Loading...
2000-12-27 MINUTES MOUND JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING WEDNESDAY DECEMBER 27~ 2000 The meeting was called to order by Mayor Pat Meisel with the Pledge of Allegiance at approximately 7:30 p.m. Those present from the City Council: Mayor Pat Meisel; Council Members: Andrea Ahrens, Mark Hanus, Leah Weycker, and Bob Brown. Staff present: City Manager Kandis Hanson and City Attorney John Dean. Those present from the Planning Commission: Chair G-coif Michael; Commissioners: Orvin Burma, Michael Mueller, Cklair Hasse, Becky Glister, Bill Voss, Bob Brown, and Frank Weiland. Absent: Jerry Clapsaddle. Staff present: City Planner Loren Gordon, City Engineer John Cameron, Building Official Jon Sutherland. APPROVAL OF AGENDA WITH ANY RELATED AMENDMENTS John Dean proposed the actions portion of the agenda beginning with #4A, the Minor Comprehensive Land Use Plan Amendment: Lots 18, 19, & 20, Lynwood Park; Action on Resolution, be removed from the agenda. Dean also recommended the CUP and Variances under the second bullet in 4B, be set for a public hearing to occur on January 23, 2001 instead of taking action on it tonight. He directed the official public notice of that heating also be made. With respect to Items C, which is the Preliminary Plat approval, he recommended that matter also be continued to January 23, 2001, and it also be set on for public hearing and notice of that hearing be published as required by law. Under Additional Matters, Dean recommended they remain as they are currently in the drat~ of the agenda packet. MOTION by Bob Brown to approve the agenda as revised, seconded by Mark Hanus. Mayor Meisel called for a vote: City Council and Planning Commission Joint Meeting 12-27-00 Roll Call Vote: Council Member Brown Council Member Weycker Council Member Hanus Council Member Ahrens Mayor Meisel: MOTION carried aye nye aye aye aye The meeting was turned over to the Planning Commission Chairman Geoff Michael for continuance of the public meeting. This portion of the meeting began at approximately 7:40. Michael thanked everyone for attending the meeting. Chairman Michael announced they had two items on the agenda. He explained that the reason for tonight's Planning Commission Meeting was because it was decided on the November 27' 2000 meeting, to hold another meeting on November 30th. There was a difference of opinion as to whether it was held in violation of the Open Meeting Laws. He stated the Planning Commission has always had open meetings, but to be sure everything is done legally, they are re-doing the meeting. Chairman Michael stated the first item on the agenda is Case #00-66, which is a zoning amendment for MetroPlains Development regarding the northwest comer of Lynwood Blvd. and Commerce Blvd. Chairman Michael opened the meeting for a motion. MOTION made by Bob Brown to go ahead and approve the plan as stated. Bill Voss seconded the motion with a discussion as to what the motion actually is. It was explained that the Planning Commission took action at the November 30th meeting in reference Case 00-65 on page 7 of today's packet. He requested the Commission to review the motion made by Mr. Brown. We are also making amendments with Case #00-66 on page 8 of today's packet. DISCUSSION:. What we are doing is accepting the residential three PDA and the Destination District rezoning per the Plat and Development Plan that has been submitted. We will be dealing with Case #00- 66 tonight and #00-65 at a later meeting. As stated on Page 8, there was a motion by Voss and seconded by Brown to recommend to the City Council to accept Zoning Amendment and/or Rezoning per 00-66. This was to include 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 It was requested that staff clarify if anything needed to be dealt with this evening regarding the logistics of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. John Dean answered that that was not on the agenda for the Planning Commission and the City Council removed it fi.om consideration tonight as well. John Dean was asked if a public heating was needed in respect to that issue and he replied that if it were to ever come back, we would need one, yes, but at this point, no. Call for Vote: Ayes 8 (no call of names) Nayes 0 Show of hands requested: Ayes 8 Nayes 0 Motion carried. Second item on the agenda was Case #00-71, the Street Easement Vacation, MetroPlains Development, northwest comer of Lynwood Blvd. and Commerce Blvd. found on page 9 of the draf~ minutes. Call for a motion regarding Case #00-71: MOTION made by Voss to recommend the City Council accept the Street/Easement Vacation. Motion was seconded by Weiland. DISCUSSION: There was no discussion. Ayes 8 Nayes 0 Motion carried. Show of hands not requested. