which include the subject property; and
WHEREAS, State Statutes require that enactment of municipal zoning be
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the development proposal suggests uses for the subject property that
may be inconsistent with the current zoning designation for the property; and
WHEREAS, the City previously prepared a Comprehensive Plan for the
community pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, sections 473.851, et seq., which
Comprehensive Plan was approved by the Planning Commission on November 22, 1999
and by the City Council on April 11, 2000; and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan has been deemed complete by the
Metropolitan Council and is under review and consideration by the Metropolitan Council
pursuant to state law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and reviewed the
proposed land use amendment and recommended City Council approval; and
WHEREAS, by letter dated December 18, 2000 from Richard E. Thompson,
Supervisor of Comprehensive Planning, the Metropolitan Council has granted approval to a
minor comprehensive plan amendment for the subject property prior to the Metropolitan
Council completing its review of the City's entire Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the minor comprehensive plan approval granted by the Metropolitan
Council allows the City to immediately place the amendment in effect and without further
review or comment by the Metropolitan Council.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Mound that a minor comprehensive land use plan amendment is hereby approved for the
subject property as shown in Attachment A to this resolution labeled "Lots 18, 19, & 20,
~Park, Lake Minnetonka - Comprehensive Plan Amendment".
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember
and seconded by Councilmember
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
Pat Meisel, Mayor
Attest: City Clerk
RESOLUTION #00-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND
GRANTING APPROVAL FOR_REZ~OIXIlhlG~F A GROUPING OF PROPERTIES
CONSISTING OF ROUGHLY NINETEEN ACRES INCLUDING THE "OLD SCHOOL
SITE" AT 5600 LYNWOOD BOULEVARD, THE ASSOCIATED ATHLETIC
FIELDS, AND THREE RESIDENTIAL LOTS LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS
LOTS 18, 19, AND 20, LYNWOLD PARK, LAKE MINNETONKA
WHEREAS, MetroPlains Development has made development applications for the subject
property for projects called "The Villages by Cooks Bay" and "Mound Marketplace"; and
WHEREAS, the development proposal suggests developing the site as multiple family
residential and commercial as well as land dedicated for open space; and
WHEREAS, the physical characteristics of the site and its surroundings are suitable for the
type and density of development suggested by the proposed zoning modifications; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and reviewed the proposed
zoning modifications and recommended City Council approval; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to State Statute, the proposed zoning modifications are consistent
with the Mound Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the proposed zoning modifications are compatible with land uses surrounding
the subject property; and
WHEREAS, said zoning modifications are in all respects consistent with the City plan and
the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and the City Code of
Ordinances of the City of Mound.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound that:
Zoning amendments for the subject property are hereby approved as:
· Destination District PUD for Lot 1 and Outlot A, Block 1 as described in the
Preliminary Plat, Mound Visions First Addition dated November 2, 2000.
· R-3 Residential PDA for Lot 2 and Outlots B & C, Block 1 as described in the
Preliminary Plat, Mound Visions First Addition dated November 2, 2000.
2. The City Planner is directed to update the zoning map in accordance with this approval.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember
by Councilmember
and seconded
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
Pat Meisel, Mayor
Attest: City Clerk
RESOLUTION #00-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF MOUND GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL
OF A MINOR COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT
FOR THE "OLD SCHOOL SITE" INCLUDING THE
ATHLETIC FIELDS AT 5600 LYNWOOD BOULEVARD
WHEREAS, the City previously prepared a Comprehensive Plan for the
community pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, sections 473.851, et seq., which
Comprehensive Plan was approved by the Planning Commission on November 22, 1999
and by the City Council on April 11, 2000; and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan has been deemed complete by the
Metropolitan Council and is under review and consideration by the Metropolitan Council
pursuant to state law; and
WHEREAS, MetroPlains Development has made development applications for
the subject property; and
WHEREAS, the development proposal suggests a minor land use amendment to
the Comprehensive Plan currently under review by the Metropolitan Council; and
WHEREAS, the minor land use amendment is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan, the physical characteristics of the site and its surrounding land uses;
and
WHEREAS, by letter dated December 18, 2000 from Richard E. Thompson,
Supervisor of Comprehensive Planning, the Metropolitan Council has granted approval to a
minor comprehensive plan amendment for the subject property prior to the Metropolitan
Council completing its review of the City's entire Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the minor comprehensive plan approval granted by the Metropolitan
Council allows the City to immediately place the amendment in effect and without further
review or comment by the Metropolitan Council.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Mound that a minor comprehensive land use plan amendment is hereby finally approved
for the old school site as shown in Attachment A to this resolution labeled "Old School
Site - Comprehensive Plan Amendment".
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember
and seconded by Councilmember
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
Pat Meisel, Mayor
Attest: City Clerk
MINNESOTA PLANNING
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
BOARD
December 21, 2000
Kandis Hanson, City Manager
City of Mound
5341 Maywo~d Road
Mound, Minnesota 55364
RE: Citizens petition for an EAW for Metro Plains project
Dear Ms Hanson:
The Environmental Quality Board (EQB) has received a petition requesting that an EAW be
prepared on the project described in the petition, and has determined that Mound is the
appropriate governmental unit to decide the need for an EAW.
The requirements for environmental review, including the preparation of an EAW, can be
found in the Minnesota Rules, chapter 4410.
The procedures to be followed in making the EAW decision are set forth in part 4410.1100.
Key points in the procedures include:
*)
No final government approvals may ",~. '.;iven tc tne project named in the petition, nor
may construction on the project be o'La: ted until the need for an EAW has been
determined. Project construction includes any activities which directly affect the
environment, including preparation of land. If the decision is to prepare an EAW,
approval must be withheld until either a Negative Declaration is issued or an
658 Cedar St.
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is completed (see part 4410.3100, subpart 1,st. Paul, MN 55155
page 353
lelephone:
651-296-3985
A first step in making the dec-,q,m regarding ;he need for an EAW would be to
Facsimile:
compare the project to the mandatory EAW, EIS and Exemption categories listed in651-296-3698
parts 4410.4300, 4410.4400, and 4410.4600, respectively. If the project should fall TTY:
under any of these categories, environmental review is automatically required or 800-627-3529
prohibited. If this should be the case, proceed accordingly, www. mnplan.
state, mn.us
100% post-consumer
recycled content
o
If preparation of an EAW is neither mandatory nor exempted, the City has the option
to prepare an EAW. The standard to be used to decide if an EAW should be done is
given in part 4410.1100, subp. 6. Note that this requires that a record of decision
including specific findings of fact be maintained.
You are allowed up to 30 working days (Saturdays, Sundays and holidays do not
count) for your decision if it will be made by a council, board, or other body which
meets only periodically, or 15 working days if it will be made by a single individual.
You may request an extra 15 days from EQB if the decision will be made by an
individual.
o
You must notify, in writing, the proposer, the petitioners' representative and the EQB
of your decision within five working days. I would appreciate your sending a copy of
your record of decision on the petition along with notification of your decision for our
records. This is not required, however.
If for any reason you axe unable to act on the petition at this time (e.g., no application
has yet been filed or the application has been withdrawn), the petition will remain in
effect for a period of one year, and must be acted upon prior to any final decision
concerning the project identified in the petition.
Notice of the petition and its assignment to your unit of government will be published in the
EQB Monitor on January 8, 2001.
If you have any questions or need any assistance, please do not hesitate to call. The phone
number is (651) 296-8253, or you may dial my direct number at (651) 296-3865.
Sincerely,
Jon Larsen
Principal Planner; Environmental Review
cc: Christopher Dietzen, petitioners' representative
December 4, 20iX)
DALY
Minnesota Environmental Quality Board
300 Cemenmal Building
658 Cedar Street
Saint Paul, Minnesota 551
Re: Petition for EAW
Gentlemen:
Pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 116D,0], et seq., and Minn. 1L 4410.1100, el se.%c_q., the tmdersigned hereby
petitions for an Environmental Assessment Work,eot stating as follows:
a. Description of the proposed project:
Applications of Metro Plains dated October 22 and October 22, 2000, for
rmidcmial/cunma~ci~d ~cde~clopment p~oject of tim old Wc~ton.ka I fish
School property located at the northwest comer of Lynwood Boulevard
and Conmaercc, Mound, Minnesota. Tl~e residential projec! wil} inc}ude
99 units in tox~ahame and row house buildings on 2.27 acres.
Approximately 36 percent of the property will become imperviotm
,urf~e,. The commercial project will be 67,000 ;quare fec~ of retail tree
on 6.7 acres and will result in hard eowr mrfaee of 92 percent.
b, The proposer of the project:
Met, o Plains Devclopmcnt LLC
Sprucctree Centre
1600 University Avenue
Suite 212
Sa~nt Paul, Minnesota 55104-3825;
Minnesota Environmental Quality Board
I)cccmbcr 4, 2000
c. Name, address, m'~d telephone number of the representative ofpcdtioncrs:
Christopher $. Diet2,en
Larkin, Hoff-msn, I)aly & l.indt,n'en, I.td.
1500 Wells Fargo Plaza
7900 Xerxes Avenue South
Bloomington, Minnesota 55431
Brief' description of the potential ~vironm~ml effects which may result
fi'om fl~e project:
The projoct will have significant cff~;t~ on transportation and access on
· ~ja~mat streets in the City of MouI'd. Also, it will have adveme effems on
the quielude of the neighborhood by clmslng significam increases in noise
and lighting. It w~ II also cause nm-offissue~ because o ~' tt~e gigni ficant
i~crease in impervious rarface~. The ~vironmemal effects on the air,
water, and soils of the property should be completed be~bre final
consideration of the zoning applications.
Material eviden¢e indicating tho% b~,~u~o of tho nature or location of thc
proposc~l project, there may be pot~tti~l for sigr~ificsnt environmental
effects:
Investigation is ongoir:g. At this point thc p~ition would direct the
M EQB to the order of Hennepin County dated November 22, 2000, which
is attached hereto a.q I-;xhibil. A
Attached are the sibmatures in suppor; of the petition are attached hereto as
Exhibi~ B.
If you have any questions, please do not hesita~ to contact the undersigned.
Sincerely,
4260872~07
Christopher J, Dietzen, for
LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDOREN, Ltd.
cc; Bob Polston
Paula Larson
Ken Berres
:;ODMA'~DOC~LIB ! ~636303\~
Henne i_n_ ontY
Kandi~ M, Hanson, Ci~
Cir~ of Mound
5341 Meywood Road
Dear M-~.
Th~s preliminary pi~t review is p,ri'orm~d in a~r~ ~i~ ~m~o~ $um~c~ 50i.u2 ~d ~O~.O3, Piat~
md S~ys, and MS 462,3~g, Co~ ~i~ ~ P~. Since last
discussims ~:h caw s~ff and the de~o~ e~ ~ ~o~d dcvclopm~t. Th~; proposal is a key
developmmt has undergone a nmmb~ of al~i~, ~ ei~ ~; read, cd thc::
what ~s of ro~dw!y improvcmc~ my b~ ~equ~ m ~on thc ptopos~
~ere still ~e a ~umb~ of issues ~at remain ~ed. A traffic stud)
proposa[ ~mee right-of-way needs, acce~ c~nf~o~ ~adw~ and r~ lane ~e~m,e~i:¢ wSi hinge on the
e~l~fion of the t~ulm ~om ~ ~ffic
tra~ ltudy ~nd the ~'sodated ro~way n~&* can ~ ~etomtned.
~n the info~att~ c~m'[tly ~val~uble to us am ~e following:
· A mt~l of $0 foo~ halfroad~ay s~etion d~mld be d~ica~ed alor, i t-he f:°:,:~3: of :!:'; ~r°i~c~' f~r
both CS~-i~ and Cg~-110.
~pp~c~nce~. ~c pro~sefi plea a~ ~ ~a~g~,' Ih~ r:~,::~nc..: k,:"-~ ,~: ::-:~:.gC~ in the
:omc radius (mmtionc~ bdow) ~8ht
It is our undcrstm~ding that ~e city en~i$ioe~ both the north ~i~praaci-, o.: L'5.~i..; 20 ~=~ thc
c~cl~afion needs to M a co~o~t of ~e~ roadway dcsign~ in ord,.' :0 m:mtai~
~c flow and ~o accoinmodate ~ ~elopcr's ~oposcd ac~,s
I.f ~¢ roadway approaches remain t~nehannelized, coun,9' acc~ ~pacln~ ~u:~clin~ c~; for
mile ~ing for ~widc~ ~n~ ~ ~ys. T~eforc, we r~o~¢nd no ~cee~ be
~dc~ to CS~-IlO be~ ~ ~d ~ CS~-IS. The eximng pull.o~t
~ng th: Icc ~m~ would ,lso n~ clm~,
The p~sed ~ce onto CS~-I~ ~om ~ ~'cl~ent also would not meet co~W
~ac~g ~idelines, however, ~ ~o~ 1~ is aec~tablc as proposed. ~e
volumes ~ C~-15, ua~c mov~t ~fits 0es~ .affic f~ced u~-oc~h the CS.~H-I~ /
C5~-! 10 int~sectiov), and ~c e~ public ~{ley accc~ in ~n~ vicm:~' ~end to iuppo~ ~e
pm~s~d location am ~ reas~ablm
We understand Ibc ~i~"s desire to ~ide ~ng on CSAH-] 5 to corny;amc, r,: ~tw Y~action of
~ ptopo~ d~'elopm~t sm~c~. How~., ~e prov~a~ofl f~ ~e ro~way operations
~mew~t llmi~ ~e smoot of per~ ~ ~ re~isUcally be prcMde~ N~ p~n~ will be
allowefl o. CS~-15 in t~ ~a~ of ~c Jut.section since the ?ar~mg m~ncuvcrs could
confli~ wi~ ~i~ mo~'~ ~ C{~-ll0. Since CS~-I~
back into the int~ction of C$~-1~ 1 C$~.110. The na-~a;~ zu;.c ~i.ould prokab!y
cover ~c lenith of at l~t me se~.~k plBs a coupl: of auic. mcuflei
~ limi~ng fa~ o~ t~ ~, ~ ~e ~c~d to prozac for a -,'~:t>ocnd n~: r~m lan;
To ~in~in adequate ~c o~ ~ ~-15, pro~jsmni should b~ consid~cd for
ma{tbound left ~s m thru site.
To improve u~ flow, ~ e~ss ~ ~ ~e to CS~I-15 ~hould pron6d= ~'0
accommodate left ~d ngh~ ~,
~emi-Wa~k ~min~ cMmctm{tics n~ ~ ~ ~onsid~ed ir, ~c dc~n
com~ (n~ the d~velop~nt pla~) ~d coati ~lso ~ect tM la. section radii and mm lan;
laths st ~¢ w~smrly acccsi ~ ~-15 m ~ ~vclopmcm.
Tl~e r~solucion of r2msc operational and ~d~ inu~ ~ r~qukc ~cm~ Mdkm.al ~m~, thoash~, ~d
di~sion. The re~ul~ of ~e ~ffic lady ~11 ~ ~edcd ~furc thc complete p~cr.r~ of ~¢ mad'~ay
upsilons ~ bc as~cmblcd. Wc bclicv~ ~ll ~ ~{~Fu}o~ ~upp, uM ~ ,.etd :~ :e~-. :h~ ~Fyro~'~ of
thc prcliminao' pla:
The counO' Plat Re,dew Committee would be ~ to meat with thc ~iW ~.',~ uhc ~c...ckp;: :c ¢ic:u~i :he;c
i~su~ prior to ~e plat's final ~ppreval by ~o e~. W~ ~dd dso recon~i~er other ~::~-s~ :enfi~r~ti~.~ zJ
t~s 6evel~m~t ifch~U~don is pro~fl ~ Ci~-I~ ~or CS~. 110.
Please c. onts;t elth~ Dave Zer~ersuom (763) '/45-7643 or Bob Byers (?63) 7-"-5.7633 :c, sc: u? a meeting or if
you have any furor questions,
Thank you for your consideration.
James N. Ca'ube
Director, Tr~s~o.,'ta:mn Deparrmew
J~.~ Camealn - CI~.' E~J:i,'~,er (MYI, LA I;~)
C97~5-9~8 (5%9) il¥~ kS~JJOH Nli~¥2 ~05~
Metropolitan Council
Improve regiona[ competitiveness in a global economy
December 18, 2000
Kandis Hanson
City Manager
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
City. of Mound -- Plan Amendment- The Villages by Cook's Bay and Mound Market Place
Metropolitan Council District 1 (Saundra Spigner, 763-879-3773)
Referral File No. 18441-1
Dear Ms. Hanson:
Metropolitan Council staff has reviewed the city's comprehensive plan amendment for a change in land use from Low
Density Residential to Downtown Residential and Commercial to Destination Commercial for 18.97 acres located on
Commerce Boulevard as submitted on December 18, 2000.
As part of the review of this amendment, the city has indicated it is under contract to prepare a surface water
management plan which satisfies the completeness requirement of the Comprehensive Plan for the Environmental
Services requirements. The city also agrees to submit the surface water management plan and remaining incomplete
information related to the Comprehensive Plan for review to the Metropolitan Council by March 15, 2001.
Based on these facts, we have determined that the proposed amendment is in conformity with Metropolitan system
plans, consistent with the Regional Blueprint and has no impact on the plans of other local units of government. In fact,
the land use change and proposed development will provide additional life-cycle housing to the community. Therefore,
the city may place the amendment into effect immediately.
Because the proposed amendment appears unlikely to affect policies and plans in other chapters of the Metropolitan
Development Guide, the Council will waive further review and comment on this amendment. The amendment,
explanatory materials supplied and the information submission form will be appended to the city's plan in the Council's
files. If you have any questions, please contact Phyllis Hanson, RLA at (651) 602-1566.
Richard E. Thompson, Supervisor
Comprehensive Planning
CC:
Saundra Spigner, Metropolitan Council District 1
Linda Milashius, Referrals Coordinator
Phyllis Hanson, Sector Representative
Donald Bluhm, Manager Municipal Services
Jack Frost, Environmental Services
www.metrocouncil.org
Metro Info Line 602-1888
230 East Fifth Street · St. Paul, Minnesota 55101-1626 · (651) 602-1000 o Fax 602-1550 · TRY291-0904
An Equal Opportunity Employer
lmprou~ regiona! cum;~e~itiu~ness in a glo~xzl ecormomp
D~.~mber 1~, 2000
Kandi~ Hanson
Cil}' Manager
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
RE: City of Motmd - Plan Amendment - The Villages by Cook's Bay and Mound Markc~ Place
Metropolitan Council District 1 (Saundra Spigner, 763-879-3773)
Referral File No. 18441-1
Dear Ms. I-lanmn:
Metropolitan Council staffhas rav/¢w~d the c/ty's comprehensive plan am~ahn=nt for a change in land usc from Low
Density Re. sidenrial Io Downtown Rcsidzntial and Commercial Io De,qS.uation Commercial for 18.97 acres locaI~ on
Commerce Boulcvm'd as submittt~l on December 18, 2000.
As part of the review of this amendment, the city ha~ indicated it i~ under conlract l~ l~epare a surface water
management plan which satisfies the completeness r~lU/xement of the Coralxehensive Plan fop ~h= Environmental
Services requiremcnm. ~ city also agrees to submit the surface water management plan and remaining incomplete
information related to the Comprehensive Plan for review to the Metropoli-han Council by Mat'ch 15, 200 t.
Based on these facts, we have dettmmined that tl~ l~oposed amendment ia in conformity with Mctmpol/tan systcm .'?.
plans, consistent with the Regional Blueprint and has no impact on the plans of other local units of government. In fact,
thc land use change and proposed deve!~pment will provide additional life-cycle housing to thc comtlllxIlity. ThercfoTe,
the cit)' may place the amendment imo effec~ immediately.
