The URL can be used to link to this page

2020-08-12 CC Agenda PacketPLEASE TURN OFF ALL CELL PHONES & PAGERS IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS. CITY OF MOUND MISSION STATEMENT: The City of Mound, through teamwork and cooperation, provides at a reasonable cost, quality services that respond to the needs of all citizens, fostering a safe, attractive and flourishing community. AGENDA MOUND CITY COUNCIL WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 12, 2020 - 7:00 PM REGULAR RESCHEDULED MEETING NEW LOCATION: WESTONKA SCHOOLS PERFORMING ARTS CENTER 1. Opening meeting 2. Pledge of Allegiance 3. Approve agenda, with any amendments *Consent Agenda: Items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered routine in nature, have been evaluated by staff, recommended by staff for approval by the Council, and will be enacted by a single roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Council Member or Citizen so requests. At this time, anyone present who wishes to offer dissenting comment to any items on the Consent Agenda is invited to identify themselves and the item of concern so that the it may be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered after discussion in normal sequence. Separate introduction or further support from petitioners or requestors is not required at this time and removal of an item from the Consent Agenda for this purpose is not required or appropriate. 4. *Consent Agenda Page *A. Approve payment of claims 1361-1386 *B. Approve minutes: July 28, 2020 Regular Meeting 1387-1396 *C. Approve resolution approving the Coronavirus Relief Fund Certification 1397-1400 Form and accepting the $704,205 aid amount 1399 *D Approve Pay Request No. 2 in the amount of $42,108.51 to Widmer 1401-1405 Construction for the 2019 Fernside Forcemain Improvement & Bay Ridge Sewer Service City Project PW 19-03 and 19-09 *E Approve Pay Request No. 1 in the amount of $107,869.03 to Widmer 1406-1409 Construction for the 2020 Lift Station Improvement Project City Project No. PW -20-05 5. Comments and suggestions from citizens present on any item not on the agenda. (Limit to 3 minutes per speaker.) 6. Mound Fire Chief Greg Pederson requesting action on a resolution to formally accept 1410 a federal Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG) in the amount of $151,758.10 7. Planning Commission Recommendations 1411-1586 Planning Case No. 20-07 Commerce Place Redevelopment Project — 102 Unit Apartment Project 2200-2238 Commerce Boulevard Applicant: Schafer Richardson PLEASE TURN OFF ALL CELL PHONES & PAGERS IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS. Public Hearings and Review/Consideration of the Following Applications: • Zoning text amendment to allow medium and high density in the Destination Planned Unit Development District • Rezoning of properties from B-1 and R-3 to Destination Planned Unit Development District • Vacation of Fern Lane right of way and drainage and utility easements in Commerce Place • Major subdivision -preliminary plat and site development plans of Commerce Place 2nd Addition • Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for Planned Unit Development Requested Actions: A. Resolutions to Approve Land Use, Vacation and Subdivision Applications Al. RESOLUTION TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 20 -_AMENDING CITY CODE 1461 CHAPTER 129 AS IT RELATES TO USES ALLOWED IN THE DESTINATION PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AND THE MOUND OFFICIAL ZONING MAP A2. RESOLUTION TO APPROVE VACATION OF FERN LANE RIGHT OF WAY AND 1465 DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS IN COMMERCE PLACE AND APPROVING THE MAJOR SUBDIVISION -PRELIMINARY PLAT OF COMMERCE PLACE 2ND ADDITION A3. RESOLUTION GRANTING APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A 1469 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR COMMERCE PLACE 2ND ADDITION B. Resolutions to Denv Land Use. Vacation and Subdivision Annlications B1. RESOLUTION TO DENY REQUEST TO REZONE PROPERTIES IN COMMERCE 1473 PLACE 2ND ADDITION AND REQUEST FOR A ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT TO CITY CODE CHAPTER 129 AS IT RELATES TO USES ALLOWED IN THE DESTINATION PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT B2. RESOLUTION TO DENY VACATIONS OF FERN LANE RIGHT OF WAY AND 1476 DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS IN COMMERCE PLACE AND DENYING THE MAJOR SUBDIVISION -PRELIMINARY PLAT OF COMMERCE PLACE 2ND ADDITION B3. RESOLUTION TO DENY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED 1480 UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR COMMERCE PLACE 2ND ADDITION 8. Information/Miscellaneous A. Comments/Reports from Council members B. Reports: Liquor Store —July 2020 YTD 1587 C. Minutes D. Correspondence: 9. Adjourn COUNCIL BRIEFING August 12, 2020 In tune with Phase III of the Stay Safe MN Plan; through mid-November, we will re -open Council and Commission meetings to in-person attendance for our residents. Meetings will be hosted in the Westonka Schools Performing Arts Center where social distancing requirements can be met. Council meetings will continue to be held the second and fourth Tuesday each month with agendas and meeting details/locations posted to the City website the Thursday prior under the "Mayor and Council' section of the "Government" tab of the Home Page. Upcoming Events Schedule: Don't Forget!! 12 August - 6:55 PM — HRA Regular Meeting (as may be required) 12 August - 7:00 PM — 11 August City Council Regular Meeting RESCHEDULED at Westonka Performing Arts Center 25 August - 6:55 PM — HRA Regular Meeting (as may be required) 25 August - 7:00 PM — City Council Regular Meeting at Westonka Performing Arts Center 8 September - 6:55 PM — HRA Regular Meeting (as may be required) 8 September - 7:00 PM — City Council Regular Meeting at Westonka Performing Arts Center 22 September - 6:55 PM — HRA Regular Meeting (as may be required) 22 September - 7:00 PM — City Council Regular Meeting at Westonka Performing Arts Center 6 October — National Night Out RESCHEDULED from August 4 13 October - 6:55 PM — HRA Regular Meeting (as may be required) 13 October - 7:00 PM — City Council Regular Meeting at Westonka Performing Arts Center 27 October - 6:55 PM — HRA Regular Meeting (as may be required) 27 October - 7:00 PM — City Council Regular Meeting at Westonka Performing Arts Center 3 November — General Election Day — Polls Open 7 am — 8 pm City Offices Closed Until Further Notice; by Day -to -Day Essential Business by Appointment Only 7 September — Labor Day City Official's Absences Please notify the City Manager in advance of an absence. Inauire in advance. please...... Council members are asked to call or email their questions in advance of a public meeting so that more research may be done or additional information may be provided that will assist in your quality decision- making. City of Mound Claims 08-12-20 YEAR BATCH NAME DOLLAR AMOUNT 2020 JUNE20KENGRAV $ 21445.25 2020 2Q20SURCHG $ 747.82 2020 072820PAYREQ $ 211452.00 2020 072320ELANCC $ 11434.82 2020 08062OCTYMAN $ 71,376.02 2020 08072OCTYMAN $ 153.01 2020 081220CITY $ 1411440.84 2020 081220HWS $ 96,320.61 TOTAL CLAIMS 11 $ 335,370.37 -1361 - CITY OF MOUND Payments Current Period: August 2020 Payments Batch JUNE20KEN $2,445.25 Refer 975 KENNEDY AND GRAVEN _ Cash Payment E 101-41600-300 Professional Srvs ADMINISTRATIVE LEGAL SVCS JUNE 2020 Invoice 155932 7242020 Cash Payment G 101-23441 4801 TUXEDO ABATEMENT 4801 TUXEDO BLVD ABATEMENT ACTION LEGAL SVCS JUNE 2020 Invoice 155932 7242020 Cash Payment E 475-46386-300 Professional Srvs MOUND HARBOR DEVELOPMENT FINAL PLAT LEGAL SVCS JUNE 2020 Invoice 155932 7242020 Cash Payment E 101-41600-316 Legal P & I PLANNING LEGAL SVCS JUNE 2020 Invoice 155932 7242020 Cash Payment E 101-42400-300 Professional Srvs 1720 RESTHAVEN LN HAZARDOUS BLDG MATTER LEGAL SVCS JUNE 2020 Invoice 155932 7242020 Cash Payment E 404-45200-300 Professional Srvs SURFSIDE PARK IMPROV PROJ. PW 20-01 LEGAL SVCS JUNE 2020 Invoice 155932 7242020 Project PW2001 Cash Payment E 404-45200-300 Professional Srvs SURFSIDE PARK IMPROV PROJ. PW 20-01 LEGAL SVCS JUNE 2020 Invoice 155932 7242020 Project PW2001 Transaction Date 8/42020 Due 12/312017 Wells Fargo 10100 Total Fund Summary 10100 Wells Fargo 101 GENERAL FUND $1,421.75 404 COMMUNITY INVESTMENT RESERVE $852.50 475 TIF 1-3 Mound Harbor Renaissan $171.00 $2,445.25 Pre -Written Checks $0.00 Checks to be Generated by the Computer $2,445.25 Total $2,445.25 -1362- 08/04/20 2:00 PM Page 1 $364.25 $393.00 $171.00 $15.50 $649.00 $821.50 $31.00 $2,445.25 CITY OF MOUND Payments Current Period: July 2020 Payments Batch 2Q20SURCH $747.82 Refer 220 DEPARTMENT OF LABOR & INDUS Ck# 080749E 7/302020 Cash Payment G 101-20800 Due to Other Governments 2ND QUARTER BUILDING SURCHARGE 2020 Invoice 063020 6/302020 Transaction Date 7/302020 Fund Summary i1111➢11e7A01:1 wall 01Q 07/30/20 11:51 AM Page 1 $747.82 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $747.82 10100 Wells Fargo $747.82 Pre -Written Checks $747.82 Checks to be Generated by the Computer $0.00 Total $747.82 $747.82 -1363- �IM012I!1[41111 k I�� Payments 07/24/20 11:28 AM Page 1 Current Period: July 2020 '``l'"' Li;.`ar�x1�?S#„;31'b7;URt^t\YS.. Payments Batch 072820PAYR $21,452.00 C / /f^c Refer 1 MP ASPHALT MAINTENANCE, INC. Cash Payment E 427-43121-300 Professional Srvs PAY REQ #1 & FINAL- 2020 CRACK SEALING $21,452.00 PROJ PW 20-06 - WORK COMPLETED JUNE I ST THRU JULY 7TH 2020 Invoice 072820 7/28/2020 Project PW2006 Transaction Date 7/24/2020 Wells Fargo 101.00 Total $21,452.00 Fund Summary 10100 Wells Fargo 427 SEAL COAT FUND $21,452.00 $21,452.00 Pre -Written Checks $0.00 Checks to be Generated by the Computer $21,452.00 Total $21,452.00 -1364- CITY OF MOUND 08/05/2010: 56 AM Page 1 Payments Current Period: July 2020 Payments Batch 07072320ELA $1,434.82 Refer 1001 ELAN CREDIT CARD Ck# 080750E 8/5/2020 Cash Payment E 101-43100-226 Sign Repair Materials OSI UNITED STATES FLAG- 20 QTY 6' $642.60 SPINNER FLAGPOLE SETS Invoice 081220 6222020 Cash Payment E 222-42260-210 Operating Supplies AMAZON.COM- CREDIT- ORDER -$38.97 CANCELLED- WEBCAMS Invoice 081220 6/172020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-210 Operating Supplies AMAZON.COM- CREDIT- ORDER -$12.99 CANCELLED- WEBCAMS Invoice 081220 6/172020 Cash Payment E 281-45210-440 Other Contractual Servic H2O TOWING- TOW ILLEGALLY DOCKED $219.00 BOAT Invoice 081220 6242020 Cash Payment E 101-41920-440 Other Contractual Servic ZOOM.US- MONTHLY CHARGE TO RECORD $43.01 COUNCIL MEETINGS TO CLOUD FOR LMCC Invoice 081220 6/302020 Cash Payment E 101-42400-205 Computer Hardware/Soft MICROSOFT OFFICE 365 SUBSCRIPTION- $80.65 FIELD OPS LAPTOP- A. DRILLING Invoice 081220 6/182020 Cash Payment E 101-42115-210 Operating Supplies MICROSOFT OFFICE 365 SUBSCRIPTION- $80.64 FIELD OPS LAPTOP- A. DRILLING Invoice 081220 6/182020 Cash Payment E 101-41410-200 Office Supplies AMAZON.COM- 100 QTY 1/3 CUT VIOLET $27.44 FILE FOLDERS- ELECTIONS Invoice 081220 7/32020 Cash Payment E 101-41920-210 Operating Supplies AMAZON.COM- CREDIT- ORDER -$129.90 CANCELLED- WEBCAMS Invoice 081220 6/172020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-340 Advertising IN PRIME ADVERTISING- MONTHLY $100.00 WEBSITE HOSTING HWS Invoice 081220 6272020 Cash Payment E 101-41410-210 Operating Supplies AMAZON.COM- HAND SANITIZER, 8 FL OZ- $56.99 PACK OF 12- ELECTIONS Invoice 081220 6252020 Project CV -19 Cash Payment E 101-41410-210 Operating Supplies AMAZON.COM- DISPOSABLE FACE 3 -LAYER $114.40 EARLOOPS PROTECTIVE COVER MASKS - ELECTIONS Invoice 081220 6242020 Project CV -19 Transaction Date 8/42020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $1,182.87 Refer 1002 ELAN CREDIT CARD Ck# 080751 E 8/52020 Cash Payment E 222-42260-210 Operating Supplies AMAZON.COM- CABLE TIES, ADJUSTABLE $30.96 CORD STRAPS, CABLE ORGANIZER, CORD WRAP, FASTENING CABLE STRAPS- FIRE DEPT Invoice 072320 6222020 Cash Payment E 222-42260-210 Operating Supplies AMAZON.COM- EVERPURE REPLACEMENT $48.69 FILTER CARTRIDGE- FIRE DEPT Invoice 072320 6222020 Cash Payment E 222-42260-210 Operating Supplies AMAZON.COM- 1.5" WIDE ADHESIVE TAPE, $11.99 5.4 YDS STICKY BACK FASTENER FOR ACCOUNTABILITY BOARDS- FIRE DEPT Invoice 072320 6/142020 -1365- CITY OF MOUND Payments Current Period: July 2020 Cash Payment G 222-22801 Deposits/Escrow Invoice 072320 6/152020 Cash Payment E 222-42260-200 Office Supplies Invoice 072320 6272020 Cash Payment E 222-42260-200 Office Supplies Invoice 072320 6272020 Cash Payment E 222-42260-210 Operating Supplies Invoice 072320 6/302020 Cash Payment E 222-42260-210 Operating Supplies Invoice 072320 6252020 Transaction Date 8/42020 SECRETARY OF STATE- MVFD RELIEF ASSOC DOCUMENTS- RELIEF ASSOC TO REIMBURSE CITY AMAZON.COM- 2 PERSONALIZED FIREFIGHTER COMPUTER MOUSEPADS- FIRE DEPT AMAZON.COM- US FLAG COMPUTER MOUSEPAD & MAT, 2.0 USB POWERED DESKTOP SPEAKERS- FIRE DEPT AMAZON.COM- 2 THROWABLE FLOATATION FOAM CUSHIONS- FIRE BOAT MAZON.COM- PLASATIC STORAGE BASKETS, SMALL STACKING BASKET TRAYS- 6 PACKS, ADHESIVE BLACK HOOK & LOOP TAPE, STICKY BACK FASTENER - FIRE DEPT Wells Fargo 10100 Total Fund Summary 10100 Wells Fargo 101 GENERAL FUND $915.83 222 AREA FIRE SERVICES $212.98 281 COMMONS DOCKS FUND $219.00 609 MUNICIPAL LIQUOR FUND $87.01 $1,434.82 Pre -Written Checks $1,434.82 Checks to be Generated by the Computer $0.00 Total $1,434.82 -1366- 08/05/20 10:56 AM Page 2 $24.00 $19.98 $37.97 $50.38 $27.98 $251.95 CITY OF MOUND Payments Current Period: August 2020 Payments Batch 080620CTYM $71,376.02 Refer 900 BENDICKSON, WES _ Cash Payment E 601-49400-224 Street Maint Materials WATERMAIN BREAK DEBRIS- DUMP 2 08/05/20 10:55 AM Page 1 $120.00 $240.00 $120.00 $80.00 Total $560.00 Refer 905 CENTERPOINT ENERGY (MINNEG LOADS 6-16-20 Invoice 080620 7272020 4948 BARTLETT LS E2 GENERATOR NATL -$130.21 Cash Payment E 101-43100-224 Street Maint Materials STREET SWEEPINGS DEBRIS- DUMP 3 Invoice 081220 7242020 LOADS 7-20-20 Invoice 080620 7272020 1717 BAYWOOD SHORES DR. LS $23.56 Cash Payment E 601-49400-224 Street Maint Materials WATERMAIN BREAK DEBRIS- DUMP 2 5808 GRANDVIEW BLVD LS GENERATOR $23.05 LOADS 6-22-20 Invoice 080620 7272020 Cash Payment E 101-43100-224 Street Maint Materials STREET SWEEPINGS DEBRIS- DUMP 1 Cash Payment LOAD 6-22-20 Invoice 080620 7272020 Transaction Date 8/32020 Wells Fargo 10100 08/05/20 10:55 AM Page 1 $120.00 $240.00 $120.00 $80.00 Total $560.00 Refer 905 CENTERPOINT ENERGY (MINNEG _ Cash Payment E 602-49450-383 Gas Utilities 4948 BARTLETT LS E2 GENERATOR NATL -$130.21 2649 EMERALD DR. LS E3 GENERATOR $23.04 GAS SVC 6-20-20 THRU 7-20-20 Invoice 081220 7242020 Cash Payment E 602-49450-383 Gas Utilities 1717 BAYWOOD SHORES DR. LS $23.56 Cash Payment GENERATOR NATL GAS SVC 6-20-20 THRU 5808 GRANDVIEW BLVD LS GENERATOR $23.05 7-20-20 Invoice 081220 7242020 Cash Payment E 602-49450-383 Gas Utilities 4728 CARLOW RD LS GENERATOR NATL $21.96 GAS SVC 6-20-20 THRU 7-20-20 Invoice 081220 7242020 Cash Payment E 602-49450-383 Gas Utilities 1871 COMMERCE BLVD NEW LIFT STATION $21.96 GENERATOR NATL GAS SVC 6-20-20 THRU 7-20-20 Invoice 081220 7242020 Cash Payment E 602-49450-383 Gas Utilities 2649 EMERALD DR. LS E3 GENERATOR $23.04 NATL GAS SVC 6-20-20 THRU 7-20-20 Invoice 081220 7242020 Cash Payment E 602-49450-383 Gas Utilities 5808 GRANDVIEW BLVD LS GENERATOR $23.05 NATL GAS SVC 6-20-20 THRU 7-20-20 Invoice 081220 7242020 Cash Payment E 602-49450-383 Gas Utilities 2990 HIGHLAND BLVD LS B1 GENERATOR $23.05 NATL GAS SVC 6-20-20 THRU 7-20-20 Invoice 081220 7242020 Cash Payment E 602-49450-383 Gas Utilities 5260 LYNWOOD BLVD. LS GENERATOR $20.87 NATL GAS SVC 6-20-20 THRU 7-20-20 Invoice 081220 7242020 Cash Payment E 602-49450-383 Gas Utilities 4791 NORTHERN RD LS D1 GENERATOR $23.04 NATL GAS SVC 6-20-20 THRU 7-20-20 Invoice 081220 7242020 Cash Payment E 602-49450-383 Gas Utilities 1972 SHOREWOOD LN LS GENERATOR $21.96 NATL GAS SVC 6-20-20 THRU 7-20-20 Invoice 081220 7242020 Cash Payment E 602-49450-383 Gas Utilities 3172 SINCLAIR RD LS GENERATOR NATL $32.74 GAS SVC 6-20-20 THRU 7-20-20 Invoice 081220 7242020 -1367- CITY OF MOUND 08/05/2010: 55 AM Page 2 Payments Current Period: August 2020 Cash Payment E 602-49450-383 Gas Utilities 1758 SUMACH LANE LS GENERATOR NATL $71.91 20-20 Invoice 081220 GAS SVC 6-20-20 THRU 7-20-20 Cash Payment Invoice 081220 7242020 20-20 Invoice 081220 Cash Payment E 602-49450-383 Gas Utilities 4922 THREE PTS BLVD LS GENERATOR $23.04 Refer 971 FRONTIER/CITIZENS COMMUNICA Cash Payment E 602-49450-321 Telephone, Cells, & Radi NATL GAS SVC 6-20-20 THRU 7-20-20 Invoice 081220-2 7/302020 Invoice 081220 7242020 E 609-49750-321 Telephone, Cells, & Radi PHONE SVC -7-30-20- TO 8-29-20 Invoice 081220-2 7/302020 Cash Payment E 602-49450-383 Gas Utilities 3303 WATERBURY RD LS GAS SVC 6-20-20 $20.87 7/302020 Cash Payment E 601-49400-321 Telephone, Cells, & Radi THRU 7-20-20 Invoice 081220-2 7/302020 Invoice 081220 7242020 E 101-43100-321 Telephone, Cells, & Radi PHONE SVC -7-30-20- TO 8-29-20 Invoice 081220-2 7/302020 Cash Payment E 602-49450-383 Gas Utilities 5077 WINDSOR RD LS GENERATOR NATL $21.96 7/302020 Cash Payment E 222-42260-321 Telephone, Cells, & Radi GAS SVC 6-20-20 THRU 7-20-20 Invoice 081220-2 7/302020 Invoice 081220 7242020 E 101-41910-321 Telephone, Cells, & Radi PHONE SVC -7-30-20- TO 8-29-20 Invoice 081220-2 7/302020 Cash Payment E 602-49450-383 Gas Utilities 4783 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE LS GENERATOR $25.92 7/302020 Transaction Date 8/42020 NATL GAS SVC 6-20-20 THRU 7-20-20 Refer 901 HARRISON BAY SENIOR LIVING LL _ Invoice 081220 7242020 PAY AS YOU GO TAX INCREMENT FINANCING AVAILABLE AS OF 8-1-20- (90%) Cash Payment E 602-49450-383 Gas Utilities 5330 BARTLETT LS E4 GENERATOR NATL $21.30 GAS SVC 6-20-20 THRU 7-20-20 Invoice 081220 7242020 Transaction Date 8/32020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $290.02 Refer 906 FRONTIER/CITIZENS COMMUNICA _ Cash Payment E 222-42260-321 Telephone, Cells, & Radi NETWORK ETHERNET SVC 7-20-20 THRU 8- 20-20 Invoice 081220 7222020 Cash Payment E 101-41920-321 Telephone, Cells, & Radi NETWORK ETHERNET SVC 7-20-20 THRU 8- 20-20 Invoice 081220 7222020 Transaction Date 8/62020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total Refer 971 FRONTIER/CITIZENS COMMUNICA Cash Payment E 602-49450-321 Telephone, Cells, & Radi PHONE SVC -7-30-20- TO 8-29-20 Invoice 081220-2 7/302020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-321 Telephone, Cells, & Radi PHONE SVC -7-30-20- TO 8-29-20 Invoice 081220-2 7/302020 Cash Payment E 602-49450-321 Telephone, Cells, & Radi PHONE SVC -7-30-20- TO 8-29-20 Invoice 081220-2 7/302020 Cash Payment E 601-49400-321 Telephone, Cells, & Radi PHONE SVC -7-30-20- TO 8-29-20 Invoice 081220-2 7/302020 Cash Payment E 101-43100-321 Telephone, Cells, & Radi PHONE SVC -7-30-20- TO 8-29-20 Invoice 081220-2 7/302020 Cash Payment E 101-41930-321 Telephone, Cells, & Radi PHONE SVC -7-30-20- TO 8-29-20 Invoice 081220-2 7/302020 Cash Payment E 222-42260-321 Telephone, Cells, & Radi PHONE SVC -7-30-20- TO 8-29-20 Invoice 081220-2 7/302020 Cash Payment E 101-41910-321 Telephone, Cells, & Radi PHONE SVC -7-30-20- TO 8-29-20 Invoice 081220-2 7/302020 Cash Payment E 101-42110-321 Telephone, Cells, & Radi PHONE SVC -7-30-20- TO 8-29-20 Invoice 081220-2 7/302020 Transaction Date 8/42020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total Refer 901 HARRISON BAY SENIOR LIVING LL _ Cash Payment E 454-46700-650 TIF Payments to Develo PAY AS YOU GO TAX INCREMENT FINANCING AVAILABLE AS OF 8-1-20- (90%) Invoice 080620 8/142020 -1368- $150.00 $175.00 $325.00 $47.44 $216.88 $195.03 $189.29 $189.29 $462.26 $154.09 $77.04 $77.04 $1,608.36 $55,027.40 CITY OF MOUND 08/05/2010: 55 AM Page 3 Payments Current Period: August 2020 Transaction Date 8/32020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $55,027.40 Refer 963 JOHNSON CONTROLS - TYCO INC. Cash Payment E 285-46388-440 Other Contractual Servic PARKING DECK ANNUAL FIRE $565.00 EXTINGUISHER, EXIT LIGHTS, SPRINKLER & FIRE ALARM TEST & INSPECTION SVC PLAN 5-1-20 THRU 4-30-21 Invoice 21746194 7/162020 Cash Payment E 101-45200-440 Other Contractual Servic PARKS GARAGE ANNUAL FIRE $155.00 MONITORING- FIRE EXTINGUISHERS & EXIT LIGHT TEST & INSPECT SVC PLAN 5-1- 20 THRU 4-30-21 Invoice 21746194 7/162020 Cash Payment E 101-41930-440 Other Contractual Servic CITY HALL ANNUAL FIRE MONITORING; $890.00 EXIT LIGHTS, FIRE EXTINGUISHER, SPRINKLER & FIRE ALARM TEST & INSPECTION SVC PLAN 5-1-20 THRU 4-30-21 Invoice 21746194 7/162020 Cash Payment E 222-42260-440 Other Contractual Servic FIRE DEPT ANNUAL FIRE MONITORING; $890.00 EXIT LIGHTS, FIRE EXTINGUISHER, SPRINKLER, KITCHEN HOOD & FIRE ALARM TEST & INSPECTION SVC PLAN 5-1-20 THRU 4-30-21 Invoice 21746194 7/162020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-440 Other Contractual Servic HWS -ANNUAL FIRE & SECURITY $575.00 MONITORING; EXIT LIGHTS, FIRE EXTINGUISHER, SPRINKLER & FIRE ALARM TEST & INSPECTION SVC PLAN 5-1-20 THRU 4-30-21 Invoice 21746194 7/162020 Cash Payment E 101-41910-440 Other Contractual Servic CENTENNIAL BLDG ANNUAL FIRE $935.00 MONITORING; EXIT LIGHTS, FIRE EXTINGUISHER, SPRINKLER & FIRE ALARM TEST & INSPECTION SVC PLAN 5-1-20 THRU 4-30-21 Invoice 21746194 7/162020 Cash Payment E 602-49450-440 Other Contractual Servic PUB WKS BLDG ANNUAL FIRE $1,090.00 MONITORING; EXIT LIGHTS, FIRE EXTINGUISHER, SPRINKLER & FIRE ALARM TEST & INSPECTION SVC PLAN 5-1-20 THRU 4-30-21 Invoice 21747061 7/162020 Project 20-3 Transaction Date 8/32020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $5,100.00 Refer 909 LAKE MINNETONKA COMM. COMM _ Cash Payment E 101-49840-300 Professional Srvs 2ND QTR 2020 PEG ACCESS FEE PER $8,465.24 SUBSCRIBER Invoice 081220 7212020 Transaction Date 8/32020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $8,465.24 -1369- Fund Summary 101 GENERAL FUND 222 AREA FIRE SERVICES 285 HRA/HARBOR DISTRICT 454 TIF1-1 HARRISON BAY SR HOUSING 601 WATER FUND 602 SEWER FUND 609 MUNICIPAL LIQUOR FUND CITY OF MOUND Payments Current Period: August 2020 10100 Wells Fargo $11,745.87 $1,194.09 $565.00 $55,027.40 $429.29 $1,622.49 $791.88 $71,376.02 Pre -Written Checks $0.00 Checks to be Generated by the Computer $71,376.02 Total $71,376.02 -1370- 08/05/20 10:55 AM Page 4 CITY OF MOUND Payments Current Period: August 2020 Payments Batch 080720CTYM $153.01 Refer 1028 CARVER COUNTY COURTHOUSE _ Cash Payment E 222-42260-438 Licenses and Taxes NOTARY RENEWAL- V. WEBER Invoice 080620 8/62020 Transaction Date 8/62020 Wells Fargo 10100 08/06/20 12:34 PM Page 1 $20.00 Total $20.00 Refer 1029 JUBILEE FOODS _ Cash Payment E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa LIMES & LEMONS FOR RESALE- HWS $36.91 Invoice 073120 7/32020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-210 Operating Supplies TALL KITCHEN TRASH BAGS- HWS $11.96 Invoice 073120 7/42020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-210 Operating Supplies VINEGAR- HWS $3.98 Invoice 073120 7/82020 Project CV -19 Cash Payment E 609-49750-210 Operating Supplies WORKS CLEANER, COMET ULTRA- HWS $6.36 Invoice 073120 7/82020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-210 Operating Supplies DINNERWARE FORKS- STAFF LUNCHES- $3.83 HWS Invoice 073120 7/152020 Project CV -19 Cash Payment E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa LIMES & LEMONS FOR RESALE- HWS $32.00 Invoice 073120 7222020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa LIMES & LEMONS FOR RESALE- HWS $32.00 Invoice 073120 7282020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-210 Operating Supplies VINEGAR- HWS $5.97 Invoice 073120 7282020 Project CV -19 Transaction Date 8/62020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $133.01 Fund Summary 10100 Wells Fargo 222 AREA FIRE SERVICES $20.00 609 MUNICIPAL LIQUOR FUND $133.01 $153.01 Pre -Written Checks $0.00 Checks to be Generated by the Computer $153.01 Total $153.01 - 1371 - CITY OF MOUND Payments Current Period: August 2020 Payments Batch 081220CITY $141,440.84 Refer 902 A-10UTDOOR POWER, INC. _ Cash Payment E 101-45200-220 Repair/Maint Supply POWER EQUIPMENT- PARKS DEPT Invoice 470526 7212020 Transaction Date 8/32020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total Refer 903 AMERICAN MESSAGING _ $57.35 Cash Payment E 602-49450-321 Telephone, Cells, & Radi MONTHLY PAGING MESSAGING SVC -JULY LINERS 2020- PARKS & PUB WKS Invoice D2062026UH 8/12020 Cash Payment E 601-49400-321 Telephone, Cells, & Radi MONTHLY PAGING MESSAGING SVC -JULY TOWELS, LARGE & MEDIUM TRASH CAN 2020- PARKS & PUB WKS Invoice D2062026UH 8/12020 Cash Payment E 101-43100-321 Telephone, Cells, & Radi MONTHLY PAGING MESSAGING SVC -JULY TOWELS, LARGE & MEDIUM TRASH CAN 2020- PARKS & PUB WKS Invoice D2062026UH 8/12020 Cash Payment E 101-45200-321 Telephone, Cells, & Radi MONTHLY PAGING MESSAGING SVC -JULY 2020- PARKS & PUB WKS Invoice D2062026UH 8/12020 Transaction Date 8/32020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total Refer 904 CADY BUILDING MAINTENANCE Cash Payment E 101-41930-460 Janitorial Services Invoice 4976456 8/12020 Cash Payment E 222-42260-460 Janitorial Services Invoice 4976456 8/12020 Cash Payment E 602-49450-460 Janitorial Services Invoice 4976456 8/12020 Cash Payment E 101-41910-460 Janitorial Services Invoice 4976456 8/12020 Cash Payment E 101-41910-210 Operating Supplies Invoice 4976456 8/12020 Cash Payment E 602-49450-210 Operating Supplies Invoice 4976456 8/12020 Cash Payment E 101-41930-210 Operating Supplies Invoice 4976456 8/12020 Cash Payment E 222-42260-210 Operating Supplies Invoice 4976456 8/12020 Transaction Date 8/32020 08/06/20 12:41 PM Page 1 $321.89 $321.89 $1.88 $1.87 $1.88 $1.87 $7.50 AUGUST 2020 CLEANING SVCS- CITY HALL $550.00 /POLICE AUGUST 2020 CLEANING SVCS- FIRE DEPT $299.00 AUGUST 2020 CLEANING SVCS- PUBLIC $425.00 WORKS BLDG Project 20-5 AUGUST 2020 CLEANING SVCS- $425.00 CENTENNIAL BLDG CLEANING SUPPLIES- MULTI -FOLD $57.35 TOWELS, LARGE & MEDIUM TRASH CAN LINERS CLEANING SUPPLIES- MULTI -FOLD $57.35 TOWELS, LARGE & MEDIUM TRASH CAN LINERS Project 20-5 CLEANING SUPPLIES- MULTI -FOLD $74.55 TOWELS, LARGE & MEDIUM TRASH CAN LINERS CLEANING SUPPLIES- MULTI -FOLD $40.15 TOWELS, LARGE & MEDIUM TRASH CAN LINERS Wells Fargo 10100 Total $1,928.40 Refer 1025 CENTRAL MCGOWAN, INCORPOR _ -1372- CITY OF MOUND Payments Current Period: August 2020 Cash Payment E 602-49450-210 Operating Supplies Invoice 00089207 7/312020 Cash Payment E 602-49450-210 Operating Supplies Invoice 00089207 7/312020 Transaction Date 8/62020 HIGH PRESSURE MEDIUM CYLINDER RENTALS- QTY 9 Project 20-3 HIGH PRESSURE ACETYLENE MEDIUM CYLINDER RENTALS- QTY 5 Project 20-3 Wells Fargo 10100 Total 08/06/20 12:41 PM Page 2 $26.04 $8.68 $34.72 Refer 1016 CLAREY S SAFETY EQUIPMENT, 1 _ Cash Payment E 222-42260-219 Safety supplies 1 CASE RED CLEAR GOGGLES- FIREMEN $171.30 Invoice 189771 7242020 Project CV -19 Transaction Date 8/52020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $171.30 Refer 907 CUMMINS INC. _ Cash Payment E 602-49450-500 Capital Outlay FA 45 KW NATURAL GAS GENERATOR- SWAP $21,850.00 OUT OF DIESEL GENERATOR @ E-4 LAKEWOOD LN LIFT STATION Invoice E3-53810 7222020 PO 24896 Transaction Date 8/32020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $21,850.00 Refer 1014 FIRE SAFETY USA, INCORPORATE _ Cash Payment E 222-42260-409 Other Equipment Repair PARTS FOR FIRE TRUCKS: #30 LSU, FIRE $930.00 BOAT #28, LADDER TRUCK #44, & ENGINE #24 Invoice 136795 7202020 Transaction Date 8/52020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $930.00 Refer 1026 FIRS TNET _ Cash Payment E 222-42260-321 Telephone, Cells, & Radi DATACARD SVC- XXX -0353 FIRE UNIT #39 $38.23 FIRE CHIEF RESCUE UTILITY 6-26-20 THRU 7-25-20 Invoice 287290913950X0 7252020 Cash Payment E 222-42260-321 Telephone, Cells, & Radi DATACARD SVC XXX -0545 FIRE #43 $38.23 RESCUE TRUCK SVC 6-26-20 THRU 7-25-20 Invoice 287290913950X0 7252020 Cash Payment E 222-42260-321 Telephone, Cells, & Radi DATACARD SVC XXX -1887 FIRE LADDER $38.23 TRUCK #44 SVC 6-26-20 THRU 7-25-20 Invoice 287290913950X0 7252020 Cash Payment E 222-42260-321 Telephone, Cells, & Radi DATACARD SVC XXX -1962 FIRE ENGINE #29 $38.23 SVC 6-26-20 THRU 7-25-20 Invoice 287290913950X0 7252020 Cash Payment E 222-42260-321 Telephone, Cells, & Radi DATACARD SVC XXX -4845 FIRE UNIT #42 $38.23 DUTY OFFICER SVC 6-26-20 THRU 7-25-20 Invoice 287290913950X0 7252020 Cash Payment E 222-42260-321 Telephone, Cells, & Radi CELLPHONE SVC XXX -0150- CHIEF G. $53.77 PEDERSON - 6-26-20 THRU 7-25-20 Invoice 287290913950X0 7252020 Transaction Date 8/62020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $244.92 Refer 962 FIVE TECHNOLOGY _ Cash Payment E 101-41920-440 Other Contractual Servic MANAGED SVC & NETWORK MTCE- $1,290.00 AUGUST 2020 Invoice 10820-16 8/12020 Transaction Date 8/42020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $1,290.00 Refer 973 GOPHER STATE ONE CALL, INC -1373- CITY OF MOUND Payments Current Period: August 2020 Cash Payment E 601-49400-395 Gopher One -Call JULY 2020 LOCATES Invoice 0070609 7/312020 Cash Payment E 602-49450-395 Gopher One -Call JULY 2020 LOCATES Invoice 0070609 7/312020 Transaction Date 8/42020 Wells Fargo 10100 Refer 908 HOME DEPOT/GECF (PAM Cash Payment E 101-43100-220 Repair/Maint Supply Invoice 0027847 7/162020 Cash Payment E 101-43100-220 Repair/Maint Supply Invoice 3027316 7/132020 Cash Payment E 101-43100-220 Repair/Maint Supply Invoice 0193472 7/162020 Transaction Date 8/32020 Refer 0 LAWSON PRODUCTS, INC Cash Payment E 602-49450-210 Operating Supplies Invoice 9307749496 7272020 Transaction Date 8/32020 08/06/20 12:41 PM Page 3 $144.45 $144.45 Total $288.90 LAYTEX 10 -YR ULTRA SHIELD PAINT 36 QYT $763.56 4.75 GALLONS SPREMIUM STAIN, TELESCOPING POLE, $1,324.60 WASH BRUSH, COATING BRUSH, MICROFIBER DUSTER, WASP & HORNET SPRAY RETURN PREMIUM PAINT -CREDIT -$128.01 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $1,960.15 MISC PARTS- WASHERS, SEAL CONNECTORS, GLOSS BLACK PAINT, MINI 15 AMP FUSES, 10 AMP AUTO FUSES, HEAT SEAL RINGS, SCREWS, HEX NUTS, TUFF - TORQUE HHCS- PUB WKS Project 20-5 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $144.88 $144.88 Refer 910 LOFFLER COMPANIES, INCORPOR _ Cash Payment E 101-42400-202 Duplicating and copying KONICA MINOLTA HP3035 FINANCE/P &1 $61.73 COPIER B & WHT COPIES 4-20-20 THRU 7-19- 20 Invoice 3477427 7202020 Cash Payment E 101-41500-202 Duplicating and copying KONICA MINOLTA HP3035 FINANCE/P &1 $61.74 COPIER B & WHT COPIES 4-20-20 THRU 7-19- 20 Invoice 3477427 7202020 Cash Payment E 101-42400-202 Duplicating and copying PRINTER HP4100 P&I COPIER B & WHT $33.45 COPIES 4-20-20 THRU 7-19-20 Invoice 3477427 7202020 Transaction Date 8/32020 Due 12/312013 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $156.92 Refer 1027 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL WASTE _ Cash Payment E 602-49450-388 Waste Disposal-MCIS WASTEWATER SVCS SEPTEMBER 2020 $62,489.57 Invoice Transaction Date 8/62020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $62,489.57 Refer 911 MINNESOTA ELEVATOR, INCORP _ Cash Payment E 101-41910-440 Other Contractual Servic JULY 2020- MONTHLY SVCE- CENTENNIAL $120.00 BLDG ELEVATOR Invoice 864589 7/312020 Transaction Date 8/32020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $120.00 Refer 912 MNSPECT _ Cash Payment E 101-42400-308 Building Inspection Fees JULY 2020 BUILDING INSPECTION FEES $4,755.89 Invoice 8396 822020 -1374- CITY OF MOUND Payments Current Period: August 2020 Cash Payment G 101-20800 Due to Other Governments JULY 2020 - ELECTRICAL STATE 08/06/20 12:41 PM Page 4 -$23.00 -$290.00 Total $4,442.89 $11,000.00 Total $11,000.00 Refer 1017 MOUND WESTONKA SCHOOL DIS _ SURCHARGE FEE CREDIT Invoice 8396 822020 PERFORMING ARTS CENTER RENTAL, Cash Payment R 101-42000-32220 Electrical Permit Fee JULY 2020- ELECTRICAL INSPECTION SOUND TECHNICIAN, HOST FOR CITY SQUARE, POST STD PUNCH - STREETS PERMIT FEE CREDITS Invoice 8396 822020 Transaction Date 8/32020 Wells Fargo 10100 Refer 913 MOUND FIRE RELIEF ASSOCIATIO _ Cash Payment E 222-42260-124 Fire Pens Contrib AUGUST 2020- FIRE RELIEF PENSION 8/52020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total CONTRIBUTION Invoice 081220 8/12020 _ Transaction Date 8/32020 Wells Fargo 10100 08/06/20 12:41 PM Page 4 -$23.00 -$290.00 Total $4,442.89 $11,000.00 Total $11,000.00 Refer 1017 MOUND WESTONKA SCHOOL DIS _ Cash Payment E 101-41110-431 Meeting Expense PERFORMING ARTS CENTER RENTAL, $462.50 $949.15 SOUND TECHNICIAN, HOST FOR CITY SQUARE, POST STD PUNCH - STREETS Invoice 023403 COUNCIL & PLANNING COMMISSION MTGS Transaction Date 8/52020 7/14, 721, & 728 $949.15 Invoice 081220 8/52020 Project CV -19 Transaction Date 8/52020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $462.50 Refer 914 MUELLER, WILLIAM AND SONS, IN _ Cash Payment E 101-43100-224 Street Maint Materials 1/4" SAND- 2.15 TONS 7-10-20 $187.05 Invoice 256970 7/102020 JUNE 2020 -CIS DATA HOSTING, $1,857.45 Cash Payment E 101-43100-224 Street Maint Materials 3/8" FINE ASPHALT- 4.10 TONS 7-22-20 $295.20 Invoice 200609 7272020 STREETS Invoice 257504 7222020 JUNE 2020- UTILITY BILLING POSTAGE $331.56 Cash Payment E 101-43100-224 Street Maint Materials 3/8" FINE ASPHALT- 2 TONS 7-23-20 $144.00 Cash Payment E 602-49450-322 Postage STREETS $331.56 Invoice 257584 7232020 Transaction Date 8/32020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $626.25 Refer 915 NAPA AUTO PARTS - SPRING PAR _ Cash Payment E 101-43100-220 Repair/Maint Supply