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION made by Mike Mueller and seconded by Orv Burma to adjourn. Motion passed. The Planning Commission portion of the meeting adjourned at 7:45 P.M. The continuation of the Public Hearing was turned over to Mayor Meisel and the City Council at approximately 7:46 P.M. CASE #00-66: ZONING AMENDMENT METRO PLAINS DEVELOPMENT NW CORNER OF LYNWOOD BLVD BLVD. AND COMMERCE Mayor Meisel explained this information is on page 4937 of the Council Packet. Bruce Chamberlain explained that there were a couple of resolutions before the Council, one having to do with the Zoning Amendment and the other is for final approval of the Minor Comprehensive Plan Amendment which was put before the Metropolitan Council earlier this year. Recently they have made special effort to look at this site in regard to the Comprehensive Plan, based on the fact there is a development proposal for this site. They essentially granted final approval to the Minor Comprehensive Plan Amendment on the site that is in question. Chamberlain read the Zoning Resolution, CASE 00-66 which states: "A RESOLUTION OF ~ CITY COUNCIL OF TI~ CITY OF MOUND GRANTING APPROVAL FOR ~ REZONING OF' A GROUPING OF' PROPERTIES CONSISTING OF' ROUGBX,Y NINETEEN ACRES INCLUDING TIlE "OLD SCHOOL SITE" AT $600 LYNWOOD BOULEVARD, AND ~ ASSOCIATED ATHLE~C FIELDS...' ~ ~ / ~ This resolution will result in the Zoning amendments for the subject property hereby approved as Destination District PUD for Lot 1 except that area of Lot 1 currently known as Lots 18, 19, and 20, Lynwood Park, Lake Minnetonka and Outlot A Block 1 as described in the Preliminary Plat, Mound Vision's First edition dated November 2~a. That zoning will also provide for the subject property that 1t3 residential PDA for Lot 2 and Outlots B and C Block 1 as described in the Preliminary Plat, Mound Vision's First Edition dated November 2no. He then introduced Vern Hanson from MetroPlains Development who gave a presentation. Hanson began by explaining that he was not going to be doing the detailed presentation that has been done in prior meetings, but will do a brief overview. Hanson indicated that this project has been ongoing for almost an entire year, not something that was recently started. He explained that in March they had their first formal meeting with staff and various department heads to analyze the potential scope of this project. He stated this project has been through a series of meetings from both the Council and Planning Commission, department heads and staff, as well as the City Council. Hanson explained that this plan is not just a MetroPlains plan but a combination of what the visions for Mound has been and how they have attempted to integrate those visions into the concept on this site. The plans are for a combination of both commercial and residential development. He showed how the site is broken up into four parts with commercial on the corner of Lynwood and Commerce; residential primarily located on the ball field area; the parks surrounding the perimeter on both the north and east sides; and the Ponds Arena site which is an independent property. What MetroPlains has attempted to do is to mesh all these components so the concept plan embodies the concept of embracing the visions for the new downtown. The idea of how the commercial addresses the intersection is such that it represents more of an urban development on the corner as opposed to a strip mall development. The plan allows additional parking for the Ponds Arena site which lacks adequate parking at this time. The residential area will be centered towards the internal portion of the site as opposed to the perimeter. The location of the park allows an opportunity for the community at large to use it. There will also be green space or a transition space between the existing neighborhoods and the new residential site. As requested by neighborhood residents, they have agreed to provide a turnaround in the alleyway so the dead-end condition which currently exists will no longer be present. He explained they will be putting in over 30% more landscaping than necessary which will be used for private property across the street from the site. This is where the access points come out. This area is primarily on Lynwood Blvd. and will provide additional screening for those residents. Hanson went on to say that they have also agreed to provide a walk-way system throughout the property to a design standard that would allow an integration of the parks system allowing full access by the public at large to move throughout the property. They will utilize the ponding condition more as a public amenity rather than as a sedimentation control or mn-off control. They have agreed to work with the City in their visions for how the corner of Lynwood and Commerce should materialize so it benefits the downtown as a whole. As a result of this, there will be additional easements that will be requested by Hennepin County in order for those conditions to occur. The easements will allow for ten additional parallel parking stalls on Lynwood. He advised the group that MetroPlains has also agreed to work with quality materials and fagade conditions as in the downtown Mound's Visions Plan. They will be utilized not only within the buildings itself but on the pavement and at the intersection points so it will have the visualization of the downtown's vision as it moves further into the central business district. Hanson stated there are a number of utility relocations that will also be a part of this that will commensurate with the design of the internalization site as well as needs that the community currently has which are looping systems which are currently not looped. This will provide a benefit to the community at large. Hanson went on to state MetroPlains has tried to listen to the visions, concerns, and requests brought to their attention. They are attempting to achieve the goals given to them by the City and Mound visions and have integrated those ideas into their plans. He explained that the density has changed drastically from where it was when they first started by at least 