Because the proposed amendment appears .nlikely to affec! policSes and plans in other chapter.: of ttxe Metropolitan
Develnpment Guide, thc Council will waive further review and corn_me-at on th/s ara~ndmenl. 'lhe amendment,
e. xplanalary materials supplied and th.' information mhmi.ssion form w/ll be appended to the city's plan in the Council's
/'des. If you have any questions, please contact I~hyllis Hanson, RLA at (651) 602-1566.
Richard E. Thompson, gupervisor
Comprehensive Planning
CC:
Saunclra -c;.'pigncr, Metropolitan Count-il District i
Linda M ils ah/ua, Referrals Coordinator
Phyllis I-t.anson, Sector Representative
Donald Bluhm, Manager Municipal Scmces
Jack Frost, Environmental Services
FROM
Decel
Mono
Coun
Coun
CoL~n
City (
5341
Mour
Dear
Pleas
other
appli~
redev
Lynw
follo'c
abet 19, 2000
:able Pat Meisel, Mayor
:itmember Andrea Ahems
:i Imember Bob 'lqro~xt
:ilmember Mark H,'mus
:ilmember Leah Weycker
'Mound
{ay'wood Road
d, Mim~esota 55364-1627
(612) 896-3265 (rUE) 12. 19' O0
LARKIN, HOFI-'MAN, D^LY & L~NDGREN, LTO.
ATTOR. NEY$ AT LAW
~ ~ A~NUE SO~
BLOOMINGTON. MINNESOTA 55,31-11~.1
T~LEPH~E (9~2)
~ (~2) 89~3
F cinDER, leK w. NI~BgHR
vlayor and City Councilmcmbers:
VIA FACSIMILE
be advised that we have been retained to represent Bob Polston, Paula Larson, Ken Ben'cs and
scl forth on Exhibit A that intend to appear at thc council meeting tonight in opposition to the,
at,ion of MetroPlains dated October 22 and October 27, 2000, for a residential/commercial
.qopment project of the old Westonka High School property located al the nor,'hwest comer of
ood Boulevard and Commerce (Subject Property). To outline our position, Iwill di.qcuss the
:lng topics: Project, Statutory Framework, Concerns and Conclusion.
Project. It is our understanding that MetroPlains has submitted applications for a
preliminary plat, conditional u~e permit, zoning amendment, variance, and street vacation
and possibly an amendment to the comprehensive plan lbr a comprehensive residential and
commercial project. The residential project will include 99 units in townhome and
ro,.vhouse buildings on 12.27 acres. It will require a change in thc zoning from R-I to R-3
PDA. It will also require an amendment to thc comprehensive plan. The comprchensivc
plm~ amendment is not inctuded in the material submiucd to the Metropolitan Council
because a portion of the property i~ guided low-density residential which is inconsistent
with the Project. Issues have been identified regarding landscaping, screening and
buffering, increased traffic and ae, ce~$ i~,ue~, alley vacation issues, and significant parking
issues. To date, no transportation/a¢cezs study has been completed by a qualified
transportation engineer, and no comprehensive study has bccn done by a qualified expert
Hone
Deco
Page
LAP.KIN, I--]OFFMAN, DALY & LINDGR. EN, LTD.
table Pat M¢is¢l, Mayor
nher 19, 2000
bo
regarding the adverse impacts on the neighborhood including not;e, light, and the walling
effect of having large multi-unit housing units with two to th.roe story buildings next to a
single-fanily detach housing rcsidemial neighborhood. Also, the proposed project will
result Ln hard cover surfaces of 36% with limited.dedication of lzmd for public park sl~ace.
Thc commercial projec~ will be a 67,000 square foot rcta'il usc on 6.7 acres that will result
in hard cover surface of 92%. Significant variancc,~ w ill be rcqui~ ed fi'om existh~g set back
and parking requirements. Also, the commercial project, will have no dedication of land
for public park space.
The building improvern~nts will be cramme, A onto a small piece of property that is
surrounded by tingle-family detached housing. It will be totally incnnd~ent with the
character of the neighborhood causing ~ignifieant adverse impacts on the quietude of the
neighborhood, with increases in noise and lighting in the evmfing, and increased traffic and
access impacts throughout the day. Impervious surfaces will almost fill the space and g/ye
thc project thc foci of'an ~,sphult parking lot. Traffic studies have vet to be completed.
Specifically, l lennepin County Transportation conductcd prclirr, inary' traffic review and
recommended that the Project be delayed until completion of thc traffic study and the
associated roadway needs are determined. See letter dated November 22, 2000, from
James Grube to Kandis Hansozk City Manager for the City of Mound.
Also, i~ is our understanding that the developer is proposing Tax Increment Financing for
the Project. My clients are very concerned that the zoning approvals will not be completed
until aB. er public hearings are held on the Tax lncremen! l-'inancing. If thc Project is going
to bc supported by public subsidies then the citizens have a righ~ to know' and to participate
in that hearing process prior to consideration of the development project by the City.
Statutory, Frarncwork. The zoning applications of the developer are governed by Minn.
Stat. § 462.353, et seq. as well az applicable ~tate and federal constitutions and case law.
Amendments to the comprehensive plan, zoning ordinance, preliminary plat, variance,
conditional use permits, subdivision, and street vacations all require public hearings that
are preceded by public notice as required by Minn. Stat. § 462.355, et seq. Amendmcnts to
the comprehensive plan haw been mandated by the Metropolit~: Land Pb. nning Act,
Minn. Stat. § 473.851, et seq. Generally, to rezone property the,,e must be proof either that
there was some mistake in thc original zoning or that the character of thc neighborhood has
changed to such an extent that the change should be made. The burden of proof is on the
party making of the change. Sun Oil Co. v. Village of New Hope, 22(I N.W.2d 256 (Minn.
1974).
Concerns. My clicnts have several concerns about the Project which are as follows:
Conflict of Interest. My clients have advised me that thc Mayor owns substantial
property that is located adjacent to the proposed Project. Specifically, thc Mayor
owns gightcen (18) lots near the proposed project. Notably, some of the property is
within thc ~xrea that required legal noti¢= of thc public hearing. If the proposed
FROM LARKIN HOFFMAN
Hon(
Dece
Page
DAW 612) 896-3265 (TUE) 12, 19' 00 16:!2/ST, 16'02/N0. 4260872971
LARKiN, HOFI~I:~N, DALY & LINDGI~N, LTD.
table Pat Meisel, Mayor
nber 19, 2000
(2)
(3)
P 4
Project is appro,,ed, my clierits believe that the Mayor's property ,.,.,ill sibmific'-,mtly
increase ha value. Clearly, the Mayor has a direct pecuniary interest in the outcome
of the MetroPlains development and if, therefore, disqual:,fied from voting. Lenz v.
Coon Creek Watershed District, ~.53 N.W.2d 209 (1967). Accord, Hay v.
Township of Grow, 206 N,W.2d:19 (1973).. Similarly, the Mayor would be
disqualified in voting on thc Metro?l~as project as a member of thc HRA.
Additionally, my clients believe that there is evidence of political animus by certain
members of the City Council toward thc opponents of the Project. Specifically, my
clients bellevc that this Proj~t is bein$ pushed by the Cit.,,' prior to the completion
of important and necessary transportation and other enviromuental studies before
thc newly elected ¢ouneilmgmb~s ~re sworn in thc first week of January, 2001.
My clients are very concerned about the manner in which thc City is ramsoding this
project tl'u'ough before the new City Council is sworn into office. It appears most
appropriate to defer the matter until the newly elected council is sworn in. To do
otherwise raises questions concerning the motives of the council action. Zeman v.
.Ci.ty of Minneapolis, 5~0 N.W.2d 532 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995).
Procedural Duc Process. My clients believe that public hearingg were not properly
notices and conducted as required by law. Specifically, there must be notice and an
opportunity to be heard in a m~a.ningf'ul time and in a me:u'dngful manner. Public
notice was not sent regarding all of the zoning matters that are before the City
Council. Also, published notice was defective because it gave the address of
different property which caused several people who oppose the Project to not
attend. Further, ire notice was not timely. It is clear tha~ my clients were
prejudiced by the defective notices, and that to remedy the situation a new public
hearing must be required. Any new public hearing cm-m,_,t ~occur until after all the
reports are finalized and my clients have an opportunity to review and comment on
them.
Rezoning is Premature. Very little study has been conducted to date by the City.
Making a decision at this time is premature. The transportation study needs to be
completed by llennepin County. If that process is too slog', thc City Council
should hire a traffic consultant to consider this matter. The City and its residents
should not be left to guess regarding the transportation impacts of the Project.
Secondly, thc Project is incompatible with thc R-1 residential district which totally
surrounds the Project. R-I has been the zoning designation of the surrounding area
and thc Subject Property since the late 1930's. Residents have relied on that zoning
and have conducted themselves according. It simply improper for the City to
change the rules at this stage. Since there has been no change in the character of
the neighborhood and no mistake in the original zoning, ,3-~e rezoning should not be
granted. Finally, rezoning iS inconsistent with the com?rchcnsivc plan for the
property which provides for low-density residential.
? FROM LABIKIN HoFFMAN
.Hone
Dccc
The
con&
zonin
OCC~I!
appl
rush
zonir
Since
Chris
LAPd
Enclc
::ODMY
DALY (612)896:m3265 ' (TuE)12. 19'.00 16'13/ST. 16:02,/N0. 4260S72971
LAKKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LL'NrDGKEN, .LTD.
rabl¢ Pat Meisel, Mayor
nber 19, 2000
4
(4)
P 5
All Zoninq Applications Should be Denied. Thc applications for preliminary plat,
subdivision approval, strut vacation and variances shou!d all be denied.
Specifically, thc necessary studi~s havt; not b¢~n cumpktcd, the public hca.rings
have not been held, and the strict:legal requirements have not been established. For
esample~ the variance requ/rement of undue hardship related to the property has not
been established. Economic issues are not sufficient. It is unlawful for the City to
adhere to the strict requirements'~f a variance for applications to the City, but relax
the stmadards for MctroPlsins. Also, p~k. dedlcation is not sufficient for the
Project. The city'is not requiting sufficient park dedication to the substantial
detriment of the neighborhood. What formula docs the. City use normally, and for
this project? Thc Project should be evalua'red for more screening, more public
park, and more buffeting. Finally, the developer has not met thc standards for
approval of a cnnditional use permit.
gnvimmnentaI Assessment Wqr. ksheet. An EAW should be prepared for the
Project to study its environmental effects. As of this date, my clients are
submitting to the Minnesota l:.nvironmental Quality Iqoard a petition for an EAW.
That matter must be reviewed and properly considered before any zoning approvals
may be gr,'mted. Minn. Stat. Ch. 116"B.01, ct seq.; and Nlirm. R. 4410.1100, et seq.
(1999). An EAW should consider the traffic and access impacts, and all thc other
adverse envirom'ncntal effects of thc ?reject.
CONCLUSION
4etroPlains Project should not be approved by the City Council because the City Council has not
tcted the necessary public hearings. The developer has failed to meet the requirements for thc
g applications Additionally, any public hearings on proposed tax increment financing should also
as part of thc approval process and before final action is taken by thc Gib' to grant thc zoning
afions. Thc Mayor should be disqualified fi'om voting on thc Project. In short, thc City should not
judgqnent but should complcte the necessary studies including an EAW before voting on the
applications.
fly,
opher J. Dietzffn, for
~N, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, Ltd.
SLtY¢
Bob Polston
Paula Larson
Ken Berres
),PC DOCS',L IB 1 ~6362 ~',l
F.ROM LARKiN
HOFFMAN DALY (612)896-3265 (TUE} 12, 19' 00 16:13/ST, !6:02/N0. 4260872971 P 6
EXHIBIT A
Kenneith D. Berres, 572~ 1,,}~:~.'ood BR4., Mound
Barbara E. Ben'es, 5724 Lynw0od Blvd.,Moumllij.
Andrew P. Berres, 5724 Lynwood Blvd., Mo-~, .' ' i' :~i'~. / . .
John E..Lzx'so~. 5713 LynwoOd Blvd., Mound
Paula M. Larson, 5713 Lynwo°d Blvd., Mout~t '"
David P. Larso~. 5713 Lynwood Blvd., ' Mound
Rober~ Polston, 5780 Lynwood Blvck,
Joan ?olston, 5780 Lynwood Bbd_, Motmrt
Verlon E. Paine, 5709 Lyn~ood BR'd_, Mound
Beverly E Paine, 5709 Lynwood Blvd_, Mound
Jeffi'ey 3'. Vannclli, 5717 Lynwood Blvd., Mourzl
Theresa 3. Bourclage, $717 Lynwood Blvd.,
Francis E_ ~-~e, 574.5 Lynwood Blvd.,
Harmon BloomquL~ 575g Lynwood Blvd., Mound
Lora Bloomquis-L 5755 Lynwood Blvd., Mouad
Bruce E. Jouex, 5820 Lynwoed Blvd., Mouzzl
Rosalie A. Jones, 5920 Lyrm.-ood Blvd., Mound
Holly .~. Jone% 5820 Lyn~,ood Blvd., Mound
Mr. And Mrs. Corn, _ Lynwood BIv~L, Mound (getting exact r~me$ & address)
Mark J. Heesen, 5S26 Lynwood Blvd., Mouad
Nancy J. Hees~ 5g'26 Lyawood Blv&, Mound
b-'tephe: M. Heesen,. 5826 Ly~ood Blv&,
Tim A. Lokrg, 5g18 Lyawood Blvd., Mound
Jennifer J. Lobergo 5glg Ly~wood Blvd., Mound
lsmes M. Rtrufl, 2233 Lyn,~ood Blvd_, Moumi
Sandra K. Ru-u&. 2233 Lynwood Blvd., Mound
Cathi M. Pc~m~on, 5732 Elm Road, Mound
£r~ J. Peterson, 5732 Elm P, oad, Momxl
Carol J. Pcrtddo, 5748 Elm l~oad. Mound
Martin W. Carbon. 5782 Elm Road,. Mound
Robert W. Jones, 5758 Elm R~ad, Mmmd
Rcbe~ L. Jorgca.~n, 5758 Elm Road. Mound
Bruce .a.. Hanson, 2055 Bellaire Lane,
Patrick H. Murphy, 204~ BeIlaire Lane, Mout~l
Sheila £. Murphy, 20~ Bellaire Lane,
Linda L. $~orseth, 564g Alder Road, Mound
Gl~gory K.. Sevel~ol~ 5636 Alder Roa~,. Mound
Lyre F. Sever~on, 5636 Alder Roa,~, Mound
NOTICE oP-A PUBUC HEARING
. TO CONSIDER THE APPROVAL OF
A MINOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENT TO THE PROPERTIES
~ LOCATED' AT · .J~
~ 5700 AND 5716 LTNWOOD BLVD.
~-PID~'S 14-117-24-44-0007 AND
14-117-24-44-0058
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 19, 2000 to consider amending
City's Comprehensive Plan dated April 11,
2000.
All persons appearing at said hearing
, ~with reference ~o the above will be g yen the
!opportunity to be heard at this meeting.
Loren Gordon
City Planner
(Published in The Laker Dec. 9. 2000)
MOUND, MINNESOTA :-I :
.ciT, oF MOUND
~ MOUND, MINNESOTA
~ NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING
i 'TO CONSIDER THE APPROVAL OF
~]'~,r A ZONING AMENDMENT
· APPLICATION AT .
5600 LYNWOOD BLVD.
P&Z CASE 00-65 AND 00-66
~; NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the
~ City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota,
~ill meet in the Council Chambers, 5341
~ Maywood Road, at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday.
~ December 19, 2000 to consider rezoning of
the Comprehensive Plan from Low Density the former Westonka School site and
Residential to DestinalJon District for lots 18. ~ adjacent residential property from the current
19, and 20, 'Lynwold Park' Lake Minnetrmka: i~' Rd - Single-Family Residential, R-2 - Single
The proposed amendment s n conneclJon ,~'~.and Two Family Residential, and B-1 -
With a development proposal for the site that ~? Central Business Zonin¢l D stricts to R-3 PDA
would rezone the property for commerciaJ-
use. The proposed amendment revises the .
- Mulliple Family Planned Development Area
and Destination District Ptanned
Development Area, The hearing is part of a
development proposal which would create
single and multiple family housing, retail
commercial, and public park amenities for the
site.
Copies 'of the plans are available to the
pubfic u. pon request at City Hall. All persons
appeanng at said hearing with reference to
the above will be given the opportunity to be
heard at this meeting.
Loren Gordon
City Planner
(Published in The Laker Dec. 9, 2000)
CITY OF MOUND
MOUND, MINNESOTA
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING
TO CONSIDER TIlE APPROVAL OF
A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE
PROPERTY LOCATED AT
5600 LYNWOOD BLVD.
P&Z CASE 00-64
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the
City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota,
will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341
Maywood Road, at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday,
December 19, 2000 to consider the approval
of a prelimina~ DJat. 'Mound Visions 1st
Addition" for th~ 'property located at 5600
Lynwood Blvd.
Copies of the plans are available to the
public u. pon request at City Hall. All persons
appeanng at said hearing with reference to
the above will be given the opportunity to be
heard at this meeting.
Loren Gordon
City Planner
(Published in The Laker Dec. 9, 2000)
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 2000
Those present: Chair Geoff Michael; Commissioners: Michael Mueller, Becky Glister,
Frank Weiland, Cklair Hasse, Bill Voss, and Council Liaison Bob Brown. Absent'
Excused: Orvin Burma, Absent: Jerry Clapsaddle. Staff present: City Manager Kandis
Hanson, City Planner Loren Gordon, City Engineer John Cameron, Building Official Jon
Sutherland, and Recording Secretary Sue Schwalbe.
The following public were present:
Ken Berres, 5724 Lynwood Blvd., Mound
Rod and Virginia Mac Charles
Diane Rowe, 5733 Lynwood Blvd., Mound
Peter Meyer, 5748 Sunset Road, Mound
Kim Anderson, 5736 Lynwood Blvd., Mound
Paula Larson, 5713 Lynwood Blvd., Mound
Jeff Vanault, 5717 Lynwood Blvd., Mound
Peter Johnson, 3140 Priest Lane
Kathy L. Anderson, KKE Architects
Lawrence W. Olson, Metro Plains Development
Chair Michael welcomed the public and offered refreshments. He then called the
meeting to order at 8:10 p.m.
Council Liaison Bob Brown said the Monday night was a very ugly meeting at the end.
This is a volunteer commission. Everyone here is freely giving of their time. I am going
to single out Mr. Johnson for coming here and shaking his finger at this group of people
and antagonizing them. None of these people deserve to be hostile talked to like that
and it is not fair to these people who give their time. In the future, when people come up
here with this hostile attitude toward these people who volunteer their time to ask this
person to leave the chambers. Thank you.
NOVEMBER 30, 2000
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PAGE2
MINUTES- APPROVAL OF THE NOVEMBER 15, 2000,MINUTES OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MOTION by Voss, seconded by Weiland, to accept the November 15, 2000, Planning
Commission meeting Minutes.
Ayes 7 (no call of names)
Nayes 0 (no call of names)
Motion Carried Unanimously
AGENDA
CASE :/¢00-65:
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AREA
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
METRO PLAINS DEVELOPMENT
NW CORNER OF LYINWOOD AND COMMERCE
CASE #00-66:
ZONING AMENDMENT
METRO PLAINS DEVELOPMENT
NW CORNER OF LYNWOOD AND COMMERCE
CASE #00-71:
STREET/EASEMENT VACATION
METRO PLAINS DEVELOPMENT
NW CORNER OF LYNWOOD AND COMMERCE
Staff has compiled a list of items regarding the Metro Plans development project raised
at Planning Commission meeting Monday night.
TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION ISSUES
It is somewhat a coincidence that the downtown traffic study and this development
proposal are on the same time schedule. Although there are traffic impacts because of
this development, the traffic study has accounted for retail commercial on this corner. A
number of revisions have been made to the plan to make the traffic and circulation
acceptable to staff.