WINDOW CRANK HANDLE- TYMCO- STREE $16.47 SWEEPER UNIT#304 Invoice 0577-116864 7/142020 Transaction Date 8/32020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $16.47 Refer 1000 NEWMAN SIGNS, INC. _ Cash Payment E 101-43100-226 Sign Repair Materials SIGN MATERIALS- SHEETED BLANK $949.15 SQUARE, POST STD PUNCH - STREETS Invoice 023403 8/42020 Transaction Date 8/52020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $949.15 Refer 916 OPUS 21 MGMT SOLUTIONS, LLC _ Cash Payment E 601-49400-307 Admin/Finance/Compute JUNE 2020 -CIS DATA HOSTING, $1,857.46 PRODUCTION, BILLING, CALL CTR SUPPORT Invoice 200609 7272020 Cash Payment E 602-49450-307 Admin/Finance/Compute JUNE 2020 -CIS DATA HOSTING, $1,857.45 PRODUCTION, BILLING, CALL CTR SUPPORT Invoice 200609 7272020 Cash Payment E 601-49400-322 Postage JUNE 2020- UTILITY BILLING POSTAGE $331.56 Invoice 200609 7272020 Cash Payment E 602-49450-322 Postage JUNE 2020- UTILITY BILLING POSTAGE $331.56 Invoice 200609 7272020 -1375- CITY OF MOUND 08/06/2012:41 PM Page 5 Payments Current Period: August 2020 Transaction Date 8/32020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $4,378.03 Refer 917 ORONO, CITY OF _ Cash Payment E 101-41600-450 Board of Prisoners HENNEP CTY JAIL CHARGES- PER DIEM $177.40 FEES JUNE 2020 Invoice 20141629 7212020 Transaction Date 8/32020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $177.40 Refer 918 REPUBLIC SERVICES _ Cash Payment E 670-49500-440 Other Contractual Servic JULY 2020 CITYWIDE RECYCLING SVC $14,494.95 Invoice 0894-005219692 7252020 Transaction Date 8/32020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $14,494.95 Refer 919 SITE ONE LANDSCAPE SUPPLY, L _ Cash Payment E 101-45200-220 Repair/Maint Supply LANDSCAPE PARTS- PARKS DEPT Invoice 101744333-001 7212020 Transaction Date 8/32020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total Refer 1015 SUN NEWSPAPERS -HWS ACCT. _ Cash Payment E 609-49750-340 Advertising FRONT PAGE BANNER AD- CRAFT BEVERAGE DESTINATION- HWS AD PUB 8-1- 20 Invoice 788541 822020 Transaction Date 8/52020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total Refer 964 SUN PATRIOT NEWSPAPER -CITY _ Cash Payment E 101-41410-351 Legal Notices Publishing LEGAL NTCE- ELECTIONS- NOTICE OF CANDIDATE FILING DATES- PUB 7-25-20 Invoice 786658 7252020 NUT -PARKS Cash Payment E 101-41410-351 Legal Notices Publishing LEGAL NTCE- ELECTIONS- PUBLIC Cash Payment E 403-45200-500 Capital Outlay FA ACCURACY TEST NOTICE- PUB 7-25-20 Invoice 786659 7252020 Cash Payment E 101-41410-351 Legal Notices Publishing LEGAL NTCE- PRIMARY ELECTION NOTICE - Invoice S28585 7/312020 PUB 8-01-20 Invoice 788210 8/12020 Wells Fargo 10100 Cash Payment G 101-23418 COMMERCE PLACE REDE LEGAL NTCE- LAND USE & SUBDIVISION - COMMERCE PLACE MALL REDEVELOPMENT PUB 8-1-20 Invoice 786659 7252020 Transaction Date 8/32020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total Refer 966 TRI-STATE BOBCAT, INCORPORA _ Cash Payment E 101-45200-220 Repair/Maint Supply BOBCAT REPAIR PARTS- PIVOT KIT, SPRINGS, BUSHING, SCREW, WASHER, NUT -PARKS Invoice P37843 7232020 Cash Payment E 403-45200-500 Capital Outlay FA NEW AVANT CUTTING BAR- PARKS Invoice S28585 7/312020 Cash Payment E 403-45200-500 Capital Outlay FA NEW AVANT FLAIL MOWER- PARKS Invoice S28585 7/312020 Transaction Date 8/32020 Wells Fargo 10100 Refer 970 TRUE VALUE- DELANO Cash Payment E 609-49750-210 Operating Supplies Invoice 114839 7/142020 Total 32 OZ GREEN SPRAY BOTTLE, 100 CT MED NITRILE GLOVES- HWS Project CV -19 -1376- $488.37 $488.37 $275.00 $275.00 $26.99 $19.28 $92.52 $161.91 $300.70 $68.19 $5,300.00 $5,100.00 $10,468.19 $17.28 CITY OF MOUND Payments Current Period: August 2020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-210 Operating Supplies 250 CT XL NITRILE GLOVES- HWS Invoice 114925 7/192020 Project CV -19 Transaction Date 8/42020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total Refer 967 TWIN CITIES TRANSPORT, RECOV Cash Payment E 602-49450-404 Machinery/Equip Repairs GENERATOR BOOM LIFT Invoice 20-0721-7007 7242020 Transaction Date 8/32020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total Refer 965 UNITED FARMERS COOPERATIVE _ Cash Payment E 602-49450-210 Operating Supplies GLAD TRASH BAGS- 13 GAL 45QTY- HWS Invoice 61439 7242020 Transaction Date 8/32020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total Refer 968 WESTSIDE WHOLESALE TIRE AND _ Cash Payment E 101-45200-404 Machinery/Equip Repairs CARLISLE TURF TRAC & VANGUARD TRAILER TIRES & MOUNTING- PARKS MOWER Invoice 862956 7242020 Transaction Date 8/32020 Wells Fargo 10100 Refer 969 XCEL ENERGY Cash Payment E 602-49450-381 Electric Utilities Invoice 694053981 7272020 Cash Payment E 602-49450-381 Electric Utilities Invoice 694187199 7272020 Cash Payment E 101-43100-381 Electric Utilities Invoice 694150772 7272020 Transaction Date 8/32020 Refer 1018 ZOLL MEDICAL CORP Cash Payment E 222-42260-210 Operating Supplies Invoice 3102219 7/142020 PO 25213 Transaction Date 8/52020 Total ELECTRIC SVC 6-25-20 THRU 7-25-20 CARLOW RD LIFT STATION ELECTRIC SVC 6-25-20 THRU 7-25-20 1871 COMMERCE BLVD LIFT STATION 1790 COMMERCE STREET LIGHTS 6-25-20 THRU 7-25-20 Wells Fargo 10100 Total AED DEFIBRILLATION ELECTRODES & PEDIATRIC ELECTRODES W/ MANUAL - FIRE DEPT Wells Fargo 10100 -1377- Total 08/06/20 12:41 PM Page 6 $24.99 $42.27 $500.00 $500.00 $9.99 $9.99 $482.14 $482.14 $74.44 $101.84 $29.01 $205.29 $182.10 $182.10 Fund Summary 101 GENERAL FUND 222 AREA FIRE SERVICES 403 CAP REPLAC-VEHICLES & EQUIP 601 WATER FUND 602 SEWER FUND 609 MUNICIPAL LIQUOR FUND 670 RECYCLING FUND CITY OF MOUND Payments Current Period: August 2020 10100 Wells Fargo $13,002.68 $12,867.47 $10,400.00 $2,335.34 $88,023.13 $317.27 $14,494.95 $141,440.84 Pre -Written Checks $0.00 Checks to be Generated by the Computer $141,440.84 Total $141,440.84 -1378- 08/06/20 12:41 PM Page 7 CITY OF MOUND Payments Current Period: August 2020 Payments Batch 081220HWS $96,320.61 Refer 1003 AM CRAFT SPIRITS, INC Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR Invoice 11003 8/42020 E 609-49750-265 Freight Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale FREIGHT Invoice 11003 8/42020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MIX Invoice 11009 8/52020 Transaction Date 8/52020 Wells Fargo Refer 976 AMPHORA IMPORTS LLC Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale Invoice 8606 7292020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight Invoice 8606 7292020 Transaction Date 8/42020 Refer 977 ARTISAN BEER COMPANY 10100 Total 08/06/20 12:42 PM Page 1 $207.90 $2.00 $25.20 $235.10 WINE $144.00 FREIGHT $6.75 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $150.75 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale Invoice 3429231 7232020 Transaction Date 8/42020 BEER Wells Fargo 10100 Total $696.00 $696.00 Refer 1020 BELLBOY CORPORATION _ Cash Payment E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MIX $113.25 Invoice 0101790200 8/52020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-255 Misc Merchandise For R MDSE- WING CARDED AUGERS, $111.55 CHAMPAGNE FLUTES- 2 PC, Invoice 0101790200 8/52020 Transaction Date 8/42020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $224.80 Refer 979 BELLBOY CORPORATION _ Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight FREIGHT CREDIT -$2.10 Invoice 0085060700 7232020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR CREDIT -$37.98 Invoice 0085060700 7232020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight FREIGHT $2.05 Invoice 0085056700 7242020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $162.00 Invoice 0085056700 7242020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $612.17 Invoice 0085054800-2 7242020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight FREIGHT $8.90 Invoice 0085054800-2 7242020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR CREDIT -$201.65 Invoice 0085098100 7272020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight FREIGHT CREDIT -$1.55 Invoice 0085098100 7272020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $2,172.90 Invoice 0085120900 7292020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight FREIGHT $20.68 Invoice 0085120900 7292020 -1379- CITY OF MOUND Payments Current Period: August 2020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR CREDIT Invoice 0085162500 7/302020 SUPPLIES, BAGS, C -FOLD TOWELS Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight FREIGHT CREDIT Invoice 0085162500 7/302020 MDSE- DOUBLE JIGGERS, MN SPORTS Transaction Date 8/42020 Wells Fargo 10100 Refer 978 BELLBOY CORPORATION _ Cash Payment E 609-49750-210 Operating Supplies SUPPLIES, BAGS, C -FOLD TOWELS Invoice 0085054800 7242020 WINE Cash Payment E 609-49750-255 Misc Merchandise For R MDSE- DOUBLE JIGGERS, MN SPORTS $12.40 TEAMS CAN COOLERS Invoice 0085054800 7242020 LIQUOR CREDIT Transaction Date 8/42020 Wells Fargo 10100 Refer 1021 BELLBOY CORPORATION 08/06/20 12:42 PM Page 2 -$233.00 -$1.55 Total $2,500.87 $113.51 $30.00 Total $143.51 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight FREIGHT $6.20 Invoice 0085221200 8/52020 Invoice 2080270486 3/182020 WINE Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight FREIGHT $12.40 Invoice 0085221200 8/52020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR CREDIT Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $1,167.30 Invoice 0085221200 8/52020 Invoice 2080277886 6/122020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $593.96 Invoice 0085180300 8/52020 Transaction Date 8/42020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $1,779.86 Refer 980 BOOM ISLAND BREWING COMPAN _ Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $132.00 Invoice 9601 7212020 Transaction Date 8/42020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $132.00 Refer 1022 BREAKTHRU BEVERAGE MN BEE _ Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $8,323.60 Invoice 1091157938 8/52020 Transaction Date 8/62020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $8,323.60 Refer 1004 BREAKTHRU BEVERAGE MN WINE _ Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR CREDIT Invoice 2080270486 3/182020 WINE Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE CREDIT Invoice 2080270271 3/172020 E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR CREDIT Invoice 2080276463 5262020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR CREDIT Invoice 2080277886 6/122020 Transaction Date 8/42020 Wells Fargo 10100 Refer 982 BREAKTHRU BEVERAGE MN WINE _ Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE Invoice 1081158872 7232020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE Invoice 1081161191 7292020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR Invoice 1081161190 7292020 -1380- Total -$45.00 -$72.00 -$195.61 -$58.00 -$370.61 $480.00 $888.00 $1,696.84 CITY OF MOUND Payments Current Period: August 2020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MIX Invoice 1081158403 7222020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR Invoice 1081158401 7222020 WINE Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE Invoice 1081158402 7222020 MIX Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR Invoice 1081157687 7212020 BEER Transaction Date 8/42020 Wells Fargo Refer 1005 BROKEN CLOCK BREWING COOP Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale Invoice 3960 7282020 Transaction Date 8/52020 10100 BEER Wells Fargo 10100 Refer 1006 CAPITOL BEVERAGE SALES, L.P. _ Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE Invoice 1044-00251 8/42020 $8,234.10 Cash Payment E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MIX Invoice 2445981 8/42020 $6,244.35 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER Invoice 2445983 8/42020 Wells Fargo 10100 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER CREDIT Invoice 1044-00252 8/42020 Transaction Date 8/42020 Wells Fargo Refer 983 CAPITOL BEVERAGE SALES, L.P. Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale Invoice 1044-00244 7282020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale Invoice 2442958 7282020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale Invoice 2442957 7282020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale Invoice 2434845 7/82020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale Invoice 2434846 7/82020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale Invoice 2435508 7/82020 Transaction Date 8/42020 Refer 984 CLEAR RIVER BEVERAGE CO. 10100 08/06/20 12:42 PM Page 3 $78.00 $2,878.49 $260.00 $333.00 Total $6,614.33 $108.00 Total $108.00 Total $233.25 $73.54 $5,450.95 -$30.00 $5,727.74 BEER CREDIT -$109.06 BEER $178.44 BEER $8,234.10 BEER $125.20 BEER $6,244.35 BEER CREDIT -$10.20 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $14,662.83 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $799.00 Invoice 544473 7272020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $684.00 Invoice 545421 8/32020 Transaction Date 8/42020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $1,483.00 Refer 985 DAHLHEIMER BEVERAGE LLC _ Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $231.00 Invoice 123-05690 7232020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $1,190.85 Invoice 123-05808 8/42020 - 1381 - Transaction Date 8/42020 CITY OF MOUND Payments Current Period: August 2020 Wells Fargo Refer 1007 HOHENSTEINS, INCORPORATED _ Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER Invoice 212015 7/302020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MIX Invoice 212016 7/302020 Transaction Date 8/42020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total Refer 986 HOHENSTEINS, INCORPORATED _ Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER Invoice 210997 7232020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MIX Invoice 210998 7232020 Transaction Date 8/42020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total Refer 987 INBOUND BREWCO Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale Invoice 7215 7/302020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale Invoice 7662 7282020 Transaction Date 8/42020 Refer 989 JACK PINE BREWERY Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale Invoice 3442 7212020 Transaction Date 8/42020 BEER BEER Wells Fargo BEER Wells Fargo Refer 988 JJ TAYLOR. DISTRIBUTING MINN _ Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER Invoice 3107841 7232020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER Invoice 3107870 7/302020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER Invoice 3107869 7/302020 Transaction Date 8/42020 Wells Fargo Refer 990 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR _ Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR CREDIT Invoice 108332 7/132020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR Invoice 1604016 7222020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE Invoice 1604017 7222020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR Invoice 1604014 7222020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE Invoice 1604015 7222020 Transaction Date 8/42020 Wells Fargo Refer 1008 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR _ Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR Invoice 1606315 7272020 -1382- 10100 10100 10100 10100 Total Total Total Total 08/06/20 12:42 PM Page 4 $1,421.85 $1,596.00 $22.50 $1,618.50 $1,214.70 $78.75 $1,293.45 $554.80 $607.50 $1,162.30 $330.00 $330.00 $3,884.60 $172.30 $7,399.98 $11,456.88 -$344.00 $101.50 $701.40 $3,418.34 $1,986.67 $5,863.91 $175.92 CITY OF MOUND Payments Current Period: August 2020 08/06/20 12:42 PM Page 5 Cash Payment E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MIX $65.00 Invoice 1608834 7292020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $1,656.86 Invoice 1608833 7292020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $9,916.00 Invoice 1608832 7292020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $1,068.00 Invoice 1606316 7272020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $392.48 Invoice 1611288 7/312020 Transaction Date 8/42020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $13,274.26 Refer 1023 LIBATION PROJECT _ Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $286.00 Invoice 30221 8/52020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight FREIGHT $3.00 Invoice 30221 8/52020 Transaction Date 8/62020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $289.00 Refer 991 LUPULIN BREWING COMPANY _ Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $130.00 Invoice 30805 7232020 Transaction Date 8/42020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $130.00 Refer 992 MARLIN S TRUCKING DELIVERY _ Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight DELIVERY SVC 7-10-20 $243.60 Invoice 36546 7/102020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight DELIVERY SVC 7-02-20 $569.85 Invoice 36531 7/22020 Transaction Date 8/42020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $813.45 Refer 1024 MODIST BREWING CO. LLC _ Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $1,136.25 Invoice 15387 8/52020 Transaction Date 8/62020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $1,136.25 Refer 1009 OUTSTATE BREWING COMPANY _ Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $172.00 Invoice 1265 7/302020 Transaction Date 8/52020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $172.00 Refer 1010 PAUSTIS AND SONS WINE COMPA _ Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $535.75 Invoice 97380 8/32020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight FREIGHT $8.75 Invoice 97380 8/32020 Transaction Date 8/42020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $544.50 Refer 1011 PHILLIPS WINEAND SPIRITS, INC _ Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $696.25 Invoice 6068250 7292020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $72.00 Invoice 6068251 7292020 -1383- CITY OF MOUND Payments Current Period: August 2020 08/06/20 12:42 PM Page 6 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $918.90 Invoice 6068249 7292020 Transaction Date 8/42020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $1,687.15 Refer 993 PHILLIPS WINE AND SPIRITS, INC _ Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $116.92 Invoice 6052131 7/302020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $1,344.25 Invoice 6064858 7222020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MIX $142.80 Invoice 6064860 7222020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $462.25 Invoice 6064859 7222020 Transaction Date 8/42020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $2,066.22 Refer 994 SCHRAM WINERY & BREWERY LL _ Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $180.00 Invoice 000192 7242020 Transaction Date 8/42020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $180.00 Refer 995 SHAMROCK GROUP, INC. _ Cash Payment E 609-49750-255 Misc Merchandise For R ICE $294.64 Invoice 2525552 7222020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-255 Misc Merchandise For R ICE $219.01 Invoice 2527992 7292020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-255 Misc Merchandise For R ICE $215.40 Invoice 2526608 7252020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-255 Misc Merchandise For R ICE $245.40 Invoice 2529046 8/12020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-255 Misc Merchandise For R ICE $179.74 Invoice 2530401 8/52020 Transaction Date 8/42020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $1,154.19 Refer 996 SOUTHERN WINE & SPIRITS OF M _ Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $810.00 Invoice 1975429 7232020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $3,073.72 Invoice 1975427 7232020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MIX $155.60 Invoice 1975426 7232020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $288.00 Invoice 1975428 7232020 Transaction Date 8/42020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $4,327.32 Refer 1012 SOUTHERN WINE & SPIRITS OF M _ Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $1,678.35 Invoice 1977975 7/302020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $504.00 Invoice 1977978 7/302020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $144.40 Invoice 1977976 7/302020 Transaction Date 8/42020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $2,326.75 -1384- CITY OF MOUND Payments Current Period: August 2020 08/06/20 12:42 PM Page 7 Refer 997 VINOCOPIA, INCORPORATED _ Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $240.00 Invoice 0260965 7/302020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight FREIGHT $2.50 Invoice 0260528 7232020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $104.00 Invoice 0260528 7232020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight FREIGHT $5.00 Invoice 0260965 7/302020 Transaction Date 8/42020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $351.50 Refer 998 WINE COMPANY _ Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight FREIGHT $8.25 Invoice 147251 7232020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight FREIGHT $6.30 Invoice 1146705-2 7/162020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $552.00 Invoice 147251 7232020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight FREIGHT CREDIT -$603.00 Invoice 146705CR 7/162020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $304.00 Invoice 147892 7/302020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight FREIGHT $6.30 Invoice 147892 7/302020 Transaction Date 8/42020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $273.85 Refer 999 WINE MERCHANTS _ Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $216.00 Invoice 7292717 7292020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $520.00 Invoice 7291959 7222020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $54.00 Invoice 7292718 7292020 Transaction Date 8/42020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $790.00 Refer 1013 WINEBOW _ Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $187.00 Invoice 00081877 7/312020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $880.00 Invoice 00081877 7/312020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight FREIGHT $13.50 Invoice 00081877 7/312020 Transaction Date 8/42020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $1,080.50 Refer 1019 Z WINES USA LLC _ Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $160.00 Invoice 23590 8/52020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight FREIGHT $5.00 Invoice 23590 8/52020 Transaction Date 8/62020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $165.00 -1385- CITY OF MOUND 08/06/20 12:42 PM Page 8 Payments Current Period: August 2020 Fund Summary 10100 Wells Fargo 609 MUNICIPAL LIQUOR FUND $96,320.61 $96,320.61 Pre -Written Checks $0.00 Checks to be Generated by the Computer $96,320.61 Total $96,320.61 -1386- MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES July 28, 2020 The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, July 28, 2020 at 7:00 p.m. in the Westonka Schools Performing Arts Center in Minnetrista. Members present: Mayor Ray Salazar; Council Members Phil Velsor, Jeff Bergquist, Paula Larson, and Sherrie Pugh Members absent: None Others present: Fin Dir/Clerk/Treasurer Catherine Pausche, Community Development Director Sarah Smith, City Attorney Joe Sathe, Ben Landhauser, Tim Nichols, Debbie Salazar, Danelle Bonilla, Sindi Donett, Venus Steffensen, Michelle Herrick, Johan Chemin, Nicholas Wilcox, Jeremy Blous, Anna Peters, David Siler, Greg Jenks, Leigh Maurstad Consent agenda: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine in nature by the Council. There will be no separate discussion on these items unless a Councilmember or citizen so requests, in which event it will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence. 1. Open meeting Mayor Salazar called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. Pledae of Allegiance 3. Approve agenda Mayor Salazar thanked the Westonka School District for accommodating this meeting in the Performing Arts Center. Pausche noted additional pages for item 7 Purchase and Development Agreement with Lifestyle Communities including tonight's Power Point presentations and additional public comments. MOTION by Bergquist, seconded by Velsor, to approve the agenda as amended. All voted in favor. Motion carried. 4. Consent agenda MOTION by Velsor, seconded by Pugh, to approve the consent agenda. Upon roll call vote, all voted in favor. Motion carried. A. Approve payment of claims in the amount of $421,029.58. B. Approve minutes: 07-14-20 regular meeting. C. Approve Pay Request No. 1 and Final in the amount of $21,452.00 to MP Asphalt Maintenance, Inc for 2020 Crack Seal Repair Project PW -20-06 D. Approve 2020 Planning Commission Work Plan and Staff Project List -1387- Mound City Council Minutes — July 28, 2020 E. RESOLUTION NO. 20-65: RESOLUTION APPROVING PUBLIC GATHERING PERMIT TO MN B.A.S.S. NATION FOR USE OF SURFSIDE PARK AND BEACH AS WEIGH STATION FOR FISHING CONTEST ON LAKE MINNETONKA ON SUNDAY, AUGUST 30, 2020 F. RESOLUTION NO. 20-66: APPROVE RESOLUTION APPROVING MINOR SUBDIVISION OF 5190 LYNWOOD BOULEVARD 5. Comments and suggestions from citizens present on any item not on the agenda. Johan Chemin, 6039 Beachwood Road, noted the Commerce Place Shopping Center redevelopment was voted down by the Planning Commission and he wants this property reserved for something significant. Venus Steffensen, 1838 Commerce Blvd, complemented the actions of the Planning Commission and their ability to take in more information and concerns and act as they did and she hopes the Council will do the same. Steffensen does not want the work of the 2030 and 2040 Comprehensive Plan to be wasted. Steffensen does not have an issue with the condos, just has an issue with the sales price, location and all the investments that have been made to date. Steffensen said the Council should not want to make a permanent mistake and encouraged the Council to take a step back and listen to all concerns. Steffensen said the public is against losing the retail and docks and questioned how are we going to realize the return on investments on the parking deck and encouraged the EDA to be reestablished. 6. City Engineer Brian Simmons requesting discussion and actions on Cooperative Agreement and Contract award to Northwest Asphalt in the amount of $201,910.50 related to Surfside Park parking lot improvements City project PW -20-01 Simmons said bids were opened in May after receiving council approval to request bids. Simmons said this is the first phase of the Surfside Park master plan and Chapman Place was interested in being bid as an alternate. Simmons said low bid from Northwest Asphalt was 12% lower than engineers estimate at about $202K for the city portions. Simmons said the layout is substantially the same with some buffers added to delineate the parking from the beach area for safety and maintenance reasons. Simmons noted the COVID-19 on-line bid submission format seems to be increasing competitiveness. a. Approve Resolution Approving Cost Sharing Agreement for Surfside Park Improvements Project in Mound, MN MOTION by Bergquist, seconded by Velsor, to adopt the following resolution. All voted in favor. Motion carried. RESOLUTION NO. 20-67: RESOLUTION APPROVING COST SHARING AGREEMENT FOR SURFSIDE PARK IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT IN MOUND, MN b. Approve Resolution Accepting Bid for Surfside Park Improvements City Project No. PW -20-01 Mound City Council Minutes — July 28, 2020 MOTION by Velsor, seconded by Pugh, to adopt the following resolution. All voted in favor. Motion carried. RESOLUTION NO. 20-68: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID FOR SURFSIDE PARK IMPROVEMENTS CITY PROJECT NO. PW -20-01 7. Council Development Committee requesting discussion and action to approve a Resolution Approving Purchase and Development Agreement with Lifestyle Communities, LLC Pausche presented a Power Point presentation highlighting the purpose of Tax Increment Financing (TIF), investments in the district to date, the implications of the 2009 recession and the city's response, and two financial scenarios showing the impacts of no further development and the impacts if the Lifestyle Development proceeds. Pausche noted that the remaining public spaces of 2.1 acres of Lot 1 Block 1, 1 acre of the Dakota Regional Trail, and 0.25 acres of the Veteran's Memorial Plaza equates to 3.3 acres of public spaces which puts it among the largest in the City parks inventory compared to Surfside Park and Beach and Philbrook Park with 3.3 acres, Crescent and Swenson parks with 3 acres and Highland and Three Points with 2.4 acres each. Pausche said Scenario 1 with no further development shows taxpayers funding $2.835M of the debt service and whatever is required to make the desired improvements in the public space. Pausche suggested that based on Surfside Park & Beach being a fully developed park ready for a refresh at a projected cost of $700,000 including the parking lot and the fact that the Harbor District is in need of significant turf work to establish just the grass foundation, taxpayer responsibility could realistically reach $4M total through 2031. Pausche said Scenario 2 assumes the Lifestyle Development proceeds and the land acquisition price, projected TIF through 2031, park dedication, sewer and water trunk charges as well as just the base fees of the utility bills (before inflation and variable usage), would create an additional $3.6M in revenues. Pausche said proceeds from the sale and park dedication can be used for improvements to the public spaces and excess TIF beyond the debt service could repay the tax levies, reducing the taxpayer responsibility from $4M to $1.235M. Ben Landhauser from Lifestyle Communities gave an overview of who Lifestyle is and what the cooperative community model is all about. Landhauser said they have a joint partnership with Ecumen's One to One property management. Landhauser said the partnership creates communities under the Zvago brand which he said is comparable to a hotel brand like Residence Inn. Landhauser showed a slide of all the properties developed or currently under development. Landhauser discussed the difference between a condominium and cooperative which is mainly one master mortgage with each owner having an equal share of the building including common areas, noting the cooperative has much more community common spaces compared to condominiums. Landhauser noted it is age restricted with one member of the household needing to be at least 62, but noted no healthcare services are provided so this is not assisted living. Landhauser noted that because it is limited equity with a smaller amount down and members paying a monthly membership fee similar to rent, it makes it more accessible. Zvago typically targets local residents; typically, 40% are from the surrounding geography or moved away and move back once this product is offered. Landhauser said typically the first time occupants don't turn over for 8 — 10 years and that Lifestyle/Zvago's interest in this site is because it is highly walkable and they want to help complete the remaining improvements to the public spaces. -1389- Mound City Council Minutes — July 28, 2020 Landhauser showed a video of the Zvago Glen Lake residents. Landhauser showed the progression of the proposals since the original response to the RFQ/1 in January. Landhauser said they landed on a smaller building foot print that maximizes the green space based on feedback received from the Council and Development Committee. Landhauser said they will program some of the private property for use by the community at large and maintain only pedestrian connections and not vehicle access within the inner areas as suggested. Landhauser noted Auditor's Road remains intact based on Council feedback. Landhauser noted this is a concept plan and the 6 -month due diligence period is to allow for further refinement based on feedback. Landhauser said Lifestyle tries hard to work with cities to ensure their satisfaction. Landhauser showed a slide summarizing the proposal and the time line Bergquist commended Lifestyle for adapting the concept plan based on the feedback received from the City Council and Development Committee and encouraged the audience to attend all the meetings to be fully informed. Salazar asked Landhauser to give an idea of the cost of a unit. Landhauser said the units are priced to comparable to a mid -300K to 500K single family residence with the equity level being about a 1/3 of the cost and then the ongoing payments that incorporate the ongoing payments for operations, a portion of the mortgage payment, and maintenance reserves. Landhauser said there is a nominal fixed appreciation value of 2% which makes it affordable down the road for future occupants. Landhauser said the management company handles all transfers and most properties have waitlists, noting a 49 -unit property in St Louis Park as a waitlist of 110. Landhauser noted the maintenance includes labor for repairs and only materials like a garbage disposal are charged. Landhauser said amenities include a great room large enough to accommodate every resident at once with a large kitchen while also arranging furniture in such a way to make these large spaces feel small. Landhauser said the social room has a few arcade machines for grandchildren, a pool table and seating that can accommodate a movie night. The wellness room has multipurpose space for yoga, palates as well as fitness equipment. There is a