1/3. By making these changes he believes MetroPlains has tried to make this project beneficial to the community. Council Member Weycker stated she would like to see cut-out parking on Elm. There was no other questions or comments by the council or stalE. The Public Hearing was opened to the citizens at approximately 8:00 by Mayor Meisel. She explained that as in the last meeting, an egg timer will be used to time the three minutes each citizen will have to voice their opinion. She invited the citizens to come to the podium and requested each give their name and address. John Dean reminded the audience that the item now open for public hearing was the Zoning Amendment. The following citizens came forward to give their opinion: Bob Polston 5780 Dean Fleming 2825 Jim Kruse 2830 John Wagman 5469 Ken Custer 5310 Valarie Magnus 2052 Peter Meyer 5748 Michael Durrell 2208 Orr Burma 3011 Laures Spott 2241 Patty Dodds 3021 Ken Berres 5724 Paula Larson 5713 Bob Johnson 2928 Tom Casey 2854 Lynwood Blvd. Halstead Lane Pine Road Bartlett Blvd. Bartlett Blvd. Grandview Blvd. Sunset Rd. Fern Lane (part-time resident) Island View Drive Cottonwood Lane Dickens Lane Lynwood Blvd. Lynwood Blvd. Westedge Blvd. Cambridge Lane Summarized Comments from speakers: In a letter from an attorney to the City attorney, it was pointed out what is believed to be a conflict of interest on behalf of the mayor taking part in this project and voting on it. An exhibit was submitted to the City indicating the property owned by the mayor is within the notification zone. Another Council member works directly for the school district as a sub-contractor. Since the school district is the seller of the property, Council Member Weycker also has a conflict of interest and it is requested she not vote on the issue. This is because it is believed the money exchanged in the sale of this property would provide additional moneys for projects of the council member. 6 Bob Polston stated he would like to go on record to the City and Council that he has been asked by a number of people in the area to represent them. They do not believe this project is in the best interest in the City, particularly for the people living within the area who have paid taxes expecting the "quietatude" of the area be protected. There was no mistake in the original zoning of the property and should not be changed from R-1 to R-3. He went on to state they do not believe the city has handled the concerns brought before the City insofar as soil borings, soil conditions to sustain this type of development. Mr. Polston stated they do not believe the question of lighting or sound has been adequately addressed. The type of traffic that will be generated will be a threat to the safety and welfare of the children and people of the area. There has been no traffic study done other than by Hennepin County for a construction type traffic study. This project is within 1,000 feet of a lake. The EQB substantially indicates in the law that nothing should be granted on this project prior to the Environmental Assessment Worksheet being done. Request the City forestall taking any action on any of these projects until the Environmental Assessment Worksheet has been returned. Encourage the Council to vote yes for this project and progress on. Does not want the city to continue sitting on their hands and not moving anywhere. This looks like a good program. Appreciate all the hard work in trying to redevelop Mound. Technical issues are at hand but that doesn't mean the project should not go forward. Get Mound where it needs to be. Resident of Mound for more than 20 years. September 1996, the Council condemned his propen'y to dredge on the Lost Lake Channel, so he realizes what it is like to live with the development. No petitions were circulated on his behalf or calling for a special referendum and after years of negotiation with the City, he decided it was better to work with the City than fight it. He believes he made the right decision. It was for the greater good of the City though he lost some privacy. Green Space and ball fields are good to have but you have to look at the greater picture. What is best for the citizens of Mound. Believes Mound needs housing, jobs, and more development. The City should follow through and develop this property. Would like to know what the increase tax revenues to the city will be and what the increase taxes to the school district would also be helpful. This project is expensive and should have a fair tax base to increase the revenues to the City so more utilities can be taken care of'. For the project. Concern of water problem dating back 43 years. Does not believe the land has been checked well enough to know just how soggy it gets. Ail of the water from Grandview Blvd. drains through backyards and down onto the field. Ail of Grandview Court drains down onto the field. Will new drain sewers be able to accommodate all this water. Will the developer waterproof the backwalls of the homes? Keep the property as park land. City Mission states must strive to respond to the needs of all citizens. Disagrees with the way the project has been pushed through. Is legal but not just or fair. Wait until new council is in place to vote on these issues so the new members can vote against the project. Justice is in approving project because as a taxpayer we pay city expenses out of one pocket and school district out of the other. The school district has a chance