NOVEMBER 30, 2000
.PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PAGE 3
ZONING CHANGE
The proposal to rezone the current R-1 district to R-3 PDA is tied to the development
plan. If the rezoning is approved but the project does not materialize, the development
plan is still applicable to the property. Anyone else wishing to develop the site would
have at least two (2) options for development -1 ) comply with the approved development
plan 2) submit a new development plan that would require revising the CUP, triggering
public hearings at Planning Commission and City Council. The PDA process is a way for
the City to control any development of the property regardless ownership changes.
L YNWOOD AND COMMERCE RIGHT-OF-WA Y ISSUES
The County will require maximum of 25 feet of additional right-of-way dedication on
County Road 15 and 10 feet on County Road 110 as part of the final plat to
accommodate additional turn lanes. The County told the City in our meeting on
November 27, 2000, they will not require additional right-of-way from residential
properties west of the site on Lynwood Blvd. The final plat must meet the additional
right-of-way requirements of Hennepin County. The county indicated to the City and the
Developer at the November 27, 2000 meeting that the three entrances show on the
Metro Plains Site Plan would be allowed if some type of traffic channelization is used on
both County Roads 110 and 15. This could be in the form of either medians or striping,
which cannot be determined until the design of the 110/15 intersection is agreed upon.
The also indicated that the right-in/right-out drive proposed on Commerce Blvd., will most
likely become a right-out only exit. The design of the new intersection of County Road
15 with Commerce Blvd. Will require numerous meetings with Hennepin County before a
final design can be agreed upon.
ACCESS DRIVE ALONG L YNWOOD
Staff believes this drive location gives the best access and entry point to the residential
area. Moving the drive further east will cause conflicts with the grocery store dock area.
There are some compromises with this location having single family residences across
the street. Staff would suggest landscape buffering in the front yards to address
headlights if the access drive stays in its present location.
NOVEMBER 30, 2000
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PAGE 4
PARI~ING SPA CES
The commercial parking area is proposing 313 spaces that is based on a 1 space per
200 square feat of retail. Cities typically have commercial standards of 1 per 150 to 250.
Mound is on the high end of the scale and a 1/200 is a very typical standard. The
spaces are also 10 feet wide to meet Mound code. Additional spaces could be gained at
9 and 9 % feet widths. A 9 feet width would add another 31 spaces or 344 total. A 9 ~
feet width would add 15 spaces or 328 spaces. Staff is very comfortable with the 1/200
ratio proposed and would recommend the Planning Commission support the variance to
parking spaces.
LETTER FROM METRO PLAINS:
On November 27, 2000 at the Mound Planning Commission Preliminary Plat ApproVal
Meetin~o Chair Geoff Michael raised questions regarding parking the area and a plan for
the Que::;t antenna on the site. Please provide this letter to the members of the Planning
Commi:;~ion as further explanation of our plans regarding parking and the antenna.
City staff has indicated that they would support 9-foot wide parking spaces in the
commercial area with a 62-foot distance between centerlines or 10 foot parking spaces
with 60 feet between centerlines. As the buildings have moved around to accommodate
the anticipated needs of Hennepin County, the 62-foot spacing because a problem and a
10-foot wide spaces were incorporated. This dropped the total commercial parking to
313 spaces plus and additional 20 spaces for the primary use of the Ponds Arena and 10
new parallel parking spacing on Lynwood Blvd. As more information is available on the
exact building locations, it is our intention to work with increasing the distance between
the centerlines reducing the width of the parking spaces to 9 feet. We believe that this
will provide up to 347 stalls plus the 30 spaces for Ponds and on Lynwood. These
decisions would be made in conjunction with City staff. We believe this parking is
adequate for the commercial needs of the development.
After construction, we believe that the occasional event parking needs of the Ponds
Arena and the church will have an effect on their neighbors. We are proposing that the
Ponds ,.~rena, the church, the townhome association, and retail center each appoint a
responsible party for parking. The responsibility of the responsible parties would be to
communication and coordinate the parking needs to minimize the effects of special
events on the neighborhood and minimize the involvement of the City in these problems.
NOVEMBER 30, 2000
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PAGE 5
We believe the current on street parking should be analyzed by the City to provide
opportunity for additional parking for special events. Diagonal parking on Alder on the
north side of the Ponds Arena and parking to the north and east of the new dedicated
parkland are potential areas to look at.
We are currently working with the Ponds Arena to draft a letter of intent for the additional
parking as shown on the site plan. The intent is for this to be a long-term lease
agreement with the lese rate based upon the amortization of Metro Plains' cost.
The antenna is currently in the center of the residential area. We have had several
meetings with Quest regarding options for the antenna. The antenna is anchored in an
8-foot concrete cylinder of 40-foot depth. Their opinion is that it cannot fall. They have
indicated to us that the antenna is engineered in such a way to fold from the center of the
antenna so that the top of the antenna would fall onto the base. They have further
indicated that there is flexibility in location of the antenna within our site. We are
currently working with City staff to determine their flexibility for relocation within the
existing variance. Based upon our site plan, we think an ideal spot would be in the
triangular green space behind the grocery store and adjacent to the storm drainage
ponds. We have requested a letter from Quest confirming the above information and
hope to present that to you on Thursday night, November 30, 2000.
We will continue to respond to neighborhood requests in areas such as moving the path
to the south of the pond, landscaping buffers and alley turnarounds.
CORRESPONDENCE FROM ORVIN BURMA
Although I told you on the phone yesterday that I was available for a special meeting of
the Mound Planning Commission, a recount including dimpled ballots and pregnant
chads (more like checking schedules with my wife) have revealed a conflict which I can't
change.
I would, however, appreciate if you could distribute the following comments to the
Commission prior to or at the meeting.
I am confident that the City Manager and Staff has accurately reported that the issues
with the County are worked out to a point sufficient so as to not delay action on the
development.
NOVEMBER 30, 2000 PAGE 6
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
I feel that the Commission (to the degree that the Planning Commission is required by
law) has considered the traffic issues. We have been assured that Staff, the City
Manager and City Engineer have discussed traffic flows with the County. I am ok with
the combined expertise of these people to work out the details of ingress and egress.
As explained by the City Manager, soil correction monies are not dependent on LCA
funds. This project is not different that any other project in the city. It must meet or
exceed all safeguards put in place through code, ordinance or other requirements of
the building inspector, engineering and other government entities. I feel that this is
adequate to assure a quality final product.
4. I feel that reasonable attention has been given to screening and other plans to
minimize the impact of traffic, lights, noise, etc.
I disagree with the point of neighboring property values being decreased by this
project. Firstly, I don't believe that this will happen. Secondly, if the property values
diminish, we have no right to deny a person or group of persons who wish to exercise
their right to "reasonable use of land".
6. Rezoning resulting in increased taxes is a non-issue.
Increased traffic in the area is unavoidable. The residents of the area chose to buy
their property on a county highway with the potential inherent (and apparent)
probability that as urban sprawl intensifies, so will traffic. It will increase regardless of
the fate of this project.
Quaintness of the neighborhoods was another point brought up. All of us would like
for our neighborhoods to remain status quo. However, we would like development in
someone else's neighborhood to help our tax base. I used to like to go out on my
deck and look at 16 acres of woods that now is Pelican Pont. When I look out now, I
see a 50" TV screen so clearly that I can determine what channel they are watching.
I see boat canopies where I used to see lake. But it's progress. And it's inevitable.
And it was a reasonable use of land.
9. Safety of the pond is no more an issue than any other pond in the city, or the
lakeshore that we revere. Parental supervision is the answer to that issue.
NOVEMBER 30, 2000
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PAGE 7
10. I have a dilemma with the parking. Although I would like to see more spaces, I am
opposed to making the spaces smaller. I could accept perhaps 9'6", but 9' is too
crowded. Once again, however, the developer has worked to accommodate the
Arena's needs. The church will certainly benefit from the additional spaces on
Sunday mornings. Weekday and Saturday weddings, funerals, etc. may continue to
be a problem. This, however, should not fall upon the shoulders of the developer to
solve the Church's parking problem. My thought would be to develop as many
parking spaces as possible with a 9'6" width and recommend granting a variance for
the difference from the required minimum number of spaces. These spaces,
combined with the other planning parking within one block of the are should suffice.
CASE #00-65: PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AREA
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
METRO PLAINS DEVELOPMENT
NW CORNER OF LYNWOOD AND COMMERCE
MOTION by Brown second by Mueller, to recommend to the City Council to accept the
Planned Development Area, Conditional Use Permit, (Planning Department #00-65) as
per all staff recommendations. Including the following additions. That the walkway be to
the south of the pond; 1/200 spaces for parking; the commitment from Metro Plains
Development to talk with Mr. Berds to continue to work with the fence and the
turnaround; staff review of landscaping with neighbors and developer to insure
screening/buffering; and the Metro Plans Development Continue to work with Quest to
find a proper location for the cell tower.
DISCUSSION
Commissioner Weiland asked if the shrubbery refers to the south entry drive. Mr. Olson
clarified that is correct.
Commissioner Glister is concerned of the safety of the antenna. They claim the tower
cannot fall and they claimed the Titanic would not sink. This antenna is 120 feet tall.
NOVEMBER 30, 2000
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PAGE 8
Commissioner Mueller AMENDED the MOTION to offer a variance of 23 spaces on the
1/200; however predicated it by the width of the spaces not be less than 9 % feet and the
back to back not less than 60 feet, 60 inches.
AMENDMENT accepted by Brown.
No further discussion
Ayes 7 (no call of names)
Nayes 0 (no call of names)
Motion carried unanimously
CASE #00-66: ZONING AMENDMENT
METRO PLAINS DEVELOPMENT
NW CORNER OF LYNWOOD AND COMMERCE
City Planner Loren Gordon stated to above information is staffs information.
Rezoning R-3 planned develop area only. This plan is the only thing that can go through
there.
MOTION by Voss, seconded by Brown to recommend to the City Council to accept the
Zoning Amendment and/or Rezoning (Planning Department #00-66) as per all staff
recommendations. Including that the current R-1 district to R-3 Planning Development
Area and the R-2 and B-1 to the Destination District. Lots 18, 19, and 20 are included in
the minor land use plan revision as a destination district PDA consistent with the
rezoning.
DISSCUSSION:
Commissioner Mueller questioned if the Comprehensive Plan can be changed this with
evening with a the motion of the rezoning and if the land use portion of the
comprehensive plan to includes Lot 18, 19, and 20 into a destination district. Gordon
responded that yes it can. Those Lots are zoned residential the Commission has made
a motion to change them to commercial destination district and the land use plan they
are shown as density residential. The land use plan should also reflect that this is the
destination district so that they are consistent. This motion makes the happen.
AYES 6 (no call of names)
NAYES 1 (Hasse)
Motion carried
NOVEMBER 30, 2000
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Commissioner Hasse does not agree with "piece meal" zoning.
PAGE 9
CASE #00-71: STREET/EASEMENT VACATION METRO PLAINS DEVELOPMENT
NW CORNER OF LYNWOOD AND COMMERCE
City Planner Loren Gordon stated to above information is staff's information. This is the
alley behind the homes on Lynwood. Lots 18, 19, and 20 were just rezoned in your
motion. The idea is to vacate this, rebuild the utilities, move a storm sewer access and a
manhole back onto Lot 22 and get this whole system to work. The easement is not
longer needed so we think we should get rid of it.
Commissioner Weiland asked if Lots 18, 19, and 20 were owned by Metro Plains
Development? Mr. Olson explained they are under a purchase options and there are
purchase agreements.
MOTION by Voss seconded by Weiland to recommend to the City Council to accept the
Street/Easement Vacation (Planning Department #00-71) as per all staff
recommendations.
DISCUSSION
Ayes 7 (no call of names)
Nayes 0 (no call of names)
Motion Carries unanimously
Chair Michael indicated all correspondence in packet has been read.
MOTION by Voss seconded by Weiland to adjourn meeting at 9:00 p.m.
Ayes 7 (no call of names)
Nayes 0 (no call of names)
Motion Carries unanimously
Submitted by Sue Schwalbe
Date
Approved by Chair Geoff Michael, Date
NOTICE
There will be a Special Meeting of the Mound
Planning Commission at 8:05 p.m., Thursday,
November 30, 2000, for the purpose of discussing
and taking action on the following land use
applications as submitted by MetroPlains
Development:
Planned Development Area - CUP
Zoning Amendment
Street/Easement Vacation
This is not a public hearing.
Kandis Hanson
City Manager
MINUTES
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 2000
Those present: Chair Geoff Michael; Commissioners: Michael Mueller, Orvin
Burma, Becky Glister, Frank Weiland, Cklair Hasse, Bill Voss, Jerry Clapsaddle,
and Council Liaison Bob Brown. Staffpresent: City Manager Kandis Hanson,
City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jori Sutherland, and Recording
Secretary Sue Schwalbe.
The following public were present:
Ken Berres, 5724 Lynwood Blvd., Mound
Rod and Ginny MacCharles
Josephine Sicheneder, 2318 Fairview Lane, Mound
Marlin Sicheneder, 2318 Fairview Lane, Mound
Lorna Norling, 5969 Lynwood Blvd., Mound
Bob Schwiderski, 5969 Lynwood., Mound
John Babler, 2235 Langdon Lane, Mound
Karen Babler, 2235 Langdon Lane, Mound
Janelle Danielson, 6020 Chestnut Road, Mound
Betty Davis, 5925 Lynwood Blvd., Mound
Jo Soderlund, 5945 Lynwood Blvd., Mound
Ferol Andersen, 5935 Lynwood Blvd., Mound
Diane Rowe, 5933 Lynwood Blvd., Mound
Brad Johnson, 5789 Elm Road, Mound
Wayne Davis, 2248 Langdon Lane, Mound
Mark Heeser, 5826 Lynwood Blvd., Mound
Thomas, 5212 Waterbury Road, Mound
Bob Johnson, 2928 Westedge Blvd., Mound
Ten-i, 6001 Lynwood Blvd., Mound
Chair Michael welcomed the public and offered refreshments. He then called the
meeting to order at 7:36 p.m.
Council Liaison Bob Brown thanked Council Member Mark Hanus for filling in
for him at the November 13, 2000 Planning Commission Meeting.
NOVEMBER 27, 2000
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PAGE 18
CASE #00-64:
PRELIMINARY PLAT, PUBLIC HEARING
METRO PLAINS DEVELOPMENT
NW CORNER OF LYNWOOD AND COMMERCE
CASE #00-65'
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AREA,
CUP PUBLIC HEARING
METRO PLAINS DEVELOPMENT
NW CORNER OF LYNWOOD AND COMMERCE
CASE #00-66:
ZONING AMENDENT, PUBLIC HEARING
METRO PLAINS DEVELOPMENT
NW CORNER OF LYNWOOD AND COMMERCE
CASE #00-71:
STREET/EASEMENT VACATION, PUBLIC HEARING
METRO PLAINS DEVELOPMESNT
NW CORNER OF LYNWOOD AND COMMERCE
Since the last Planning Commission meting, the developer has submitted
additional information to complete the submittal package. The deficiencies
outlines in the Planning and Engineering reports at last meeting have been
addressed with this submittal.
MO UND MARKET PLA CE
The locations 'of the grocery store and smaller retail shops have been flip-flopped
since the last meeting based on conversations the developer has had with two
potential grocers. This arrangement alleviates almost every issued raised by staff
during the last review including circulation, building orientation, facade
treatments, driveways alignments with Church Road, loading docks, and
relationships with adjacent residential homes along Lynwood Blvd., By having the
smaller retail shops along Lynwood Blvd., there are opportunities to have
entrances from the street and the parking lot.
NOVEMBER 27, 2000
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PAGE 19
The building will not need to be as tall and massive which will create a more
intimate feel along Lynwood Blvd. It is also demonstrated that on-street parking
can be accommodated along with a boulevard and sidewalk. Architectural Design
Guidelines for Mound Marketplace detail how design will be addressed.
LANDSCAPING. SCREENING AND BUFFERING
The landscaping plan identifies plantings for residential, park and commercial
areas of the site. City code requires 99 plantings of overstory, conifer, and
ornamental varieties within the residential area to meet the minimum of one tree
per dwelling unit provision. The plan provides 145 planting units in addition to
existing trees that will be maintained. A total of 47 shade trees will be planted
along private streets and trail segments. Ornamental trees are located in
courtyards and in front of buildings. A total of 64 ornamentals are shown.
Conifers will provide screening along the south and west property lines. A total of
34 are proposed.
The park will be planted with 24 overstory trees in addition to 9 conifers that will
be maintained along the est property lines.
The commercial area will have a total of 95 plantings to satisfy the 66 planting
minimum based on retail floor area. Again, conifers will be used to screen the
grocery store and pond arena facades as well as the loading area of the grocery
store. A total of 44 conifers are proposed. Shade trees are proposed for the
parking area and along street boulevards. A total of 45 trees are proposed. A few
ornamentals will highlight entry points along Lynwood Blvd. and Commerce
Blvd.
The landscape plan is labeled as schematic and staffwould want to work with the
developer on detailing shrubs and plantings at the foundations of the commercial
buildings. AS with all developments, planting minimums of 2.5 inch caliper for
deciduous and 6 feet height for conifers apply.
NOVEMBER 27, 2000
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PAGE 20
Staff believes the developer has proposed a good landscaping plan to address
many of the screening and buffering issues. Two Items with the landscape plan
staff would recommend modifications to are boulevard plantings along the
commercial areas and internal parking lot landscaping. Staff would suggest
overstory planting islands at the midpoint of every other parking row. Two
islands would be sufficient to help provide visual relief in the parking lot.
Secondly, staff would suggest the overstory boulevard plantings along Lynwood
and Commerce be relocated to suggest an urban edge. Staff would like to work
with the developer to better define the relationship of the building and street that is
agreeable to the mound Visions Plan. The plaza area at the comer should also tie
into this plan.
B UIDLING MA TERIAL STANDARDS
Material standards for the Village at Cook's Bay and Mound Marketplace detail
exterior treatments for these buildings. These standards exceed code minimums
for multi-family and commerce buildings.
COUNTY ROAD 15 AND I10 RIGHT-OF-WA Y
The developer is proposed to dedicate a 7 feet strip along Lynwood and
Commerce to Hennepin County for right-of-way. This would appear to be
acceptable to staff at this time until a determination from the County can be made.
This often times comes after approval of the preliminary plat and is handled as a
condition of final plat approval.
Staff would like the developer to dedicate a pedestrian access easement between
the right-of-way and building edge to further protect public access along
Commerce and Lynwood.
Continuation of public hearing on Metro Plain Development. Review by staff
which is Loren Gordon: Staff has received another submittal from developer.
There were a number of items staff felt were incomplete and staff requested
additional information. At the staff level we feel the submittal is complete. And
provide recommendations tonight.
NOVEMBER 27, 2000
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PAGE 21
Commercial site: looking at preliminary plat approval tonight and an easement
vacation of an alley and the preliminary plan approval of the development and
residential development.
Commercial portion: grocery store and a potential liquor store. A series of
smaller shops along Lynwood and commerce. Staff believes this flip-flop is a
huge improvement of the esthetics of the project as a whole. Guidelines have been
submitted (see packet). The thing we are still trying to work out is what to do with
the sidewalk edges. Trying to better define what will work the best. The urban
look will set the tone for the intersection. Showed schematic drawing of the
intersection, which will evolve, into the Mound Visions Project. See letter in the
packet from the County regarding traffic issues and right of way. Letter is strong
is saying we have a number of concerns. The position the County seems to be
taking is workable. Everything in the letter is almost worked through. The traffic
situation can be accommodated.
Screening and landscaping (second page of plan set) One tree per unit. Scattered
around site.
The park will be planted with 24 overstory trees in addition to nine conifers that
will be maintained along the west property line.