communal office work room and conference room and a shared guest sweet available for rent for a nominal price. Landhauser confirmed there is one underground parking space for every unit. Bergquist asked about the long-term maintenance plan and if the HUD mortgage (40 year fixed fully amortized mortgage) actually requires reserves for long-term maintenance and Landhauser concurred and said Lifestyle actually goes above and beyond the requirement and includes allocations for periodic maintenance within the units. Salazar asked about any other HUD requirements and Landhauser said there are many checks and balances to ensure proper governance including audits. Salazar invited any citizens who may wish to speak on this topic. Venus Stephenson, 1838 Commerce Blvd, said she has a degree from Purdue University, asked what kind of HUD grant funds are at play here. Stephenson says the city can do better and questioned why the city can't do anything about the Williams store. Stephenson said the quarterly newsletter sells what the council wants and the website is confusing. Stephenson asked what has been done to attract new businesses and restaurants, noting businesses like Ms. Kasual, hairdressers, and other businesses would love to have a store front. Stephenson asked the Council to support the people and look for a better way. -1390- Mound City Council Minutes — July 28, 2020 Tim Nichols from Lifestyle Communities said the HUD insured mortgage acts the same as a government sponsored insurance company that ensures a successful development and noted it is not subsidized in any way. Nichols said these properties have nothing to do with TOD grants or low income housing tax credits, and that the development just takes advantage of 40 year fixed financing. Nichols said they have very high standards that respond to what the communities ask for. Nichols said limited equity cooperatives require long-term fixed rate master mortgages and all of the Lifestyle Properties are built with them. Danielle Bonilla, 5142 Waterbury Road, said she grew up in the lakes area and for a long time Mound was perceived as the low-end city. Bonilla said that has been put behind us and the schools are the best and said Mound could be more than it is and could rival Excelsior and Wayzata who also enjoy community owned waterfront. Bonilla said she is afraid that if housing is allowed, this potential focal point will be lost. Mayor Salazar noted the property was acquired 20 years ago and much marketing has been done in the past but the Mound Marketplace was built as the fourth shopping center and then on-line exploded. Mayor Salazar asked Bonilla what she thinks should be put there knowing that new construction would require high rents. Bonilla recommended that this project be moved to Commerce Place. Bonilla said the highest use would be a park. Mayor Salazar said the proposal is to develop less than half of the space and keep the remaining as public space. Salazar noted the cost of improving parks and the cost to run the city. Salazar said Surfside renovations will cost $500K - $700K, lift stations are $400K, etc. Salazar asked if the proposed public space of 3.3 acres is enough and Bonilla said no. Bonilla reminded the Council they work for the taxpayers and she has talked to many people who feel the same. Johan Chemin, 6039 Beachwood Road, said he has several questions and he said he agrees with the public comments that we need more of a focal point. Chemin suggested flipping the two parcels and developing the parcel abutting Shoreline Drive. Chemin asked why the cooperatives only allowed shareholders to pay up to 95% of equity and why is it now 4 levels instead of the original three. Nichols said the 95% ensures everyone is participating in some level of the master mortgage and that shareholders can buy in at 35, 60, or 95% of the value in order to ensure no-one is sub -financing the equity mortgage. Landhauser said after discussions with the Development Committee and the full Council about the trade-offs between a smaller footprint to maximize the surrounding greenspace, it seemed the 4 -story with more green space captured the most desirable traits and met the most criteria set out in the RFQ/I, including keeping Auditor's Road. Leigh Marsted, Minnetrista Resident, said she owns several properties in Mound and has lived in the area for over 25 years. Marsted said the City dropped the ball on the website and the time of today's meeting was not on the website until 10:00 am today. Marsted encouraged the Council to include more people in the conversation. Marsted said the original blighted buildings were not empty blighted buildings noting Mrs. Moy is still in business and is back in business today. Marsted said Walgreens got rid of many desirable active businesses. Marsted said the City could use ordinance enforcements to insist on property owners maintaining their properties. Marsted asked why no other businesses know about this property being available and why the -1391 - Mound City Council Minutes — July 28, 2020 RFQ/I only went out to residential. Marsted listed multiple possible businesses that the city should be trying to attract. Marsted said the obvious solution seems to keep it greenspace to buy time to get out of COVID pandemic. Marsted said a temporary dog park would not need that much of improvements. Marsted suggested maybe this is something that should be on the ballot in November. Salazar asked about how the City could communicate better. Marsted said although a public hearing is not required, she recommends it. Marsted questioned Lifestyle's option on the Meisel property. Nichols said they do not have an active purchase agreement on the Meisel property and only explored it as an option. Landhauser said there was a contract in February, but it expired as COVID-19 has changed the current environment. Salazar said regarding the Walgreens development, John's Variety was very pleased with the offer and his ability to retire. Salazar said the sporting goods store closed well in advance of Walgeens when they consolidated to their main store. Salazar said the library is not going away and will be reopening if it has not already. Salazar said Hennepin County is reviewing whether it is better to scrape and replace or renovate. Marsted said it would be great to form another EDA to reevaluate all that is going on. Michelle Herrick, 2630 Westedge Blvd, thanked the Council and the Planning Commission for their work and said she would like to see better communication. Herrick asked how we can invest $1.7M only to sell if for $700K. Salazar said in addition to the comments on social media, the Council has also received text messages and emails. Salazar said the last time there was this much interest was in 2012 when the city contracted for police services with the City of Orono. Herrick said there are difficulties in showing up including COVID-19 and people assume their elected leaders are going to do what is best financially and economically. Herrick wants the Council to reimagine what this community could be and acknowledge residents have a lot of expendable income and there is a need for more services. Herrick said letting the clinic go was a huge mistake. Salazar said he followed up with the CEO of Ridgeview after hearing they may want to return, but the CEO confirmed they do not plan to return to Mound. Salazar assured the audience the Council wants the very best for our town, noting they are all parents, residents and tax payers. Herrick asked about the purchase agreement of $700K with debt service of $1.8M and asked about the approximate $1 M loss. Pausche said tax increment financing (TIF) is designed to fund the investments made to clean up blighted property and that investment does not represent the market value and that in the right situation and market, no debt levy should be required because the TIF should be more than adequate. Pausche said total investments were $9M to do all the clean-up and public improvements and of that the City bonded $4M. Pausche said those investments were made up front, which is typical, but based on the assumption the entire district would be redeveloped and to date, only the Villas on Lost Lake and Caribou are generating any TIF. Pausche said that is why the Council is seeking a reasonable compromise to leave some public space and develop a portion to generate additional TIF and relieve the levy. Herrick said from the Hennepin County property tax assessor said the 4 properties are worth $1.665M and now we are selling them for $700K. Pausche said they were purchased at the top -1392- Mound City Council Minutes — July 28, 2020 of the market before the 2009 recession and sometimes like with Eminent Domain, you pay a little more to move forward the objectives of the community. Pausche said those investments were made when the assumption was the full 5 acres would become a massive development and not to divide it and leave % public. Herrick said the 4 properties were not part of the public space being discussed. Pausche said the City was viewing the site holistically but shortly after the recession, the City stopped acquiring properties. Pausche said multiple developers were sent to try to assemble the remaining properties with no success so the City decided to focus on what the City owned which is where we are today. Herrick said the City is asking the residents of Mound to eat a $1 M loss. Pausche said the developer values the land at $1.2M but is financing the $500K in soil remediation so the net payout is $700K. Pausche said that is what TIF is all about, that this developer invests in a project that will create tax increment of $192.500+ per year and will pay almost $1 M in base utility fees by 2031. Pausche said that is the win-win. Herrick said so the TIF will pay the debt service. Pausche said yes, TIF will cover the remaining $850K that would have been levied and repay at least $750K of the $1.9M that has already been levied. Pausche said with a project the net expense to the taxpayers is $1.2M and without a project it is $4M through 2031. Pausche said she is always happy provide more details or talk with anyone. Pausche noted the website will be upgraded in 2021 but with the small staff, things have to be prioritized. Pausche said the information is all on the website and anyone can call to be directed or to receive it via email. Pausche noted the also Laker covers these issues in depth. Herrick said the community needs to have a better understanding of the finances and what happens to the $1 M loss although she does understand the clean-up cost. Pausche said in response to the question of why this was only marketed as residential, the development site was simultaneously marketed on Loopnet, a commercial real estate website, and a mailing was done to micro -breweries to try to leverage the success of Back Channel and recognize the significant investment in a commercial kitchen required for a restaurant made that less likely. Pausche said the Development Committee met with two interested breweries, but they wanted the City to build the building for $1 M and they could pay rent of $5,000 a month, which was not a realistic payback and would equate to the City subsidizing a restaurant. Pausche said that is the challenge of new real estate and Ms Kasual is where it is because it probably can't afford Mound Marketplace/new storefront rents. Herrick said more time should be taken and the community needs a better understand the finances but noted she does like what she heard about the cooperative model. Herrick again asked the City Council to reimagine Mound for what it could be and not what it has been. Velsor said in response to the request for the Council to reimagine Mound, he wanted to respond that he has been on the Development Committee since he started and he thinks doing nothing would be to leave it as is and he says he thinks this is a win-win in order to make improvements and help Mound thrive. Velsor said people are not going to come to Mound to look at our grass and absent a windfall that does not seem likely, we have to sell a portion to make the improvements we desire and can be proud of. Velsor said the financials of not doing anything have been considered and Velsor said he has had sleepless nights weighing the pros and cons. Velsor said he responded to someone who sent him an email and he spent 3 hours talking to him about Mound in general and said he is just as passionate and excited about Mound as others. Velsor says he has three kids whom he wants to be able to enjoy all of Mound. Velsor said he thinks the Council is trying to reimagine Mound and he thinks this project is a way to get us where we want to be. -1393- Mound City Council Minutes — July 28, 2020 Salazar asked for a friendly poll. Larson said she is absolutely not in favor of this project and she has been fighting for this for 20 years to keep our central area as a nice place for our community activities. Larson said there are different ways to skin a cat and there is another way to do this and the money can be there. Salazar asked how so. Larson said running a business, our family budgets and running a government entity are not compatible and her suggestion is to look at our other parks and think of selling some of them. Larson said in 2018 the Laker asked candidates questions, and noted they were answering the questions to get voted in, and one person on the Council said their long term vision for Mound is that they would like to see Mound as a lakeside destination like Excelsior, and put in a destination park and maybe an ice rink by the ramp. Velsor said that was him and he has not changed his mind noting the area that will remain can still be something great and having green grass sitting there is not a destination. Velsor said Farmers Markets can be anywhere like Excelsior who uses their main street. Velsor said when he talked about maximizing the waterfront he was talking about Surfside and he would like to see year round docks there with signage advertising local restaurants and services. Velsor said if he thought this could be done without development that would be one thing, but he acknowledges that retail is not coming back so residential is the realistic option. Larson said she is the only one who ever started a business in Mound and she knows how it can be done if you have the skills to be a business person. Velsor said he just doesn't want her to put words in his mouth and that he knows what he wrote and what he meant by it. Larson read another candidate submission that talked about the potential of the Harbor District and how it can be a family friendly destination and boaters, bikers and walkers could stop and dine. Larson said no one is going to change her mind and for 22 years she has been dealing with this space and said this Council is dealing with the bad judgement of prior councils. Larson said she thinks it should be tabled for a couple of months to see how other things shake out in the next 4 to 6 weeks. Larson said she likes Lifestyle and does not want to see them go away. Larson said she is not on the Development Committee but questioned why it is made up of two elected officials and three staff who do not have voting authority are making decisions on our town. Velsor said the committee just makes recommendations. Salazar noted he does not have a business in town because there was already a Subway franchise in Mound. Larson said she was just making the point she was the only one who has operated a business in town and does not like the criticism of the retail industry and how Mound is not desirable. Salazar said as far as Mound being a destination, he feels even with this project, it will be a destination with this park where people can boat, walk and bike to. Salazar does not understand how 3.3 acres is not sufficient for public space and the proposed development seems like it would be a valued community asset. Salazar says he hears from people who are interested in the development and downsizing. Salazar said this is an opportunity to generate funds to improve the public spaces and he thinks this will achieve the desired destination park. Salazar noted the city can't legally sell existing dedicated park lands so selling off other parks is not an option. Bergquist said the land has sat there for 22 years empty was that it was supposed to be developed and he feels it should be developed. Bergquist said the Council tries to do what is best and please everybody and he thinks this will please a lot of people although he acknowledges some will not be pleased. Bergquist said he is for the project because he does not want taxes to go up and Mound has a lot of parks already, many of which need a lot of work 8 -1394- Mound City Council Minutes — July 28, 2020 with no money to do it. Bergquist acknowledged the compromises and trade-offs necessary and said being on the Council is a challenging job and it is difficult to please everybody. Bergquist said he has lived in Mound for 15 years and he wants to see something nice and he hopes this will create a snowball effect that will encourage others to invest. Bergquist said he is for the project and agrees with Council Member Velsor's statements. Pugh said she has a great deal of frustration with this conversation. Pugh said she has spent 35 years being a servant leader, including as a City Council person where she listens and hears what people are saying, noting she is hearing a lot of fear. Pugh said her parents signed a purchase agreement in the Philbrook/Dutch Lake area in 1966 and the neighborhood held an emergency meeting because a black family was moving in. Pugh said hears fear of agencies like the Met Council and HUD, noting cities rely on entities like Met Council and Hennepin County to bring resources to build parks and public spaces. Pugh said she chairs the Governor's Council on an Age Friendly Minnesota. Pugh said this product is needed for people to remain in their community. Pugh has many friends whose parents have to move away in order to downsize for lack of this option. Pugh said we have to value seniors as much as the youth and that we can do both with this. Pugh said the park can have splash pads and pickle ball. Pugh said the area is a destination with folks using it as a trail head and the Farmers Market buzzes on Saturdays. Pugh said she does not feel we are giving up the lakeshore with this development, just a little of the land to help pay for the improvements to create a community welcoming to all ages and people. Pugh added her family has lived here for 54 years. Salazar said he has lived here for 28 years. Salazar said he has received a request from many callers and texters to table this discussion to the next Council meeting. Staff noted that the Public Hearing for the Commerce Place redevelopment is scheduled for August 12. Salazar asked for a friendly poll and the majority (Salazar, Pugh, Bergquist and Velsor) voted no to table and Larson voted yes to table. MOTION by Velsor, seconded by Pugh, to adopt the following resolution. The following voted I favor: Salazar, Pugh, Bergquist and Velsor. The following voted against: Larson. The following abstained: none. Motion carried. RESOLUTION NO. 20-69: RESOLUTION APPROVING PURCHASE AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH LIFESTYLE COMMUNITIES, LLC Salazar thanked all participants both in person and via email and text. Salazar said he heard many suggestions and plans to follow-up on better communication, the website which will be upgraded in 2021, and reinstating the EDA. Salazar gave some anecdotal comments from conversations with residents, noting many of them were seniors, saying once he explained the project and the plans for a park, they were in support. Salazar reiterated that he hopes this is a catalyst for future development. Bergquist suggested Staff get the numbers to the citizens. Pausche noted everything presented is on the website but she will find a way to make it more understandable. 8. Information/Miscellaneous A. Comments/reports from Council members/City Manager: B. Reports: Finance Department — June 2020 YTD Engineering — June 2020 YTD -1395- Mound City Council Minutes — July 28, 2020 Fire Department — June 2020 YTD C. Minutes: D. Correspondence: WeCAN School Supply Drop -Off Day Flier 9. Adjourn MOTION by Bergquist, seconded by Velsor, to adjourn at 10:27 p.m. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Attest: Catherine Pausche, Clerk Mayor Raymond J. Salazar irU -1396- Catherine Pausche From: Eisenschenk, Amber <aeisenschenk@lmc.org> Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2020 3:25 PM Cc: Eisenschenk, Amber; Sova, Lisa; Carlson, Gary Subject: Coronavirus Relief Fund Certification Good afternoon, According to the Minnesota Department of Revenue, as of July 31, your city has not yet received its share of Minnesota's Coronavirus Relief Fund for Local Governments. Although your city is eligible to receive funds from the state, your city will not automatically receive funding without specific city action. The first step in receiving the funds is to certify to the Dept. of Revenue that the city will spend the funds according to the guidelines or return the unspent funds. For an overview of this process, please see: https://www.revenue.state.mn.us/coronavirus-relief-fund-local- governments Cities have three certification dates yet to file: August 14, August 28 and the final deadline of Sept. 15. Even if your city is unsure if you have enough eligible expenses to be reimbursed from this fund, the League would encourage you to certify now. There are two important reasons for this. First, the federal government is regularly updating guidance on permissible uses and recently, Congress has discussed major changes in allowable uses. Meaning, it is possible cities may be able to reimburse itself for other expenses if guidance changes or Congress modifies the underlying law. Secondly, if the city does not use all of its distribution, the funds are given to your home county for use in November. This may be very helpful to your county in responding to the pandemic. If a city does not file to receive funds by the final Sept. 15 deadline, the state will keep the city's share. The League has hosted two webinars on the topic that are available here for review: CARES Act Funding: What to Expect https://www.Imc.org/learning-events/previous-events/recorded- webi na rs/wegotthis-series-cares-act-fu nd i ng -what -to -expect/ CARES Act Funding: Reporting Requirements https://www.Imc.org/learning-events/previous-events/recorded- webi na rs/wegotthis-series-cares-act-reporting-req u i rements/ If you have additional questions about this process, please reach out to us at researchPImc.org Kind regards, Amber Eisenschenk, JD/MPA I Research Manager Phone: (651) 281-1227 1 Mobile: (612) 750-4825 aeisenschenk(o).lmc.orci League of Minnesota Cities 1 145 University Ave. West I St. Paul, MN 55103 www.Imc.org I Facebook I Twitter I Podcast This response is intended to convey general information and should not be taken as legal advice or as a substitute for competent legal guidance. Consult your city attorney for advice regarding specific situations. 1 -1397- A Sete of Minnesota [US] I hupsy/www.revenue.nete.mn.us/corona ims-relief fund-lor kgovernments Coronavirus Relief Fund for Local Governments COVID-19 Aid for Counties, Cities, and Towns Local governments may be eligible for a share of federal aid Minnesota received from the Coronavirus Relief Fund (CRF). The Minnesota Department of Revenue will distribute this aid. How to Apply To be eligible, local governments must certify that they will follow state and federal guidelines for use of the relief funds. (See state Requirements and Instructions and federal guidance.) To apply: Download and complete the Coronavirus Relief Fund Certification Form (PDF) 2. Email the form to PropTax.Admin Pstate.mn.us We will accept certifications until September 15, 2020. Certifications received after September 15 will not be eligible for a distribution. Aid Amounts We will distribute this aid to counties, cities, and towns based on their 2018 population. Aid Amounts for Counties (PDF) Aid Amounts for Cities (PDF) • Aid Amounts for Towns (PDF) MLNNtPIN MAI'Lt PLAIN C1 I Y 5140,434 HENNEPIN MINNETONNA BEACH CITY $42,266 HENNEPIN MOUND CITY $704,205 HENNEPIN JOSSEO CITY 1 $205,604 -1398- CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION NO. 20 -XX RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ACCEPTANCE OF THE 2020 CORONAVIRUS RELIEF FUND ASSISTANCE WHEREAS, at the July 14, 2020 regular City Council meeting, the Council appointed Mayor Salazar and Council Member Pugh to serve on an advisory committee to analyze options for taking advantage of the federal CARES Act funding for local governments under 500K in population; and WHEREAS, the City of Mound has until September 15, 2020 to certify acceptance of the funds and that it will honor the commitments and requirements associated with the funds; and WHEREAS, the City of Mound has incurred expenditures related to COVID-19 that will qualify for reimbursement which will be the first priority for use of the funds; and WHEREAS, the City of Mound has the option to find ways for any surplus funds to benefit local business and residents; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota does hereby authorize the City Manager to execute the Coronavirus Relief Fund Certification Form as shown in Attachment A and made a part herein in order to accept the $704,205 in federal Coronavirus Relief Fund Assistance. Adopted by the City Council this 12th day of August, 2020. Attest: Catherine Pausche. Clerk Mayor Raymond J. Salazar -1399- ATTACHMENT A PAGE 1 OF 1 E r � The Coronavirus Relief Fund (CRF) Certification Form must be submitted prior to disbursement of the funds. Submit by email to prop tax.adminfp�state.mn_us or by mail to property Tax Division, Mai Station 3340, St. Paul, MN 55146 Name of local Government (if city or town include county) 1 SWIFT Supplier ID # (i# known) Rhone Number CITY OF MOUND 962-472-0633 Name and Title of Person Filling Out Form Email Address CATHERINE PAUSCHE CatherinePausche CITYOFMOUND.COM By submitting this application, the above-named local government ("local government") certifies that it wilt honor all commitments in the statements below and the Information and Requirements document. 1. The distributed funds will be used by the local government only to cover those costs that; a. Are necessary expenditures incurred due to the public health emergency with respect to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) ("necessary expenditures"), as described and defined by official federal guidance an section 601(d) of the Social Security Act, as added by section 5001 of Public taw 116-136 ("federal guidance"); b. Were not accounted for in the budget most recently approved as of March 27, 2020, for the local government; and c. Were or will be incurred during the period that begins on March 1, 2020, and ends on December 1, 2020. A cost is incurred when the local government has expended funds to cover the cost. 2. The funds distributed pursuant to this certification will not be used by the local government in any manner contrary to federal guidance. This includes, but is not limited to; a. Asa revenue replacement for lower than expected tax or other revenue collections; and b. For expenditures for which the local government has received other emergency COVID-19 supplemental funding for that same expense, regardless of the funding source. 3. The local government is responsible for repayment of any funds used by the local government in any manner contrary to federal or State of Minnesota guidance. 4. The local government will periodically report expenditures from the Coronavirus Relief Fund as required by Minnesota Management and Budget. S. Any aid amount remaining unexpended by an eligible city or town on November 15, 2020, must be sent to the home county in which the city or town is located. For cities located in Hennepin County the funds must be transferred to Hennepin County Medical Center or granted to another hospital in the county's boundaries. For the cities or towns located in Ramsey County the funds must be granted to Regions Hospital or another hospital in the county's boundaries. The transfer must be made no later than November 20, 2020. Any amount of aid remaining unexpended by an eligible county by December 1, 2020 must be returned to Minnesota Management and Budget by December 10, 2020, 6. The local government will maintain copies of any agreements to share Coronavirus Relief Funds pursuant to a joint powers agreement under Minn. Stat. § 471.59. Copies of such agreements and accounting records must be sufficient to document the funds distributed to other local governments. 