to pick up 7 digits of income from selling this property. Not to the City (taking from one pocket and putting into the other) but from a developer. We bring in 99 new taxpaying families, new shoppers to the area to help the tax base. This is justice. Wetlands have been previously filled by in residential areas. School property was not maintain for over 22 years and has grown more and more dilapidated. Building is not something we are losing, it's something decided years ago that we would no longer support or maintained. Should have been renovated 30 years ago and by not doing so, the theater, gym, and all other amenities attached to school building was given up then so it became too expensive to renovate now. No other suggestions have been given for this site. Visions has worked hard. Children never went to the school property to play. Football field has been kept locked so it could not be used by the citizens. Only small area for tots was available. Parking was always been a problem in the area during football and softball games. A Softball field can be put at another location. Bringing in new people will indirectly help the softball people. There is a new softball park in Minnetrista, which is more sophisticated. The little lots on this site are not necessarily something we should continue for ever, but could be relocated. Project will give retail base, housing base and tax base downtown. The high school has plans for new fields where they belong. Need to upgrade empty buildings in the downtown area. Get rid of this negativism. Project will probably cause residents to lose all offstreet parking on Lynwood area. Has not yet seen the Hennepin County traffic study yet. Major buffer will be only 50 feet from property. Doesn't feel there is enough trees to buffer existing property. Concern about the turnaround and what it means. Once zoning is done, citizens won't have anything to say about the plan. Opposed to how the project is proposed. Property will be severely impacted by proposed project. Property has always been residential. Covering property with blacktop, concrete and crammed housing on this open space is a mistake. Housing should be placed in areas that need desperate renovating. Concerned about water quality of Lake Minnetonka this project will create. Community should not have the appearance of housing situations as in the northern and southern suburbs of Minneapolis. Mound should acquire land for open space and parks for its citizens and not take it away. When the new Hwy. 12 is under construction, some of that traffic may be relocated or rerouted, possibly to our downtown area, which would cause additional traffic safety issues. Shortage of parks and open space in Mound. Proper fiscal analysis has not been done on the property. Concern of whether the project will give the City a positive cash flow. Need to do an EAW as part of analysis before voting. PUBLIC TESTIMONY ENDED AT 8:30 P.M. by Mayor Meisel. Mayor Meisel asked the council if they had any comments or questions of staff'or the developer. Leah Weycker commented on the conflict of interest issues. She stated she does not work for the school district and that was made clear in the previous settlement that was just done. She stated she is an independent contractor that works for the Westonka Healthy Community Collaborative. The school is the fiscal agent for that group so moneys are funneled through them but that is it. They are not her boss nor is she employed by them. Bruce Chamberlain addressed the Council stating that there were resolutions in the packet. Two updated resolutions are on their desks this evening. He asked for clarification from the City Attorney on the proper order for passage or consideration of these resolutions. Attorney John Dean agreed that the correct order would be to consider the Comprehensive Plan Resolution first and the Zoning Resolution second. Attorney Dean addressed the Mayor stating there needs to be a little bit of a diversion on the action on the matter that was before her on the Public Heating and requested she go to the Comp Plan piece (Item A) under Additional Matters. Bruce Chamberlain addressed the Council stating that the overall Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the City of Mound was passed along to the Metropolitan Council. They have been in the process of reviewing that plan. Bruce Chamberlain read one component of the resolution: "On December 18th, the Metropolitan Council granted approval to a Minor Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the subject property, prior for the Metropolitan Council completing its review of the City's entire comprehensive plan." That essentially gives the ability for the City Council to proceed on action for zoning. It also requires the City Council grant final approval to this component of the Comprehensive Plan and that is the Resolution before the Council this evening which is item A. Bruce Chamberlain handed out an attachment that is being suggested with that Resolution. Basically defines that is in the Comprehensive Land Use plan submittal to the Metropolitan Council. It essentially shows the larger open space portion or the field portion of the site would be guided as downtown residential and the commercial portion of the site (old school building) would be guided as auto destination district. 