BUILDING MATERIALS STANDARDS
Material standards for the Village at Cook's Bay and Mound Marketplace detail
exterior treatments for these buildings. These standards exceed code minimums
for multi-family and commerce buildings.
COUNTYROAD 15 AND 110 RIGHT-OF-WA Y
The developer is proposing to dedicate a seven feet strip along Lynwood and
Commerce to Hennepin County for right-of-way. This would appear to be
acceptable to staff at this time until a determination from the County can be made.
This often times comes after approval of the preliminary plat and is handled as a
condition of final plat approval.
NOVEMBER 27, 2000
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PAGE 22
Staff would like the developer to dedicate a pedestrian access easement between
the fight-of-way and building edge to further protect public access along
Commerce and Lynwood Blvd.
PARKS AND TRAILS
The multi-use trail will be 8 feet in width and easements will be provided to allow
public use. A .suggestion that was raised at the last meeting was to route the trail
along the south side of the pond. The developer has indicated this is acceptable.
ALLEY VACATION
The plans show the alley on Lots 18, 19, and 20 will be vacated. The preliminary
plat indicates vacation of a portion of an alley to accommodate the access drive on
Lynwood Blvd. All on and off-site utilities in the alley will need to be rebuilt
consistent with the City Engineer's specifications.
PARKING
A total of 313 parking spaces are shown in the commercial area at a 10 feet width.
This equates to almost one space per 200 square feet of retail, a common standard
among most metropolitan communities. The Mound code is set at 1 per 150
square feet, which would require 440 spaces. Staff would concur with the
developer' s request. Staff would recommend isle spacing be a minimum of 62
feet.
Two 90-degree parking areas are proposed in the residential area to accommodate
staff's concerns regarding visitor parking. Staff would suggest that the spaces
adjacent to the rear of the grocery store be relocated around the clubhouse to better
accommodate visitor parking.
Pond arena parking lot is reconfigured and provides 40 parking spaces.
NOVEMBER 27, 2000
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PAGE 23
The City Code requires that commercial development lighting not exceed 0.4
candles at the property line. Building lighting is proposed as discussed in the
Architectural Design Guidelines for Mound Marketplace. Lighting for the private
pedestrian street system should be indicated. Combinations of streetlights and
building lighting could be used.
COMMON 1NTRES T COMMUNITY
The Villages at Cook's Bay will be platted as a Common Interest Community.
(CIC). A CIC is permitted by State Statute and acts similar for platting purposes
to a condominium. There will not be dedicated lot lines for the townhomes or Big
Houses. Rather, lot lines will be created at interior walls for each unit. The
building exteriors and land will be owned and maintained by an association. For
platting purposes, the Preliminary Plat will receive approval from the Planning
Commission and Council and final plat will receive Council approval. Upon final
locations of the units, the developer will certify each unit and file ht CIC with the
Hennepin County Recorder.
For a point of reference on density, if this development were platted, each unit
would have an average of 5,400 square feet of lot area. This exceeds that lot area
that would be required for a townhome development platted under a straight R-3
zoning district. The townhome provisions in the R-3 diswict require 5,000 square
feet of lot are a per unit for a 3 unit building and 4,000 square feet per unit for a 6
unit building.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
An amendment to the land use plan for Lots 18, 19, and 20 will need to be made to
show the land as Destination District. This can be handled at the same time as the
rezoning at the Planning Commission and at Final Plat approval by the City
Council.
NOVEMBER 27, 2000 PAGE 24
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
R~ COMMENDATIONS
pRELIMINARY PLA T
Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the
Preliminary Plat with the following conditions:
1. Determination of right-of-way by Hennepin County.
Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the
rezoning as requested. The City will also approve a minor Land Use Plan revision
to show Lots 18, 19, and 20 of Lynwold Addition as Destination District Planned
Unit Development consistent with the rezoning. The City will also approve a
textual revision to the Downtown Residential designation in the Land Use Plan to
better describe the development density and character.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the
PDA for the Villages at Langdon Bay and the Mound Marketplace as requested
with the following conditions:
1. A variance of 127 parking spaces for the commercial parking area be approved.
2. Relocate parking spaces along the rear of the grocery store so areas close to the
clubhouse.
3. A pedestrian easement between building facades along Lynwood and
Commerce right-of-ways be provided.
4. Easements for recreation and maintenance of the multi-use trail system.
NOVEMBER 27, 2000
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PAGE 25
5. Indicate how the private streets will be lighted.
o
Developer work with the City in developing a streetscape along Commerce and
Lynwood to address landscaping, faCade, and other improvements
complementary to the development and the Mound Visions Plan.
EASEMENT VA CA TION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approve
vacation of the alley easement as requested.
Commissioner Brown questioned if there would be an easement or an agreement
with the developer to allow spots for overflow parking for the Pond Area. Gordon
explained that the idea is that the developer will work out some arrangement for
the use of the parking spaces. Maybe deed the land to the Pond Arena. The
parking at the Pond is a bad situation and this does not completely correct it. Vern
Hanson of Metro Plains explained that they are in discussion with the Pond Arena
in regards to parking. A letter of intent will be issued at the appropriate time.
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
Peter Johnson, 3140 priest Lane, representing Pond Arena. They are continuing
conversation with developer. The Lot directly west of the pond arena will be joint
use parking. They are now working out the details. He is very favorable with the
idea of diagonal parking on the Alder Road side of there property.
Mueller: Asked Peter Johnson, the planning commission likes to "plan". The 20
feet owned by the Pond arena. This is the total green space.
NOVEMBER 27, 2000
pLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
· PAGE 26
Bob Polston, 5784 Lynwood Blvd., Mr. Polston is a resident of the area. He and
his neighbors are asking for this project to be put on hold because a number of
items are not yet addressed. For example the safety issues. Mr. Polston proposes
to wait for traffic study to be completed by Hennepin County. Mr. Polston also
questioned if TIF is it to be used, has it been approved, are the correct soil
readings taken, has the Livable Communities Act grant been approved and what
about the cell phone tower? Mr. Polston is requesting this be tabled until all these
issues have been addressed.
City Manager Kandis Hanson explained that The Livable Communities Act Grant
has been applied for administratively. It is intended to be spread across all of
Mound Visions and downtown redevelopment projects to different degrees for
different portions of the project. The application was for $900,000 but it is spread
across various pieces of the projects. To my knowledge it is not dedicated in any
way to soil corrections. There is a piece of it dedicated to this portion of the
project should it be awarded but not to soil corrections.
Tom Casey, 2854 Cambridge Lane. Mr. Casey agrees with Bob Polston. Mr.
Casey then read Section 330.25 in subdivision code, #7. Mr. Casey believes the
traffic signal should be completed before moving ahead with this project.
Beverly Payne, 5709 Lynwood Blvd., Ms. Payne is very concerned with the
parking issue and does not believe the Planning Commission is addressing this
issue. Ms. Payne asked what are the conditions of rezoning? Chair Michael
explained two (2) public hearings. Ms. Payne asked what is the definition of R-3
Zoning? Gordon explained that R-3 Zoning is multiple housing units. Ms. Payine
recently paid for a very expensive survey and she is concerned about property
values. Ms. Payne doesn't feel any of these issues have been addressed. Ms.
Payne also agrees with the issues raised to Bob Polston. Ms. Payne then asked
how high are the trees going to be?
Diane Rowe, 5733 Lynwood Blvd. Ms. Rowe would like to address the rezoning
issues as well as the traffic issues involved and the effects it may have on her
property.
NOVEMBER 27, 2000
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Ms. Rowe property is Lot 49 and the ELY 25 feet of Lot 48, Lynwold Park Lake
Minnetonka. This is on the south side of Lynwood Blvd., almost directly across
from the proposed entry to the development.
Ms. Rowe's concerns are involving traffic and feels this portion on Lynwood
Blvd. is fairly quiet for a county road. When backing out of her driveway and her
vision is that it will be a nightmare in the future. Also Ms. Rowe is concerned that
she will be getting headlights directed at her home which never happened before.
Also she feels the developer is not only purchasing portions of her neighborhood
but are also taking away the quaintness that drew her to this property in the first
place.
Ms. Rowe asked why the entrance has to be on Lynwood Blvd., and would
suggest to the developer that they consider an entrance on the opposite side of the
development near Alder and Bellaire. She feels this would allow new residents to
enter into an immediate neighborhood setting without driving behind a docking
station and grocery store and would also eliminate the destruction of a couple of
homes. If the entrance is necessary for the delivery trucks then make it as such;
deliveries only which would eliminate the heavy traffic at that entrance.
Ms. Rowe is a lifetime resident of Mound and has also felt the need to make
improvements to the community; however, her property values will decrease
because of the proposed placement of the entrance of the development. She is
willing to pay that extra tax dollar to improve the city but does not agree with a
decrease in the one investment in property that she owns.
Ms. Rowe is a single parent and has put a lot of time, effort, and money into
making her home just what it is ..... an investment. She would hate to see it take a
major dive financially. Ms. Rowe doesn't feel it is justified that she personally
should bear the burden of a decrease in property values as well as the
inconvenience of traffic issues for the sake of improving the community. She is
hopeful the developer as well as the city can assist her in arriving at a solution to
this dilemma.
NOVEMBER 27, 2000
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
q~'~X'~AGE 28
Paula Larson, 5713 Lynwood Blvd., Ms. Larson has lived here almost 30 years.
Ms. Larson is appalled at what is going on across the street and what is the
Commission trying to do to your long term residents. Ms. Larson asked if there is
a map of 100 feet or so of the properties located around this property. Gordon
answered that there is an updated survey of the topography. Ms. Larson is
concerned that her quality of life will be greatly reduced by the traffic and
headlights. Ms. Larson questioned if we are aware of what the additional
residences and grocery store effect will have on the sewer system? Cameron
explained that the sanitary sewer is sized to handle this project. Also Ms. Larson
asked if there will be any assessments to the property owners? Cameron explained
that the City of Mound cannot guarantee what Hennepin County will do and that
all the additional fight-of-way will come off the north side. This is 25 feet the
developer must provide to Hennepin C'ounty for a mm lane to go north. Ms.
Larson questioned what are the store hours? Chair Michael explained the City
cannot dictate what the store hours will be. Ms. Larson stated that Mr. Barris said
the developer might be purchasing his property. Ms. Larson then called Remax
Realty and the realtor told her the value of her property is $155,000-165,000;
however after the development it will be $95,000. Ms. Larson would like to
know why do the long-term residents of Mound have to take a hit in the
pocketbook and whose responsibility to maintain the pond? Gordon explained the
pond is the responsibility of the Homeowners association.
Judy Marshcheck, resident of Mound and is also a realtor. SEE HANDOUT.
MOTION to discontinue public hearing and mn meeting until 11:30 p.m.
seconded by Brown for discussion purposes only.
Motion to discontinue public meeting and run until 11:30 p.m.
Brown second only for discussion purposes.
MOTION by Voss seconded by Hasse to continue public hearing until 12:00 p.m..
Commissioner Mueller stated that there are issues that probably will not be
addressed so he would like to see the public hearing and meeting be continued
until the next meeting and is uncomfortable with extending meeting at this time.
NOVEMBER 27, 2000
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PAGE 29
BROWN call for vote:
AYES 8
NAYES 1 (Mueller)
Motion Carried
Bob Johnson, Lives in the Highlands. Mr. Johnson stated that the most important
fact is that half of the Mound registered do not want to see this project.
Tom Casey. Mr. Casey asked not to close the public hearing tonight because
further information is forthcoming. For example the traffic study.
Ken Berris 5724 Lynwood., Mr. Berris examined Chair Michael list for non-
repetitives.
Peter Meyer, 5748 Sunset Road. Mr. Meyer appreciates what the Planning
Commission does here but note there is a common theme here tonight. More and
more questions and less certainties. Mr. Meyer feels the development is too
abrupt. Three out of ten residents of Mound are under 17 years of age and there is
a lack of attention to this group.
Chair Michael instructed Mr. Meyer to 'direct his comments to the items on the
agenda; not the football field or soccer field etc.
Mr. Meyer supports the commercial portion of the development. He is looking at
the balance especially the townhomes issues. Mr. Meyer is very opposed to the
rezoning and the street vacation. There is no benefit to the community. Mr. Meyer
is against the preliminary plat.
NOVEMBER 27, 2000
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
"~~,r~AGE
29
Ken Berris, Lynwood Blvd. Mr. Berris is asking the Planning Commission for a
mm around in the alleyway. The loading dock is less then 50' from his property
and directly in his view. Mr. Berris questioned how the storm sewer is going to be
managed in the pond area and could a fence be considered along the east side of
his property. Also there are 100 year old trees are along the north side. Are these
trees coming down? Hanson responded no the trees are not coming down. Mr.
Berris is also concerned with the pond because it is a kid magnet. This is a safety
issue.
Mark Hayes, 5826 Lynwood Blvd. Mr. Hayes asked how tall are the townhomes?
Hanson responded 2¥2 stories. Mr. Hayes is questioning the buffer and believes
this to be too abrupt. It should be a gradual effect in density.
Linda Skorseth, 4648 Alder Road. Ms. Skorseth asked what is the rush? To
rezone the property required 4 out of 5 council members to approve. There will
be a new city council in January, 2000.
Kim Anderson, 5736 Lynwood Blvd., Ms. Anderson requested the traffic study
needs to be completed first and how far does the traffic study include, what areas,
what roads? Gordon responded that the traffic study is basically for the downtown
area. Cameron added that the traffic study was ordered because of the relocation
of County road 15.
City Manager Kandis Hanson explained they met w/th County Engineers at
Hennepin County to request some clarifications as per the Letter. This meeting
was completed tonight at 5:00 p.m. therefore another memo could not be included
at this time.
Ken Berris, Mound evangelical Free Church. Mr. Berris stated the Church does
have an agreement with the Library for parking and what does the council
recommend for parking because there will be people parking on the streets from
the Pond Arena all the way down to the 2020 building. Chair Michael stated the
Pond has had parking problems since the beginning and the chruch has always had
parking issues.
NOVEMBER 27, 2000
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Bob Polston, Lynwood Blvd., Mr. Polston has other concern in the development
with the width of the street at 24 feet wide and believes there is a 28 feet wide
minimum. This is a standard to comply with the city standards. Mr. Polston also
stated to downsize the zoning is taking away the rights of two residents.
Peter Meyer. Stated any project that you review should solve problems not create
problems.
Public Hearing Closed at 11:53 p.m.
Commissioner Voss asked staff if we make the motion of staff recommendation
do we just make a motion on the preliminary plat or would the preliminary plat
include rezoning, conditional use permit and the easement vacation. Gordon
suggested that the Planning Commission vote on the individual cases.
Staff is recommending approval of preliminary plat, rezoning the CUP that goes
with the zoning and the easement vacation with those conditions.
MOTION by Voss let me explain why I am making the motion after I make the
motion staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval to
the City Council of the preliminary conditions 1. Determination of right-of-way
by Hennepin County. That is a big issue and would determine whether the
preliminary plat would be approved if the county would go along with it. There
are a number of other issues that I am also concerned with 1. Being the tower.
However if the tower cannot be relocated than the developers cannot do anything
about. There are a number of things to stop the project from going forward. If
they don't meet the preliminary plat by the time it gets to city council.
MOTION by Voss, seconded by Brown to recommend City Council approval of
preliminary plat as per all of staff's recommendations.
DISCUSSION
Commissioner Mueller would like to see another planning commission meeting
due to the late hour and numerous questions he would like discussed.
NOVEMBER 27, 2000
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
VOTE ON THE CALL OF THE QUESTION by Brown
Ay~ (5, Burma, Glister, Weiland, Voss, Brown.)
Nayes (3 Mueller, Michael, Hasse)
Motion carried
Motion to adjourn by Commissioner Mueller seconded by Commissioner Glister.
FROM : RAMALEY FAX NO. : 65122~5609 Now. 29 2000 01:59PM PI
3011 Island View Dri~'c
Mound, MN 553(>4
November 29, 2000
Kanclis Hamon
Ci~, Manager
City. of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
iMound, ~ 55364
Although I told you on the phone yesterday that I was available for a sp~ial meeting of
the Motmd Plain'ring Commisfi~, a recount including dimpled ballots and pregnant
chads (more like checking schexlul~s with my wife) has revealed a conflict wtfich I can't
change.
I would, however, apprc~te if you could distribute the following comments to thc
Ccnnmiss/cm prior to or at the meeting.
o
I am confident that the Ci.ty Manager and St,fi[ 1'~ accurateb' re--ported that the
issues with the ComB: are worked out to a point sufficient so as to not delay
action on the d~velupmerrt.
I feel that thc Comafishon (to the degree that thc Planning Commiss/on i~
required by law) has considered the traffic issum. We h~'e been assured that
Shaft.. the City Manager axtd City Er~eer have discussed traffic flows v~ith
the County. I am ok with the combined expertise of these people to work out
thc deta/ls of ingress and egress.
As explained by the CiL'y M~tager, soil corrections monies are not dc'pendent
on LCA funds. T'his l~eCt is no d/fferent that an.v other project in the
It must meet or ~xceed all safeguards pm in place through code, ordinance or
other recluirernmts of dae building inspector, mgin¢~ing and other govm'rdng
~mtiti~s. I f~l that this is adequate to assure a quality final product.
I feel that reasonable attmt/on has been givm to ~creening and other plans to
nenimize the impact of traffic, lights, noise, em.
I d/sa~_ e¢ ~,ith the point of ne/~bofing propm'q., -~alues bc-Sng decreased by
this projex:t. First', I don't bdieve that this will happing. S .ccondly.. if thc
lxoperty ~,xlues d&~L-dsh, we have no right to deny a pc_~son or group of
persons who wish to o;erci.se their right to "reasonable usc o£ land".
Rezordng resulting in increased taxes is a non-issue.
Ira:teased traffic in thc area is unavoidablc. The residmts of the area chose to
bu').' their propc'~.' on a county, highway with the potential inh~ent (and
FROM : RAMALEY FAX NO. : 65i2235609 Now. 29 2000 01:40PM P2
apparent) ]lro~abLlit~ that as urban sprawl int~nsifics, so will tr;~qFic. It
· mcreas~r~reg~a~d~es~ Of thc fate of this project.
' .g'} t),' Quaintness of the neighborhood .'as mother point brought up. All of us
would 1~, for our neighborhoods to remain status quo. :However, we would
like developrng'-nt in someone else's neighborhood to help our mx baze. I used
to like to go out on my de~ and 10ok at 16 acres of woods tlut now is Pelican
Point. When I look out now, I see a 50" TV screen so clearb' tt~t I can
determine what channel the)' ~re ~,'atching. I see boat canopies where I used
to see lake. But it's progress. And it's inevitable. And it was a re.a.sonable
us~ of land.
9. Safety of thc pond is no more an issue than any other pond in the ciry, or the
lakeshore that we revere. Par~tal supervision is the answer to that is~nie.
10. I have a dilemm~ with the parkSng. Al~o _ug.h I would like to see more spaces,
I am oppo_~d to malting the spaces smaller. I could accept, perhaps 9'6". but
9' is too crowded. Once again, howe~.'.r, the developer hzs worked to
accommodate the Arena's needs. The church gill eera. inl).: benefit from the
additional spaces on Sunday morning. Weekday and Saturday weddings,
funerals, etc. may continue to be a problem. This, however, should not fall
upon the shoulde, rs of the developer to sob,'e the Church's parking problem.
My tho%ght would be to develop as many parking spaces as possible with a
9'6" ~,'idth and recommend ~anting a variance for the difference from the
requir-~ mmimurn number of spaces. These spaces, eomNned with the other
planned parking within one block of the area should suffice.