7. The local government is responsible for FEMA nonfederal share, increased workers compensation costs, and costs of supporting its Community Health Board COVID-19 response, and should not anticipate additional state funds forthese purposes. S. The local government understands that these funds are subject to the requirements under the Single Audit Act (31 U.S.C. §§ 7501-7507) and the related provisions of the Uniform Guidance, 2 C.F.R. § 200.303 regarding internal controls, §§ 200.330 through 200.332 regarding subrecipient monitoring and management, and subpart F regarding audit requirements. I certify that t have the authority to complete this certification on behalf of the local government. Signature of chief Executive of Title Date CITY MANAGER 108 -13 -2 -0 -- Federal Award Name and CFDA Number; 601(d) of the Social Security Act (CARES Act) CFDA Number 21.019 -1400- Q& MENK Real People. Real Solutions. August 5th, 2020 Mr. Eric Hoversten, City Manager City of Mound 2415 Wilshire Boulevard Mound, MN 55364 RE: Fernside Lane Forcemain Improvement & Bay Ridge Sewer Service City PrcjectNo. PW -19-03 & PW -19-09 Pay Request No. 2 Dear Mr. Hoversten: 2638 Shadow Lane Suite 200 Chaska, MN 55318-1172 Ph: (952) 448-8838 Fax: (952) 448-8805 Bolton-Menk.com Please find enclosed Pay Request No. 2 from Widmer Construction. for work completed on the Fernside Lane Forcemain Improvement & Bay Ridge Sewer Service Projects from June 2"d 2020 through August 5th, 2020. We have reviewed the contractor's request, verified quantities, and recommend payment in the amount of $42,108.51 to Widmer Construction. Sincerely, Bolton & Menk, Inc. T5 Brian D. Simmons, P.E. City Engineer Bolton & Menk is an DATE: 8/5/2020 CONTRACTOR'S PAY REQUEST NO. 2 CONTRACTOR Widmer Construction FERNSIDE MANE FORCEMAIN IMPROVEMENTS & BAY RIDGE SEWER SERVICE OWNER City of Mound CITY PROJECT NOS. PW -19-03, PW -19-09 ENGINEER Bolton & Menk BMI PROJECT NO. C17.117635 FOR WORK COMPLETED FROM 6/2/2020 THROUGH 8/5/2020 TOTALAMOUNT BID............................................................................................................................................................................. $ 344,026.20 APPROVEDCHANGE ORDERS................................................................................................................................... $ 25,647.50 $ 6,046.14 CURRENTCONTRACT AMOUNT................................................................................................................................. $ 375,719.84 TOTAL, COMPLETED WORK TO DATE...................................................................................................................................... $ 346,318.43 TOTAL, STORED MATERIALS TO DATE..................................................................................................................................... $ - DEDUCTION FOR STORED MATERIALS USED IN WORK COMPLETED............................................................. $ - TOTAL, COMPLETED WORK & STORED MATERIALS................................................................................................................. $ 346,318.43 RETAINED PERCENTAGE ( 5% )..................................................................................................................................... $ 17,315.92 TOTAL AMOUNT OF OTHER DEDUCTIONS........................................................................................................................... $ - NET AMOUNT DUE TO CONTRACTOR TO DATE...................................................................................................................... $ 329,002.51 TOTAL AMOUNT PAID ON PREVIOUS ESTIMATES............................................................................................................... $ 286,894.00 PAY CONTRACTOR AS ESTIMATE NO. 2.......................................................................................................................................... $ 42,108.51 Certificate for Payment I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, all items quantities and prices of work and material shown on this Estimate are correct and that all work has been performed in full accordance with the terms and conditions of the Contract for this project between the Owner and the undersigned Contractor, and as amended by any authorized changes, and that the foregoing is a true and correct statement of the contract amount for the period covered by this Estimate. Contractor: Widmer Construction 99455 County Road 15 Maple Plain, MN 55359 By Date J "57— A) CHECKED 7— CHECKED AND APPROVED AS TO QUANTITIES AND AMOUNT: BOLTON & MENK, INC., ENGINEERS, 2638 SHADOW LN, SUITE 200, CHASKA MN 55318 By Tf / , PROJECT ENGINEER Brian D. Simmons Date 2020-08-05 APPROVED FOR PAYMENT: Owner: CITY OF MOUND By Name Title Date -1402- REQUEST FOR PAYMENT DATE: 8/5/2020 REQUESTNO.: 2 PROJECT., FERNSIDE LANE FORCEMAIN IMPROVEMENTS & BAY RIDGE SEWER SERVICE CONTRACTOR: Widmer Construction FGEPARH. H: WOUN,CI"1117635V7C®sN mAE Pa ApphmtovsV[I 17635 Pay App ANPR2 ITEM NO. BID ITEM ORIGINAL BID I COMPLETED UNIT BID QUANTITY UNIT THIS MONTH PRICE QUANTITY F AMOUNT TO DATE QUANTITY AMOUNT FERNSIDE FORCEMAIN 1 MOBILIZATION 2 TRAFFIC CONTROL 3 CLEAR A GRUB TREE 4 REMOVE CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT AND SIDEWALK 5 REMOVE CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER 6 REMOVE FORCEMAIN 7 ABANDON FORCEMAIN 8 ABANDON AIR RELEASE MANHOLE 9 SALVAGE CASTING 10 SUBGRADE EXCAVATION (EV) 11 STABILIZING AGGREGATE (CV) 12 GEOTEXrILE FABRIC, TYPE V 13 STANDARD STREET PATCH 14 COUNTY ROAD PATCH 15 4" SOLID LINE EPDXY 16 4" DOUBLE SOLID LINE EPDXY 17 CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER DESIGN B624 18 MOUNTABLE CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER 19 6" CONCRETE WALK AND DRIVEWAY 20 CONNECT TO EXISTING FORCEMAIN 21 CONNECT TO EXISTING SANITARY MANHOLE 22 AGGREGATE BEDDING 23 UTILITY VERIFICATION POTHOLE INCL. RESTORATION (STD. STREET PATCH) 24 UTILITY VERIFICATION POTHOLE INCL. RESTORATION (CORD PATCH) 25 4" HDPE DIPS DR 11 FORCEMAIN (DIRECTIONALLY DRILLED) 26 6 DIP CL 52 FORCEMAIN 27 6" HDPE DIPS DR 17 FORCEMAIN (DIRECTIONALLY DRILLED) 28 6" HDPE DIPS DR 17 FORCEMAIN (PIPE BURST) 29 4°GATE VALVE &BOX 30 6° GATE VALVE & BOX 31 BYPASS PUMPING -LSE2 32 SEWAGE PUMPTRUCK 33 DUCTILE IRON FITTINGS (FORCEMAIN) LUMP SUM LUMP SUM EACH SOFT LIN FT LIN FT LIN FT EACH EACH CU YD CU YD So YD SO YD SOLD LIN FT LIN FT LIN FT LIN FT SO FT EACH EACH TON EACH EACH LIN FT LIN FT LIN FT LIN FT EACH EACH LUMP SUM HOURS POUNDS 1 1 1 200 140 56 450 1 5 40 40 80 250 140 100 100 40 100 200 2 2 20 10 1 82 10 840 192 2 2 1 30 200 $10000.00 1.00 $10000.00 $14,000.00 1.00 $14,000.00 $1,200.00 $25.00 $15.00 $25.00 5.00 1 $125.00 $12.00 90.00 $1,080.0 490.00 $5,880.00 $5,000.00 1.00 $5,000.00 $200.00 1.00 $200.00 $30.00 40.00 $1,200.0 80.00 $2,400.00 $25.00 40.00 $1,000.00 $1.00 236.36 $236.36 $93.00 210.36 $19,563.48 $105.50 48.50 $5,116.751 91.84 $9,689.12 $20.00 $20.00 $57.25 $53.00 $12.00 $8,000.00 1.00 $8,000.00 2.00 $16,000.00 $6,000.00 1.00 $6,000.00 2.00 $12,000.00 $32.00 18.34 $586.88 $825.00 3.00 $2,475.00 17.00 $14,025.00 $1,200.00 3.00 $3,600.00 3.00 $3,600.00 $44.00 150.00 $6,600.0 150.00 $6,600.00 $88.00 7.00 $616.00 14.00 $1,232.00 $46.25 851.00 $39,358.75 $86.25 192.00 $16,560.00 $1,600.00 1.00 $1,600.00 1.00 $1,600.00 1 $1,725.00 2.00 $3,450.00 $28000.00 1.00 $28000.00 $250.00 18.00 $4,500.001 33.00 $8,250.00 $7.00 41.00 $287.00 150.00 $1,050.00 -1403- REQUEST FOR PAYMENT DATE: 8/5/2020 REQUESTNO.: 2 PROJECT., FERNSIDE LANE FORCEMAIN IMPROVEMENTS & BAY RIDGE SEWER SERVICE CONTRACTOR: Widmer Construction FGEPARH. H: MUN,CI7117635V7C®sNi mEPa ApphmtovsV[I 17635 Pay App ANPR2 ITEM NO. BID ITEM ORIGINAL BID COMPLETED UNIT BID QUANTITY UNIT THIS MONTH PRICE QUANTITY F AMOUNT TO DATE QUANTITY AMOUNT 34 INSTALL CASTING 35 ADJUST GATE VALVE AND BOX 36 ADJUST FRAME & RING CASTING 37 CHIMNEY SEAL 38 INLET PROTECTION 39 SILT FENCE 40 BIOLOG 41 TOPSOIL BORROW (LV) 42 SOD, TYPE LAWN BAY RIDGE SEWER SERVICE: 43 MOBILIZATION 44 TRAFFIC CONTROL 45 EXPLORATORY EXCAVATION 46 CLEAR AND GRUB TREE 47 REMOVE 6" SEWER SERVICE 48 REMOVE 8" SEWER MAIN 49 REMOVE AND ABANDON SANITARY CLEANOUT 50 STANDARD STREET PATCH 51 GEOTEXTILE FABRIC, TYPE V 52 AGGREGATE BEDDING 53 6" PVC SDR 26 SANITARY SEWER SERVICE 54 8" HDPE DR 17 PIPE BURST (EX 6" VCP) 55 8" PVC SDR 35 SANITARY SEWER 56 48° DIAMETER SANITARY MANHOLE 57 CASTING ASSEMBLY 58 CHIMNEY SEAL 59 CONNECT TO EXISTING SANITARY SEWER 60 SILT FENCE 61 BIOLOG 62 STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION 63 SODDING, TYPE LAM 64 SHOOT SEED MIX25-151LB 65 IRRIGATION AND DOG FENCE ALLOWANCE EACH EACH EACH EACH EACH LIN FT LIN FT CU YD SO YD LUMP SUM LUMP SUM HOUR TREE LIN FT LIN FT EACH SO YD SO YD TONS LIN FT LIN FT LIN FT LIN FT EACH EACH EACH LIN FT LIN FT EACH SOLD ALLOWANCE 4 2 4 4 13 60 50 60 350 1 1 5 1 15 15 2 60 60 8 13 337 13 16.3 2 2 3 160 100 4 160 20 1 $525.00 1.00 $525.00 $250.00 2.00 $500.00 $350.00 1.00 $350.00 $275.00 $225.00 13.00 $2,925.00 $9.25 $4.00 $57.50 $12.00 $5,000.00 1.00 $5,000.00 $1100.00 1.00 $1100.00 $175.00 5.00 $875.00 $4,000.00 1.00 $4,000.00 $60.00 15.00 $900.00 $60.00 15.00 $900.00 $1,000.00 2.00 $2,000.00 $93.00 60.00 $5580.00 $1.00 60.00 $60.00 $65.00 8.00 $520.00 $73.50 13.00 $955.50 $96.00 337.00 $32,352.00 $74.50 13.00 $968.50 $444.00 16.30 $7237.20 $625.00 2.00 $1,250.00 $300.00 2.00 $600.00 $5500.00 3.00 $16500.00 $5.00 160.00 $800.00 $3.50 100.00 $350.00 $250.00 4.00 $1 000.00 $10.00 160.00 $1,600.00 $6.00 20.00 $120.00 $2,000.00 1.00 $2,000.00 -1404- REQUEST FOR PAYMENT DATE: 8/5/2020 REQUESTNO.: 2 PROJECT., FERNSIDE LANE FORCEMAIN IMPROVEMENTS & BAY RIDGE SEWER SERVICE CONTRACTOR: Widmer Construction FIIEPATH. H:WOUMC17117635V7C®sNidimAE Pa,Apph.tio rl 17635 Pay App AsOR2 ITEM NO. BID ITEM ORIGINAL BID I COMPLETED UNIT BID UNIT QUANTITY PRICE THIS MONTH QUANTITY I AMOUNT TO DATE QUANTITY AMOUNT CO#1 EXTRASBAVRIDGE SEWER SERVICE LUMP SUM 1 $25,647.50 1.00 $25,647.50 CO#2 EXrRASFERNSIDE FORCEMAIN LUMP SUM 1 1 $6,046.141 11 1.00 11 $6,046.14 Ew41 EXTRAS -SHORELINE TRAFFIC CONTROL wMP sum1 1 $3,250.001 1.0011 $3,250.00 1.00 11 $3,250.00 TOTALAMOUNT $44,324.75 $346,318.43 -1405- Q& MENK Real People. Real Solutions. August 5th, 2020 Mr. Eric Hoversten, City Manager City of Mound 2415 Wilshire Boulevard Mound, MN 55364 RE: 2020 Lift Station Improvement Project City Project No. PW -20-05 Pay Request No. 1 Dear Mr. Hoversten: 2638 Shadow Lane Suite 200 Chaska, MN 55318-1172 Ph: (952) 448-8838 Fax: (952) 448-8805 Bolton-Menk.com Please find enclosed Pay Request No. 1 from Widmer Construction. for work completed on the 2020 Lift Station Improvement Project from June 22nd, 2020 through August 5th 2020. We have reviewed the contractor's request, verified quantities, and recommend payment in the amount of $107,869.03 to Widmer Construction. Sincerely, Bolton & Menk, Inc. Brian D. Simmons, P.E. City Engineer Bolton & Menk is an DATE: 8/5/2020 CONTRACTOR'S PAY REQUEST NO. 1 CONTRACTOR Widmer Construction 2020 LIFT STATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT OWNER City of Mound CITY PROJECT NOS. PW -20-05 ENGINEER Bolton & Menk BMI PROJECT NO. C17.119830 FOR WORK COMPLETED FROM 5/22/2020 THROUGH 8/5/2020 TOTALAMOUNT BID ................. ...................................................................................... ...................................................................... , $ 303,687.75 APPROVEDCHANGE ORDERS........................................................................................................................................ CURRENTCONTRACT AMOUNT................................................................................................................................. $ 303,687.75 TOTAL, COMPLETED WORK TO DATE...................................................................................................................................... $ 113,546.35 TOTAL, STORED MATERIALS TO DATE..................................................................................................................................... $ - DEDUCTION FOR STORED MATERIALS USED IN WORK COMPLETED............................................................. $ - TOTAL, COMPLETED WORK & STORED MATERIALS................................................................................................................. $ 113,546.35 RETAINEDPERCENTAGE ( 5% )..................................................................................................................................... $ 5,677.32 TOTAL AMOUNT OF OTHER DEDUCTIONS........................................................................................................................... $ NET AMOUNT DUE TO CONTRACTOR TO DATE...................................................................................................................... $ 107,869.03 TOTAL AMOUNT PAID ON PREVIOUS ESTIMATES............................................................................................................... $ - PAYCONTRACTOR AS ESTIMATE NO. 1.......................................................................................................................................... $ 107,869.03 Certificate for Payment I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, all items quantities and prices of work and material shown on this Estimate are correct and that all work has been performed in full accordance with the terms and conditions of the Contract for this project between the Owner and the undersigned Contractor, and as amended by any authorized changes, and that the foregoing is a true and correct statement of the contract amount for the period covered by this Estimate. Contractor: Widmer Construction 99455 County Road 15 Maple Plain, MN 55359 A By G� �. 4r '-e Date CHECKED AND APPROVED AS TO QUANTITIES AND AMOUNT: BOLTON & MENK, INC., ENGINEERS, 2638 SHADOW LN, SUITE 200, CHASKA MN 55318 By - , PROJECT ENGINEER Brian D. Simmons Date 2020-08-05 APPROVED FOR PAYMENT: Owner: CITY OF MOUND By Name Title Date -1407- REQUEST FOR PAYMENT DATE: 6/2/2020 REQUEST NO.: 1 PROJECT., 2020 LIFT STATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT CONTRACTOR: Widmer Construction F=AT H:MUMCI"1119SHW CmsNidimAE Pa ApphmtovsV[119030 Pay App As]PR1 ITEM NO. BID ITEM ORIGINAL BID I COMPLETED UNIT BID QUANTITY UNIT THIS MONTH PRICE QUANTITY F AMOUNT TO DATE QUANTITY AMOUNT FERNSIDE FORCEMAIN 1 MOBILIZATION 2 TRAFFIC CONTROL 3 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL 4 CLEARING AND GRUBBING s REMOVE SANITARYSEWER & FORCEMAIN PIPE 6 REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT 7 REMOVE CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER a REMOVE CONCRETE PAVEMENT 0 REMOVE LIFT STATION CONTROL PANEL AND CONCRETE PAD 10 REMOVE CASTING ASSEMBLY 11 ADJUST EXISTING MANHOLE FRAME & RINGS 12 ADJUST VALVE BOX 13 ABANDON LIFT STATION 14 ABANDON SANITARYSEWER & FORCEMAIN PIPE 15 8" PVC SDR 35 SANITARYSEWER 16 8" DIP SANITARYSEWER, CL. 52 n 6" DIP FORCEMAIN, CL. 52 10 DUCTILE IRON FITTINGS 10 CONNECT TO EXISTING FORCEMAIN 20 CONNECT TO EXISTING SANITARY MANHOLE 21 CASTINGASSEMBLY 22 CHIMNEYSEAL 23 AGGREGATE BEDDING 24 SEWAGE PUMP TRUCK 25 48" MANHOLE 20 72" PRE -CAST CONCRETE WETWELL AND 10'X6'VALVE VAULT WITH PIPINGAND VALVII 2 ELECTRICAL CONSTRUCTION 20 SITE GRADING 20 REMOVE AND REPLACE UNSUITABLE FILL MATERIAL (EV) 30 FLOWABLE FILL 31 RECONSTRUCT MANHOLE INVERT 32 4" PERF TP PIPE DRAIN WITH AGGREGATE 33 4" PVC PIPE DRAIN LUMP SUM LUMP SUM LUMP SUM LUMP SUM LF SY LF SF EA EA EA EA LUMP SUM LF LIN FT LF LF LB EA EA EA EA TON HR LF LUMP SUM LUMP SUM LUMP SUM CY CY EA LF LF 1 1 1 1 20 212 30 40 1 1 1 2 1 325 161 20 74 150 1 1 2 3 50 15 18 1 1 1 100 10 1 21.00 60.00 $12500.00 0.50 $6250.00 0.50 $6250.00 $4,200.00 0.50 $2,100.00 0.50 $2,100.00 $2,500.00 0.50 $1,250.00 0.50 $1,250.00 $2500.00 1.00 $2500.00 1.00 $2500.00 $25.00 35.80 $895.00 35.80 $895.00 $12.00 110.00 $1,320.00 110.00 $1,320.00 $15.00 $25.00 $2,000.00 $150.00 $300.00 $275.00 $3800.00 $10.00 $25.25 97.00 $2,449.25 97.00 $2,449.25 $49.25 20.00 $985.00 20.00 $985.00 $41.00 53.60 $2,197.60 53.60 $2,197.60 $9.00 154.00 $1,386.00 154.00 $1,386.00 $4,500.0 1.00 $4,500.0 1.00 $4,500.00 $4,500.00 $1,150.00 $300.00 $45.00 25.00 $1,125.00 25.00 $1,125.00 $250.00 12.00 $3,000.00 12.00 $3,000.00 $300.00 17.35 $5,205.0 17.35 $5,205.00 $150,100.00 0.50 $75,050.00 0.50 $75,050.00 $21,450.00 $3120.00 $40.00 $165.00 $850.00 1 $18.00 1 $25.00 M FOXFOX PROJECT., CONTRACTOR: 6/2/2020 F=AT H:MUMC17119830A7Cm4eu<timAEPa,Apph.ti-AII 19830 Pay App AsJPR1 REQUEST FOR PAYMENT REQUEST NO.: 2020 LIFT STATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Widmer Construction ITEM NO. BID ITEM ORIGINAL BID COMPLETED UNIT BID QUANTITY UNIT PRICE THIS MONTH QUANTITY F AMOUNT TO DATE QUANTITY AMOUNT 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 5o CONNECT PIPE DRAIN TO EXISITING CATCH BASIN 4" PVC CLEANOUT SELECT GRANULAR BORROW FOR CONCRETE PADS 8" CONCRETE GENERATOR PAD 6" CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER DESIGN B618 FURNISH AND PLACE AGGREGATE BASE, CL.5 EXCAVATE, SALVAGE, REUSE & COMPACT EXISTING GRAVEL BASE (EV) TYPE SP 9.5.5 BITUMINOUS WEARING COURSE MIX (2,B) TYPE SP 12.5 BITUMINOUS NON -WEARING COURSE MIX (2,B) BOLLARD GUARD POST EROSION CONTROL BLANKET, CATEGORY 3N, VV/ SEED MIX 25-151 TOPSOIL BORROW (LV) SILT FENCE STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION LANDSCAPE ALLOWANCE ELECTRICAL ALLOWANCE SERVICE RELOCATION EA EA TON SF SF LF TON CY TON TON EA SY CY LF EA ALLOWANCE WANCE ALLO 1.00 1.00 75.00 160 330 30 75 40 19 27 4 1,000 220 635 8 1 1 $450.00 $250.00 $35.00 $19.25 $17.05 $65.45 $50.00 $30.00 $196.00 $177.00 $335.00 $1.95 $44.50 $2.10 635.00 $1,333.50 635.00 $1,333.50 $250.00 8.00 $2 000.00 8.00 $2,000.001 1$2,500.00 $5,000.00 TOTALAMOUNT $113,546.35 $113,546.35 -1409- CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION NO. 20 -XX A RESOLUTION TO FORMALLY ACCEPT A FEDERAL ASSISTANCE TO FIREFIGHTERS GRANT (AFG) IN THE AMOUNT OF $151,758.10 WHEREAS, the City of Mound Fire Department frequently applies for competitive grants to assist in funding the department needs; and WHEREAS, the Mound Fire Department needs include the replacement of 17 -year-old Self - Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA) units; and WHEREAS, to assist with the funding of new SCBA units, the City of Mound Fire Department submitted a grant application to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and was awarded an Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG) from Federal Emergency Management Association (FEMA) in the amount of $151,758.10 to partially fund 22 SCBA units that include the harness, regulator, face piece, 2 cylinders per unit and 18 additional face pieces; and WHEREAS, as part of the grant process, the City of Mound Fire Department and AFG are required to execute a grant agreement which requires approval by the Mound City Council to match the grant in the amount of $7,587.90 (5%); and WHEREAS, the AFG - FEMA grant has been reviewed by Staff and is recommended for approval; and NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota to hereby accept the Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG) award in the amount of $151,758.10. Adopted by the City Council this 12th day of August, 2020. Attest: Catherine Pausche, Clerk Mayor Raymond J. Salazar -1410- EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TO: Honorable Mayor and Ory Council FROM: Sarah Smith, Community Development Director Rita Trapp, Consulting Planners DATE: August 5, 2020 SUBJECT: Commerce Place Redevelopment Project and Commerce Place 2nd Addition (Case No. 20 07) Public Hearings— Major SubdiNson Preliminary Plat, Zoning Text Amendment, Rezoning, Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for Planned Unit Development and Vacation (right of way and drainage and utility easements) (Plan Sec doted 611112020) APPLICANT: Trevor Martinez, Shafer -Richardson LOCATION: 2220-2238 Commerce Boulevard MEETING DATE: August 12, 2020 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Mixed Use ZONING: B-1 Central Business District and R-3 Multiple Family Residential Summary The applicant, Schafer Richardson, has applied for multiple land use and subdivision approvals for the redevelopment of the existing Commerce Place Shopping Center generally located between County Road 15, County Road 110, Church Street, and Fern Lane. The redevelopment will include the demolition of the entire existing shopping center and the construction of a three story, 102 unit market rate apartment building. The redevelopment will involve the vacation of a portion of Fern Lane, a drainage and utility easement that exits to the east of the current building, and a drainage and utility easement that exists to the east of the existing Fern Lane. While the existing parking lot Will remain, itwill be slightly reconfigured to address circulation in front of the proposed apartment building. The redevelopment will not include the parcel and associated parking that includes the Wells Fargo bank. Also notable, there are existing private access and parking agreements between the applicant and Wells Fargo. These agreements require that the applicant retain the existing driveways on CountyRoad 15, County Road 110, and Church Street with substantially the same access for the bank. These agreements have impacted the proposed design of the redevelopment. 1411- Project Plans Due to file size the City Council packet contains a select set of the most referred to application materials. The full plan set is available using the hyperlinks provided below. Hardcopies of plans will be provided to City Council members by request. • Mound Renderings and Context Study.pdf at: https://docu mentcloud.ad obe.com/I i nk/track?u ri=urn:aa id:scds:U S:be6715fa-3el4-4a82-b445- 465ded7f7e47 • Mound Civil plans Il.pdf at: https://docu mentcloud.ad obe.com/I i nk/track?u ri=u rn:aa id :scds:US:994d 7aa8-4c9a-4bc7-b 65e - d 1 b 28ff44632 • Traffic Assessment_6.26.2020.pdf at https://www.cityofmou nd.com/vertica I/Sites/%7 B2E4C2OC8-5A79-4517-A724- CB4891DAF341%7D/uploads/Mound Apartments - Traffic Assessment 6.26.2020.pdf • Mound Elevations Il.pdf at: https://docu mentcloud.ad obe.com/I i nk/track?u ri=urn:aa id:scds:U S:60f6de0b-eO85-474b-8257- c7977b350605 • Mound Floor Plans Il.pdf at: https://docu mentcloud.ad obe.com/I i nk/track?u ri=u rn:aa id:scds:U S:81a 61cda-6601-4611-93d8- 19234dd65cf9 • Finish Board.jpg at: https://docu mentcloud.adobe.com/I i nk/track?u ri=urn:aaid:scds:U S:3e7252c8-Oe53-47fO-ac7O- 59cd7566aaad Public Hearings The City Council will be holding public hearings for the land use and subdivision requests for the Commerce Place project at its August 12th meeting. Notification about the public hearings followed state requirements, including two weeks of published and posted notice for the vacation. The notice of published hearings was published on July 25, 2020 and August 1, 2020 in the Laker and posted on the City Hall bulletin board on July 21, 2020. The public hearing notice was also mailed to all affected property owners located within 350 feet of the project area and all those properties in the original plats of Commerce Place, Fernwood Addition, and Lake Side Park A L Crocker's 1st Division on July 23, 2020. Information was also posted on the City's website. Public Comments Received The City received the following comments between July 22nd and 5:00 p.m. on August 5th -1412- Sam and Moraine Johnson Hello City Council Members, We are Samuel and Morgaine Johnson, and we live at 2207 Belmont Lane Mound MN 55364 in a single-family residential home (owned not rented). We're writing to express our opposition to the proposed construction of high-density housing (a.k.a. apartments) by Shafer Richardson in the Commerce Center of Commerce Boulevard. We have attended a public discussion held at Commerce Place, a City Council meeting in February 2020, and the recent Planning Committee meeting held virtually on July 7th. We will be directly impacted by this construction, and the proposed lots to be rezoned based on our house/lot location. First of all, we were in the demographic that Shafer Richardson claim to be "targeting to bring into the apartments" (active adults with no children) when we moved to Mound about 10 years ago, and we were purposely looking for a house NOT an apartment. If we had wanted an apartment, we would've chosen something closer to our places of work and in one of the larger suburb options that have more amenities. - As a note, we are only now pregnant with our first child, so it isn't like we bought a house with the intention of starting a family right away either. - We would've had a very different view of buying our house if there had been a big apartment complex as the view from our backyard/deck with the potential for apartments to look into our backyard (and possibly into our house), as well as a parking lot where the intended plans have shown. We have a major concern regarding allowing the residential lots behind the post office that are currently zoned for R3 multi -family residential to be rezoned to Destination District. If the decision is made to rezone these lots as proposed, a parking lot could be created for "additional parking" as needed and that parking lot would be right up against our backyard. When we bought our house, we understood that additional homes could be built on these lots, but based on the current zoning a large parking lot wouldn't be allowed. At the July 7th Planning Committee one of the planning commissioners stated that she lives in a $1+ million house and that she's for this construction because she thinks that it will bring people and additional business to the city, but we wonder what her opinion would be if an apartment complex were to be constructed with a parking lot right next to her place of residency which adversely impacts the general use and value of the property. We believe our thoughts and opinions on this matter should hold more weight than a city planning commissioner that will not be directly affected by this project. We have a couple of other comments regarding the proposed construction by Shafer Richardson in Commerce Center. • Our street (Belmont Lane) is already a hazard with cars parking along the road, the RV dump spot, 18 wheelers backing in and pulling out of the post office, and a hill decreasing the visibility of oncoming traffic. -There should already be NO parking along either side of this street with the exception of RV dumping. - Any additional traffic coming through or parking on this street will only make matters worse. There would undoubtably be additional traffic along our street due to the proposed access points of the apartment parking lot and number of residences targeted. We saw the high level "traffic study" data that was presented at the planning commission meeting on July 7th and have numerous questions regarding it before we believe its validity of representing -1413- the area traffic (how long was it run, when, at what times, how was data collected, on which streets, etc.). • Regarding the change to allow fewer underground parking spots because "not everyone wants to pay for underground parking" - We've heard from Shafer Richardson and other supporting members for this project that part of the premise of building apartments like this is to pull in "outdoorsy, active" people to Mound for the boating, lake usage, trails, etc. If those individuals aren't willing to pay for underground parking, then what is the likelihood of them being willing to pay for storage of a boat/trailer/skidoo/etc.? Even if there are a number of tenants that would want to pay for storage spaces, will there be enough in the area to adequately accommodate them? Overall, in addition to the negative impact that the proposals for construction by Shafer Richardson in the Commerce Center will have directly to us and our place of residency, we feel that the overall city of Mound will lose an aspect of appeal by allowing more apartments to be constructed there. Part of the charm of Mound is the small town feel with access to outdoor activities while being within reasonable proximity to some larger suburbs (Minnetonka, Plymouth, etc.). This small-town feel will very quickly disappear if the view upon entering Mound becomes apartment building after apartment building. A different proposal was mentioned at the last planning commission meeting indicating that there are also condos proposed to go up in the green space down the street from us which only hastens the loss of Mound's attraction as the open green space would no longer be there nor the view of Lost Lake. We were unaware of this project, but it makes the potential for the Shafer Richardson apartments in Commerce Center even less appealing for the city. We ask that the city council members that are elected to represent the people of Mound listen to all of the feedback from the community and vote to not approve this proposal by Shafer Richardson. We have the right to require Shafer Richardson to provide a proposal for the property that meets the current city requirements (without re -zoning and exceptions) and aligns with the long-term goals of the city. Thank you for taking our opinion and feedback into account. Sam and Morgaine Johnson Margie Saatzer Dear Ray, Sherrie, Paula, Jeff & Sarah: My husband and I have raised our four children in Mound. Though Mound always was a little run-down, we loved the small-town atmosphere Mound offered. Our children grew up spending time riding their bikes into Mound to buy a treat with their friends, go work-out at the high school and swimming at the Surfside Park. Because of the freedom and security Mound offered my children, I am beyond shocked that ANYONE would consider ruining our little town for some fools gold of high-density housing. It might seem like a quick fix, but will come with a high cost to Mound. I have volunteered at the Westonka Food Shelf for six years and have witnessed the multitude of problems associated with the Balsam Hills development. Interestingly, I researched a study on the disaster high density housing created in Australia after years of building. One article stated that "Speculative investors have no intentions in living in the product they're buying". Maybe that is an important question all should consider before your vote? Please vote "NO" on the 102 apartment complex place. Thank you. -1414- Concerned Mother & Grandmother of Mound for 37 years, Margie Saatzer Teri Williams Hi, I have been a resident of mound for over 10 years now. I am happy to see the new additions to our small town. Older homes being torn down and new ones taking their place. The new home developments certainly add to the need for some retail space. I still don't understand the vacant building, eye sore to say the least, located on commerce. Several people have spoken about this. I have no idea who decided "here is the trail crossing but you need to walk down to the walk crossing" which doesn't happen either on shoreline or commerce. Guess we need an accident before "someone" could make this a better crossing. An apartment complex in the center of our town would be the worse investment for the city of Mound. Clustered traffic and safety issues for drivers, pedestrians and bicycles. Better use of that land is certainly an option. Thanks, Teri Williams Jamie Schneeweis Hi Sarah! In regards to the Commerce Place Shopping center. I first moved to mound in 1993 at 18 years old and have come and left Mound since then, I have been back now since 2004. 1 have seen this city go through a lot of changes and I feel we have so much more potential than putting up an apartment in this location. Visually alone I think it's a terrible vibe! Why not more local business that support our community? I try and shop local as best I can and believe this will just push more people to travel outside our city to shop. It's just a negative energy I feel from neighbors of this community about the idea of another complex especially right in the heart of Mound. Hoping we can make the right decision for this Community. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Jamie Schneeweis Dawn Sorensen Dear Ms. Smith Please do not rezone the Mound business district. The current owner Shafer Richardson will turn our town into a disaster by putting in affordable housing. They have already shown how they take care of their properties. The facade of their business buildings has not been updated for years. The parking lot is full of ruts, cracks and weeds. Who would want to rent a retail space from them? I can just imagine what an eyesore their housing would turn into. Also my research, which includes the Minnesota Housing Agency research, states that affordable housing more than 50 units can increase crime. Need I remind you, and the city council that we don't have our own police department? Instead of helping these greedy investors who do not care about our town (look at the property now) why isn't the city of Mound forcing them to update and repair of what they have now? My concern is that it will become an area full of crime and a stain on our city. -1415- Respectfully Dawn Sorensen Mound, Mn Chris Hill 1 100% do not support this re -zoning and will actively support and vote anyone who runs against those that support it. Kelly Garlock Please!! We DO NOT need high density housing! We need shops, restaurants, something to encompass our small town so we don't have to drive all the way to Ridgedale. Carol Miletti and Dave Hanson Haven't communicated with you since the wetland behind us flooded. I wanted to weigh in on the proposed apartment complex behind Wells Fargo. I would love to see the entire area in better condition- but, I do NOT agree with the current proposal. I've been following all along. They mentioned the rent would go to $1900./ month - that's the biggest lie of this proposal. Before the pandemic - we had been looking to sell our home and move to condo. We priced plenty of condos. There is NO way we would move there. Between traffic and lack of shops - there is nothing to draw us in. I really think that housing for seniors who do NOT want to move to living facility, should be a consideration for Mound. For the same price - we could move to downtown Victoria and walk everywhere. PLEASE, reconsider this vendor - their current property is not a very good example for how they manage properties. Dave and I do NOT support the apartments. Thanks for listening, Carol Miletti and Dave Hanson 2583 Lost Lake Rd Kelsey Mathis To whom it may concern, We vote against the construction of high density apartments. We do not need more housing in this city, instead we need shops, resturants, and green spaces to draw people in from cities. Currently we have limited restaurant options and to enjoy dinner out, you need to leave the city of mound... Mound is supposed to be small town living next to big city. Filling the city with 102 apartments does not fit. In addition the apartments that are currently exist are eye sores due to being outdated and rundown. If there were a draw to have housing, at a minimum it should include shopping/ resturants on street level and rooftop bars/resturants on top (plus underground parking) The housing should be limited to WAY less than 102 units and seek to draw in established families. Similar to the condos that are being built in neighboring cities. In addition, we should be dredging out our last bit of tonka lake shore to build a community that focuses on the water. We have prime real estate in Minnetonka yet it's not being utilized except by fisherman. -1416- Adding 102 units would be a mistake. There is no shopping/ resturants as it is and we are forcing people to spend money elsewhere. At a minimum limit the units to less than 40 and add shops/resturants. Thank you, Concerned mound residents Kelsey Mathis Jeff and Tina Gubrud Good afternoon, We have lived in Mound, MN for over 30 years. We were looking for a small town, close to the city, to buy a home and decided that Mound was that place. We have enjoyed the small town atmosphere, quiet nights, safe neighborhoods and not much traffic. Our concern is if the 102 -unit apartment redevelopment project is approved, all of the above will no longer exist. We will no longer feel safe at home and traffic will definitely increase. Please do not approve the rezoning of the properties. Thank you, Jeff & Tina Gubrud Mound, MN Kevin Johansen -Mechanical Engineer, live Basswood Lane. Been involved in the meetings for over a year. Have some past experience with rental housing, although little in Mound. -Mound won't likely ever support 'retail' like botiques and small stores, but I think it is very shortsighted to give up a multi use plan and go to this high density. This forever freezes Mounds future as no downtown or center city space, and only a bedroom city. It locks into the future with a 'we have to do something quickly'. No we don't. -102, mostly studio or one br, in that footprint is WAY too many people packed in. -1 very much doubt SR projections of rental. Young singles affording that rent don't want to live in Mound. They want city life with a lot more amenities in the apartments. SR has never answered direct questions of 'what is your plan B if the rents don't sellT Only 'our lender wouldn't go with a plan with lower rents.' That tells me their plan B is to sell out, or to go to government voucher/assistance + lower rent. -The Green space development is sad, but reluctantly realistic. Mound will never have the hotel/nightclub/shops/boats etc dream so keeping half the greenspace at least provides some public space. I can sadly support that project. -But building BOTH these plots into high density housing I think kills any possibility of Mound's future, all for some property tax money. Thank you. Kcj Rodney Beystrom Dear Mayor Salazar and the Mound City Council and City Staff: There seems to be alot of distortion going forth regarding the two main downtown Mound projects