10 Chamberlain went on to explain Lots 18, 19, and 20 are not suggested for rezoning. There is no commercial building that would be constructed over those lots. It is staff's belief and opinion that rezoning is not required nor is a Comprehensive Plan Amendment required for those three lots in order to proceed with the approvals necessary for this project. They are excluded fi.om any comp plan review or zoning amendment. John Dean wanted to make sure there was clarification regarding the question asked regarding the process of approving the Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. He stated the Planning Commission held their hearings and adopted a recommendation for tiffs approval. The City Council then had public hearings in April or May and approved the Comprehensive Plan at that time and referred it to the Met Council in the Spring for its review. This is the approval that we have now received fi.om Met Council. What is being done tonight is that there is a further provision in the statute that says once the plan is returned from Met Council, the City Council has to give final approval to the plan. It doesn't require a Public Hearing, the City has already gone through that process. It's simply reviewing what is there which is exactly what the Council sent the Met Council. By giving approval to this resolution, the Council will simply be confirming that this is the Amended Comprehensive Plan as it relates to this site. MOTION made by Bob Brown to approve the Resolution by granting final approval of a Minor Comprehensive Plan/Use Plan Amendment for the old school site, including the athletic fields at 5600 Lynwood Blvd. The motion was seconded by Andrea Ahrens. RESOLUTION # 00-125 RESOLUTON GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF MINOR COMPRESENSIVE LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR A GROUPING OF PROPERTIES CONSISTING OF ROUGI~rI,y NINETEEN ACRES INCLUDING THE "OLD SCHOOL SITE" AT 5600 LYNWOOD BOULEVARD AND THE ASOCIATED ATI:rI,ETIC FIELDS DISCUSSION: There was no discussion AYES 5 NAYES 0 MOTION carried Zoning issue was brought before the Council by John Dean. Mayor Meisel asked if there were any questions on the Zoning Resolution 00-66. 11 Mark Hanus commented that one of the common themes mentioned by a number of people had to do with the draining issue in that area. He stated the Water Shed tends to not go soi~ on these types of corrections. He also stated he believes the drainage situation will be better aider the development than it is today. It was pointed out that there are future approvals that will be required. Among the two that are critical are the Conditional Use Permit and a Plat. Both drainage and site line issues, traffic issues, etc. are appropriate considerations for both of those additional approvals. They are more ora design issue than a zoning issue. MOTION made by Bob Brown to approve the resolution of the City Council, granting approval for rezoning of a grouping of properties consisting of roughly 19 acres, including the old school site at 5600 Lynwood Blvd. and the associated athletic fields. The motion was seconded by Mark Hanus RESOLUTION # 00-124 RESOLUTION GRANTING APPROVAL FOR REZONING OF A GROUPING OF PROPERTIES CONSISITNG OF ROUGHLY NINETEEN ACRES INCLUDING THE "OLD SCHOOL SITE" AT 5600 LYN-WOOD BOULEVARD AND THE ASSOCIATED ATHLETIC FIELDS P & Z CASS #00-66 DISCUSSION: Leah Weycker commented that she always had been in favor of saving the field but when the previous referendum that the City had did not pass, she felt she needed to move on and do what the votes were telling her to do. She stated some are now calling her a trader for that but her job as an elected officer is to represent the voters and as much as she wanted to see those fields stay, she believes there are still opportunities to do things for children and green space in our downtown area. This is not an end ail/be all. She wished the new Council the best of luck. ROLL CALL VOTE: Council Member Brown Council Member Weycker Mayor Meisei Council Member Hanus Council Member Ahrens Aye Aye Aye Aye Aye MOTION Carried Unanimously 12 CUP AND VARIANCES MOTION made by Mark Hanus to continue the CUP and variances to January 23, 2001. The motion was seconded by Andrea Ahrens. MOTION made by Mark Hanus to also continue the Preliminary Plat to January 23, 2001. The motion was seconded by Bob Brown. Call for Vote: Ayes Motions Carried CITIZENS PETITION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORK SHEET Bruce Chamberlain addressed the Council that this was already filed with the Environmental Quality Board. The Environmental Quality Board has determined that the City Council of Mound would be the responsible governmental unit to the RGU and responsible for preparing the /kEW should one be determined to be prepared. The recommendation in the agenda is to authorize City Staff to review the AEW petition and provide a report for the January 9, 2001 Council Meeting on that petition and the warrants of it. MOTION made by Andrea Ahrens to direct staff to review the EAW Petition in accordance with State Statutes and any other guidelines and bring a report back to the City Council on January 9th. The motion was seconded by Bob Brown. DISCUSION: There was no discussion Call for Vote: Ayes 5 Nayes 0 MOTION carried unanimously ADJOURNMENT 13 MOTION made by Andrea Ahrens to adjourn the meeting It was seconded by Bob Brown. Call for Vote: Ayes ~ Nayes 0 MOTION carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 8:45 P.M. Attest City Manager, Kandis Hanson 14