November 27, 2000
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Motmd MN 55364
Atten: Jon Sutherland
Dear Jon:
This letter is in regard to the MetroPlains Development. I would like to address the rezoning issues
as well as the traffic issues involved and the effects it may have on my personal property. Jon I
know you are aware of where my property is but for those members who do not, my legal
description is: Lot 49 and the ELY 25ff of Lot 48, Lynwoid Park Lake Minnetonka. I am on the
south side of Lynwood, almost directly across from the proposed entry to the development.
Obviously my concerns are involving traffic as I feel this portion on Lynwood is fairly quiet for a
county road. As it stands right now I back out of my driveway and my vision is that it will be a
nightmare in the future. Secondly, i will be getting headlights directed at my home that I never had
before. The developer is not only purchasing portions of my neighborhood they are also taking
away the quainta:ess that drew me to this property in the first place.
I would like to know why the entrance has to be on Lynwood? I would like to suggest to the
developer that he consider an entrance on the opposite side of the development, near Adler and
Belair. This would allow the new residents to enter into an immediate neighborhood setting
without driving behind a docking station and grocery store. This would eliminate the destruction of
maybe a couple of homes also. If the entrance is necessary for the delivery trucks then make it as
such: deliveries only, which would eliminate the heavy traffic at that entrance.
I have been a lifetime resident of Mound and have also felt the need to make improvements to our
community, however, 1 feel my property value is going to decrease because of the proposed
placement of the entrance to the development. I am willing to pay that extra tax dollar to improve
the city but should I be required to take a decrease in the one investment in property I have? I am a
single parent and have put a lot of time, effort and money into making my home just what it is...an
investment. Only to see it take a major dive financially. I don't feel it is justified that I personally
should bear the burden of a decrease in property value as well as the inconvenience of traffic issues
for the sake of improving our community. I am hopeful the developer as well as the city can assist
me in coming up with a solution to this dilemma.
Sincerely,
Diane Rowe
5733 Lynwood Blvd.
Mound MN 55364
H ennet .
Kandis M. Hanson, City Manager
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
RE:
Dear Ms. Hanson:
November 22, 2000
CSAH-15 (Lynwood Blvd.) / CSAH-110 (Commerce Blvd.)
Preliminary Plat Submittal No. 2546
MetroPlains Properties, Inc. - Village by Cooks Bay
This prelim/nary plat review is performed in accordance with Minnesota Statutes 505.02 and 505.03, Plats
and Surveys, and MS 462.358, County Review of Plats. Since last spring, we have had a number of
discussions with city staff and the developer concerning this proposed development. This proposal is a key
element of Mound's downtown redevelopment program and it is also affected by future improvements being
designed by Hennepin County as part of the CSAH-15 realignment project scheduled for year 2002.
As often happens with these types of proposals, a number of changes have occurred since the development
proposal was first presented to the city and discussions were first held with the county. The proposed
development has undergone a number of alterations, the city has refined their vision of how this development
would fit within the overall downtown setting, and Hennepin County has come to a better understanding of
what types of roadway improvements may be required to support the proposed redevelopment.
There still are a number of issues that remain unresolved. A traffic study has been requested by our Design
Division and initiated by the city, that would clarify the traffic characteristics and give some guidance on the
design for the intersection and roadway approaches of CSAH-15 (Lynwood Blvd.) and CSAH-110
(Commerce Blvd.). The results of this study are not anticipated to be available until the end of the year. We
believe the issues related to the design of these two roadways are directly linked to this redevelopment
proposal since right-of-way needs, access configurations, roadway and mm lane geometries will hinge on the
evaluation of the results from the traffic study.
For this reason, we recommend that the city delay the preliminary plat approval until completion of the
traffic study and the associated roadway needs can be determined.
If the city should determine that this course of action is not a viable aitemative, our recommendations based
on the information currently available to us are the following:
Right-of- Way Dedication
· A total of 50 foot half roadway section should be dedicated along the frontage of the property for
both CSAH-15 and CSAH-110.
· A comer right-of-way triangle should be provided on the northwest comer of CSAH-15 / CSAH-
110 (20 feet back from the comer along each roadway). This is for the comer radius and signal
appurtenances. The proposed plaza appears to satisfy this requirement, however changes in the
comer radius (mentioned below) might necessitate further modifications.
Access
It is our understanding that the city envisions both the north approach of CSAH-110 and the west
approach of CSAH-15 to remain as undivided roadways. In contrast, the county believes that
channelization needs to be a component of these roadway designs in order to maintain safe
traffic flow and to accommodate the developer's proposed access configuration.
Transportation Department
1600 Prairie Drive
Medina, Minn-,ora 55340-5421
(612) 745-7000 FAX: (612) 852-6757 'rDD: (612) 852-6760
If the roadway approaches remain unchannelized, county access spacing guidelines call for ¼
mile spacing for undivided minor arterial roadways. Therefore, we recommend no access be
provided to CSAH-1 l0 between Alder Road and CSAH-15. The existing pull-out accesses
serving the Ice Arena would also need to be closed.
The proposed entrance onto CSAH-15 fi.om the development also would not meet county access
spacing guidelines, however, the proposed location is acceptable as proposed. The lower
volumes on CSAH-15, traffic movement benefits (less traffic forced through the CSAH-15 /
CSAH-1 l0 intersection), and the existing public alley access in this vicinity tend to support the
proposed location as a reasonable option.
Roadway Geometrics
· We understand the city's desire to provide parking on CSAH-15 to complement the function of
the proposed development storefronts. However, the provision for safe roadway operations
somewhat limits the amount of parking that can realistically be provided. No parking will be
allowed on CSAH-15 in the vicinity of the intersection since the parking maneuvers could
conflict with mining movements from CSAH-110. Since CSAH-15 is only a 24ane roadway,
· parking maneuvers could block the one through lane of traffic and thus delayed vehicles could
back into the intersection of CSAH-15 / CSAH-110. The no-park/ng zone should probably
cover the length of at least one semi-mack plus a couple of automobiles (100+ feet).
· Another limiting factor on the parking, is the need to provide for a westbound right mm lane
from CSAH-15 to the development.
· To maintain adequate traffic operations on CSAH-15, provisions should be considered for
eastbound left roms to the site.
· To improve traffic flow, the egress fi.om the site to CSAH-15 should provide two exiting lanes to
accommodate left and right roms.
· Semi-mack mining characteristics need to be considered in the design of the CSAH-15 / CSAH-
110 intersection. These requirements may necessitate an increase in the radius of the northwest
comer (near the development plaza) and could also affect the intersection radii and mm lane
lengths at the westerly access fi.om CSAH-15 to the development.
The resolution of these operational and design issues will require some additional time, thought, and
discussion. The results of the traffic study will be needed before the complete picture of the roadway
operations can be assembled. We believe that these considerations support the need to delay the approval of
the preliminary plat.
The county Plat Review Committee would be willing to meet with the city and the developer to discuss these
issues prior to the plat's final approval by the city. We could also reconsider other access configurations to
this development if channelization is provided on CSAH-15 and'or CSAH-110.
Please contact either Dave Zetterstrom (763) 745-7643 or Bob Byers (763) 745-7633 to set up a meeting or if
you have any further questions.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
James N. Grube
Director, Transportation Department
John Cameron- City Engineer (MFRA Inc.)
Plat Review Committee - Byers / Holtz / Johnson / Lindgren / Srrm:ka / Zetterstrom
LaVernc Hanson Jr. - MetroPlains Development
PLANNING REPORT
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
TO: City of Mound Staff, Planning Commission and Council
FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP
DATE: November 20, 2000
SUB3-'ECT: Mound Visions 1'~ Addition Preliminary Plat (#00-64), Rezoning (#00-66), PDA
(~0-65), and Easement Vacation (#00-71) - Supplemental Report
APPLICANT: MetroPlains Development
OWNER: Westonka Public School District
LOCATION: NW comer ofLynwood Blvd and Commerce
ZONING: Currently R-i, 1t.-2 and B-1 proposed to change to 1t.-3 PDA and Destination District
PDA
COMPREItENSIVE PLAN: Downtown Residential, Destination District, and Low Density
Residential
This report is intended to supplement to the November 8, 2000 Planning Report
Since the last Planning Commission meeting, the developer has submitted additional information
to complete the submittal package. The deficiencies outlined in the Planning and Engineering
reports at last meeting have been addressed with this submittal.
Mound Marketplace..
The locations of the grocery store and smaller retail shops have been flip-flopped since the last
meeting based on conversations the developer has had with two potential grocers. This
arrangement alleviates almost every issue raised by staff during the last review including
circulation, building orientation, factade treatments, driveway alignments with Church Road,
loading docks, and relationships with adjacent residential homes along Lynwood. By having the
smaller retail shops along Lynwood, there are oppommities to have entrances from the street and
the parking lot. The building will not need to be as tall and massive which will create a more
intimate feel along Lynwood. It is also demonstrated that on-street parking can be accommodated
along with a boulevard and sidewalk. Architectural Design Guidelines for Mound Marketplace
detail how design will be addressed.
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
¢%5
p. 2
#00-64, 65, 66, and 71 - The Villages by Cook's Bay and Mound Marketplace
Preliminary Pla~ CUP, Rezoning, and Easement vacation
November 20, 2000
Landscaping, Screening and Buffeting
The landscaping plan identifies plantings for residemial, park and commercial areas of the site.
City code requires 99 plantings of overstory, conifer, and ornamental varieties within the~
residential area to meet the minimum of 1 tree per dwelling unit provision. The plan provides 145
planting units in addition to existing trees that will be maintained. A total of 47 shade trees will be
planted along private streets and trail segments. Ornamental trees are located in courtyards and in
front of buildings. A total of 64 ornamentals are shown. Conifers will provide screening along the
south and west property lines. A total of 34 are proposed.
The park will be planted with 24 overstory trees in addition to 9 conifers that will be maintained
along the west property line.
The commercial area will have a total of 95 plantings to satisfy the 66 planting minimum based on
retail floor area. Again, conifers will be used to screen the grocery store and pond arena facades
as well as the loading area of the grocery store. A total of 44 conifers are proposed. Shade trees
are proposed for the parking area and along street boulevards. A total of 45 trees are proposed. A
few ornamentals will highlight entry points along Lynwood and Commerce.
The landscape plan is labeled as schematic and staff would want to work with the developer on
detailing shrubs and plantings at the foundations of the commercial buildings. As with all
developments, planting minimums of 2.5 inch caliper for deciduous and 6 feet height for conifers
apply.
Staff believes the developer has proposed a good landscaping plan to address many of the
screening and buffering issues. Two items with the landscape plan staff would recommend
modifications to are boulevard plantings along the commercial areas and internal parking lot
landscaping. Staffwould suggest overstory planting islands at the midpoint of every other parking
row. Two islands would be sufficient to help provide visual relief in the parking lot. Secondly,
staff would suggest the overstory boulevard plantings along Lynwood and Commerce be
relocated to suggest an urban edge. Staff would like to work with the developer to better define
the relationship of the building and street that is agreeable to the Mound Visions plan. The plaza
area at the comer should also tie into this plan.
Building Material Standards
Material standards for the Village at Cook's Bay and Mound Marketplace detail exterior
treatmems for these buildings. These standards exceed code minimums for multi-family and
commercial buildings.
County Road 15 and 110 right-of-way
The developer is proposing to dedicate a 7 feet strip along Lynwood and Commerce to Hennepin
County for right-of-way. This would appear to be acceptable to staff at this time until a
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax(612) 338-6838
p. 3
#00-64, 65, 66, and 71 - The Villages by Cook's Bay and Mound Market£1ace
Preliminary Plat, CUP, Rezoning, ant] l~asement vacation
November 20, 2000
determination from the County can be made. This o~en times comes after approval of the
preliminary plat and is handled as a condition of final plat approval.
Staff' would like the developer to dedicate an pedestrian access easement between the right-of-
way and building edge to fi~rther protect public access along Commerce and Lynwood.
Parks and Trails
The multi-use trail will be 8 feet in width and easements will be provided to allow public use. A
suggestion that was raised at the last meeting was to route the trail along the south side of the
pond. The developer has indicated this is acceptable.
Alley Vacation
The plans show the alley on lots 18, 19 and 20 will be vacated. The preliminary plat indicates
vacation of a portion of an alley to accommodate the access drive on Lynwood. All on and off-
site utilities in the alley will need to be rebuilt consistent with the City Engineer's specifications.
Parking
A total of 313 parking spaces are shown in the commercial area at a 10 feet width. This equates
to almost 1 space per 200 square feet of retail, a common standard among most metropolitan
communities. The Mound code is set at 1 per 150 square feet which would require 440 spaces.
Staff would concur with the developer's request. Staff would recommend isle spacing be a
minimum of 62 feet.
Two 90 degree parking areas are proposed in the residential area to accommodate staff's
concerns regarding visitor parking. Staff would suggest the that spaces adjacent to the rear of the
grocery store be relocated around the clubhouse to better accommodate visitor parking.
Pond arena parking lot is reconfigured and provides 40 parking spaces.
Lighting
The City code requires that commercial development lighting not exceed 0.4 foot candles at the
property line. Building lighting is proposed as discussed in the Architectural Design Guidelines for
Mound Marketplace. Lighting for the private pedestrian street system should be indicated.
Combinations of street lights and building lighting could be used.
Common Interest Community
The Villages at Cook's Bay will be platted as a Common Interest Community (CIC). A CIC is
permitted by State Statute and acts similar for platting purposes to a condominium. There will not
be dedicated lot lines for the townhomes or Big Houses. Rather, a lot line will be created at
interior walls for each unit. The building exteriors and land will be owned and maintained by an
association. For platting purposes, the Preliminary Plat will receive approval from the Planning
Commission and Council and final plat will receive Council approval. Upon final locations of the
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
p. 4
#00-64, 65, 66, and 71 - The I~illages by Cook's Bay and Mound Marketplace
Preliminary Plat, CUP, ]~ezoning, and Ea.~ement vacation
November 20, 2000
units, the developer will certify each unit and file the CIC with the Hennepin County Recorder.
For a point of reference on density, if this development were platted, each unit would have an
average of 5,400 square feet of lot area. This exceeds that lot area that would be required for a
townhome development platted under a straight R-3 zoning district. The townhome provisions in
the R-3 district require 5,000 square feet of lot are a per unit for a 3 unit building and 4,000
square feet per unit for a 6 unit building.
Comprehensive Plan
An amendment to the land use plan for lots 18, 19, and 20 will need to be made to shown the land
as Destination District. This can be handled at the same time as the rezoning at the Planning
Commission and at Final Plat approval by the City Council.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Planning Report recommendations are provided below and are in addition to those outlined in
the City Engineer's report.
Prelimina~_ Plat
Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the Preliminary Plat
with the following conditions:
1. Determination of right-of-way by Hennepin County.
Rezoning
Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the rezonings as
requested. The City will also approve a minor Land Use Plan revision to show lots 18, 19, and 20
of Lynwold Addition as Destination District Planned Unit Development consistent with the
rezoning. The City will also approve a textual revision to the Downtown Residential designation
in the Land Use Plan to better describe the development density and character.
Conditional Use Permit
Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the PDA for the
Villages at Langdon Bay and the Mound Marketplace as requested with the following conditions:
1_. A variance of 127 parking spaces for the commercial parking area be approved.
2-. Relocate parking spaces along the rear of the grocery store to areas close to the
clubhouse.
3_. A pedestrian easement between building fagades along Lynwood and Commerce right-of-
ways be provided.
4_. Easements for recreation and maintenance of the multi-use trail system.
5_. Indicate how the private streets will be lighted.
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Mirmeapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
p. 5
#00-64, 65, 66, and 71 - The Villages by Cook's Bay andMoundMarketplace
Preliminary Plat, CUP, Rezoning, and Easement vacation
November 20, 2000
Developer work with the City in developing a streetscape along Cortunerce and Lynwood
to address landscaping fagade, and other improvements complementary to the
development and the Mound Visions Plan.
Easement Vacation
Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approve vacation of the alley
casemem as requested.
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax(612) 338-6838
Memorandum
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
TO: City of Mound Staff, Planning Commission and Council
FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP
DATE: November 8, 2000
SUBJECT: Mound Visions 1~ Addition Preliminary Plat - Mound Marketplace and The Village
by Cook's Bay
APPLICANT: MetroPlains Development
OWNER: Westonka Public School District
LOCATION: NW comer ofLynwood Blvd and Commerce
ZONING: Currently R-l, R-2 and B-1 proposed to change to R-3 PDA and Destination District
PDA
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Downtown Residential, Destination District, and Low Density
Residential
BACKGROUND: The applicant, Metro Plains, has submitted a Preliminary Plat, Conditional
Use Permit and Zoning Amendment for a residential/commercial redevelopment project for the
old Westonka Hi~h School property. The residential project, "The Village by Cook's Bay", will
include 99 units in townhome and row house buildings. A 67,000 sq. f~. retail commercial
component, "Mound Marketplace," is proposed for the Commerce/Lynwood comer. A purchase
agreement with the Westonka Public School District is pending.
The Village by Cook's Bay
The concept plan indicates 59 townhomes arranged in 3 - 7 unit buildings. All streets within the
residential area of the development will be private with a 24 feet width. Staffhas requested there
be no on-street parking because of the need to allow emergency access on this narrowed design.
Staffhas also requested extra parking bump outs for overflow parking which is always needed in
townhome developments. The narrative indicates each townhome will have a 2 stall garage,
although the garage width on the plans scale at 17 feet and would not allow this arrangement.
Either the plans are not to scale or the unit widths will need to be increased. If the unit width is
increased, the layout and/or unit count will change as a result.
As a planned development, dimensional items such as building setbacks, lot area and width are
approved and regulated under a conditional use permit. At this point, individual lots are not
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
p. 2
g00-64, 65, and 66 - The Villages b), Cook's Bay and Mound Marketplace
Preliminary Plat, CUP, and Rezoning
November 8, 2000
shown on the preliminary plat or the development plan to establish these standards. Articles of
incorporation, association bylaws, or other covenants will need to be provided and approved by
Council for this development.
Typical building layouts showing exterior elevation design are provided. Townhome
developments have a tendency to be rather monotonous without attention to special details like
rooflines, large wall sections, garage doors, transition between units, and materials. If these are
the plans that will be used, the plansets should reflect this and also provide an elevation as
viewed from the street to show garages.
The developer anticipates the townhomes will attract empty nesters and young families and is a
good 'fit' with current housing market needs. An idea of what the interior layouts will
incorporate to support the narrative in the development packet should be provided.
Four 'big house' flats are shown on the eastern side of the development along Bellaire Road. The
narrative talks about these units as single level with 4 units per level in these 2 - 3 story
buildings. Underground parking would be provided. Dimensional standards would be regulated
through the conditional use permit as well as building design items like exterior materials.
Staff agrees with the developer that the market for the flats would appeal to seniors which is a
good 'fit' with the needs in Mound.
PARCEL SIZE 12.27 ac
PROPOSED UNIT # 99
DENSITY 8 units/acre
ZONING (EXISTING) R-1
ZONING (PROPOSED) R-3 PDA
Minimum Lot Size Not available
Mimmum Lot Width Not available
Front Yard Setback Not available
Side Yard Setbacks Not available
Rear Yard Setbacks Not available
LAND USE PLAN Downtown Residential
(Medium to High Density
Residential @ 7 +
units/acre)
SUBDIVISION STREET DESIGN
Right-of-way width NA - private streets
Pavement width 24 feet
Park Site Dedication 1.89 acres or 10% of total
development land area -
18.97 acres
HARDCOVER 36.2 percent
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax(612) 338-6838
p. 3
g00-64, 65, and 66 - The Villages by Cook's Bay and Mound Marketplace
Preliminary Plat, CUP, and Rezoning
November 8, 2000
Mound Marketplace
At the comer of l_ynwood and Commerce on the old school site, the developer is proposing
67,000 sq. fL of retail commercial arranged in three buildings. The developer indicates a grocer
will be the main tenant to anchor this area and will be located in the building fi'onting on
Lynwood. The building fronting on Commerce would be targeted for a restaurant. Ideas for the
third building are a liquor store and other smaller tenants.