currently being discussed and acted upon. The cooperative owner involved condos are a win-win project proven very successful in other communities. To my understanding, they are -1417- NOT HUD/Section 8 subsidized housing as HUD is only acting as a mortgage backer for the project. These are for seniors in retirement age brackets and are owner involved purchase units through a cooperative. Mound seems to be in dire need for the project financially and will do well with it over the long run. Seniors have a proven track record of enhancing communities locally as they have a tendency to shop locally, bank locally, and do much of their everyday business locally from eating to shopping in the available nearby business areas and districts. They have minimal impact on traffic.... not participating in normal rush hour commutes per se'. Excelsior, Wayzata, Ridgedale give great testimony to these facts. Crime/police calls hardly exist in these senior owner involvement units. They are a win-win scenario. Green space in this area will/could still be available to be enhanced and accentuated once the project is completed. The rental unit proposed Apartment complex project initiated by Schaffer Richardson on the other side of the road is a different story. The initial plans can definitely be improved upon and the Mound Planning Commission and Mayor/Council have done well to "stop" and take a second look at this proposal. With some crucial and pertinent revamping and reconsiderations on the type and scope of the project it too could become a valuable asset to the city "if" done right. Look at what Tonka Bay is about to embark on just off Cty. Rd. 19 through the Doran Co.'s "high-end" upscaled multi -family 86 unit townhouse/condo and apartment project. Market analysis has shown people wanting downsizing opportunities with amenities especially those of the baby -boom generation and working professionals. This project will have a pub, business center, coffee bar, lounges, bike repair station, dog run area, pet spa, heated garage, fitness center and an entertainment suite amongst other things. Mound and it's civic and municipal government leaders should look at this project closely and they could very well emulate it as a huge enhancement for downtown Mound that would have long lasting quite beneficial results for the community. We have the lake atmosphere in Mound as well as the Dakota Trail and closeness to other great area amenities. Why not explore a Doran Co.'s Tonka Bay project for downtown Mound? The current plan and proposal is inadequate with very troublesome possible repercussions as it stands now. Upscaling with businesses and owner occupied higher end diverse use units as well would be a win-win. Why not consult with Doran Co.'s for counsel? I truly believe you all want Mound to grow and succeed and you all have the competence and experience to make that happen. You have been tireless and dedicated public servants seemingly not on any power trips but dedicated to what can bring Mound into a positive growth orientated community culture. You are keenly aware of budget constraints, city budget needs and have done an outstanding job of stretching the city tax dollars to give maximum service to its constituents while keeping taxes down and under control. During these times this is not easy always. I believe you are working for Mound's success and financial stability and to keep taxation reasonable. Mayor Salazar has done a great job and he and the Council and city staff should be applauded along with others. Mound citizens should be grateful for your valuable experience and leadership during these trying times and the city is fortunate to have some of the people, staff and leaders that they have. Rodney L. Beystrom, 4466 Denbigh Rd., Mound, Minn. 55364-1915 -1418- Lindsay Elstad Hi, My family and I moved from St. Louis Park to Mound almost two years ago because we wanted a small town feel. We also saw the potential downtown Mound possesses for shops, dining, etc. and hoped it was just a matter of time before the vacancies were filled with new businesses. More and more people are moving to this area, we need businesses here to continue to attract, not multi family apartments which will cease the desire to live here. So many other cities of this size have done so much with there small town center, it would be so disheartening for a city with so much potential to just give up. Thank you Lindsay No Name Provided The Commerce property needs to have retail and not homes. Kelly Josephson Hello Sarah: Please note the concern for rezoning of commerce place to allow for high density housing. This formal request to decline the rezone is shared among over 1500 petitioners from the community. Please share this (and others) concern for a multitude of reasons. Thank you, Kelly Josephson Edgewater Drive Carla Olek Hello Sarah: Please note my concern for rezoning of commerce place to allow for high density housing. This formal request to decline the rezone is shared among over 1500 petitioners from the community including members of the Lost Lake Villa community. Please share this (and others) concern for a multitude of reasons. Carla Olek Pam Ruprecht Please spend money to update the building making it more attractive for bring new businesses. We need more restaurants and retail. No more apartment housing. We already have to many apartments. Pam Ruprecht Janessa Quinn Dear Mound City Council, Thank you for the opportunity to weigh in on the Commerce Place Redevelopment Project. I would like to start by stating for the record that the language, false information and thinly veiled racism being used to fear monger our community by certain residents about this project will not be tolerated by me and should not be tolerated by the city council. I want Mound to be a place where all feel welcome, not a place where racists feel safe hiding behind coded language (or just to feel safe being openly racist, to be completely honest). -1419- I support diverse housing in Mound and am all for the development of apartments and different housing options to allow a more diverse population to live here. I am somewhat disappointed with the proposed plans in that they are in no way innovative, do not include ground floor commercial space, and include very few 2 bedroom and zero 3+ bedroom options. The project as it is currently proposed does little to engage the commercial aspects of this intersection. Adding ground floor commercial space would integrate the building into this location more fluidly and bring more of a modern feel to this development. Perhaps the current tenants of the shopping center would be able to occupy this space. Another necessary and helpful business that could occupy a ground floor commercial space would be a childcare facility, similar to the setup of one of the senior apartments in Spring Park. I think it is also very important to increase the number of apartments larger than 1 bedroom in the plan so that we can attract and hold space for families with children or intergenerational families that need more than one room. It is, quite frankly, thoughtless and wrong to not include more and says a lot about who Mound values adding to our community to not provide additional larger units. Thank you for considering my thoughts and the thoughts of our community in this important decision. I look forward to the council meeting on August 12th. Sincerely, Janessa Quinn Bartlett Blvd Neighborhood Jameson Smieia 1700 Baywood Shores Drive Mound, MN 55364 August 4th, 2020 Mrs. Sarah Smith Community Development Director City of Mound 2415 Wilshire Boulevard Mound, MN 55364 Dear Mrs. Smith, Mayor Salazar, and the honorable members of the Mound City Council: I'm writing regarding the Schafer Richardson proposal for the Commerce Place 2nd Addition development. First, I'd like to thank you up front for your dedicated service to our community. I recognize that you are not in an easy position and have to make many difficult decisions that require a balance of many factors, including the emotions and differing viewpoints from citizens and business leaders in Mound. This is certainly one of those difficult times, and I know I've personally chosen to step back while those like yourselves have stepped forward to lead. However, I still find myself compelled to write to you today and implore you to heed the Planning Commission's recommendation, and deny the major subdivision and conditional use permit requests related to this proposal. -1420- While I firmly believe every community should have open arms and provide housing opportunities for all, I also believe that Mound currently has an abundance of visibly dated, plainly constructed apartment structures. These are already located near the city's commercial center, as well as along the major roadways leading up to it. Building another plain "market - rate" apartment complex at our commercial center seems to add to that abundance and does not appear to be fully aligned with the Intent and Considerations of our "Village Center" mixed use area from our 2040 Comprehensive Plan. I feel that the people of Mound are looking forward to development of new mixed-use buildings in our downtown area, which include fresh commercial spaces at street level and are very aesthetically pleasing in order to bring up the overall character and appearance of our city. I can understand that there are significant tax incentives to move forward with this proposal, and that past and perhaps recent studies have said Mound can't support more commercial space. However, my family and I would rather keep the current near -empty shopping mall, and hold out for something better like we see being built in our neighboring communities, rather than settle for an apartment building that isn't going to help Mound realize the vision that many of us have for it. I apologize if you already share my viewpoint and find this letter to be unnecessary, but honestly hope that is the case in this matter. Thank you again for your time, consideration and dedication to this community. Sincerely, Jameson Smieja Sam Erickson I moved to Mound last Fall, so I am a new resident to the area. I moved here from a smaller suburb of Minneapolis and I was a member of the Planning Commission, so I want to start by recognizing how challenging a decision of this nature can be — this is evident by the passion in discussions on the topic. Additionally, I do appreciate the commissions willingness to take in feedback on the topic. My first impressions of the mall location were that the property is dated. I also find it to be an inefficient use of space. I don't find myself frequenting the retail space in that strip mall. I am in favor of the new proposal for an apartment structure. I feel the surrounding area — access to retail, restaurants, parks, and bike trails creates an inviting opportunity to bring in new residents. I am seeing a lot of comments about it taking away from the "small town feel" or concerns about an apartment structure, but personally I don't feel a 102 unit apartment unit would do that. I think it would enhance the community and help drive more business to retail spots. The space now is underutilized and if people aren't coming to Commerce place then "flip the switch" and put people there — people who will become active residents in the services the community has to offer. There are a few things that I did not see in the discussions on this topic (maybe the Planning Commission has) that I hope would be part of the decision-making process: 1. What is the projected growth for Mound over the next 10 years? What are the projected demographics in 10 year? If both are relatively low or stagnant, then I would hope people see the proposed apartment unit as a way to be progressive. -1421 - 2. What has the feedback been from businesses in the area? Do they welcome a multi - residential space right in the heart of commercial areas? And the business facing relocation, what are their concerns and how can solutions for them be addressed? 3. Was there any research or feedback done in cities like Edina, Robbinsdale, or St. Louis Park (3 cities that have done similar development in the past 5 years) where apartments have been built in "downtown" areas to see how effective they have been in the community? Again, I just thank the Commission and Mound City staff who have been working to make a decision on this topic. It's difficult to find the right balance in what people are comfortable/favor with and progress that benefits the community as a whole. Thanks, Sam Erickson 4704 Cavan Road Sharon Mueller I am writing to assert my opposition to rezoning Commerce place to include residential at this time. While it may have been determined at some point that Mound cannot sustain "retail", it is essential that the community be heard and this central piece of real estate not be wasted in the larger vision that the planning commission and Mound residents have for this town. I do understand that rezoning may be required for this area to develop with housing above street level storefronts, but approving this now paves the way for something very different than that. Reject rezoning now and reconsider what this central piece of downtown Mound could become. Thank you, Sharon Mueller 5699 Sunnybrook Circle Mound, MN Joanie Zielinski Sa ra h, I am apposed to the high density apartment proposal and the under market value sale impacting downtown Mound. Both of these projects should be tabled and constituent input should be addressed. I would ask the mayor and council members to look at what has worked to draw people to other lake communities such as Wayzata and Excelsior and it's not senior living and high density apartments. We have enough of those in Mound already. A clear vision, capitalizing on our lake access, will be what draws people to our area for commerce and recreation. I would ask that you consider those options before moving forward with the proposed projects. Thank you, Joanie Zielinski -1422- Brett Collins Dear Sarah, Quite simply, the zoning proposal shows a complete lack of vision and leadership by our city council. WE ARE THE LAST TOWN ON THE LAKE!!! There is huge potential to do something special and you are obviating this with high density housing. Honestly, if Victoria can do what it has done with a parking lot, is this the best we can do with the lake? The council should be embarrassed - they should be removed - if this is the best they can do........ I would rather wait 10 years than see an opportunity thrown away on a really bad idea. Can we please stop being "typical Mound" and have a vision that makes us a shining star in the area rather than a joke? I would be happy to discuss further with anyone of interest. Thank you for your consideration. Brent Collins Michelle Herrick /Jane Anderson / Chris Carlson - Petition Ladies and Gentlemen, Please find attached to this email copies of a petition signed by residents of Mound against the rezoning of the Commerce Square property located in the center of Mound. These are signatures that were collected from neighbors and on Saturday mornings. You will notice that there is a page for Minnetrista residents. These are primarily people who have a Mound address, however they are technically residents of Minnetrista. We started collecting their signatures last Saturday on a separate document. We will also continue to collect signatures up to the meeting on August 12th and provide them to the city, at the meeting. We respectfully request that the council members and Mayor hear our voices and deny any rezoning that will allow the property to become high density residential in a currently commercial zone. The majority of the people we spoke with moved to Mound to benefit from it's small town appeal. Adding high density housing will diminish that appeal. This was a comment we heard time and time again. Comments also stated that the property has not been maintained and the city should create ordinances to require Schafer Richardson to maintain their property. This would also help to clean up other areas of downtown. Sara please confirm receipt of this email. Thanks! Sincerely, Michelle Herrick Jane Anderson Chris Carlson And the residents of Mound Michelle Herrick / Jane Anderson / Chris Carlson - Comments Sent to Chris Carlson Sara & Ray, -1423- I understand that technically these are arriving past the noon deadline. They are comments from residents that were sent to Chris Carlson earlier. I hope you will still add them to the packet for the council members. I am sending them late as my Mediacom connection went down just as I was sending. Thanks you for your time and consideration, Michelle Herrick Chris Carlson Jane Anderson Residents of Mound Note: Petition and Additional Comments Sent to Chris Carlson are included as attachments to the Executive Summary Report. Planning Commission Review and Recommendation The Planning Commission reviewed these land use and subdivision requests at their July 7th regular meeting and July 21' special meeting. Draft minutes from the meetings have been prepared for your review. Community members provided public comment at both meetings. Comments were generally not in favor of the development. Concerns raised included the conversion of commercial to high density residential, lack of mixed use on the site, concern about the housing becoming affordable, parking, traffic, building design, and views from the surrounding neighborhood. At the July 7th meeting the Planning Commission recommended approval of the text amendment, rezoning, and vacation of the right of way and drainage and utility easement. However, at their July 21't meeting the Planning Commission recommended denial of the major subdivision -preliminary plat and conditional use permit for a planned unit development. Planning Commissioners indicated that their recommendation for denial were based on the feeling that the project was too large because of its size, design, traffic and parking. Some Supplemental Materials Included in the packet are the presentation slides from Staff and the Applicant for Wednesday's meeting Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council focus initially on the policy question being raised through the zoning text amendment and the rezoning. As noted in the attached planning reports, Staff recommended approval of the land use and subdivision requests because the requests fit with the vision established in the Comprehensive Plan, the community -wide zoning -1424- direction, and the neighborhood zoning context. The Planning Commission also supported the policy questions in their recommendation of approval of the zoning text amendment and the rezoning. However, when provided an example of a project which generally meets the Comprehensive Plan and City Codes, they did not support it. It is therefore suggested that the City Council begin its consideration by determining what is intended for this area. If the text amendment and rezoning are appropriate, then the Staff would suggest that the vacation, preliminary plat, and conditional use permit for a planned unit development would also be supportable, though the City Council may wish to revise or add conditions. In order to facilitate City Council action, Staff has prepared two sets of resolutions and ordinances. One set would approve all of the land use and subdivision requests while the other would deny all of the requests. -1425- High Density Housing in Downtown Mound Participate in Mound's Future! Elected officials, please stop the process of rezoning our downtown area from commercial (01) to medium/ high density housing. Mound already has high levels of existing traffic and congestion. We are concerned about losing our small- town feel. We believe that adding apartments at Commerce Place Shopping Center will negatively impact traffic& pedestrian safety and reduce our opportunity for future retail commerce. The current proposal to build a 102 -unit apartment complex by Schafer Richardson does not allow for any retail space. The proposed complex will also cause the loss of two more retail businesses in the City of Mound. We, the undersigned, ask that the Mound City Council members and the Mayor, Ray Salazar, stop approving projects that are not in line with the needs and wants of the community. We also askthat the city representatives make no changes to the city's zoning laws until after the CoVid pandemic is under control and this matter can be addressed in a public forum. TODAY'S DATE alCD-C-) -1426- i rr• 1117 6u4- 4,®ril-E: Mound 55364 EII�» � 44 . .�� d ' KIM= //w<�M LAI97��'l•il�l • •'i111WA Mound 55364_11 i�- �r /111ri�....nR31i II M.►Irf77.If��fftt, ;r Ir1[I n ,ire IALeft• P zoo) =AI=b�/'4WWQ, - a� /%Cid_ Mound 55364 MC -211111 NOW NIA Mound S5364JVWeAJAI, MR, R&III N41 MO M�� t , .- -1426- i High Density Housing in Downtown Mound Participate in Mound's Future! Elected officials, please stop the process of rezoning our downtown area from commercial (Bl) to medium/ high density housing. Mound already has high levels of existing traffic and congestion. We are concerned about losing our small- town feel. We believe that adding apartments at Commerce Place Shopping Center will negatively impact traffic& pedestrian safety and reduce our opportunity for future retail commerce. The current proposal to build a 102 -unit apartment complex by Schafer Richardson does not allow for any retail space. The proposed complex will also cause the loss of two more retail businesses in the City of Mound. We, the undersigned, ask that the Mound City Council members and the Mayor, Ray Salazar, stop approving projects that are not in line with the needs and wants of the community. We also ask that the city representatives make no changes to the city's zoning laws until after the CoVid pandemic is under control and this matter can be addressed in a publicforum. TODAY'S DATE I r1 -1427- I\102D 9 NAME ADDRESS SIGNATURE m }co- ` mcAfk i6m finkh Lmie Mound 55364 lmkahw (cknu And v !SD80 Trca{l5 En C�r Mound 55364 7305' I.w, Mound 55364N1a I/ - // t—/, Mound 55364 i hr t- Mound 55364 t 300 / le D /^ Mound 55364 Admrrl 45!�yp/ �fyd i Mound 55364 &.;21 Li"�Mound 55364 / I Mound 55364 Mound 55364 O.S n ?, Mcuad 55364 w, Vwr W Mound 55364 Mound 55364 441 1 ss 't, 41 Mound 55364 I I J j ) ty Mound 55364 + 1 LL)u c. I K =GT )i L1., 9,y'. l✓�i - ".' VI c'Iq�f1i�� Mound 55364 . �, p w ae �q,. cµ%.t �S .� ;y;,,a U ` (,4nY Mound 55364 �a -1427- I\102D 9 High Density Housing in Downtown Mound Participate in Mound's Future! Elected officials, please stop the process of rezoning our downtown area from commercial (Bl) to medium/ high density housing. Mound already has high levels of existing traffic and congestion. We are concerned about losing our small- town feel- We believe that adding apartments at Commerce Place Shopping Center will negatively impact traffic& pedestrian safety and reduce our opportunity forfuture retail commerce. The current proposal to build a 102 -unit apartment complex by Schafer Richardson does not allow for any retail space. The proposed complex will also cause the loss of two more retail businesses in the City of Mound. We, the undersigned, ask that the Mound City Council members and the Mayor, Ray Salazar, stop approving projects that are not in line with the needs and wants of the community. We also ask that the city representatives make no changes to the city's zoning laws until after the CoVid pandemic is under control and this matter can be addressed in a public forum. TODAY'S DATE - -1428- 3 Mound 55364 A ,'R��. �iIvffi ��/i� I�-- r0AIVU • �.- r� Mound 553.64 inOLIIl .ac _ - -1428- 3 High Density Housing in Downtown Mound Participate in Mound's Future! Elected officials, please stop the process of rezoning our downtown area from commercial (Rl) to medium/ high density housing. Mound already has high levels of existing traffic and congestion. We are concerned about losing our small- town feel. We believe that adding apartments at Commerce Place Shopping Center will negatively impact traffic& pedestrian safety and reduce our opportunity for future retail commerce. The current proposal to build a 102 -unit apartment complex by Schafer Richardson does not allow for any retail space. The proposed complex will also cause the loss of two more retail businesses in the City of Mound. We, the undersigned, ask that the Mound City Council members and the Mayor, Ray Salazar, stop approving projects that are not in line with the needs and wants of the community. We also ask that the city representatives make no changes to the city's zoning laws until after the COVid pandemic is under control and this matter can be addressed in a public forum. --i TODAY'S DATE / o NAME�"� ADDRESS SIGNATURE It S - F \ r [ / Mound 55364 - Mound 55364 G+4 L.OLIWk tXN�'1� W Wtp(4 nth t1/�V�'Mound 55364 i .r.,�du. Mound 55364 ��.-,,' lilt on--\– La o ti b A hor c c rti &4 • Mound 55364 Ova, 11127��j�r Mound 55364 / L�3(3 I,.rY` �,C � Mound 55364 ---T-Ac4A Mound 55364 1 l Y t Mound 55364 f 1.1 eAl n Mound 55364 ]. L� Mound 55364 — } ,f I ccII �C1� L r� 7iCYl pb: JR�Lr�C .J Cd L Vl(vlound 55364 , n iMound 55364 bUAVIA qLUl "fy 6"ound 5364 _ n2 f q/j OL)A C) ` I I . /' Mound 55364 JI ZX Mound 55364 RkMound 55364 -1429- 34 High Density Housing in Downtown Mound Participate in Mound's Future! Elected officials, please stop the process of rezoning our downtown area from commercial (Bi) to medium/ high density housing. Mound already has high levels of existing traffic and congestion. We are concerned about losing our small- town feel. We believe that adding apartments at Commerce Place Shopping Center will negatively impact traffic& pedestrian safety and reduce our opportunity for future retail commerce. The current proposal to build a 102 -unit apartment complex by Schafer Richardson does not allow for any retail space. The proposed complex will also cause the loss of two more retail businesses in the City of Mound. We, the undersigned, ask that the Mound City Council members and the Mayor, Ray Salazar, stop approving projects that are not in line with the needs and wants of the community. We also ask that the city representatives make no changes to the city's zoning laws until after the CoVd pandemic is under control and this matter can be addressed in a public forum. -7 �^ TODAY'S DATE / t -1430- t I� � .20 rid Mound 55364 Irl i _ ' IWNN%�� -,`- Mound 55364. '(—VJ FF/I�M! U' 1 4 Ow 1 Mound 55364 4II//./.'� IFIM i Mound 55364 y n. _ -1430- t High Density Housing in Downtown Mound Participate in Mound's Future! Elected officials, please stop the process of rezoning our downtown area from commercial (131) to medium/ high density housing. Mound already has high levels of existing traffic and congestion. We are concerned about losing our small- town feel. We believe that adding apartments at Commerce Place Shopping Center will negatively impact traffic & pedestrian safety and reduce our opportunity for future retail commerce. The current proposal to build a 102 -unit apartment complex by Schafer Richardson does not allow for any retail space. The proposed complex will also rause the loss of two more retail businesses in the City of Mound. We, the undersigned, ask that the Mound City Council members and the Mayor, Ray Salazar, stop approving projects that are not in line with the needs and wants of the community. We also ask that the city representatives make no changes to the city's zoning laws until after the CoVid pandemic is under control and this matter can be addressed in a publ is forum. '7 TODAY'S DATE ! I '" rr. ■� _ ... ...1 1 /L� 1..�� .. .. WO_ III IM I Mound 55364 L-Figl,40m9rq. M—�.MPMAglp- ice. + ... �. ■ _. �, ... � ,.,,, . _ _ , '�� .I► r]� A-, !:/;7Viaffl,Z A WIN, I -1431 - High Density Housing in Downtown Mound Participate in Mound's Future! Elected officials, please stop the process of rezoning our downtown area from commercial (81) to medium/ high density housing. Mound already has high levels of existing traffic and congestion. We are concerned about losing our small- town feel. We believe that adding apartments at Commerce Place Shopping Center will negatively impact traffic& pedestrian safety and reduce our opportunity for future retail commerce. The current proposal to build a 102 -unit apartment complex by Schafer Richardson does not allow for any retail space- The proposed complex will also cause the loss of two more retail businesses in the City of Mound. We, the undersigned, ask that the Mound City Council members and the Mayor, Ray Salazar, stop approving projects that are not in line with the needs and wants of the community. We also ask that the city representatives make no changes to the city's zoning laws until after the CoVid pandemic is under control and this matter can be addressed in a publicforum. TODAY'S DATE 7 -1432- �y/vY INNOWIMN Mound 55364._WAV�� Mourail •T)Agg Mound 55364 LO Mound 55364 LJJ_t# �.:Mound 55364OF .� a 1..�/�� 7 -1432- �y/vY RO C High Density Housing in Downtown Mound Participate in Mound's Future! Elected officials, please stop the process of rezoning our downtown area from commercial (Bl) to medium/ high density housing. Mound already has high levels of existing traffic and congestion. We are concerned about losing our small- townfeel. We believe that adding apartments at Commerce Place Shopping Center will negatively impact traffic& pedestrian safety and reduce our opportunity forfuture retail commerce. The current proposal to build a 102 -unit apartment complex by Schafer Richardson does not allow for any retail space. The proposed complex will also cause the loss of two more retail businesses in the City of Mound. We, the undersigned, ask that the Mound City Council members and the Mayor, Ray Salazar, stop approving projects that are not in line with the needs and wants of the community. We also ask thatthe city representatives make no changes to the city's zoning laws until after the Covd pandemic is under control and this matter can be addressed in a public forum. TODAY'S DATE ZD Z,6 -1433- // // I U WQri(� i' • .- i f MI% AMIAi-r pp"r Now WAFjpap- p5-COI Mound 55364 FIX -LU•) Mound 55364L M M • KIN �A M// �►I�1j!' ' s�MR11 MOM, / _�VIA Mound ' �. / / di B.i _•y i 5 Mound ��%% -1433- // // I U PA' High Density Housing in Downtown Mound Participate in Mound's Future! Elected officials, please stop the process of rezoning our downtown area from commercial (Bl) to medium/ high density housing. Mound already has high levels of existing traffic and congestion. We are concerned about losing our small- townfeel. We believe that adding apartments at Commerce Place Shopping Center will negatively impact traffic& pedestrian safety and reduce our opportunity for future retail commerce. The current proposal to build a 102 -unit apartment complex by Schafer Richardson does not allow for any retail space. The proposed complex will also cause the loss of two more retail businesses in the City of Mound. We, the undersigned, ask that the Mound City Council members and the Mayor, Ray Salazar, stop approving projects that are not in line with the needs and wants of the community. We also ask that the city representatives make no changes to the city's zoning laws until after the CoVid pandemic is under control and this matter can be addressed in a publicforum. {� �//� TODAY'S DATE f / /i`7 / ,%Z//t/ -1434- 0111d, Mound 55364 =,ir/i1iY � N7 �K L41I ICO , s OMound 55364 Mound 55361. ��a s �•Mound 55364Mound �jA/�� 55364 i II Ml� C EY0JFO' C6 Mound 55364 �I —f` Mound 55364.� -1434- High Density Housing in Downtown Mound Participate in Mound's Future! Elected officials, please stop the process of rezoning our downtown area from commercial (81) to medium/ high density housing. Mound already has high levels of existingtraffic and congestion. We are concerned about losing our small- town feel. We believe that adding apartments at Commerce Place Shopping Center will negatively impact traffic& pedestrian safety and reduce our opportunity for future retail commerce. The current proposal to build a 102 -unit apartment complex by Schafer Richardson does not allow for any retail space. The proposed complex will also cause the loss of two more retail businesses in the City of Mound. We, the undersigned, ask that the Mound City Council members and the Mayor, Ray Salazar, stop approving projects that are not in line with the needs and wants of the community. We also askthatthe city representatives make no changes to the city's zoning laws until after the CoVid pandemic is under control and this matter can be addressed in a public forum. TODAY'S DATE COa 0 .rr I ME _!_c..l i• I •• 36o L� V� Mound 5536 hoo1, .rJ,�.� ; xI1�11Ai� Mound 55364 mound 55364 P-� -.,Mound 553W jar:iza •Mound 5536� �� f Mound 55364( J: -1435- High Density Housing in Downtown Mound Participate in Mound's Future! Elected officials, please stop the process of rezoning our downtown area from commercial (Rl) to medium/ high density housing. Mound already has high levels of existing traffic and congestion. We are concerned about losing our small- town feel. We believe that adding apartments at Commerce Place Shopping Center will negatively impact traffic& pedestrian safety and reduce our opportunity for future retail commerce. The current proposal to build a 102 -unit apartment complex by Schafer Richardson does not allow for any retail space. The proposed complex will also cause the loss of two more retail businesses in the City of Mound. We, the undersigned, ask that the Mound City Council members and the Mayor, Ray Salazar, stop approving projects that are not in line with the needs and wants of the community. We also ask that the city representatives make no changes to the city's zoning laws until after the CoVid pandemic is under control and this matter canbe addressed in a publicforum. TODAY'S DATE -1436- ADDRESS` SIGNATURE (N�A1,ME Etntl GW�)C7 �LSt�� OVII� > Mound 55364 {J L Mound 55364 �\ �( �i g ' lw lC�t.CYn'Jru'/ k,4 �(�-��STIlr�t' " "v 1 a' Y � H^d' Mound 55364 Glx j. Mound 55364 -- II /v I > ,J rr (,�1Z.Mound 55364 �cJ Mound 55364 l 01 Lf5M—ouncl 55364 ti ( C eCe Mountl 55364 F j IA�C �it�1,2(�/( Mound 55364 �Yi.�S \tib I`�\LCA / ound 55364 Mound 55364 Mound 55364 N' i 1, e J o es ir 5" C Mound 55364 SpA r�I-21 Mound 55364 tJ,JA—L / �� y cl,—'�t.KOV `Qa. Mound 55364 v� (/ j / (XJ Mound 55364 ' -1436- High Density Housing in Downtown Mound Participate in Mound's Future! Elected officials, please stop the process of rezoning our downtown area from commercial (Bl) to medium/ high density housing. Mound already has high levels of existing traffic and congestion. We are concerned about losing our small- town feel. We believe that adding apartments at Commerce Place Shopping Center will negatively impact traffic& pedestrian safety and reduce our opportunity for future retail commerce. The current proposal to build a 102 -unit apartment complex by Schafer Richardson does not allow for any retail space. The proposed complex will also cause the loss of two more retail businesses in the City of Mound. We, the undersigned, ask that the Mound City Council members and the Mayor, Ray Salazar, stop approving projects that are not in line with the needs and wants of the community. We also ask that the city representatives make no changes to the city's zoning laws until after the CoVid pandemic is under control and this matter can be addressed in a public forum. TODAY'S DATE v�V NAME ADDRESS SIGNATURE f V -L J Mound 55364 hQ Mound 55364 Z,S 6eiVKL-✓ ilAot'� � "o,.v,I".t r2 L /VAAW ` "1tA-- Mound 55364 1701 Mound 55364 l\ f L✓t Mound 55364 Mound 55364 R«k $�Lf Jim rJO It' Mound 55364 (r/ l� tl. "j (y I � Mound 55364 _ I rl/—//-7Ir��-"`-"--��-��V. / l��S (-Ct CR/ �I Mound 553 Mound 55364 /��-'r,k ffA- p,(o^d C(-La..ti (l L( 77YO 6,, Vr �a�r-��-- Mound 55364 j"�/(tPP ` 5�.�+ .�2 I 2 Cj^—y" y V�G�I. Mound 55364 — �- v 511 (/tiil 'ppl Lfl (YVl!(V lis ound 55364 s�-Olit J�LS CIAld (j111 61 Mound 55364 (Z..� h, 55364 !, p ��,rMound X! M`hi/e �tl v? S 4f&und 55364 r "Ta' S nd 55364 J I?/ -1437- High Density Housing in Downtown Mound Participate in Mound's Future! Elected officials, please stop the process of rezoning our downtown area from commercial (Bl) to medium/ high density housing. Mound already has high levels of existing traffic and congestion. We are concerned about losing our small- town feel. We believe that adding apartments at Commerce Place Shopping Center will negatively impact traffic & pedestrian safety and reduce our opportunity for future retail commerce. The current proposal to build a 102 -unit apartment complex by Schafer Richardson does not allow for any retail space. The proposed complex will also cause the loss of two more retail businesses in the City of Mound. We, the undersigned, ask that the Mound City Council members and the Mayor, Ray Salazar, stop approving projects that are not in line with the needs and wants of the community. We also ask thatthe city representatives make no changes to the city's zoning laws until afterthe CoVid pandemic is under control and this matter can be addressed in a public forum. TODAY'S DATE 7 rr• L wd z t - - L1 JrI /' ,Yi �� w�� WIM r,!.i / �� ..� /�/��. 14 �'y,... � '.�i�i.�� • l ► „ it � � r"_...A' �i��.___i ' •�'/ � I/ MY I Mound 55364 V Mound ' r i Y ■� it .�� Mound 55364 —I r .. /�M/ l AI ff@,J d Mound 55364 �I 15 -1438- High Density Housing in Downtown Mound Participate in Mound's Future! Elected officials, please stop the process of rezoning our downtown area from commercial (131) to medium/ high density housing. Mound already has high levels of existing traffic and congestion. We are concerned about losing our small- town feel. We believe that adding apartments at Commerce Place Shopping Center will negatively impact traffic & pedestrian safety and reduce our opportunityfor future retail commerce. The current proposal to build a 102 -unit apartment complex by Schafer Richardson does not allow for any retail space. The proposed complex will also cause the loss of two more retail businesses in the City of Mound.. We, the undersigned, ask that the Mound City Council members and the Mayor, Ray Salazar, stop approving projects that are not in line with the needs and wants of the community. We also ask that the city representatives make no changes to the citys zoning laws until afterthe CoVid pandemic is under control and this matter can be addressed in a public forum. TODAY'S DATE U I f/U NAME ADDRESS SIGNATURE Mound 55364 ta"t Mound 55364 11.. -a R-- 2.Q60 , MI0.,4( GdO- Mound 55364'44 /11 5 q a ir d�MWcl Mound 55364 Mound 55364 Mound 55364 Mound 55364 Mound 55364 Mound 55364 Mound 55364 Mound 55364 Mound 55364 Mound 55364 Mound 55364 Mound 55364 Mound 55364 Mound 55364 14 -1439- High Density Housing in Downtown Mound Participate in Mound's Future! Elected officials, please stop the process of rezoning our downtown area from commercial (Rl) to medium/ high density housing. Mound already has high levels of existing traffic and congestion. We are concerned about losing our small- townfeel. We believe that adding apartments at Commerce Place Shopping Center will negatively impact traffic& pedestrian safety and reduce our opportunity for future retail commerce. The current proposal to build a 102 -unit apartment complex by Schafer Richardson does not allow for any retail space. The proposed complex will also rause the loss of two more retail businesses in the City of Mound. We, the undersigned, ask thatthe Mound City Council members and the Mayor, Ray Salazar, stop approving projects that are not in line with the needs and wants of the community. We also ask that the city representatives make no changes to the city's zoning laws until after the CoVid pandemic is under control and this matter an be addressed in a publicforum. TODAY'S DATE 7 Gv4�1L� I _ We, the undersigned, ask that the Mound City Council members and the Mayor, Ray Salazar, stop approving projects that are not in line with the needs and wants of the community. We also ask that the city representatives make no changes to the city's zoning laws until after the CoVid pandemic is under control and this matter can be addressed in a publicforum. ��7 TODAY'S DATE d,� Z6 , We, the undersigned, ask that the Mound City Council members and the Mayor, Ray Salazar, stop approving protects that are not in line with the needs and wants of the community. We also ask that the city representatives make no changes to the city's zoning laws until after the CoVid pandemic is under control and this matter an be addressed in a publicforum. TODAY'S DATE NAME ADDRESS SIGNATURE ta / / Mound 55364 ! I 4Mound 55364 ate' Mound 55364 Mound 55364 -1440- Mound 55364 High Density Housing in Downtown Mound Participate in Mound's Future! Elected officials, please stop the process of rezoning our downtown area from commercial (B1) to medium/ high density housing. Mound already has high levels of existing traffic and congestion. We are concerned about losing our small- townfeel. We believe that adding apartments at Commerce Place Shopping Center will negatively impact traffic& pedestrian safety and reduce our opportunity forfuture retail commerce. The current proposal to build a 102 -unit apartment complex by Schafer Richardson does not allow for any retail space. The proposed complex will also cause the loss of two more retail businesses in the City of Mound. We, the undersigned, ask that the Mound City Council members and the Mayor, Ray Salazar, stop approving projects that are not in line with the needs and wants of the community. We also ask that the city representatives make no changes to the city's zoning laws until after the CoVid pandemic is under control and this matter can be addressed in a public forum. TODAY'S DATE ( �" NAMEaa ADDRESS ADDREESQSS'' SIGN -7 Mound 55364 Mound 55364 t"��'/S Qi Mound 55364 6� AL4/L / t.0 ound 55364 Mound 55354 2 vt Mound 55364 1 /� ,� 1. Mound 55364 We, the undersigned, ask that the Mound City Council members and the Mayor, Ray Salazar, stop approving projects that are not in line with the needs and wants of the community. We also ask that the city representatives make no changes to the city's zoning laws until after the CoVid pandemic is under control and this matter can be addressed in a publicforum. I TODAY'S DATE 7/ We, the undersigned, ask that the Mound City Councifl mem ers ana y y that are not in line with the needs and wants of the community. We also ask that the city representatives make no changes to the city's zoning laws until after the CoVid pandemic is under control and this matter can be addressed in a public forum. yg TODAY'S DATE f(J CJ NAME ADDRESS 1� .�� -7 Mound 55364 Mound 55364 �� We, the undersigned, ask that the Mound City Councifl mem ers ana y y that are not in line with the needs and wants of the community. We also ask that the city representatives make no changes to the city's zoning laws until after the CoVid pandemic is under control and this matter can be addressed in a public forum. yg TODAY'S DATE f(J CJ NAME ADDRESS SIGNATURE JD -7 Mound 55364 Mound 55364 - 1441 - Mound 55364 High Density Housing in Downtown Mound Participate in Mound's Future! Elected officials, please stop the process of rezoning our downtown area from commercial (Rl) to medium/ high density housing. Mound already has high levels of existing traffic and congestion. We are concerned about losing our small- town feel- We believe that adding apartments at Commerce Place Shopping Center will negatively impact traffic& pedestrian safety and reduce our opportunity for future retail commerce. The current proposal to build a 102 -unit apartment complex by Schafer Richardson does not allow for any retail space. The proposed complex will also cause the loss of two more retail businesses in the City of Mound. We, the undersigned, ask that the Mound City Council members and the Mayor, Ray Salazar, stop approving projects that are not in line with the needs and wants of the community. We also ask that the city representatives make no changes to the city's zoning laws until after the CoVid pandemic is under control and this matter can be addressed in a public forum. TODAY'S DATE -71 1$ ZO We, the undersigned, ask that the Mound City Council members and the Mayor, Ray Salazar, stop approving projects that are not in line with the needs and wants of the community. We also ask that the city representatives make no changes to the city's zoning laws until after the CoVid pandemic is under control and this matter can be addressed in a public forum. TODAY'S DATE c.i Uv ""v I U 1' A //t I�Tf� f ( Ic../ NAME NAME ADDRESS ADDRESS ATURE pp.�� 'v` S Z Z Mound 55364 f Mound 55364 'T% M.h4'b, 5364 5 Mound 55364 i� j � Ln 55364 "55364 11 11 PHR {. \ Y MMeimd}55364 I Mound 55364 D /Mound 1; �r efli Mound 55364 Mound 55364 L� .y. n n L DL'l75! f % l � � ¢C � Mound 55364, , To hn-j �) (,1 D )ccud•. Mound 55364 �--- t We, the undersigned, ask that the Mound City Council members and the Mayor, Ray Salazar, stop approving projects that are not in line with the needs and wants of the community. We also ask that the city representatives make no changes to the city's zoning laws until after the CoVid pandemic is under control and this matter can be addressed in a public forum. TODAY'S DATE c.i Uv ""v I U 1' A //t I�Tf� f ( Ic../ 1"' I L t/JI I�JC.YV NAME ADDRESS SIGNATURE /d.gO X11OfVIlhi-rte✓ 6` Mound 55364 Mound 55364 f Mound 55364 'T% M.h4'b, 5364 rnrn 271 -�^l b irb "55364 11 11 PHR {. \ Y MMeimd}55364 I Mound 55364 Mound 55364 Mound 55364 M Gmail (no subject) 2 messages 9522506301@mms.att.net <9522506301@mms.att.net> To: onepersonstrash@gmail.com Chris Carlson <onepersonstrash@gmail.com> Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 10:34 AM Debby Peterson and John Tucker 4949 Island View Drive Mound. We strongly oppose the apt.complex. We were promised beautification and shops and restaurants added to the city to attract outsiders and residents. Tax dollars built the parking garage and it stands empty. Look at Excelsior and Wayzata and the revenue they generate . Mound could be so much more. A 200 unit apartmentwill not enhance our town or meet our vision. Chris Carlson <onepersonstrash@gmail.com, To: 9522506301@mms.att.net Hello Debby, Thanks for your email. Fri, Jul 10. 2020 at 4:11 PM I am happy to add it to my pile as is but wanted to let you know the unit count I think is 102 for commerce place. Thanks again Chris [quoted text hidden] -1443- M Gmail Opposition to Rezoning 1 message berglund@usfamily.net <berglund@usfamily.net> To: onepersonstrash@gmail.com Chris Carlson <onepersonstrash@gmail.com> Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 8:57 AM To whom it may concern, I am strongly opposed to the rezoning of Commerce Place into a. residential parcel. I am strongly opposed to the proposed Multiple Family Residential Project. Mary Margaret Berglund McGuire Equity, LLC 5049 Avon Drive Mound, MN 55364 MGmall Chris Carlson <oneversonstrashra7ama11 .n > Development I message Diane Van Kampen Chestelson <dianevch@msn.com> Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 3:29 PM To: "onepersonstrash@gmail.com" <onepersonstrash@gmail.com> I live on Phelps Island. 2914 Bradford Lane. We are the property owners. I think the traffic on Shoreline Drive is bad enough without bringing more into that stretch. Sent from my iPhone -1444- M Gmail Chris Carlson <onepersonstrash@gmail.com> Mound 1 message Chelsea McCall <mccall.chelsea@yahoo.com> Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 727 PM Reply -To: "mccall.chelsea@yahoo,com" <mccall.chelsea@yahoo.com> To: "onepersonstrash@gmail.com" <onepersonstrash@gmail.com> Tyler & Chelsea McCall 3065 Brighton BLVD Mound, MN 55364 We oppose the building of apartments behind the Wells Fargo. Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android -1445- M GmaR Petition for apartment complex in Mound 1 message Chris Carlson tonepersonstrash@gmail.com> Kaitlin Biasing <blasmg.k@gmaiLcom> Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 5:33 PM To: onepersonstrash@gmaiLcom Hello, attached is my statement in opposition of the proposed apartment building in Mound My name is Kaitlin Berthold and I own two houses that are within sight of the potential apartment building in Mound, MN. My address is 2072 Commerce Blvd. I also own 5570 Tonkawood Road. I went to school for architecture, have studied urban development, and understand the generational economic impacts of city planning and design. I have also extensively researched local tax records, and compared our community to others of similar size. All of my opinions outlined below are backed by data driven facts and research. I am strongly opposed to the current apartment building design in the Commerce Place Shopping Center. I believe that Mound is a city that is struggling in many ways ant building this apartment complex will only further these struggles. Alternatively, Mound is in a unique opportunity to develop into a prominent Lake Minnetonka community and proper re- design can help this happen. One of the major concerns among Mound residents is the high water bills. As outlined in our quarterly newsletters, a big part of this is due to the lack of tax revenue from local businesses. We have a lot of open retail and business space in the area but without the income that these businesses can bring, the financial burden falls on the residents. The current redevelopment of Commerce Place does nothing to address this issue and will not bring any Of the much needed tax revenue. Another concern with Mound residents is the lack of restaurants, shops, and activities to make this a local destination. Lake Minnetonka residents have more disposable income than much of Minnesota and Mound is completely missing out on this opportunity. If we have learned anything during the past few months of the Covid-19 pandemic it is that Mound definitely has the population to support restaurants and shops. Anyone who has driven past Surfside Beach, the Minnetonka Drive -In, or Back Channel Brewery has seen the outpouring of support and community engagement. People are outside enjoying the lake and our beautiful community. We have the population and money to support establishments, so let's build something that can benefit the community as a whole. I have been a Lake Minnetonka resident since I was a child. I grew up in Excelsior and have moved to Mound and invested in the community because I strongly believe that Mound is the last frontier of Lake Minnetonka. We have an amazing community, beautiful take, and residents who care deeply about the future of our city. More businesses in Mound would lead to a more established and thriving local economy, which would lead to better home values, more tax revenue, better schools, and an all around improved city. I have researched the Hennepin County tax records and know that Mound is a place that many wealthy people try to exploit for their own gain. Whether it be neglected rental properties, phony LLCs, or shady under the table sales. I do not think that the current land owners are concerned about our local community, I think they are only concerned about their bottom line. Please protect our city and don't let the current land owners force us Into a position that only benefits them, not the community as awhole. If you have any questions please feel free to reach out to me at 763-213-2011 or by email at blasing.k@gmall.com Thanks, Kaitlin Barthold -1446- [� M Gmail Mound appts 1 message Kacey Trygstad <ktrygstad@gmaiI.com> To: onepersonstrash@gmail.com Chris Carlson <onepersonstrash@gmail.com> Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 5:25 PM Hi Chris, Please include my family's letter in the binder you deliver. The rest of this is addressed to the city: We live on Basswood Lane, not far behind the proposed 3 story apartment building by Wells Fargo. I implore you not to give this project the green light. We have a difficult time turning out of this little pocket of roads due to traffic, and adding more traffic would make it neigh impossible some times a day and difficult the rest. We have way too much traffic and no signals to assist and this plan would make it worse. I feel our home's value could really tank as well with so many medium and high density buildings boxing us in. We have so many apartments, but no actual sustainable plan for the area. Where will these people work, as there are few jobs locally How will they commute? There is the worst bus service possible without being nonexistent, so you have to drive to live here. That increases the traffic, and the need for trash etc that we already have weight restrictions here. Will my trash service price or road taxes go up ultimately because of these foresightless apartments everyone wants to inundate the city with? We are a small, underfunded, bedroom community. We should stop trying to support infrastructure and so forth that we cannot actually handle. For that matter, it surprises me how far some people come from to Belmont Park In front of my house. It's busy. And small. And becoming run down. I cannot fathom what it would look like if a large building had all its children added to using this- the nearest- park. I'd like my kid to have a chance to play on It, and It's already hard with all the teens there. I moved here in 2015, and I've got to say I've been in awe of the disconnect between what the community wants and what local officials have presided over. I don't understand it. Please change course, show citizens that their opinion matters when It affects them and their homes, and matters more than strangers outside the community who don't even know this place will be built yet but would maybe move in one day. Respectfully, -Kacey & Naethan Patterson 2116 Basswood Ln Mound, MN 55364 -1447- 1^ M G,mail Petition 1 message Holly oison <durangos_ladytara@hotmail.com> To: "mcpcem@gmaiLcom" <mcpcem@gmaiLcom> Chris C <mcpcem@gmail.com> Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 7:22 PM We are concerned about the quality of life in Mound, Please Elected officials stop rezoning areas for higher density housing. We feel Mound has enough traffic and congestion. We are concerned about losing our small town feel. We believe that adding more Condos or Apartments will negatively impact our town, and our quality of life. We the undersigned ask that the Mound council stop approving such projects. We are concerned about current and future proposals Including but not limited to The Commerce Place Shopping Center Plans. There has been some talk about relocating the Hennepin County Library to the site. The library is currently slated to be rebuilt ( currently on hold last I checked ) the current library is a very nice site surrounded by trees and green space. Relocating it m the Commerce Place site would give the center of Town a very nice and welcoming look and feel. Please Mound council members give this some consideration. We feel this would be a positive step while building high density housing especially right in the center of town would have a negative impact on our community. Most agree that the current retail buildings are not very aesthetically pleasing. And the current owner of the property would like to build High density housing. I believe they have stated it is the only way for the site to be profitable. While the city and residents have concern and compassion for their situation we do not feel it is our responsibility to allow them to develop the site in a manner the community does not want. The owners ( not residents of Mound ) took a gamble and purchased the site. The gamble has not paid off, But this does not translate into a necessity to allow them to change the character of our city. Holly Olson Tim Downer 2153 Basswood Ln Apt 3 Mound, MN 55384 Get Outlook for Android -1448- 4 M Gmail PETITION - High Density Housing in Mound 1 message Chris C <mepcem@gmail.com> Oates, Katherine T <katherine.oates@cbburnct.com> Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 6:23 PM To: "mepcem@gmail.com" <mcpcem@gmail.com> To whom it may concern: PLEASE - NO MORE HIGH DENSITY HOUSING IN MOUND As residents of Mound for 17 years, we have been hopeful and hopelessly waiting to see Mound rise to it's potential of becoming the beautiful gem of a lake town that it can be filled with small restaurants, coffee shops, useful retail, walkability, a grocery store that offers affordable basics mixed with finer foods and delicacies, to name a few. One small example: with the number of people traveling through here on the Dakota Trail, Mound could be such a beautiful place - notjustto bike through - but to bike TO and STAY to eat, shop, play, enjoy. We DO NOT need anymore High Density Housing in Mound to overbuild and overcrowd our small town. Spend the money on businesses that will fuel our city. Clean up the run-down buildings. Build and create a beautiful city that will thrive and live on for generations to come. Kitty Oates Realtor® Kitty & }ane Properties Caldwell Banker Realty 952-220-1910 Kati,erine.Oates @ C B Bu rnet.com 201 Lake Street E. Suite 100 Wayzata, MN 55391 hitps://www.kittyandjanaproperties.com/ COLDWELL BANKER REALTY *Wire Fraud is Real*. Before wiring any money, call the intended recipient at a number you know is valid to confirm the instructions. Additionally, please note that the sender does not have authority to bind a party to a real estate contract via written or verbal communication. -1449- MGmail Chris C<mcpcem@gmail.com> PETITION 1 message Mi Larson <mj.larsont@gmail.com> Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 3:42 PM To: mcpcem@gmail.com We are concerned about the quality of life in Mound, Please Elected officials stop rezoning areas for higher density housing. We feel Mound has enough traffic and congestion. We are concerned about losing our small town feel. We believe that adding more Condos or Apartments will negatively impact our town, and our quality of life. We the undersigned ask that the Mound council stop approving such projects. We are concerned about current and future proposals Including but not limited to The Commerce Place Shopping Center Plans. There has been some talk about relocating the Hennepin County Library to the site. The library is currently slated to be rebuilt ( currently on hold last I checked ) the current library is a very nice site surrounded by trees and green space. Relocating it to the Commerce Place site would give the center of Town a very nice and welcoming look and feel. Please Mound council members give this some consideration. We feel this would be a positive step while building high density housing especially right in the center of town would have a negative impact on our community. Most agree that the current retail buildings are not very aesthetically pleasing. And the current owner of the property would like to build High density housing.I believe they have stated it is the only way for the site to be profitable. While the city and residents have concern and compassion for their situation we do not feel R is our responsibility to allow them to develop the site in a manner the community does not want. The owners ( not residents of Mound ) took a gamble and purchased the site. The gamble has not paid off, But this does not translate into a necessity to allow them to change the character of our city. Mary Jo Larson Craig Arveson Brian Larson 2246 Westedge Blvd Mound MN 55364 -1450- /� lori poehler <loriapoehler@msn.com> Wed, Jun 24, 9:46 PM (5 days ago) to me I am a current home owner who pays taxes and bought my home here In Mound almost 141 years ago. I do NOT want the Mound city council to approve the Proposed low income housing project o be built in the area of the old Thrifty White and Walgreens. I moved to Mound for the small town feel. Less people Safe I was also told there would be more shopping and restaurants and I haven't sent this happen. If you want to build commerce in ourtown From people who already live here or forpeople to visit desirable places and then leave and go home you need to have shops and restaurants builtthere or a park or amphitheater with music but not low income housing. Please take a look at Wayzata and Excelsior for guidance as to how to build a desirable community to build for great commerce yet stays small and quiet and safe for its residents. From owning home in Brooklyn Center for years very near Brooklyn Park, I watched the whole area fill with apartments, low income housing and shortterm leases and it ruined the area and was filled with crime. I bought here, invested a lot of money here for my residence, was part of the Mound Rotary, like to give to The community And hope I can stay here. I am opposed to the low income housing !!! Lori Poehler 5168 Emerald Drive Mound MN 55364 -1451 - I b M Gmail Petition 1 message Chris C <mcpcemagmail.com> jane.anderson.10000@gmail.com <jane.anderwn.10000@gmail.com> Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 6:29 AM To: mcpcem@gmail.com We are concerned about the quality of life in Mound, Please Elected officials stop rezoning areas for higher density housing. We feel Mound has enough traffic and congestion. We are concerned about losing our small town feel. We believe that adding more Condos or Apartments will negatively impact our town, and our quality of life. We the undersigned ask that the Mound council stop approving such projects. We are concerned about current and future proposals Including but not limited to The Commerce Place Shopping Center Plans. There has been some talk about relocating the Hennepin County Library to the site. The library is currently slated to be rebuilt ( currently on hold last I checked ) the current library is a very nice site surrounded by trees and green space. Relocating it to the Commerce Place site would give the center of Town a very nice and welcoming look and feel. Please Mound council members give this some consideration. We feel this would be a positive step while building high density housing especially right in the center of town would have a negative impact on our community. Most agree that the current retail buildings are not very aesthetically pleasing. And the current owner of the property would like to build High density housing. I believe they have stated it is the only way for the site to be profitable. While the city and residents have wncem and compassion for their situation we do not feel it is our responsibility to allow them to develop the site in a manner the community does not want. The owners ( not residents of Mound ) took a gamble and purchased the site. The gamble has not paid off, But this does not translate into a necessity to allow them to change the character of our city. Jane Anderson 5060 Edgewater Drive Mound, MN 55364 612670.7008 1 \ -1452- MGmrail Chris C amcpcem@gmaiLcom> Petition 1 message John Zevenbergen <jzevenbergen@hatmaitcom> Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 9:03 AM To: "mcpcem@gmail,com" <mcpcem@gmail.com> We are concerned about the quality of life in Mound, Please Elected officials stop rezoning areas for higher density housing. We feel Mound has enough traffic and congestion. We are concerned about losing our small town feel. We believe that adding more Condos or Apartments will negatively impact our town, and our quality of life. We the undersigned ask that the Mound council stop approving such projects. We are concerned about current and future proposals Including but not limited to The Commerce Place Shopping Center Plans. There has been some talk about relocating the Hennepin County Library to the site. The library is currently slated to be rebuilt ( currently on hold last I checked ) the current library is a very nice site surrounded by trees and green space. Relocating it to the Commerce Place site would give the center of Town a very nice and welcoming look and feel. Please Mound council members give this some consideration. We feel this would be a positive step while building high density housing especially right in the center of town would have a negative impact on our community. Most agree that the current retail buildings are not very aesthetically pleasing. And the current owner of the property would like to build High density housing. I believe they havestated it is the only way for the site to be profitable. While the city and residents have concern and compassion for their situation we do not feel it is our responsibility to allow them to develop the site in a manner the community does not want. The owners ( not residents of Mound ) took a gamble and purchased the site. The gamble has not paid off, But this does not translate into a necessity to allow them to change the character of our city. Please form a committee to put together a plan to revitalize downtown Mound into an attractive small town that people want to visit or move to, not get away from. That will attract small business, like Excelsior and Wayzata have done. We are fairly new to Mound and were told even by Realtors that Mound was the ghetto of Lake Minnetonka. We took the chance and love it here so far, but don't understand what's going on downtown. First impression is that there is either no plan or no leadership in the city. Please do something or I'm not sure how long we or anyone will stay. Thank you John & Penny Zevenbergen 2542 Lost Lake Rd. Mound, MN 55364 763-257-3081 Sent from Mail for Windows 10 -1453- \� To Whom It May Concern, We are concerned about the quality of life in Mound, Please Elected officials stop rezoning areas for higher density housing. We feel Mound has enough traffic and congestion. We are concerned about losing our small town feel. We believe that adding more Condos or Apartments will negatively impact ourtown, and our quality of life. We the undersigned ask that the Mound council stop approving such projects. We are concerned about current and future proposals including but not limited to The Commerce Place Shopping Center Plans. There has been some talk about relocating the Hennepin County Library to the site. The library is currently slated to be rebuilt (currently on hold last I checked) the current library is a very nice site surrounded by trees and green space. Relocating it to the Commerce Place site would give the center of Town a very nice and welcoming look and feel. Please Mound council members give this some consideration. We feel this would be a positive step while building high density housing especially right in the center of town would have a negative impact on our community, Most agree that the current retail buildings are not very aesthetically pleasing. And the current owner of the property would like to build High density housing. I believe they have stated it is the only way for the site to be profitable. While the city and residents have concern and compassion forth eir situation we do not fees it is our responsibility to allow them to develop the site in a manner the community does not want. The owners (not residents of Mound ) took a gamble and purchased the site. The gamble has not paid off, but this does not translate into a necessity to allow them to change the character of our city. Respectfully, Ariel Olson 2441 Lost Lake Rd -1454- Land Use and Subdivision Requests for Commerce Place 2nd Addition CITY COUNCIL - AUGUST 12, 2020 Location Downtown Mound at the northeast corner of Commerce Boulevard and Shorel l ne Drive Involves Commerce Place Shopping Center and small parcels to the east. Wells Fargo Bank Is not included In Standard InUnitFinishes &Features••Schell •I• Fichardsr y� �—r� � All. I � -�1, ■ gym..... ■ o��.,m.., ■r�,.,,w.. -1455- 8/6/2020 Overview Schafer Richardson isrequesting multiple land use and subdivision approvals Pro;eocwill involve The dem option of the existing shopping center Condru non of a three story apartment building with 102 units Wel Is Fargo Bank will remain as It is on its own property Protect targeted to young professionals (25 and 35) and older adults (50+) Proposed Amenities Unit name nmil Minnm.mv rvumme nmil Stainlesssteel appliances Htnessandycga room and stone countertops Game room Luxury vinyl plank wood Community/clubroom look flooring • Grilling patio In-unitwash and dryer • Pet Pad: and N25h Some balconies • Bike maintenance station Standard Amenities•hdh" i• Hicherdson 1 Requests Public hearing and consideration of • Zoning Test Amendment • Rezoningfrom BI and R3 to Destination Planned Unit Development District • Vacation ofFern Lane tightofway and drainage and utility easements • Meet Subdivision preliminary plat • Conditional UPermit (CUP) for a Planned UotDevelopment !oning Text Amendment Modify Section 129-140—Destination Planned Unit Development District • Modify District Purpose to acknowledge appropriateness of medium and high density residential • Permitted Use— add multifamily units to list Follows previous Comprehensive Plans description of this district which noted that up to 50% of area may be residential Addresses inconsistency between Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plans Vacation of Fern Lane and Drainage and Utility Easements Vacation of Fern Lane for porton bounded on both sides by project �- �aF\. Vacations ofDranage and SIL Utility Easements on east -� 4 side ofthe building allow the utltent of the existing es 1 Vacations serve to support the redevelopment ofthe site -1456- 8/6/2020 c� Comprehensive Plan � use2040 Plan identifesmearea form xed Identifies potential uses for area as commercial, multifamily residential, and mwnhomes Ota tlenstyot25 units per acre proposal fits the Comprehensive Plan range of 12 to 30 units per acre Site currently hast zoning districts Commerce Place—B 1 Cental Business Dist n or Paael to east of rem Lane—R3 Multiple Family Residential Rezoning to Destination Planned Unit Development District (DEST PUD) Ftsthedeslgn Dion oPoOM the3aJ and 340 companeneve Plans Preliminary Plat Site prs335 Acres + Lotat s211acresincludes rear nentand parking in t Lott is120acres ndudes ) surface parking to the west around wells Fargo ROW dedication of 0.04 ' — acres 2 Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Tool for establishing a Planned Unit Development (PUD) PUD Intended to provide flexibility for areas difficult develop or redevelop Intent for project to establish appropriate dimension and design stan ards Technical expert and/or thirdpartyreview Intended to provide City with evaluaoon of pprojectbased on current Industry standards trends and practices—tratfit parking, and stormwater Technical experts and/or third party review intended to provide City uaoon of projectbased on current lnduvtry standards trends and prarnces—traac parking, and stormwater Proposed Dimension and Design Standards Unit Sizes Dimension and m _-.