The buildings fronting Lynwood and Commerce would have a close relationship with the street
to compliment the Mound Vision Plan. Because this is a planned development like the residential
component, dimensional standards and design are regulated through a conditional use permit.
PARCEL SIZE 6.7 ac
PROPOSED SQ. FT. OF 67,000
COMMERCIAL
ZONING (EXISTING) B- 1, R- 1, R-2
ZONING (PROPOSED) Destination District PDA
Minimum Lot Size Not available
Mimmum Lot Width Not available
Front Yard Setbacks-
Building fronting on Lynwood 20 feet
Building fronting on Commerce 2 feet
Side Yard Setbacks-
Building fronting on Lynwood 97 feet
West building 30 feet
Rear Yard Setbacks Not available
LANrD USE PLAN Destination District
SUBDIVISION STREET DESIGN
Streets/Drives All private access
PARKING
357 spaces provided Eode requires 446 spaces
9 feet by 18 feet stall dimension Code requires 10 feet by
20 feet
HARDCOVER 92 percent
Details for landscaping are not proVided. Code requires minimums of 1 tree per residential
dwelling unit and the greater of 1 tree per 1,000 square feet of floor area or 50 feet of perimeter
for commercial development. There are ritually no trees on the property today.
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
p. 4
ttO0-64. 65, and 66 - The Villages by Cook's Bay and Mound Marketplace
Preliminary Plat, CUP, and Rezoning
November 8, 2000
Screening and Bufferin~
Parking areas and loading docks will need screening from residential areas through landscaping,
berming, or fencing techniques.
Building Material Standards
Acceptable building materials as outlined in the code will apply to residential and commercial
structures.
Wetlands
The site was historically a wetland but was filled prior to and after construction of the 1916
school and 1960 addition. No wetlands exist on the property today and a review of development
implications on the Wetland Conservation Act is not applicable.
Grading/Storm Water
As addressed in City Engineer report
County_ Road 15 and 110
As discussed in the City Engineer report, is appears that Hennepin County will require additional
right-of-way that will reduce the platted land area. This will impact the proposed building
locations and parking area. The County is holding off on specific comments until a review of the
traffic study for the downtown is complete. The report is anticipated to be complete in early
December.
The plan indicated the dedication of 1.89 acres of land to park to satisfy 10 percent land
dedication. The report is inaccurate in describing the City's role in park development. The City
has asked the developer to provide play equipment in the tot lot located in the northwest comer
of the site. Additional improvements desired in the park area along Bellaire would be provided
by the developer, not the City at this time. The City would expect the park area be graded and
tuff established at the time the residential component is being built. Parking bays along Bellaire
and Elm would be built by the developer not the City.
The indicated 6 feet trail should be 8 feet as requested by Staff. Additional easements to provide
public access will need to be provided.
Discussion about using the stormwater pond as a skating area during the winter surfaced at staff
discussions and the Park Commission. The developer would like to incorporate this as a 'public'
amenity. Some type of easement of use agreement will need to be put in place to secure this for
community residents. Arrangements for snow removal, lighting, and other use related issues will
need to be worked out also.
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
p. 5
g00-64, 65, and 66- The Villages by Cook's Bay and Mound Marketplace
Preliminary Plat, CUP, and Rezoning
November 8, 2000
An outran area will need to be graded properly for a sliding hill.
The retaining wall in the tot lot should be on private property if it can't be avoided.
Alley Vacation
The preliminary plat indicated vacation of a portion of an alley to accommodate the access drive
on Lynwood. A description of the alley needs to be provided along with an application to vacate.
A public hearing will also need to be scheduled.
As indicated on the survey, the property boundary extends into what would appear to be the
parking are for Pond's arena. Knowing the parking deficiencies of the arena during hockey
games, the developer has indicated that are shown as Outlot A will be given to the arena.
Antenna tower
The developer has discussed the status of the cell tower with the leasing company US West, now
known as Qwest. The developer has indicated the tower will not work with the current site layout
and will need to be relocated on or off site. The City approved a variance for the tower for it
location on current parcel 11 and it will only allow relocation within the boundaries of that
parcel. Because towers are only permitted on industrial lands, there not the opporumity for
relocation to the commercial site. Also, if the tower is moved, it needs to have a fall zone equal
to its height from the property lines of what is now parcel 11.
Comprehensive Plan
An amendment to the land use plan for lots 18, 19, and 20 will need to be made to shown the
land as Destination District. This can be handled at the same time as the rezoning at the Planning
Commission and at Final Plat approval by the City Council.
Other comments
· Complete survey information for the site and adjacent lands 100 feet from property.
· Comply with Hennepin County requirements for showing off site streets and driveways.
· Need to determine how townhomes and flats will be subdivided on the plat.
· Narrative discusses speed bumps along Bellaire and Alder. Appear to be incorrect statement.
City will not allow bumps on public streets.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission consider review of the
Preliminary Plat and development plan applications, but take no action until additional
information can be provided to meet code requirements as discussed in this report and the City
Engineer's report.
123 North Third Slxeet, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
November 9, 2000
TO:
Jon Sutherland, Planning and Zoning
FROM:
John Cameron, City Engineer
SUBJECT:
City of Mound
Metro Plains
Mound Visions 1 st Addition Preliminary Plat
Case No. 00-64, 00-65, and 00-66
MI::KA #12252
As requested, we have rexdewed the mater/als submitted by Metro Plains for a major subdivision of
the School District property at the comer of Commerce Boulevard and Lynwood Boulevard and
have the following comments and recommendations:
Preliminary Plat
The name suggested for the plat is "Mound Vision 1 st Addition," with Vision singular. The plat
for the new True Value Hardware site was called "Mound Visions Addition" with Vision plural.
Th/s plat should also use Visions. Hennepin County will most likely require this plat to be the
2nd Addition; however they do not have a requirement that the addition number be numerical, it
can be spelled out. The City should decide with this plat how they would like to see the addition
number identified and continue the procedure on all future plats for the downtown
redevelopment.
The documentation submitted suggests that at least some of these units will be platted as
townhomes, which require separate platted lots. The preliminary plat as submitted shows only
one large lot for the entire residential area. If the intention is to plat individual lots, the plat will
need to be revised to show such.
Jon Sutherland, Planning and Zoning
November 9, 2000
Page 2
The preliminary plat does not show any additional fight-of-way to be dedicated to Hermepin
County along both Commerce Boulevard (CSAH #110) and Lynwood Boulevard (CSAH #15).
Hennepin County had indicated they will definitely require additional right-of-way on Lynwood
Boulevard and possibly along Commerce Boulevard. The City is currently working with
Hennepin County on a redesign of the intersection, which will undoubtedly affect this property.
The City Code, Section 330, requires that all existing conditions within 100 feet must be shown.
This has not been done; therefore it is very difficult for Hennepin County or Mound staff to
review the submittal for the affects on adjacent property.
o
The preliminary plat shows the east end of the existing alley to be vacated. This will require
additional action by the City Council and Planning Commission and requires public hearings.
The City has utlifies located within this alley, for which easements will need to be retained.
There is also an existing City of Minnetrista sanitary sewer forcemain and a City of Mound
storm sewer line, which traverse the site between Alder Road and the alley, for which easements
will be required.
Preliminary Grading and Utility Plan
1. The preliminary grading and utility plan generally met the City's requirements.
The streets within the development are proposed to be private. The grading plan indicates two
different methods of collecting stormwater. The main north/south street that connects to the
commercial area shows street drainage with catch basins on only one side. The looped street
along the north and west side has an inverted crown with catch basins located in the center of the
street. These designs will function adequately; however they do not meet Mound's normal City
street design where the street is crowned with catch basins located on both sides at the curb line.
Since the City does not have an approved Stormwater Management Plan, the Minnehaha Creek
Watershed District (MCWD) is still the permitting agency for the stormwater permit.
Application must be made directly to the MCWD and any approval by the City of the
preliminary plat must be conditional upon MCWD's ultimate approval. MCWD policy requires
that the applicant receive preliminary approyal from the City before they will take action on the
request.
We have reviewed the proposed watermain system with the Public Works Superintendent and
are in general agreement with the proposed plan; however before final plans can be prepared the
applicant must provide a fireflow analysis for our review. It appears there may be a shortage of
hydrants, especially in the residential area. The hydrant spacing should be reviewed by the
Mound Fire Department. The plan does not show any valves on the proposed watermain.
Locations for valves will need to be discussed with Public Works and the City Engineer and
added when final plans are prepared. Mound requires valves on all hydrant leads.
Jon Sutherland, Planning and Zoning
November 9, 2000
Page 3
5. The sanitary sewer system as presented also appears to be in general compliance with City
requirements.
Utility easements must be provided on the final plat for both the watermain and sanitary sewer,
which will be public utilities. The sanitary sewer mains providing service for the two individual
commercial buildings should remain as private lines. The entire storm sewer system, including
the stormwater pond will be priv.a, te, to be maintained by the Homeowner's Association and
Commercial entity. The only exception will be the existing catch basins located at the southwest
side of the intersection of Bellaire and Alder. These catch basins should remain on the City's
present system.
The most easterly sanitary sewer manhole in the alley is located in the portion of the alley
proposed for vacation. It is also very close to a proposed retaining wall and therefore we are
recommending that a new manhole be built over the existing main approximately 20 feet. The
unused section main and old manhole would need to be removed as part of this construction.
Streets and Access
The narrative accompanying the application calls for private streets 24 feet wide with no parking
on either side. The plan does not specifically identify concrete curb and gutter; however this is a
standard requirement of the City whether the streets are private or public.
The off street parking areas shown on the "Development Plan" do not match those shown on the
"Preliminary Grading and Utility Plan." It appears the Grading Plan may be more correct, since
it shows more off street parking, which will be required with no on street parking allowed. The
Development Plan needs to be revised to reflect the correct layout.
3. Any approval of the preliminary plans must be conditional upon Hennepin County's approval of
the three entrances shown on the Grading Plan and Development Plan.
The Grading Plan indicates new off street parking on the west side of Bellaire Lane between
Alder Road and the new private street entering the site at the northeast comer of the property.
The Development Plan also shows off-street parking on the south side of Elm Road. All costs
associated with widening of the City streets to provide additional parking should be the
responsibility of the developer.
The parking stalls for the Commercial area are not dimensioned; however they scale
approximately 9 feet wide by 20 feet deep, which does not meet the City's required width of 10
feet (Section 350:760, subd. 2.A). The dimension of 60 feet as shown between the parking bays
is at low end of the accepted standards for this distance. Our recommendation would be to look
at these two distances together. If the stalls are change to ten foot wide, as required by code, then
the 60 feet is acceptable; however if nine-foot wide stalls are used (which will require a variance)
then a minimum of 62 feet or 63 feet should be required between the parking bays.
Jon Sutherland, Planning and Zoning
November 9, 2000
Page 4
The proposed bituminous trail is not dimensioned on any of the plans; however the narrative
states it will be six feet wide. We would recommend that eight feet wide be the minimum
allowed, which is a recognized standard in most communities.
7. Speed bumps at Bellaire and Alder are mentioned in the narrative. The City does not allow speed
bumps on public streets.
Miscellaneous
The records at City Hall have been researched to try and determine what this property has
previously paid for utility and street assessments. It appears that sufficient fees have been paid
for past sanitary sewer and street improvement projects; however nothing could be found relating
to previous assessments for watermain.
2. The different plan sheets should be revised to include City requirements and also to be consistent
with each other.
cc: Loren Gordon, Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc.
s:\main:kMou 12252:\Con~spond~nce~sulh~rlandl 1-7
Prdimi~ar~l Plat- PI)^ ^l~l~li~atio~
REDEVELOPMENT Of FORMER WESTONKA SCHOOL SITE
Mound Visions - First Addition
Mound Marketplace and
The Village by Cook's Bay
BY: MetmPlains Development LLC
October 27, 2000
EL!
III
MAJOR SUBDIVISION
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road; Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 OCT 3 0
CITY COUNCIL DATE: December 12 ~ 2000
TE I TYPE OF APPLICATION FEE
DISTRIBUTION
CITY PLANNER //~ ~.~,(~.F//~ SKETCH PLAN REVIEW
'
CITY ENGINEER X PRELIMINARY PLAT
I
PUBLIC
WORKS
I FINAL PLAT $150
DNR I $1Q/LOT OVER 2 LOTS
FIRE DEPARTMENT
i x COND,T ONAL USE PERM,T:
ASSESSING [ Z ESCROW DEPOSIT
OT~ER;.;,~i~ ~ ,i '"fi"i/'/'/~ ~ '"";' !. VARIANCE. $ 100
Please type or print the followin¢~ information:
PROPERTY Subject 5600 LTnwood Blvd (reference point for property)
INFORMATION Address ·
Name of Proposed
Plat 'Mound Visions - First Addition
EXISTING
LEGAL
DESCRIPTION Lot please see attached Block Plat#
Subdivision PIE)~
ZONING
DISTRICT Circle: R-1 R-lA R-2 R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3
APPLICANT The applicant is: X owner other:
Name MetroPlains Development LLC
Address 1600 University Ave. Suite 212 - St. Paul, MN 55104
Phone
(H) n/a (W) 651-646-7848 (U)
Name
OWNER
(if other than Address
applicant)
Phone
(H).. (~V) (M)
Name Surve¥-Schoell & Madson EnKineer-Sunde En.cineerin~, Inc.
SURVEYOR/
ENGINEER Address Survey- 10580 Wayzata Blvd., Suite ! Minnetonka 55305
Engineer - 4200 West Old Shakopee Rd. Suite 230 Bloomington 554
Phone
~) (~ ~?-R/.7-q6] 5 ~V) (,~ q~?-RR1-3~;,/, (M)
37
(Revised 10-27-99)
Major Subdivision Application
Pa~e 2
The former Westonka .Schoo site will be redeveloped
Description of Proposed Use:
into a combination of resideuital, commercial and dedicated parks.
' EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED USE: List impacts the proposed use will have on property in the vicinity,
including, but not limited to traffic, noise, light, smoke/odor, parking, and describe the steps taken to mitigate or
eliminate the impacts.
please see attached for full eXPlanation of effects
If applicable, a development schedule shall be attached to this application providing reasonable guarantees for
the completion of the proposed development. Estimated Development Cost of the Proje~:
$
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS:
Number of Dwelling Units/Structure: 4-10
Number of Structures: 15
Lot Area Per Dwelling Unit: 35 ~ 660 sq. ft. Total Lot Area: 534 ~ 900 sq. ft.
Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for
this proper[y? ( ) yes, ( ) no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide
copies of resolutions.
zoning amendments, conditional use permit and PDA application are being
submitted together on October 27,2000
This application must be signed by all owners of the subject property, or an explanation given why this is not the
case.
METROPLAINS DEVELOPMENT, LLC ~ !0-~.7' 03
Print Owner's Name
Owner's Signature Date
Print Owner's Name
Owner's Signature Date
(Revised 10-27-99)
Application .for
CONDmONAL USE PERMIT
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 472-0607, Fax: 472-0620
Planning Commission Date: November 13, 2000
City CouncilDate: December 12, 2000
Case No.
]:AID
OCT 3 0 ZOO0
CiTY OF MOUND
Distribution:
City Engineer: * ' / Parks: / Other:
Please type or print the followinq information:
PROPERTY Subject
INFORMATION Address 5600 Lynwood Blvd. (reference point for property)
Name of Business
LEGAL
DESCRIPTION
Lot Please see Attached Block Plat#
Subdivision PID~
APPLICANT The applicant is: ~ owner other.
Name Hetro?lains Develo.m~ent [,LC
Address 1600 University Ave. Suite 212 St. Paul, MN 55104
Phone
(H) n/a 0~9 651-646-7848 (M)
Name
OWNER
(If other than Address
applicant)
Phone
(H) ON). .(M)
Name Paul Madson of Paul Madson + Associates
ARCHITECT,
SURVEYOR, OR AEdress Ford Centre-420 N. Fifth Street-Minneapolis, MN 55401
ENGINEER
Phone
'd on attache(
(H). ON). 612-332-7026 .(MI
DISTRICT
CHANGE OF FROM: 1) B1 G R2 and 2) R1
USE
TO: 1) Destination District and 2) R3-PDA
*cont
Revised 10-26-99
Description of Proposed Use: The former Westonka School Site will be redevelooed
into a combination of residential, commercial and dedicated parks.
EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED USE: List impacts the proposed use will have on property in the vicinity,
including, but not limited to traffic, noise, light, smoke/odor, parking, and describe the steps taken to mitigate
or eliminate the impacts.
Please see attached for full explanation of effects
If applicable, a development schedule shall be attached to this application providing reasonable guarantees
for the completion of the proposed development. Estimated Development Cost of the Project:
$
Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, cond~onal use permit, or other zoning procedure for
this property? ( ) yes, ( ) no. If yes, list date(s) of application, ac~on taken, resolution number(s) and provide
copies of resolutions.
zonimg amendments, conditional use Permits and PDA applications are
being submitted together on October 27,2000
This application must be signed by all owners of the subject property, or an explanation given why this is not
me case.
METROPLAINS DEVELOPMENT, LLC
BY: LAVERNE HANSON, JR., SENIOR VICE PRESIDE~
Print Applicant's Name Appli~~l'gna~re Date
ME~RORJUI~ ~'va.ol~r. tlc
~: IAVER~ IWiSO~ ~ SElaOR VICE PRESlI)E~
Print Owner's Name
Owner's Signature Date
Print Owner's Name
Owner's Signature Date
Rev. ?0-26-99
I
ZONING AMENDMENT APPLICATION
City of Mound, 5341 Maywo0d Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 472-0607, Fax: 472-06:20
'anning Commission Date: November 13, 2000
City Council Date: December 12, 2000
j ·
Distribution: , '/,~'/~'~' City Planner
/ City Engineer
/ Public Works
J DNR
PAID
OCT 3 0 ZOO0
Case No.
Zoning Amendment Fee: .~ ,~--.
Applicant
Name MetroPlains Development, LLC
Address 1600 University Ave. Suite 212
Phone (H) ON) 651-646-?~4~
(M)
I ! AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE
It is requested that Section 350: of the Mound Zoning Ordinance be amended as
follows:
Reason for amendment:
i ~ I AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING MAP / ZONING DISTRICT
It is requested that the property described below and shown on the attached site plan be rezoned from
B1,R1 & R2 tO Destination Di.strict and R3-PDA
Address & Legal
of Subject
Property
Owner of
Subject Site
Present Use of
Property
Reason for
Address 5600 Lynwood Blvd.
Lot pAease see at:ached
Addition
(reference point for property)
Block
PID~ Plat
Name Me~rmPlains Development LLC
Address 1600 UniveTsit¥ Ave. Suite 212 St. Paul~ MN
Phone (H) n/a 0/V) 651-646-7848 (M)
55104
vacant
Property is being submitted for a Planned Development Area (PDA). Proper~y
Amendment
~ oplicant's Signature:
Owner's Signature:
will be developed into residential, commercial and parks.
Date lO-f,7 .~O
Date .....
EFFECTS OF PROPOSED USE
The proposed development will impact the vicinity in areas such as traffic, noise, parking, etc.
Following are the steps to be taken to mitigate the impact:
ARRANGEMENT
· The commercial area is positioned on the existing intersection of Lynwood and
Commerce Birds. This is being done to minimize the effects of traffic, people, noise, etc.
on the surrounding neighborhood.
o There will be two loading docks for the commercial development. Both docks are
located close to the commercial entrance off Lynwood Blvd. They will be
screened from the neighborhood by both landscaping and screening walls. The
docks are located in these areas to minimize track traffic through the
neighborhood and development.