� _1I Design Standards ` (;" J— Access Required Minimum Number Percent Unit Studio/Alcove Size 480zq A Unit St. 483to615 ofUnits ofUnits I Bedroom 640 q A saOtoaaO on Chute Road I Bedroom plus Den 2 Bedroom 760 q A T125tor,250,. Proposed Dimension and Design Standards Traffic • Existing condition that the assessment shows will not be worsened by the proposed development • Due to differences in trip generation, m apartmentwill result in • Decrease in 126 total dally trips a"eNvaams°h�"'OOim` • Increase In 18 trips In AM peak hour • Decrease In 18 trips In PM peak hour momaiomem sioPm ez:ry 8/6/2020 Proposed Dimension and Design Standards Building Height Midpoint proposed to be 42 feet, 4 inches Impervious Surface Covers Proposed t1 be73ga which is less than the existing S4%currently on the site Utilities Already opted l ished for the site Proposed Dimension and m _-.� _1I Design Standards ` (;" J— Access 4��T_ i • Reduced from existing— conditions _ • Proposed to have one on Shoreline, two on— Commerce and two on Chute Road -1457- Proposed Dimension and Design Standards Perking • The applicants proposing up to 272 spacesfor the site, including S4cevered • The following are considerations for evaluatingthe proposed parking Traffic Study estlmatestbat total weekday period parking demand is 179 spaces Applicant company standard is 1.1 to 1.15 stalls per bedroom —currently they re proposing 1 7 stalls per bedroom Parking will need to be actively managed In orde to lease site Applicant is proposing designated blryde pahingarea as well 3 Proposed Dimension and Design Standards Building Materials • Stone along the bottom • Horizontal siding on the end Floor • Shaker style accentsalong roof menu • •�� • Colors include slvergrag • 4 reflective whip, and deep granite Recommendation 1 held wbr,x®anr,gior ell end use,..bit lvlsly n end... Dan re eve ns hein.NB ne Deal h ll haInesh peonn' t, DeonOn, penned Unit Acted— swri, Left anent— t, enew nutole davelh, unonthe ownwin, owned Unit Acted— COLIC One aia ao the vs z here, the why and u1ject PHf�, ewes, -1458- Proposed Dimension and Design Standards Screening, Buffering and Landscaping r, • Screening along east—more to be done if proofofparking e cover constructed • Proposing primarily foundation and perimeter plantings • Trees proposed around the s2 ceptwhere underground utilities proposed Planning Commission Review July P^ Regular Meeting- recommended HPPRIEN of • Zoningte t Amendment • Rezoningfrom B-1 and R d to Destination PVD • vacation ofFern Lane and Drainage and Utility Easements July 2V Special Meeting-recommendedDENIAL of • PrellminaryPlat • Conditional Use Permit WP) for Planned Unit Development • PC ndlated denial was recommended as it was felt that the project was mo large as evident by size design, traffic, and parking 8/6/2020 R• •• wAmcoN Commerce Place Redevelopment City Council Meeting 2230 Commerce Boulevard August 12°h, 2020 0rc.mpm.m �mwmn. ■u.aresm...xm.m y�ll N NI I11I IC MMoounnApnartmeMs -1459- 9 Mound Apartments Parking • Total Parking Count. 236 Stalls • 1.7 stalls per bedroom • 2.3 Stalls per unit • 0.02 UG Stall s per unit • Comparable Project Data a..a rip -�+ vt 22 ala -1460- Traffic Study — Spack Consultants Methodology • Actual trips measured measured over a 40 hour period In Feb 2020 • Util'¢ed local apartment trip generation data to calculate as opposed to Institute orharnc Fngmeers ITE) standards because local traffic pattars are .an diRerat than national averages Cod dr'ions • Tenants drives currenttrip counts • Proposed redevelopment results In !ewer trips • New mmmercis l buil ding woultl'mcrease trips by 1,000+ per day Questions? RESOLUTION NO. 20 - RESOLUTION TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 20 -_AMENDING CITY CODE CHAPTER 129 AS IT RELATES TO USES ALLOWED IN THE DESTINATION PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AND THE MOUND OFFICIAL ZONING MAP PLANNING CASE NO. 20-07 PID NO. 13-117-24-32-0168, 13-117-24-32-0169, 13-117-24-33-0079, 13-117-24-33-0080, 13-117-24-33-0081, 13-117-24-32-0156, & 13-117-24-32-0157 WHEREAS, the applicant, Schafer Richardson, has submitted an application for a text amendment to amend City Code Section 129-140 Destination Planned Unit Development District (DEST-PUD) to list multifamily dwelling units as a permitted use; and WHEREAS, the applicant, Schafer Richardson, has submitted a rezoning request to change the zoning designations of the parcels in the proposed Commerce Place 2"d Addition plat to the Destination Planned Unit Development District (DEST-PUD); and WHEREAS, the subject site generally located at the intersection of Shoreline Drive (County Road 15) and Commerce Boulevard (County Road 110 West); and WHEREAS, the area has been guided by the 2040 Comprehensive Plan for mixed use as part of the Village Center Mixed Use Area; and WHEREAS, the Destination Planned Unit Development District (DEST-PUD) has been historically used for mixed use areas north of Shoreline Drive (County Road 15); and WHEREAS, the 2040 Comprehensive Plan indicates in the Village Center Mixed Use Area, apartments are an appropriate use; and WHEREAS, Shoreland Boulevard (County Road 15) and Commerce Boulevard (County Road 110 West) are able to support the proposed mixed use designation; and WHEREAS, details regarding the requested zoning text amendment and rezoning are contained in the Executive Summary Report for the August 12, 2020 meeting, the Planning Report for the July 7, 2020 Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Report for the July 21, 2020 Planning Commission meeting, the submitted application and supporting materials from the applicant, and the July 7, 2020 and July 21 2020 Planning Commission meetings minutes; and -1461 - WHEREAS, Staff recommended approval of the requested zoning text amendment and rezoning; and WHEREAS, at its July 7, 2020 meeting, the Planning Commission considered the zoning text amendment and rezoning request and recommended approval of the requests; and WHEREAS, after providing proper notice thereof pursuant to state law, the City Council of the City of Mound held a public hearing on August 12, 2020, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning the zoning text amendment and rezoning were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, after its consideration the City Council found the proposed rezoning to be consistent with the Mound Comprehensive Plan and the requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, in granting approval of the requested zoning text amendment, the City Council makes the following findings of fact: 1. The zoning text amendments reflect the guidance of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. WHEREAS, in granting approval of the rezoning to Destination Planned Unit Development District (DEST-PUD), the City Council makes the following findings of fact: 1. The proposed rezoning is compatible with the land uses surrounding the subject properties. 2. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound does hereby adopt Ordinance No. 20- Ordinance Amending Chapter 129 of the Mound City Code as it Relates to Uses Allowed in the Destination Planned Unit Development District and the Mound Official Zoning Map. Adopted by the City Council this 12th of August, 2020. Attest: Catherine Pausche, Clerk Mayor Raymond J. Salazar -1462- CITY OF MOUND ORDINANCE #20 - ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 129 OF THE MOUND CITY CODE AS IT RELATES TO USES ALLOWED IN THE DESTINATION PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AND THE MOUND OFFICIAL ZONING MAP The City Council of the City of Mound does ordain: Section 1. Chapter 129, of the Mound City Code is hereby amended as follows (additions are underlined): Sec. 129-140. DEST-PUD destination planned unit development district. (a) Purpose. The destination district is intended to allow for retail sales and services intended to serve the needs of the local population. This district is primarily oriented at the motoring public because of its location along minor arterial roadways and good visibility. Medium and high density residential may also be included in this district. (b) Permitted uses. The permitted uses in the DEST-PUD district are as follows: (14) Multifamily dwelling units — with renumbering of existing items (14) to (22) to (15) to (23). Section 2. The Mound Official Zoning Map is hereby amended by changing the zoning district boundaries to reclassify the parcels indicated in the table below: PID# Address Current Zoning New Zoning 13-117-24-32-0156 Unassigned R-3 D -PUD 13-117-24-32-0157 Unassigned R-3 D -PUD 13-117-24-32-0168 Unassigned B-1 D -PUD 13-117-24-32-0169 2200 Commerce Blvd B-1 D -PUD 13-117-24-33-0079 Unassigned B-1 D -PUD 13-117-24-33-0080 2238 Commerce Blvd B-1 D -PUD 13-117-24-33-0081 2232 Commerce Blvd B-1 D -PUD Section 3. This ordinance becomes effective on the first day following the date of its publication. -1463- Passed by the City Council this 12th day of August, 2020. Mayor Raymond J. Salazar Attest: Catherine Pausche, City Clerk Published in the Laker the of 12020. Effective the day of 12020. -1464- RESOLUTION NO. 20 - RESOLUTION TO APPROVE VACATION OF FERN LANE RIGHT OF WAY AND DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS IN COMMERCE PLACE AND APPROVING THE MAJOR SUBDIVISION -PRELIMINARY PLAT OF COMMERCE PLACE 2"D ADDITION w9 011011101 1CX07i1&1l =1111 01[61W41E1111 PID NO. 13-117-24-32-0168, 13-117-24-32-0169, 13-117-24-33-0079, 13-117-24-33-0080, 13-117-24-33-0081, 13-117-24-32-0156, & 13-117-24-32-0157 WHEREAS, the applicant, Schafer Richardson, has submitted an application to vacate right-of-way of Fern Lane and drainage and utility easements in the Commerce Place plat; and WHEREAS, the applicant, Schafer Richardson, has submitted a preliminary plat application to plat the proposed Commerce Place 2nd Addition; and WHEREAS, the proposed vacations and preliminary plat of Commerce Place 2nd Addition are shown on Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the subject site generally located at the intersection of Shoreline Drive (County Road 15) and Commerce Boulevard (County Road 110 West); and WHEREAS, the property was previously platted as Block 1, Lots 2-6 of Commerce Place Addition and Block 1, Lots 7 & 8 of Fernwood Addition, including previously established right-of-way and drainage and utility easements; and WHEREAS, the vacations are being proposed to facilitate the platting of the major - subdivision preliminary plat called Commerce Place 2nd Addition; and WHEREAS, the vacations were requested by a petition of the majority of the owners of land abutting the portion of Fern Lane being vacated and the drainage and utility easement areas; and WHEREAS, the plat is being used to consolidate multiple parcels and the vacated area, and create two lots; and WHEREAS, the right-of-way and easements being proposed for vacation will not be needed for their original purpose as a result of the proposed development; and WHEREAS, details regarding the requested vacations and preliminary plat are contained in the Executive Summary Report for the August 12, 2020 meeting, the Planning Report for the July 7, 2020 Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Report for the July 21, 2020 Planning Commission meeting, the submitted application -1465- and supporting materials from the applicant, and the July 7, 2020 and July 21 2020 Planning Commission meetings minutes; and WHEREAS, Staff recommended approval of the requested vacations and major subdivision - preliminary plat subject to conditions; and WHEREAS, at its July 7, 2020 meeting, the Planning Commission considered the vacation request and held a public hearing to receive public testimony on the proposed Commerce Place 2nd Addition major subdivision -preliminary plat; and WHEREAS, at its July 7, 2020 meeting, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the vacation requests; and WHEREAS, at its July 7, 2020 meeting, the Planning Commission tabled the request for the major subdivision -preliminary plat to its July 21, 2020; and WHEREAS, at its July 21, 2020 meeting, the Planning Commission recommended the City Council deny the major subdivision - preliminary plat request; and WHEREAS, after providing proper notice thereof pursuant to state law, the City Council of the City of Mound held a public hearing on August 12, 2020, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning the vacations and major subdivision -preliminary plat were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, the City has considered whether the vacation of the Fern Lane right-of-way and the drainage and utility easements are in the interest of the public; and WHEREAS, the City Council has studied the practicality of the request, taking into consideration the present and future development of the property and the requirements of the Zoning, Subdivision Ordinances, and other official controls; and WHEREAS, the City has considered the proposed project as it might affect public health, safety, or welfare and will be imposing conditions upon the approval addressing these considerations; and WHEREAS, the City Council's decision on the major subdivision — preliminary plat application was made within the timelines included in Minnesota Statutes Section 462.358; and WHEREAS, in granting approval of the requested right-of-way and easement vacations, the City Council makes the following findings of fact: The vacations will facilitate the consolidation and platting of multiple parcels into the Commerce Place 2nd Addition Plat. 2. Due to the redevelopment of the area, the purposes for which the -1466- dedications were originally made are no longer needed. 3. Easements for private utilities can be maintained or provided as part of the proposed Commerce Place 2nd Addition Plat. Me WHEREAS, in granting approval of the major subdivision -preliminary plat, the City Council makes the following findings of fact: The proposed major subdivision -preliminary plat is consistent with applicable development plans and policies of the City of Mound. 2. The proposed development will not negatively impact the public health, safety, or welfare of the community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, based on record of this matter and findings contained herein, does hereby incorporate and restate the recitals set forth above and approves the right-of-way and easement vacations in the Commerce Place and Fernwood Additions and hereby authorizes Staff to prepare all the required documents to complete the vacations, subject to the following conditions: The City Clerk or designee shall record a notice of the completion of the proceeding for the vacations with Hennepin County. 2. The City Manager, or designee, and City Attorney are authorized to carry out the intent of this resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound does approve the major subdivision -preliminary plat for Commerce Place 2nd Addition with the following conditions: Applicant shall be responsible for payment of all costs associated with the major subdivision - preliminary plat application. 2. The applicant shall be responsible for recording the resolutions(s) with Hennepin County. Applicant is advised that the resolution(s) will not be released for recording until all conditions have been met. 3. Applicant shall be responsible for procurement of any and/or all local or public agency permits including, but not limited to, the submittal of all required information for building permit issuance. 4. The MCES SAC charge for the project shall be determined as part of final plat which shall be the responsibility of the applicant. -1467- 5. Sewer and watermain area trunk charges for the project shall be determined as part of the final plat. The current trunk charge for sewer and water, per unit, is $2000.00 each. 6. Sewer connection and water connection fees shall be determined as part of the final plat. The 2020 sewer connection and water connection fees are $240.00 each. 7. The park dedication fee amount shall be determined as part of the final plat as provided by City Code Sec. 121.121. 8. A development agreement shall be prepared as part of the final plat process. Adopted by the City Council this 12th of August, 2020. Mayor Raymond J. Salazar Attest: Catherine Pausche, Clerk RESOLUTION NO. 20 - RESOLUTION GRANTING APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR COMMERCE PLACE 2"D ADDITION PLANNING CASE NO. 20-07 PID NO. 13-117-24-32-0168, 13-117-24-32-0169, 13-117-24-33-0079, 13-117- 24-33-0080, 13-117-24-33-0081, 13-117-24-32-0156, & 13-117-24-32-0157 WHEREAS, the applicant, Schafer Richardson, has submitted an application for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) as part of the Commerce Place 2nd Addition plat as described in Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the subject site is generally located at the intersection of Shoreline Drive (County Road 15) and Commerce Boulevard (County Road 110 West); and WHEREAS, the property was previously platted as Block 1, Lots 2-6 of Commerce Place Addition and Block 1, Lots 7 & 8 of Fernwood Addition and is proposed to be platted as Commerce Place 2nd Addition; and WHEREAS, the site has been guided by the 2040 Comprehensive Plan for mixed use as part of the Village Center Mixed Use Area; and WHEREAS, the 2040 Comprehensive Plan indicates in the Village Center Mixed Use Area, apartments are an appropriate use and that residential densities in the Village Center Mixed Use Area shall be between 12 and 30 units per acre; and WHEREAS, the applicant has proposed a 102 -unit apartment building that will result in the developable area having a density of 25 units per acre, meeting the Comprehensive Plan designation; and WHEREAS, the City of Mound adopted an ordinance to rezone the subject property to Destination Planned Unit Development District (DEST-PUD); and WHEREAS, the Destination Planned Unit Development District (DEST-PUD) requires a conditional use permit be approved for a planned unit development to occur; and WHEREAS, details regarding the requested CUP for a PUD are contained in the Executive Summary Report for the August 12, 2020 meeting, the Planning Report for the July 7, 2020 Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Report for the July 21, 2020 Planning Commission meeting, the submitted application and supporting materials from the applicant, and the July 7, 2020 and July 21 2020 Planning Commission meetings minutes; and -1469- WHEREAS, Staff recommended approval of the CUP for a PUD subject to conditions; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the CUP application at its July 7, 2020 meeting and tabled consideration of the request to their July 21, 2020; and WHEREAS, at its July 21, 2020 meeting, after further consideration of the request, the Planning Commission recommended the City Council deny the CUP for a PUD request; and WHEREAS pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 462.357, the City Council of the City of Mound, after providing proper notice thereof pursuant to state law, held a public hearing on August 12, 2020 on the CUP for a PUD to receive public testimony; and WHEREAS, the City has considered the proposed project as it might affect public health, safety, or welfare and will be imposing conditions upon the approval addressing these considerations; and WHEREAS, the City Council has studied the practicality of the request, taking into consideration the present and future development of the property and the requirements of the Zoning, Subdivision Ordinances, and other official controls; and WHEREAS, the City Council's decision on the conditional use permit for a Planned Unit Development application was made within the timelines included in Minnesota Statutes Section 15.99: and WHEREAS, in granting approval of the CUP for a PUD, the City Council makes the following findings of fact: 1. The proposed use of the site is consistent with applicable development plans and policies of the City of Mound. 2. The physical characteristics of the site are suitable for type of development and use being proposed. 3. The proposed development is providing adequate utilities and drainage. 4. The proposed development has sufficiently considered traffic impacts and access. 5. The proposed development will not negatively impact the public health, safety or welfare of the community. -1470- 6. The proposed project will diversify the types of housing available in the community by providing 102 new apartment units for the City of Mound. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, based on record of this matter and findings contained herein, does hereby incorporate and restate the recitals set forth above and approve the Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development for Commerce Place 2"d Addition with the following conditions: 1. This conditional use permit is approved for the following legally described property as stated in the Hennepin County Property Information System: (to be inserted). 2. The building materials and color scheme shall be subject to review and acceptance by the City. 3. Outdoor storage of boats, trailers, and recreational vehicles will not be allowed on the site. 4. Apartment unit decks and patios shall not be allowed for personal storage purposes, including, but not limited to, bicycles, kayaks, and paddleboards. 5. The Parking Summary on page C-101 Site Plan shall be updated to accurately reflect the size and number of parking spaces. 6. Final number and design of ADA parking spaces shall be approved by the Building Official. 7. Additional information about snow storage shall be provided and subject to review and acceptance by the City Manager- Director of Public Works. 8. The site plan shall be revised to provide fencing adjacent to neighbors as mentioned in Planning Report. 9. The lighting plan shall be revised to meet City Code standards relative to light trespass on public streets and adjacent residential properties. 10. The landscape plan shall be revised and subject to review and acceptance of the City Community Development Director. Revisions should include additional information about the perennials and grasses proposed, additional spacing for the Black Hills spruce along Fern Lane, and additional details for features such as the patio, pergola, shade structure, and firepit. 11. Signage for the site shall meet Chapter 119 of the City Code. -1471 - 12.A development agreement, to be prepared by the City Attorney, shall be required for the project and prepared as part of final plat. 13. Standards, expectations and procedures regarding the proof of parking area shall be established as part of the Development Agreement. As part of that agreement, the City of Mound shall have the right to request the proof of parking to be built, as well as to have a landscaping and screening plan be prepared and implemented. 14.Applicant shall be responsible for payment of all costs associated with the conditional use permit application. 15. The applicant shall be responsible for recording the resolution(s) with Hennepin County. The applicant is advised that the resolution(s) will not be released for recording until all conditions have been met. Adopted by the City Council this 12th of August, 2020. Attest: Catherine Pausche, Clerk Mayor Raymond J. Salazar -1472- RESOLUTION NO. 20 - RESOLUTION TO DENY REQUEST TO REZONE PROPERTIES IN COMMERCE PLACE 2ND ADDITION AND REQUEST FOR A ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT TO CITY CODE CHAPTER 129 AS IT RELATES TO USES ALLOWED IN THE DESTINATION PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT PLANNING CASE NO. 20-07 PID NO. 13-117-24-32-0168, 13-117-24-32-0169, 13-117-24-33-0079, 13-117-24-33- 0080, 13-117-24-33-0081, 13-117-24-32-0156, & 13-117-24-32-0157 WHEREAS, the applicant, Schafer Richardson, ("Applicant') has submitted a rezoning request to change the zoning designations of the parcels identified above in the Commerce Place 2nd Addition plat to the Destination Planned Unit Development District (DEST-PUD); and WHEREAS, the Applicant also submitted an application for a text amendment to amend City Code Section 129-140 Destination Planned Unit Development District (DEST-PUD) to list multifamily dwelling units as a permitted use; and WHEREAS, the subject site is generally located at the intersection of Shoreline Drive (County Road 15) and Commerce Boulevard (County Road 110 West); and WHEREAS, the area has been guided by the 2040 Comprehensive Plan for mixed use as part of the Village Center Mixed Use Area; and WHEREAS, details regarding the requests, including the request for a CUP for a PUD, are contained in the Executive Summary Report for the August 12, 2020 meeting, the Planning Report for the July 7, 2020 Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Report for the July 21, 2020 Planning Commission meeting, the submitted application and supporting materials from the applicant, and the July 7, 2020 and July 21 2020 Planning Commission meetings minutes; and WHEREAS, Staff recommended approval of the requested text amendment and rezoning; and WHEREAS, at its July 7, 2020 meeting, the Planning Commission considered the zoning text amendment and rezoning request and recommended approval of the requests; and WHEREAS, after providing proper notice thereof pursuant to state law, the City Council of the City of Mound held a public hearing on August 12, 2020, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning the zoning text amendment and rezoning were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and -1473- WHEREAS, the City Council hereby finds and determines as follows with respect to the Applicant's text amendment and rezoning requests: a. The text amendment and rezoning requests were made as part of a larger packet of applications to allow the construction of a 102 unit market rate apartment building; b. The City Council must consider and act on the proposed text amendment and rezoning, which are legislative decisions, before acting on the other applications (CUP, vacations, and preliminary plat) submitted as part of the proposal; C. If the proposed text amendment is not approved, the Applicant's remaining requests necessarily fail as the proposed apartment building would not be allowed in the requested Destination Planned Unit Development District (DEST- PUD); d. In considering the proposed changes to the City Code and the rezoning request, the City Council must consider what is in the best interests of the public and the City; e. The affected parcels are currently located in the B-1 Central Business District and the R-1 Multiple Family Residential District, and the Applicant is seeking to rezoning the parcels to Destination Planned Unit Development District (DEST- PUD); f. Because the proposed DEST-PUD District does not allow multifamily dwellings the Applicant is also seeking a text amendment to add multifamily dwellings to the list of permitted uses in the DEST-PUD District; g. The 2040 Comprehensive Plan guides the area to Village Center Mixed Use Area, which is designed to allow multifamily dwellings such as apartments in the future, but the City has not acted to establish the proposed mixed use area into its zoning code; h. The existing DEST-PUD District is "intended to allow for retail sales and services intended to serve the needs of the local population"; The vast majority of the public comments received were not in favor of the zoning text amendment or the rezoning of these properties to allow an apartment building. Many expressed a need to attract commercial uses to the property that can serve those currently living in the City; The DEST-PUD District was designed to allow the types of commercial service uses the residents are requesting, not multifamily dwellings. The need for such uses in the City has not changed and expanding the uses allowed in the district E -1474- to include multifamily dwellings would only serve to dilute and undermine the purpose of the district; k. While the area is guided for the creation of a new mixed use area that would allow multifamily dwellings, the City Council determines it is premature to make that change for the area; The City Council determines it is not in the best interests of the public or of the City to amend the uses allowed in the DEST-PUD District to include multifamily dwellings; and m. If the requested text amendment is not approved, rezoning the parcels to DEST-PUD is no longer appropriate as such rezoning would not allow the proposed apartment building. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, based on the record of this matter and the findings contained herein, as follows: 1. The request to amend Section 129-140 of the City Code to add multifamily dwellings to the list of permitted uses in the Destination Planned Unit Development District (DEST-PUD) is hereby denied. 