· The proposed residential is centered in the redefined residential property. It is bounded by
Bellaire Lane on the east, a public alley along the south, residential along the west and
Elm Road along the north. The residential area is being, positioned 'inward' so as to
provide open green space between itself and the existing neighborhood. The scale of the
housing is situated in footprint and height so as to integrate with neighborhood scale.
Two access points are available for the residents. Both are positioned to provide
minimum impact on the existing neighborhood.
· Parks are arranged along the north edge of the residential property on Elm Road and
along the east edge of the residential property along Bellaire Lane. The parks are placed
in these locations to offer a direct connection to the existing neighborhood and the greater
community for ease of access. The parks offer access to the whole community by being
located along the perimeter so as to not feel internal to the new development. The parks
also allow the new residential area to integrate into the existing, neighborhood.
LOCATION AND WIDTH OF STREETS · Ail existing public streets will remain and will not be improved by the developer.
· All streets internal to the property will be private.
· Private streets are 24' edge-to edge or back-to-back. A standard city street in the
community of Mound has a 28' back-to-back with parking one side. Thereby, a 24' with
no parking gives equal or greater accessibility for emergency, f'n'e and general use.
· Private streets will connect to Bellaire Lane and Lynwood Blvd.
DRAINAGE
· All drainage for both the commercial and residential portions of the site will be contained
within the site property boundaries. This will be accomplished will the construction of a
storm water pond along the south edge of the site.
· The pond is to be approximately 34,000 sq.ft.
· Required dead-storage (standing water below the pond outlet elevation) volume for this
development is 2.6 acres/ft. The proposed pond size meets these requirements
PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION
REDEVELOPMENT OF FORMER WESTONKA SCHOOL SITE
BY: MetroPlains Development, LLC
October 27, 2000
NAME OF SUBDIVISION
Re-Plat Name: Mound Vision- First Addition
Commercial: Mound Marketplace
Residential: The Village by Cook's Bay
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Please see attached EXI-HBIT A
NAME OF OWNER
MetroPlains Development, LLC
1600 University Ave - Suite 212
St. Paul, MN 55104
651-646-7848
Please see attached EXHIBIT B for other pertinent team members
GENERAL NARRATIVE
MetroPlains Development, LLC over the past 12 months has generated a concept for the former
Westonka School site that consists of three primary components; commercial, residential and
park. To achieve this concept MetroPlains has brought together a skilled team of companies and
individuals to address the issues in the most proficient way. The goal is to not only provide a
high quality development on the former school site but to also enhance the Mound Visions plan
for the downtown and community as a whole. To that end, the concept presented here is a
culmination of meetings, revisions and ideas as shared through city staff, department heads, city
consultants, Sketch Plan Review, Parks & Open space, Hennepin County Department of
Transportation, Ponds Arena and the MetroPlains team.
The three components of the concept include commercial (Mound Marketplace), residential (The
Village by Cook's Bay) and the park (Cenlral Park). Mound Marketplace on the comer of
Commerce and Lynwood, is an urban commercial scheme addressing the street as a central
business district building would and anchors the opposite comer of the downtown Visions plan
for the CBD of Mound. The Village by Cook's Bay is a residential development of urban scale
using for sale townhomes, row house and a big house to meet the needs of the marketplace. The
housing addresses the needs for quality housing at a reasonable price that allows seniors to
young professionals to find a lifestyle that compliments the single-family home ownership of the
existing community. The park is the binder that ties the existing community/neighborhood, the
commercial and the residential to come together as a mutually beneficial and complimentary
neighborhood.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
BOUNDARY LINES - EXI:IIBIT C
· The legal description and the boundary lines as designated on the survey define the site
boundary lines.
EXISTING ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS - EXI-IIBIT D · Commercial section zoned as B 1 (bounded by Lynwood Blvd., Commerce Blvd, alley off
of Bellaire Lane and Adler Lane.)
· Single family lots along Lynwood Blvd. (18-20) are zoned as R2
· Remaining site is zoned as R1
· Abutting property zoning classifications range fi.om R2 - R3
TOTAL ACREAGE
· 18.97 acres or 826,400 sq.ft.
EXISTING PLATTED STREETS - EXHIBIT C
· Commerce Blvd - east edge of site
o There are two existing curb cuts located along Commerce. The cut to the south of
the Ponds Arena will remain. An additional cut will be relocated further south for
a 'fight-in, right out' into the new commercial area.
· Lynwood Blvd. - south edge of site
c> Lynwood Blvd. right-of-way will be expanded to accommodate mining, parking
and increased driving lanes as requested by Hennepin County. Final design is not
yet defined. We are continuing to work with them through completion. At least a
6' condenmafion of the property is expected.
c> There are two curb cuts located along Lynwood. One cut will be eliminated. The
other will be relocated for access into the residential/commercial area.
· Elm Road - North edge of site - no proposed change
· Bellaire Lane- - intersects site offElm Road
o Parking access off the intersection of Adler and Bellaire will include speed bumps
to slow traffic.
· Adler Road - runs north of Ponds Arena - no proposed change
· Public alleyway servicing homes off of Lynwood Blvd. - no proposed change
BLOCK ARRANGEMENT OF ORIGINAL PLAT
· Please see EXltlBITS A (legal description) and C (survey)
EXISTING UTILITIES - EXHIBIT E
Water Mains
· 6" water main network surrounds the site
· 10" water main off Commerce Blvd.
Sanitary Sewer Lines · Elm Road
· 8" line off of Lynwood Blvd.
· 12" line off of Commerce Blvd.
Pipelines
· A 12" joint storm & sewer force main runs through the site. The main runs down Adler,
south through the site to the public alley for the houses located on Lynwood Blvd.
High Voltage Lines
· No high voltage lines mn through the site
Cellular Tower · The cellular tower is presently located in the center of the proposed residential
development.
· The tower has a 25-year lease, which cannot be terminated by the landowner.
· The tower can be relocated either somewhere else on the site or within the City of
Mound.
· Meetings with US West Cellular will continue to define the relocation of the tower.
· Please see EXHIBIT E for grade, invert elevation and hydrant data and locations.
BOUNDARY LINES OF ADJOINING, UNSUBDIVIDED LAND · Not applicable - all adjoining land is divided
SUBDIVISION DESIGN FEATURES
LAYOUT OF PROPOSED STREETS - EXI-HBIT F
· All existing public sweets will remain. No changes to these streets are proposed with the
exception of the expansion of Lynwood Blvd.
· Thc remaining street in~-astmcture is included in the PDA and will be private. The
streets will be consWucted and maintained by the owner.
· Private streets are 24' edge-to edge or back-to-back. A standard city street in the
community of Mound has a 28' back-to-back with parking one side. Thereby, a 24' with
no parldng gives equal or greater accessibility for emergency, fire and general use.
LOCATION AND WIDTHS OF ALLEYS/SIDEWALKS - EXHIBIT F
· Sidewalks will be 5' for the residential mains. Walks from units will be 4' wide.
· Trailway system will be 6' bituminous with improvements. A right of way easement for
maintenance will be executed with the City of Mound.
PROPOSED UTILITY LOCATIONS/SIZES - EXHIBIT E
Water:
·
The water service for the proposed development will be looped through the site and
connected to the 10" water main in Commerce Blvd. An additional connection will be
made to the smaller 6" main in Bellaire Lane. The size of the on-site water supply lines
will be generally 8" diameter and will provide both fire protection and domestic water
service.
Sewer:
·
The proposed sanitary sewer will be a gravity line extending from the residential portion
on the west through the commercial area on the east line connecting to the existing 12"
sewer main in Commerce Blvd. An 8" diameter PVC sanitary sewer will provide the
required sanitary, sewer capacity.
Gas/Electric:
· Gas and electric service will be designed and provided by NSP and Mirmegasco for both
the commercial and residential areas. Gas lines are presently available to the site from
Commerce Blvd.
DRAINAGE PLAN -EXHIBIT E
· Due to the natural grade of the property as explained above, a storm water pond will be
constructed in the far SW comer of the property.
· The pond will be dead-storage (standing water below the pond outlet elevation) Based on
the percentage of proposed impervious site coverage; the required dead storage volume
for this development is 2.6 acres/foot.
· The proposed storm water pond of 34,000 sq.ft accommodates this volume.
· Pond will include a 10' aquatic bench at the normal water level.
· The pond will discharge to the existing 30" diameter storm sewer on the west side of
Parcel B.
· The proposed development will enhance storm water management throughout the site by
providing new ponding and pre-treatment facilities. The previous drainage of the site
was an uncontrolled sheet drainage system.
· A review in underway to determine features, such as perimeter plantings, aeration, water
table and recreational use of the pond.
PRELIMINARY DIMENSIONS OF LOTS AND BLOCK - EXI-IIBIT F · The property will be platted as one lot.
· The property will be designated as a planned development area. Each component is
separately planned and each will have its own set of standards and phase completion.
· The lot is 18.97 acres or 826,400 sq.ft.
AREAS DEDICATED FOR PUBLIC USE - EXHIBIT F
· 10% of proposed property will be dedicated to the City of Mound for park dedication
fees. This is approximately 1.89 acres.
· Central Park is a continuous park along Bellaire Lane and Elm Road.
· The Bellaire Lane park is 590' x 100' or 59,000 sq. f~. It extends from Elm Road to the
south edge of the Ponds Arena.
· The park on Elm Road sits in the far NW comer of th~ site. It is approximately 32,700
sq.ft, in a trapezoid shape.
· There is a parkway connection linking the two parks. A portion of the development
trailway system runs through the parkway connection. The connection is approximately
26' x 40' or 10,400 sq.ft.
· The parks will extend over a new street accessing the residential development. A
permanent easement to the residential development will need to be executed between the
city and the owner.
AREAS INTENED FOR USE OTHER THAN RESDIENTIAL/PUBLIC - EXHIBIT F
· 6.7 acres of the site will be used for commercial development. The commercial
development will be located in the area of the property presently zoned as B 1 located in
the SE comer of the site at Lynwood Blvd. and Commerce Blvd.
· Site will be re-zoned in the PDA/CUP as 'Destination District'.
· The comer plaza off Lynwood and Commerce will be a major design feature to
encourage and accommodate pedestrian activity.
SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR ZONING DISTRICT - EXHIBIT F · The proposed development will be re-zoned as a PDA.
· Setbacks will be as follows:
o Commercial- no setback
o Residential - front yards adjacent to
development. Zero lot line definition
association will be developed.
parks or property lines 20' within
for the condominium or townhome
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
TOPOGRAPHIC MAP · See Exhibit C
SOIL REPORTS
· Soil testing was completed by STS consultants. Soils on the site range from medium to
poor.
· Extensive soil corrections will be necessary to prepare the site for the construction of the
residential and commercial portions of the site.
· See enclosed EXHIBIT G
WATER SUPPLY/SEWAGE DISPOSAL/FINSIHED GRADES/DRAINAGE · See attached EXHIBIT E for all information.
PROPERTY REGISTERED OR ABSTRACT · The entire parcel is an abstract property.
· A copy of the abstract is attached. EXHIBIT A
PARKING - EXHIBIT F
Commercial
· 363 parking stalls will be available for commercial parking.
· This number exceeds the necessary amount for a commercial development of this size,
which would be 335 spaces.
Ponds Arena
· The developer is committed to expanding the parking for Ponds Arena. The present plan
intends to expand parking from 20 to 42 spaces.
Residential
· Towhome/Rowhouse - A 2-car attached garage will be part of the design of each unit.
The driveway will accommodate an additional 2 cars. This gives each townhome unit 4
spaces each.
· Big House - Underground parking will be located beneath each big house. A total of 80
spaces will be constructed, providing a 2:1 ratio.
· Guest Parking - Several guest parking spaces are located throughout the residential site
to accommodate resident guests.
Parks
Parking may be available on street at both Elm Road and Bellaire Lane. Improvement to
the street to accommodate this parking will need to be undertaken by the City of Mound.
Legal Description Former Westonka School Site
Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12,..13, 14, 15, 16 and 17, Lynwold Park, Lake
Minnetonka, together with vacated Ridgewood Avenue and vacated alley originally
delineated and dedicated in said plat of Lynwold Park, Lake Minnetonka.
Lot 18, Lynwold Park, Lake Minnetonka, except the North 30 feet thereof.
Lots 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101,104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, I10,
111, I12, 113, 114 and 115, Mound.
Those parts of Lots 102 and 103, "Mound", which lie Easterly of the East line of the
West 200.00 feet of the Northeast ¼ of the Southeast ¼ of Section 14, Township 117
North, Range 24 West of the 5th Principal Meridian, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
That part of Meadow Lane, as delineated and dedicated on the plat of "Mound", and now
vacated, which lies Easterly of the West 200.00 feet of the Northeast ¼ of the Southeast
aA of Section 15, Township 117 North, Range 24 West of the 5~ Principal Meridian,
Hennepin County, Minnesota, and Westerly of the Southerly extension of the West line
of Dewey Avenue, now known as Bellaire Lane, as delineated and dedicated in said plat
of "Mound".
The South ½ of the northeast ¼ of the Southeast ¼ of Section 14, Township 117 North,
Range 24 West of the 5t Principal Meridian, Hennepin County, Minnesota, except the
West 200.00 feet thereof, also except that part within the plat of "Mound", and except
that part described as follows:
Commencing at the Northeast comer of said South ½ of the Northeast ¼ of the Southeast
¼; thence Southerly along the East line of said Southeast ¼, a distance of 225.00 feet;
Westerly parallel with the North line of said South ½ of the North~ ast ¼ of the Southeast
¼, to the intersection with the southerly extension of the West line of Dewey Avenue,
now known as Bellaire Lane, as delineated and dedicated in the plat of"Mound"; thence
Northerly along said Southerly extension to the North line of said South ½ of the
Northeast ¼ of the Southeast ¼, thence Easterly along said North line to the point of
beginning.
And except that part of said South ½ of the Northeast ¼ of the Southeast ¼, described as
follows: Beginning at a point on the East line of said Northeast ¼ of the Southeast ¼,
distant 225.00 feet Southerly from the Northeast comer of said South ½ of the Northeast
aA of the Southeast ¼; thence Westerly, parallel with the North line of said South ½ of the
Northeast aA of the Southeast ¼, a distance of 398.63 feet; thence Southerly, deflecting to
the left 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds, a distance of 158.39 feet; thence Easterly,
deflecting to the left 89 degrees 57 minutes 22 seconds, to said East line of the Northeast
aA of the Southeast ¼; thence Northerly along said East line to the point of beginning.
Legal Description: Lots 19 and 20 Lynwold Park Lake Minnetonka
TEAM MEMBERS
MetroPlains Development - Overall Project Developer/Owner
1600 University Ave. Suite 212
St. Paul, MN 55104
FAX: 651-646-8947
Larry Olson
Larissa Tadavarthy
Veto Hanson
Michelle Kaiser
651-523-1246
651-523-1236
651-523-1245
651-523-1238
lolson(a~metroplains.com
ltadavaxthy(~3x~etrol~lains.com
lhanson(~$netroplalns.com
rnkaiser~metroplains.com
PBK Investments - Sub Developer/Owner for Commercial property
4969 Olson Memorial Highway
Golden Valley MN 55422
FAX: (763) 545-1697
Brian Pellowski (763) 545-1672 pbl~r~vest~aol.com
Paul Madson + Associates - Project Master Planner/Architect Residential
Ford Centre
420 N Fifth St
Minneapolis MN 55401
FAX: (612) 332-5604
Paul Madson (612) 332-7026
pmadson~visi.com
KKE Architects, Inc. - Commercial Architect/Planner
300 First Avenue North
Mineapolis, MN 55401
FAX: (612) 333-7596
Kathy Anderson (612) 3394200
klande~kke.com
Sunde Engineering, Inc. - Civil Engineering/Overall Project
4200 West Old Shakopee Road - Suite 230
Bloomington, MN 55437
FAX: (952) 881-1913
Brian Mundstock (952) 881-3344 bmundstock~sundecivil.com
Schoell & Madson, Inc. - Site Surveyor
10580 Wayzata Blvd - Suite 1
Mirmetonka, MN 55305
FAX: 952-546-9065
Dave Tinnes
Rick Williams
(952) 546-7601
(952) 847-9615
Mixed Use Development, Mound
STS Project 97658
3.1 Site and Geology
3.0 EXPLORATION RESULTS
Approximately the southerly two-thirds to three-quarters of Parcel A was formerly occupied by
the Westonka School and Community Center, which has recently been demolished. The
foundations of that building reportedly still remain in place. The floor elevation of the
demolished building was about 953 feet NGVD. The area directly to the north of the former
building, leading to the adjacent Ponds Ice Arena, was bituminous paved.
The larger parcel, Parcel B, was the former school playground, and contained a baseball
diamond, hockey rink, play area, and football field with rmming track. Most of this area is fairly
level, with ground elevations of 947 to 949.5 feet. There are earth berms or slopes to the west of
the football field/running track, and to the northwest of the baseball diamond. A set of concrete
bleachers is built into the slope west.of the football field. There are also a number of chain link
fences on this portion of the property.
This site lies at the north margin of Lake Minnetonka. It is among Cooks Bay of Lake
Minnetonka, Langdon Lake, Dutch Lake, and Harrison Bay of Lake Minnetonka. According to
information published by the Minnesota Geological Survey, this site overlies a deeply incised
valley in the bedrock. The uppermost bedrock in this area is believed to consist of St. Lawrence
dolomitic siltstone and shale and/or Franconia sandstone of upper Cambrian age, probably
occurring at depths of 275 to 325 feet below ground surface. The primary, naturally occurring
surficial soil consists of lean, clayey glacial till deposited by the Des Moines ice lobe of the
Wisconsinan glaciation. The upper portion of the clay till was subsequently water modified, and
now contains random seams or lenses of sand and silt, some of which are water-bearing. In post-
glacial times, some surficial organic soils formed on portions of the site under present study, due
to the poor surface drainage and the tendency for water to pond in some areas. Some fill was
placed over this site when the school building was developed.
-6-
Mixed Use Development, Mound
STS Project 97658
3.2 Soil Conditions
We found about 2-1/2 to 5-1/2 feet of mixed fill in our borings. The fill was very variable in
composition and density, and included fine sandy silt, silty fine sand, and sandy clay, along with
some organic topsoil. We consider the fill to be unreliable for foundation support.
Below the fill in three of our five borings, namely borings 2, 4 and 5, we penetrated a 2-1/2 to 9
foot thick stratum of peat, organic silt and organic silty clay. These soils were generally soft to
very so~ and are potentially compressible. They are unsuitable for foundation support.
The major soil type at this site commenced at depths of 2.5 to 11 feet below ground surface, and
extended to the termination depths of the borings. The deepest boring extended to 70 foot depth.
This soil consisted of lean sandy and silty clay with a trace to a little fine sub-rounded gravel.
The uppermost 2 to 7 feet of this formation tended to be soft to firm, but the major lower portion
was stiff to very stiff in consistency. Standard penetration N-values in the clay till ranged from 3
to 4 in the upper part of the formation, to 7 to 31 at depth. We penetrated a number of sand
seams within the clay till profile. These were on the order of a few inches to 2 feet thick. Many
of these sand seams were.water-bearing, but the sand was generally medium dense. The stiff to
very stiff sandy clay glacial 1511 has moderate load bearing capacity and Iow compressibility, and
is competent for foundation support.
3.3 Groundwater Conditions
We observed free groundwater in all five borings while drilling. In boring 3, the observed
groundwater level was at 21 feet initially. We then used a drilling mud slurry to advance the
hole to depth, which obscured the later groundwater readings. Thus we did not determine the
hydrostatic groundwater level in boxing 3. In the other four borings, we observed groundwater at
-7-
Mixed Use Development, Mound
STS Project 97658
depths of 8 to 13.5 feet below ground surface, corresponding to elevations 933.3 to 939.7 feet
NGVD.
Dutch Lake is about 1 g00 feet northwest of this property, and has an average summer water
elevation of 937 feet. Langdon Lake is 900 feet south by southwest, and has an average summer
water elevation of 934 feet. Cooks Bay and Harrison Bay of Lake Minnetonka are also within a
1/2 mile radius of this site, and have an average summer water elevation of about 930 to 931 feet.
Our interpretation of these data is that there is a groundwater table gradient across this site, 15om
Dutch Lake down toward Lake Minnetonka to the east and southeast. The groundwater levels at
this site will fluctuate seasonally and annually, depending primarily on precipitation and climatic
conditions. However the water level in Lake Minnetonka is closely controlled by the Gray's Bay
Dam, and the various lakes and wetlands surrounding the site provide large storage areas for
surface water. Thus we would not anticipate large fluctuations of the groundwater level, either
upward or downward. For purposes of design at this site, we recommend that a groundwater
elevation of 938.5 feet should be used at the northwest comer of Parcel B, grading to a
groundwater elevation of 935 feet at the southeast comer of Parcel A.
-8-
Mixed Use Development, Mound
STS Project 97658
4.0 ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 Discussion
On a significant portion of the site explored, encompassing borings 1, 3, 4 and 5, the poor quality
fiH and soft compressible soils are less than 11 feet thick. In these areas, some soil correction
would be required in the building pads, and structures could then be supported on conventional
spread footing foundations.
In the area of boring 2 at the northeast comer of Pared B, the potentially compressible soils
extend to about 18 foot depth, which is below the groundwater level. At this location, it would
be possible to excavate the poor quality soils, but extensive dewatering would be required, and a
very large excavation would be needed because of the oversizing around the building footprint
that would be necessary. Furthermore, granular fill would have to be imported, because the
excavated soil would not be reusable. Thus excavation and replacement in the area of boring 2
does not appear to be economical; although it is teclmieally feasible.
Another alternative for a building in the area of boring 2 would be to support it on driven piles.
Because of the lengths involved, treated timber piles may be a suitable foundation type.
Alternatively, steel pipe piles could be used. For preliminary budgeting purposes only, driven
piles in the area of boring 2 would be about 40 feet long in order to achieve at least 20 feet of
embedment into the underlying day till, and could probably carry a safe working load on the
order of 25 to 30 tons, after due allowance for downdrag or negative skin friction. When your
plans are being developed and more is known about the type, location and size of building, we
can provide more precise length and capacity estimates for various pile types.
An intermediate foundation solution for the area of boring 2, between excavation/replacement
and driven piles, would be to improve the soil in that area with the use of Geopiers"', after which
the building could be supported on conventional footings. Geopiera'" are comprised of very stiff,
-9-
Mixed Use Development, Mound
STS Project 97658
densely compacted aggregate Piers, made of well graded stone such as aggregate base course
used in highway construction. They are formed by drilling a hole in the matrix soil, and
prestressing and densifying the soil at the bottom of the hole. The aggregate is then placed in
thin lifts and densely compacted with a high energy impact densification system to
approximately 110% of Modified Proctor dry density. The tamper is beveled, and is designed in
such a way that significant lateral stress build-up occurs in the soil surrounding the drilled hole,
in most matrix soil types and conditions. This process effectively prestresses the soils vertically
and horizontally so that the effect of future loads is diminished. The result is a composite
Geopier~-soil matrix reinforced soil of significantly improved modulus, stiffness, and capacity
to control settlements. After installation of the GeopiersTM on a defined pattern which must be
designed, the building can be supported on conventional spread footings.
Some soil improvement and replacement would be required for pavements surrounding the
buildings at this site. Pavements at this site should bear on a minimum 3.5 foot thickness of
granular soil to distribute the wheel loads. In some areas, which are known to be underlain by
peat, a geotextile separator fabric should be used between the native site soil and the granular
sub-base course. The geofabric improves the constructability and trafficability, and tends to
prolong the pavement life, because it reduces the tendency for fine grained soils to be forced
upward into the sub-base or base course under the kneading action of traffic.
4-2 Preliminary Foundation Recommendations
Based on the limited soil boring information, it appears that the major portion of Parcel B,
exclusive of the east half of the present baseball diamond in the northeast comer, and the south
half of Parcel A, the depth of fill organics and upper soft clay is less than 11 feet. In these areas,
it is our opinion that the poor soils could be excavated and replaced with compacted fill.
Buildings in these areas could then be supported on conventional spread footings. Excavations
to 11 foot depth or less should not encounter si~ificant groundwater intrusion. The fill used
should be an imported sand, or on-site, inorganic lean sandy clay which is moisture conditioned
I F'gt
-10-
Mixed Use Development, Mound
STS Project 97658
to within 2% of the optimum moisture content determined from the Standard Proctor compaction
test. For preliminary planning purposes, a net allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,500 pounds
per square foot may be used for footing design, although it is possible that this value can be
raised after further study. We strongly recommend that additional borings should be taken to the
west and south of boring 2, to better delineate the extent of the poor soil deposits.
In the area encompassing boring 2 within Parcel B, and approximately the north half of Parcel A,
the depth of poor, potentially compressible soil appears to be in the range of 8 to 18 feet. At
these locations, it may be possible to excavate the soil and replace it with compacted fill.
However this may not be economical, because the excavated soil is not reusable and would have
to be hauled off-site. New fill would have to be imported to replace it. Excavations deeper than
about I 1 feet will require dewatering, which would add to the cost of the excavation and
replacement method. We recommend that you should consider the use of Geopiers'". We
recommend that the Geopiers'" should extend totally through the fill, topsoil, peat, and organic
clay/silt, to a tip elevation that reaches the top of the underlying stiff sandy clay glacial fill. After
installation of the GeopiersTM, the building could be supported on conventional spread footings.
Geopiers'" should also be installed under interior floor areas of buildings within the poor soil
zone.
Another alternative for the portion of the site surrounding boring 2 and the north half of Parcel A
would be to support new structures on driven piles. Depending on the loadq to be carded, Class
B treated timber piles or steel pipe piles which are later filled with eonerete would be suitable,
although it is likely this alternative'would be more expensive than GeopiersTM. We would be
pleased to provide specific pile foundation recommendations, when building plans have been
developed.
-11-
Mixed Use Development, Mound
STS Project 97658
4.3 Ground Supported Floor Slabs
In the areas of the site which can be conventionally soil corrected (excavation and replacement),
the ground supported floor slabs can bear directly on the compacted fill. The modulus of
subgrade reaction of the fill would vary, depending on whether a sandy clay or imported sand fill
is used. We would be pleased to advise further on this matter, if requested.
In the portions of the site where GeopiersTM are used, we recommend that the area below the floor
slabs should also be corrected by means of GeopiersTM. A standard ground-supported floor slab
design may then be used above such a corrected area. If driven piles are used, we recommend
that the floor slabs should be structtnal slabs, also supported on piles.
4.4 Exterior Pavement Areas
We do not recommend major soil correction in the exterior pavement areas. However there
should be sufficient excavation and replacement to provide a minimum 3-1/2 foot thickness of
compacted granular soil (combined sub-base course and base course) below the pavements. If
this is done, conventional flexible pavement desi~s can be used. If peat or organic silt soils are
exposed at the base of the subgrade excavation, a geofabric separator should be installed prior to
placement of the imported granular fill.
4.5 Construction Considerations
Underground utility lines at this site which have invert elevations of about 937 feet or higher
should not encounter significant groundwater intrusion. If groundwater seepage into the trench
occurs, it could be controlled by conventional pumping from a sump pit.
For sewer lines having invert elevations lower than aborn 937 feet, groundwater intrusion into
the trenches should be anticipated. However the rate of infiltration should be Iow enough that it
- 12-
Mixed Use Development, Mound
STS Project 97658
could be controlled by pumping. The soils at this site are not conductive to well point
dewatering.
4.6 Winter Construction
The sandy clay soils at this site are not conducive to winter earthwork, and this should be
avoided. Placement of fill and/or foundation concrete must not be permitted on frozen soil, and
the bearing soils under footings or floor slabs should not be allowed to freeze after concrete is
placed, because excessive post-construction settlement could occur as the frozen soils thaw.
4.7 Construction Safety
All excavations must comply with the requirements of OSHA 29 CFR, Part 1926, Subpart P
"Excavations and Trenches". This document states that excavation safety is the responsibility of
the contractor. Reference to this OSHA requirement should be included in the job specifications.
The responsibility to provide safe working conditions on this site, for earthwork, building
construction, or any associated operations is solely that of the contractor. This responsibility is
not borne in any manner by STS Consultants, Ltd.
4.8 Field Observation and Testin~
We recommend that the earthwork and footing installations for this project be observed and
tested by a geotechnical engineer or qualified engineering technician to determine if the soil and
groundwater conditions encountered are consistent with those anticipated based on our
exploration. Foundation subgrade should be tested to check for adequate bearing conditions.
Subgrades for slabs, pavement and new structural fill should be test rolled and unsuitable areas
improved. Fill placement and compaction should be monitored and tested to determine that the
resulting fill conforms to specified density, strength or compressibility requirements. Stmctmal
-13-
Mixed Use Development, Mound
STS Project 97658
materials should also be tested for conformance to specifications. STS would be pleased to
provide the necessary field observation, monitoring and testing services during construction.
4.9 General Qualifications
This report has been prepared to aid in the planning of buildings at this property and to assist the
architect and/or engineer in the design of this project. The scope is limited to the specific
building project and location described herein, and our description of the project represents our
understanding of the significant aspects relevant to soils and foundations. When more definite
building plans have been developed, we should be given the oppommity to review and update
our report. Some additional borings will also be required. We recommend that we be retained to
review the project plans and specifications to determine if the recommendations contained in this
report have been interpreted in accordance with our intent: Without this review, we will not be
responsible for misinterpretation of our data, our analysis, and/or our recommendations, or how
they are incorporated into the final design.
Because of the possibility that unanticipated subsurface conditions may occur, we recommend
that a "Changed Conditions" clause be included in the contract with the general contractor and
subcontractors involved in the foundation installation, earthwork, and general construction. The
inclusion of this clause will permit contractors to quote lower prices because they will not need
contingencies for unanticipated conditions. Providing for equitable adjustments to cost and
schedule for verified changed conditions will generally reduce delays, unnecessary costs,
conflicts and litigation.
Experience demonstrates that a partnering approach between the owner, architect and contractor
usually allows the most timely, cost-effective and risk acceptable actions to be taken to remediate
a changed condition. Furthermore, a prompt investigation of changed conditions and prompt
communication of findings helps to reduce the immense problem of trying to present facts if a
dispute develops. In the event that the owner and contractor do not agree that a changed
-14-
Mixed Use Development, Mound
STS Project 9?658
condition exists, we recommend that a mediation/arbitration procedure be pursued. If you wish,
we would be pleased to furnish additional information pertaining to this procedure. A suggested
wording is given on a separate sheet entitled "Changed Conditions Clause" in the Appendix.
15-
Creative Solutions for Land Planning and Design
Floisington Koegler Group 'Inc.
MEMO
October 23, 2000
To: City of Mound Staff, Planning Commission, and Council
From: Bruce Chamberlain
Mound Visions Coordinator
Re: MetroPlains Development Proposal - former high school site.
RedevelOpment of the former high school site will play a significant role in the character and
success of the future downtown Mound. As a result, it seems appropriate to prepare staff
comments relating directly to the proposal's relationship with the Mound Visions plan.
Mound Visions' primary design mission...
The Mound Visions plan was developed and is continually refined to create a destination
downtown district with urban form (as opposed to suburban). A district that is "place
appropriate", multifaceted, concentrated, and inter-linked. The goal of Mound Visions is to
construct private development espousing the elements just identified within a fabric of high
quality and inter-linked public spaces.
The project as it relates to Mound Visions...
From an overall standpoint, Staff feels that the sketch plan submitted by MetroPlains upholds the
mission of Mound Visions and will strengthen the urban character of the downtown district. The
retail project strengthens the built core and "greets" pedestrians at the 15/110 intersection. The
plan suggests handling the high parking demands of grocery retail in ways that minimize negative
impacts to the character of adjacent streetscapes. The residential portion of the project has an
urban form with housing that is inter-linked with parks and pedestrian ways. The residential
neighborhood suggests a comfortable level of intensity with opportunities for strong
neighborhood ties. Parks are used as "gateways" to the neighborhood and enhance the linkage
between the residential and the core downtown.
Even though the sketch plan demonstrates the basic constructs necessary to uphold the Mound
Visions principles, it is obviously very preliminary and needs a greater level of detail before we
can fully understand its impact on the future of downtown Mound. Staffhas the following
specific comments on the plan.
., /
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, MN 55401
Ph (612) 338-0800 Fx (612) 338-6838
Memo - Mound Visions, MctroPiains sketch plan review
October 23, 2000
Page 2 of 2
· Buildings "H" & "J" are proposed to be located at the street edge with the suggestion
of an urban plaza at the 15/110 intersection. High-quality street-side faerade
treatments and plaza design will be critical - especially since there will be long
building facades without retail entries.
The relationship between retail building "F' and the closest residential fiat could
either be uncomfortable or extremely interesting and unique - depending on how the
area is fenestrated. Staff suggests that particular design attention be paid to this small
· Since there is a gap in building facades between buildings "H" and "J" along 110,
that stretch of streetscape should be given special attention to ensure an interesting
and attractive edge.
· The site entry off of Lynwood Boulevard and the follow-up driveway split between
the commercial entry and the residential entry seems to need greater attention and
maybe more formal urban character through use ora round-a-bout or similar street
element.
· The sketch plan suggests a strong pedestrian connection past the commercial
storefronts between the residential neighborhood and the core downtown. A high
level of streetscape treatment will be necessary to make pedestrians comfortable in
using the connection.
· The plan suggests that the residential development be mostly inwardly focussed.
This is of special note on Elm Road where there are existing homes facing the
development site and new homes facing away from the street. Special treatment
should be given to the green space south of Elm Road to minimize the negative
impacts of back yards facing the street.
· Design of the ponding basin needs to be well conceived in order to make it an
amenity to the neighborhood.
l ISER VERMctive~tOUNDi99-2 4~X2.,%aetropll.doc
dOd
£N~dOq~A~O ~S~ O~XIH
A R [ I. A N [ i
o~
PARCEL
I
I-
:--4
~[
COTTONWOOD
Il[ !I II
Ill" ~i,. i .~. ,:
I I
lhhlJJ,,,:lll:
l llllllllllllIIl
I
I"
Il
i/ °-.i
:': . ,
Il lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
Z~
!li:~
CITY OF MOUND
H_ARDCOVER CALCUI. A_ ~ON~
! ·
LOT AREA S~L FT, X ~0% = (far all Iots~ .............. { I
LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 15% = (far detached buildings only) .. I
~Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are u~illzed, as
outtined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225, Subd, 6. B. 1. (see back}, A plan must be subm~ed
and approved by the Building Official.
HCUSr-
LENGTH WIDTH
X
X =
TOTAL HOUSE .........................
SQFT
X
X
TOTAL DETACHED
X =
DETACHED BLDGS
(GARAGE/SHED)
DRIVEWAY, PARKING
AREAS,
ETC.
DECKS Open dsc~ [1/~." min.
a:~aning be~'~veen ~oerd~} wJ~ a
nat counted ~. har~cover
OTHER
X ~
TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ET(:: ..................
TOTAL DECK
TOTAL OTHER
X ~
TOTAL
HARDCOVER
I IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
~ OVER (irldic~.~.~. diffarerlce) ...........................
PREPARED B
CITY O1= MOUND
(IMPERVIOUS SU~ COV~GEI
LOT
LOT
LOT AR~
'D~ACHED BUILDINGS X
TOTAL DETA~ED 8UILDI~S ..............................
DRIV~AY, PARKING X =
DE~S O~ ~ (w~ ~. X =
X
T~TAL DECK .......................................................
X =
TOT~
ADDRESS:
hqnwoo
SURVEY ON FILE'! YES I NO
LOT OF RECORD.'? YES I NO
YARD
DIRECTION ]
RI
R1A
R2
R3
ZONING DISTRICT. LOT SIZE/WIDTH:
10,000/60 ~
6r000/40 B2 20,000/80
6,000/4.~ ~3 ~0,000/60
~¢,ooo/so
SEE ORD. 11 30.000/100
~XISTING/PROPOSED
EXISTING LOT SIZE:
LOT WIDTIi:
LOT DEFY[t:
VARIANCE
IIOUSE .........
FRONT
FRONT
SIDE
SIDE
REAR
LAKE
TOP OF BLUFF
N s E w
N S E W
N S E W
N S E W
N S E W 15'
NS E W ~0'
!0' OR 30'
GARAGE, SIlED ..... DETACIIED BUILDINC~
FRONT
N S E W
FRONT
SIDE
SIDE
REAR
LAKE
TOP OF BLUFF
HARDCOVER
CONFORMING? YES I NO
N S E W
N S E W
N S E W
NS E W
NS E W
30% OR 40%
4' OR 6'
4' OR 6'
10' OR 30'
? ]BY: LDATED:
'rhis Zoning lnformatiois Sheet only summarizes a portion of the requircmcnU outlined in the Cily of Mound Zoning Ordinance. For further information, con'-ct fl~ City of Mound
Planning Depa,mem at 472-0600.
A
(~o)
e..~.
CP"lo, I {
~3~.4~ ~ ' (GRANDVIEW CT) ~
OOD LA 257.0! $1os1'28-w
275.02 15703
2~0
182.85,
~N LA
3164 25
,~.
225
4-~45 94
'BI_VD
147,5
BELL~
DOC NO DOC'~
5
Applioation for
STREET I EASEMENT VACATION
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364,
Phone: 4,72-0607; F~: 472-0620
Planning Commission Date:
City Council Date:
Application Fee:~
Distdbutignb .
// //4/0¢ Ci~ Engin~ I/ //~0 Poli~Dept. ,///~ GTE
'}////~E Public Wo~ /~//~/~ Fire D~t. /~/,~//,~. Parks
I / / / /.,/
Please type or print the following information:
I
AmmLiCANT Name MetroPlains Development LLC
AO~ross 1600 University Ave. - Suite 212 St. Paul, MN 55104
Phone (H) n/a (w) 651-646-7848
Actjacent Adclmss Lynwood Blvd.
ADJACENT
PROPERTY Name of Business
(APPLICANT'S (s) 18, 19 20
PROPERTY) Lot ' Block Plat #
Subclivision Lynwold Park
PID~
ZONING Circle: R-1 R-lA R~ R-3 B-1 B-2
DISTRICT
DESCRIPTION please see attached
OF STRE~_T
TO BE
VACATED
REASON pi e~e. ~P~
FOR
REQUEST
{S THERE A olease see attached
PUBLIC NEED
FOR THIS
LAND?
Print Ar~olicant's Name
Date
i'O0
Print Applicant's Name
~ised 07-11-00)
Applicant's Signature
Date
ATTACI:i'EMENT TO STREET/EASEMENT VACATION APPLCIATION
DESCRIPTION OF STREET TO BE VACATED
The street to be vacated is a portion of the public alley located directly north of the homes
located along Lynwood Blvd. The legal description of the area to be vacated reads:
"The north 30.00 feet of Lots 18, 19 and 20, "Lynwold Park' Lake Minneto~ according to the
recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota."
Lots 18, 19 and 20 are owned by MetroPlains Development LLC.
REASON FOR REQUEST
This area, in conjunction with the residemial lots 18, 19 and 20, will be re-zoned commercial in
order to facilitate the new emrance into the commercial and residential development being
proposed for the site.
IS THERE A PUBLIC NEED FOR THIS LAND?
No - The alley is not a through alley and curremly dead ends at Lot 18. The vacatiot/office ~y
will move the end of the alley to behind lot 21. The owner will coordinate with the city the
relocation of any public utilities right-of-ways which may be required, such as manholes over the
existing sanitary sewer.