2. Because the request to rezone the parcels to the DEST-PUD District is no longer needed as it would not support the proposed apartment building use, the rezoning request is hereby denied. Adopted by the City Council this 12th of August, 2020. Attest: Catherine Pausche, Clerk Mayor Raymond J. Salazar 3 -1475- RESOLUTION NO. 20 - RESOLUTION TO DENY THE VACATION OF FERN LANE RIGHT OF WAY AND DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS IN COMMERCE PLACE AND DENYING THE MAJOR SUBDIVISION -PRELIMINARY PLAT OF COMMERCE PLACE 2"D ADDITION w9 011011101 1CX07i1&1l =1111 01[61W41E1111 PID NO. 13-117-24-32-0168, 13-117-24-32-0169, 13-117-24-33-0079, 13-117-24-33-0080, 13-117-24-33-0081, 13-117-24-32-0156, & 13-117-24-32-0157 WHEREAS, the applicant, Schafer Richardson, has submitted an application to vacate right-of-way of Fern Lane and drainage and utility easements in the Commerce Place plat; and WHEREAS, the applicant, Schafer Richardson, has submitted a preliminary plat application to plat the proposed Commerce Place 2nd Addition; and WHEREAS, the proposed vacations and preliminary plat of Commerce Place 2nd Addition are shown on Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the subject site generally located at the intersection of Shoreline Drive (County Road 15) and Commerce Boulevard (County Road 110 West); and WHEREAS, the property was previously platted as Block 1, Lots 2-6 of Commerce Place Addition and Block 1, Lots 7 & 8 of Fernwood Addition, including previously established right-of-way and drainage and utility easements; and WHEREAS, the vacations are being proposed to facilitate the platting of the major - subdivision preliminary plat called Commerce Place 2nd Addition; and WHEREAS, the vacations were requested by a petition of the majority of the owners of land abutting the portion of Fern Lane being vacated and the drainage and utility easement areas; and WHEREAS, the plat is being used to consolidate multiple parcels and the vacated area, and create two lots to allow for the proposed redevelopment being requested in a concurrent conditional use permit for a planned unit development; and WHEREAS, the requested vacations and preliminary plat are part of a larger request that also involves a rezoning of the property to Destination Planned Unit Development District and a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development; and -1476- WHEREAS, the request for rezoning of the property related to Commerce Place 2nd Addition was denied, resulting in the properties remaining as B-1 Central Business District and R-3 Multiple -family Residential; and WHEREAS, a planned unit development is not allowed nor will the project as proposed meet the requirements of the B-1 Central Business District and R-3 Multiple -family Residential District; and WHEREAS, the right-of-way and easements being proposed for vacation will be needed for their original purpose if the proposed development is not permitted; and WHEREAS, details regarding the requested vacations and preliminary plat are contained in the Executive Summary Report for the August 12, 2020 meeting, the Planning Report for the July 7, 2020 Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Report for the July 21, 2020 Planning Commission meeting, the submitted application and supporting materials from the applicant, and the July 7, 2020 and July 21 2020 Planning Commission meetings minutes; and WHEREAS, Staff recommended approval of the requested vacations and major subdivision - preliminary plat subject to conditions; and WHEREAS, at its July 7, 2020 meeting, the Planning Commission considered the vacation request and held a public hearing to receive public testimony on the proposed Commerce Place 2nd Addition major subdivision -preliminary plat; and WHEREAS, at its July 7, 2020 meeting, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the vacation requests; and WHEREAS, at its July 7, 2020 meeting, the Planning Commission tabled the request for the major subdivision -preliminary plat to its July 21, 2020; and WHEREAS, at its July 21, 2020 meeting, the Planning Commission recommended the City Council deny the major subdivision - preliminary plat request; and WHEREAS, after providing proper notice thereof pursuant to state law, the City Council of the City of Mound held a public hearing on August 12, 2020, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning the vacations and major subdivision -preliminary plat were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, public input received during the consideration of these requests were not in favor of the vacations or preliminary plat; and WHEREAS, the City has considered whether the vacation of the Fern Lane right-of-way and the drainage and utility easements are in the interest of the public; and -1477- WHEREAS, the City Council has studied the practicality of the request, taking into consideration the present and future development of the property and the requirements of the Zoning, Subdivision Ordinances, and other official controls; and WHEREAS, the City has considered the proposed project as it might affect public health, safety, or welfare and will be imposing conditions upon the approval addressing these considerations; and WHEREAS, the City Council's decision on the major subdivision — preliminary plat application was made within the timelines included in Minnesota Statutes, section 462.358: and WHEREAS, the City Council hereby finds and determines as follows with respect to the proposed vacation and preliminary plat: The applicant's request to construct a market rate apartment building on the parcels requires several zoning approvals and the project, as currently proposed, does not meet the requirements of the current zoning districts; b. Among the required zoning requests made by the applicant, the City Council needed to first act on the requested text amendment to allow multiple family dwellings in the DEST-PUD District; The City Council acted by separate resolution to deny the requested text amendment and, by necessity, the rezoning request; The denial of the proposed text amendment and rezoning of the parcels prevents the project from being allowed; and Because the apartment building as proposed is not allowed, the applicant's vacation and preliminary plat requests made as a necessary part of the project are no longer needed or appropriate, and so need to be denied. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, based on the record of this matter and the findings contained herein, as follows: 1. The requested vacation of the right-of-way and easement in the Commerce Place and Fernwood Additions is hereby denied. 2. The requested approval of a major subdivision -preliminary plat for Commerce Place 2nd Addition in support of the development of an apartment building on the parcels is hereby denied. Adopted by the City Council this 12th of August, 2020. -1478- Attest: Catherine Pausche, Clerk Mayor Raymond J. Salazar -1479- RESOLUTION NO. 20 - RESOLUTION TO DENY A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR COMMERCE PLACE 2"D ADDITION PLANNING CASE NO. 20-07 PID NO. 13-117-24-32-0168, 13-117-24-32-0169, 13-117-24-33-0079, 13-117-24-33-0080, 13-117-24-33-0081, 13-117-24-32-0156, & 13-117-24-32-0157 WHEREAS, the applicant, Schafer Richardson, has submitted an application for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) as part of the Commerce Place 2nd Addition plat as described in Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the subject site is generally located at the intersection of Shoreline Drive (County Road 15) and Commerce Boulevard (County Road 110 West); and WHEREAS, the property was previously platted as Block 1, Lots 2-6 of Commerce Place Addition and Block 1, Lots 7 & 8 of Fernwood Addition and is proposed to be platted as Commerce Place 2nd Addition; and WHEREAS, the requested conditional use permit for a planned unit development is part of a larger request that also involves a text amendment, rezoning of the property to Destination Planned Unit Development District, and a major subdivision -preliminary plat; and WHEREAS, the request for rezoning of the property related to Commerce Place 2nd Addition was denied, resulting in the properties remaining as B-1 Central Business District and R-3 Multiple -family Residential; and WHEREAS, the requests for vacations and a major subdivision -preliminary plat were denied, resulting in the retention of Fern Lane, existing drainage and utility easements, and property boundaries that prevent the redevelopment of Commerce Place 2nd Addition as proposed; and WHEREAS, a planned unit development is not allowed nor will the project as proposed meet the requirements of the B-1 Central Business District and R-3 Multiple -family Residential District; and WHEREAS, details regarding the requested CUP for a PUD are contained in the Executive Summary Report for the August 12, 2020 meeting, the Planning Report for the July 7, 2020 Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Report for the July 21, 2020 Planning Commission meeting, the submitted application and supporting materials from the applicant, and the July 7, 2020 and July 21 2020 Planning Commission meetings minutes; and � WHEREAS, Staff recommended approval of the CUP for a PUD subject to conditions; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the CUP application at its July 7, 2020 meeting and tabled consideration of the request to their July 21, 2020; and WHEREAS, at its July 21, 2020 meeting, after further consideration of the request, the Planning Commission recommended the City Council deny the CUP for a PUD request; and WHEREAS pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 462.357, the City Council of the City of Mound, after providing proper notice thereof pursuant to state law, held a public hearing on August 12, 2020 on the CUP for a PUD to receive public testimony; and WHEREAS, public input received during the consideration of these requests were not in favor of the CUP for a PUD; and WHEREAS, the City has considered the proposed project as it might affect public health, safety, or welfare and will be imposing conditions upon the approval addressing these considerations; and WHEREAS, the City Council has studied the practicality of the request, taking into consideration the present and future development of the property and the requirements of the Zoning, Subdivision Ordinances, and other official controls; and WHEREAS, the City Council's decision on the Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development application was made within the timelines included in Minnesota Statutes, section 15.99; and WHEREAS, the City Council hereby finds and determines as follows regarding the requested CUP for a PUD: a. The parcels are currently located in the B-1 Central Business District and R-3 Multiple -family Residential District; b. The apartment building project, as currently proposed, does not meet the requirements of the current zoning districts; c. Among the zoning requests made by the applicant to support the proposed apartment building, the City Council needed to first act on the requested text amendment to allow multiple family dwellings in the DEST-PUD District; d. The City Council acted by separate resolution to deny the requested text amendment and, by necessity, the rezoning request; e. As a result of the denials, the requested CUP to establish a PUD for the parcels -1481 - also necessarily fails as the proposed apartment building use is not allowed within the requested DEST-PUD District; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, based on the record of this matter and the findings contained herein, hereby denies the request for a conditional use permit for a planned unit development for Commerce Place 2nd Addition. Adopted by the City Council this 12th of August, 2020. Attest: Catherine Pausche, Clerk Mayor Raymond J. Salazar -1482- MINUTE EXCERPTS (DRAFT) MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION J U LY 21, 2020 Chair Pelka called the special meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. at the Westonka Performing Arts Center (PAC), 5905 Sunnyfield Road in Minnetrista. Due to the COVID 19 pandemic, the Planning Commission meeting was held in the Westonka PAC to allow for in-person public participation while providing for required social distancing. ROLL CALL Members Present: Chair David Pelka, Vice Chair David Goode, Jon Ciatti, Sue Pilling, Kevin Castellano, Jake Saystrom, Jason Baker and Sherrie Pugh. Commissioner Drew Heal arrived approximately at 7:20 p.m. Staff Present: Community Development Director Sarah Smith, Consultant Planner Rita Trapp and City Hall Administrative Assistant Jen Holmquist. Members of the Public Present: Mitch Gooley, Pat Berg, Don and Betsy Kohls, Jerry and Diana Kukk, Jason O'Brien, Kim Loew, Jane Anderson, Elizabeth Hulstad, Katie Anthony, Kevin Johansen, Matt Knutson, Brad Schafer, Michelle Herrick, Johnele Chapman, Trevor Martinez, Dale Mueller, Travis Arnds, Josh Peterson, Jeff Corning, Jeff Steadman, Michael Maslowski, Kristyn Mils, Jason Arseneau, Nene Pounder, Sandi Manson, Ashlee Corning, and Chris Carlson. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA MOTION by Baker to approve the agenda with an amendment to add Staff Memorandum that includes additional comments received for the Commerce Place project; seconded by Saystrom. MOTION carried unanimously. BOARD OF APPEALS PC Case No. 20-07 Commerce Place Redevelopment Project and Commerce Place 2nd Addition (major subdivision -preliminary plat and conditional use permit tabled from July 7, 2020 meeting) 2200-2238 Commerce Boulevard Applicant: Schafer Richardson Smith introduced the case noting that preliminary plat and conditional use permit for the Commerce Place redevelopment project were tabled at the July 7th meeting. Smith noted that while the public hearing portion is closed, the Commission can choose to allow those in attendance to provide comment. Smith introduced Rita Trapp, the City's planning consultant. Trapp reviewed the role of the Planning Commission noting that the Commission will recommend and the City Council will approve or deny items. Trapp presented an overview from the previous meeting. Schafer Richardson is the landowner. They propose to demolish the shopping center and build a new apartment building. Trapp noted the proposed the rents and reiterated that the City will not use any public funds for the project. -1483- Trapp summarized that the Planning Commission made recommendations at the last meeting for three items but tabled consideration of the Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat for the Commerce Place 2na Addition and CUP for the Planned Unit Development for the project to this meeting. The preliminary plat combines lots to conform to City requirements. The site is 3.35 acres with 7 separate parcels being combined. This plan creates lots that can be used for development. Trapp outlined that a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is the tool the City uses to approve a planned unit development. Trapp summarized the public comments that the City received prior to the preparation of the packet. She noted that the additional Staff Memo contains additional comments that were received. Supplemental information presented is from the applicant in response to questions from the previous meeting. The target renter is the young professional or those over 50. Unit and community amenities were reviewed, which include higher end finishes, in -unit washer and dryer, community and activity rooms, outside grill area, and pet areas. Trapp noted that the parking analysis was a 3`d party study. The demand for parking is 179 and the applicant is proposing 244. The parking as proposed is 1.73 stall per bedroom. The covered parking in not provided for each unit, residents would pay extra for those premium -sparking spaces. The applicant has concerns about providing covered parking for studios as the stall and the drive aisles is equivalent to the size of a studio. Trapp then presented supplemental information from Staff. It was noted that this site is guided for mixed-use in the comprehensive plan. Mixed-use is evaluated across the district, not for an individual site. It is not required that each site in this district have both residential and commercial. If the Wells Fargo were to move, commercial may be a future use. A market study was completed a few years ago and retail continues to change. Household growth is needed, in order to support more retail. Trapp noted that, not including parks, right of ways and open public space, over 85% of the land in Mound is guided for single family residential. Trapp stated that Staff recommended approval of the preliminary plat and the CUP. Staff requested the Commission consider the two items sequentially. Due to there being no concerns from other agencies, Staff would like to consider the preliminary plat first and then move to the CUP where all of the questions and comments have been focused. Trapp stated that the preliminary plat, as proposed, would allow for other projects as it has been platted into only two lots, one which includes the shared parking and access areas and the other with the site's development. Trapp explained that while the public hearing is closed, Staff recommends the Commission allowing those who would like to speak to be able to provide comment. Trapp suggested limiting public comments to 3 minutes and recommended that individuals who have previously submitted written or verbal comments to focus on new information. Trapp asked for Commission input on how to move forward. Castellano asked if the applicant will be answering public questions. Pelka asked if they can discuss it prior to moving forward. Saystrom indicated he is in favor of covering preliminary plat first then moving to the CUP, Ciatti agreed. Pelka stated he wanted to hear public comments. NRM Ciatti asked if a different project would be platted differently. Staff reminded the Commission that there are seven separate lots and the preliminary plat will create two lots. The configuration would most likely be the same, if a different development is proposed. Goode asks if the plat issue is linked to this specific project. Trapp confirms this is cleaning up the lot. Any development will be easier, having the two lots versus seven. Pelka worries that if approved, the project would not come back to the Commission. Goode stated that he thinks the public should speak first. Pelka agreed. Heal believed the recommendations should be considered at once, not one at a time. The Commission indicated that they want to consider the plat and CUP after hearing public comment. Chris Carlson 5950, West Branch Road, stated that a group met with a previous CEO of the Ridgeview Clinic. They received detailed information that Schafer Richardson was not responding to communications. The owner let the property go into disrepair. He has concerns regarding previous discussions as he heard someone say they didn't that there was much opposition. He indicated at the farmers' market they got 70 signatures of people who did not like the proposal. He thinks there has been a lot of community disapproval. He also referenced the Mound Harbor District. He is concerned about the statement that there was no need put mixed-use in the site and wondered where else in the City mixed-use could occur. Jane Anderson, 5060 Edgewater Drive, thanked the Commission for their time. She recognized that this feels last minute. She believes that, years ago, when the project was initially proposed, it was residential with commercial underneath. She noted that the proposals changed from the original proposal. She knows that the community stopped paying attention when they saw what they liked initially. She acknowledged that this rezoning has been approved but would like to look at other options. She says that commercial uses are needed. The scope of the community has changed. Michelle Herrick, 2630 Westedge Blvd, noted that she had many discussions with residents at the farmers' market and was surprised that only one person was in support of this project. Folks from Minnetrista wanted to sign the petition but they did not let them. Not one person had anything positive to say about the project. She believes we should not just accept a proposal. The residents would not be able to afford the 2 -bedroom units. She is concerned about the market rate rents. She asked the audience to show hands for who is against the project. She said the people who live here are not in favor of this project. She requested the Commission deny approval of this project. Jason Arseneau, 2126 Fern Lane, asked whether there is a way to allow residents to vote for or against the project. He believed many people do not know when the meetings are. He learned about the project from Next Door. Goode responded to the resident noting that information is in the City's newsletters and on the website. Goode encouraged residents to check out the agenda that is posted prior to each meeting. Ashlee Corning, 2190 Langdon Lane, noted that she moved here because it was small and quaint. She is very concerned with increased traffic. She believes the timing is not right for this project. She hopes to keep Mound unique and not cookie cutter. After seeing no additional attendees who wanted to speak, Pelka noted that the Commission would stop taking public comment and turned to the Commission for discussion. -1485- In response to the earlier public comment, Trapp noted that the mayor reached out to the clinic and clarified that the clinic has no plans to move back to Mound. Similarly, the library is not seeking a new site in Mound. Ciatti asked if there was information about the previous business dealings prior to the clinic moving. Trapp stated that the City did not have information about private business dealings. Baker noted that Mr. Carlson had asked about other mixed-use opportunities and Baker wondered what other options there are in the City for mixed-use to be incorporated. Trapp explained that mixed-use districts are designated throughout the City along the major roadway corridors. She noted that the mixed-use districts were intended to provide flexibility for property owners in determining the best use of their property. Trapp noted that each mixed-use area is different depending on the location in the City. Pilling asks if there is data on the percent of vacant commercial property. Trevor Martinez, representative from Schafer Richardson, explained that when the concept plan was presented he had analyzed the market data for commercial space and vacancy was 30-35% in Mound. He noted that typical vacancy rates are 7-10%. Saystrom asked for clarification about the 85% Staff discussed earlier. Trapp noted that the figure was calculated by using the future land use table from the comprehensive plan and focusing on private lands —which are those not including water, wetlands, open space, right-of-way, public, or institutional. Saystrom noted that benchmarks would be helpful for future discussions. Pilling asks Trapp how much would go to park dedication fund. She says she hears that there is strong support in the community to dedicate parks lands and the additional tax revenue. While the exact figure is currently unknown, Smith noted that the applicant will be required to pay 10% of the taxable value of the land for park dedication. Pilling wants to reiterate that the project would bring dedicated money to the City. Saystrom asked how in the traffic study, it says there will be fewer cars if this project moves forward given that there will be 102 apartment units. Martinez explained that the consultants studied the current users in the space as well as what would occur if the current space was fully occupied with commercial. Martinez noted that given customers commercial always generates more traffic than residential. Saystrom says he does not believe the information. Pugh stated she lives in the neighborhood. She has two options to leave her neighborhood. One is impossible during busy times. Pugh believes it is unsafe. Heal questioned the traffic study. Castellano also expressed concerns. Baker questioned how 102 can count the trips to Wells Fargo. Pilling noted that there are trips are from the other tenants in the space. It was noted that the Wells Fargo part of the traffic study doesn't change from today to the future. Pelka outlined the major concerns, density, the lack of mixed-use, parking, and traffic. Aesthetics is another concern. Pelka wondered if the applicant could manage the density and the quality of the unit. He wondered why the City would grant an exception for the density and for the parking. Saystrom agreed. He has trouble with the traffic study. In a previous discussion, he heard 6 children were anticipated. He doesn't believe that 18 , 2 -bedroom units would only bring in 6 children. Pelka wondered if the aesthetics could be better. He recognizes there is an issue with maintaining commercial. Perhaps the community faces this problem with business that would be here. It's difficult to fill commercial space. Is this the right project at this time? Is this exactly what we want? If not, now would be the time to set it up for what the community wants. Ciatti and Pilling asked what the discussion should be. Pelka believes the CUP is central to all other proposals. Ciatti notes a resident comment that the project has changed. The community is sad to lose that vision. He feels the community is losing hope of having the initial vision. Now the town is saying they want that initial proposal, but when the proposal was brought before residents as a concept plan, the residents thought it was too tall. He notes that this proposal is not the ideal use of the land, as is. Ciatti believes that the CUP and the project should move forward. He reminds that retail space is changing. Saystrom agreed. He says the reality is Mound is not Excelsior or Wayzata. He doesn't believe retail can survive on the site. He was in favor of adding the residential to the initial commercial use. He referenced a comment from a previous meeting that one of the problems with Mound is we aren't holding to its standards. He doesn't believe we should dismiss the standards. Castellano reiterated that the previous versions were better. The traffic will not only be affected at that intersection. He knows retail will be tough to fill but he thinks the number of the units is too much. Baker said he believes the standards are there for a reason and he believes it's too much. Goode asked if there are two items to be considered on the table. Trapp confirms. Trapp introduced a note from a previous speaker from the public who wishes to clarify his earlier comments. Pelka said that is okay. Chris Carlson indicated that the comments earlier about Ridgeview leaving was not to suggest that the clinic would come back, but about the property management and that if it was better, the commercial property may not be empty. Pugh thanked the residents. She appreciates their passion and ability to come together and present good information to the committee. Pelka noted that the tax base increase will be helpful. The commercial business we do have will benefit from more residents in the City. It would also look better than what is there. He says he understands the need for this type of housing for 20 -something residents. -1487- Katie Anthony, from Schafer Richardson, spoke in response to Saystrom's question. She summarized their findings of development in suburban communities. This proposal works for people who wish to be in the community but can't or don't want to maintain a property. Young professionals will enjoy the transit station to commute and return to the small town attraction. Heal asked how we went from mixed-use to 102 units. Anthony explained that in order for the financials to work for a building to have commercial the building would need to be taller. This taller building was not supported when presented as a concept to the community so a new concept with only residential was proposed. Anthony indicated that she believes there will be equal amounts of young professionals as well as empty nesters. Saystrom expressed disbelief that empty nesters will want a studio. Anthony explained that in their other developments, empty nesters do live in the studios. Pelka asked how much common space is included. Martinez estimated about 7,000 square feet. Pelka asked how many of the units would have a deck. Martinez indicated that approximately 40%. Pelka asked about the grilling area. Martinez stated that there will be 3 or 4 full size grills for residents to use. Martinez returned to the unit mix and noted that downsizers prefer one bedroom. That is why so many are included in this project. Pugh wondered if service industries were considered, rather than traditional retail space. Martinez indicated that it is challenging for those types of spaces to be maintained and still allow rents to be affordable. Martinez noted that rents would need to be double what the market is today to do new construction. Pelka noted that if retail is currently not working today it is hard to see how it could work at the higher rents required of new construction. Pelka asked if Anytime Fitness has secured another location. Martinez stated that they cannot comment on existing tenants. Pelka sought clarification on what could happen if the west side of the site could be redeveloped. Trapp noted options could be considered but that the utility easement along Shoreline would limit would building could occur in vicinity of the corner. Pelka asked if the Commissioners had other questions. Hearing none, he asked the Commissioners if they would like to discuss further or move to motions. MOTION by Baker to close discussion, seconded by Saystrom. MOTION carried unanimously. Goode asked for clarification on what the recommendations are. Smith explained that Staff recommends the Commission recommended approval of both the preliminary plat and CUP with the conditions and findings of fact as outlined. She reiterated that Staff is working cooperatively with Hennepin County and Three Rivers District, to make improvements to a complicated road system that already exists. Saystrom sought clarification about whether the finding of fact in the plat is under the wrong section. He believes that should be under the CUP. Trapp agrees that the #2 may not be appropriate for the plat. MOTION by Heal to recommend denial of the major subdivision -primary plat and site redevelopment plans for Commerce Place 2na Addition; seconded by Castallano. Goode requested roll call vote. Roll Call: Ciatti-no; Pilling -no; Castellano -yes; Saystrom-no; Goode -yes; Baker -yes; Heal -yes; Pugh -yes; Pelka-yes. MOTION carried 6-3. Smith asked for findings of fact to bring to the City Council to hear why this was denied. Baker indicated size, traffic, parking and design is too large are the reasons. Pelka stated that for better or worse the plat is in conjunction with the CUP. Goode noted that the plat proposal goes along with the CUP so he voted to deny recommendation because the two go together. Castellano believes approving the plat would limit other spaces from being developed in any other form. MOTION by Baker to recommend denial of the Conditional Use Permit; seconded by Castellano. Roll Call: Ciatti-no; Pilling -no; Castellano -yes; Saystrom- yes; Goode -yes; Baker -yes; Heal -yes; Pugh - yes; Pelka-yes. MOTION carried 7-2. Heal noted that in the future he would like to have addressed all the requests at once. Heal noted he will comment to the Council in the future. He does not want to chip away at the project. He wants to have mixed-use. Castellano indicated that he does not want unforeseen side effects. Trapp asked for other comments related findings of fact. Pelka noted the space is not going to survive as strictly retail. He believes we can do better. Heal noted that we are an advisory committee. He thinks it is important to listen to the residents. Submitted by: Administrative Assistant Jen Holmquist 2415 Wilshire Boulevard Mound, MN 55364 (952) 472-0604 MEMORANDUM To: Planning Commission From: Sarah Smith, Community Development Director Date: July 21, 2020 Re: July 21, 2020 Mound Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda - Request to Amend Agenda, Under Item No. 3, to Add Additional Comments Received and New Information for Planning Case No. 20-07 (Major Subdivision -Preliminary Platfor Commerce Place 2nd Addition) and Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development for Commerce Place Redevelopment Project Please see below recommended amendment to tonight's Mound Planning Commission special meeting agenda, as provided under Item No. 3, to add public comments received for Planning Case No. 20-07 (Agenda Item No. 4A) and to provide additional information. Tuesday, July 21, 2020 Planning Commission Special Meeting Agenda Agenda Item No. 4A - Additional Pages -14a —14e Review/discussion/recommendation of major subdivision — preliminary plat and site development plans for Commerce Place 2"d Addition and conditional use permit for planned unit development for a proposed redevelopment of the Commerce Place shopping center for 102 -unit residential apartment project Page 14a -1490- Public Comments Received After 1:00 p.m. on Thursday, July 16, 2020 Jeff Kuiper - My name is Jeff Kuiper and I reside at 1761 Shorewood Lane, Mound. I attended the council meeting last evening and witnessed the concern of residents on the development of high density housing in Mound where the mall now sits. I didn't have a prepared written statement and frankly didn't want to get up and just wing it. I am not a fluent public speaker. So, I write this email. I purchased my home in Mound in 2010 after spending close to a year in looking for a home in a desirable community. Prior to buying, I heard comments about Mound's history of being a blue collar community. That fact actually appealed to me. I also heard comments of the drug culture in Mound. 15 years ago, Mound was often referred to as Meth Mound. While looking at different communities, I saw work that had been done in Mound to improve the community. Much of the drug culture had been pushed out of the community. There were signs of positive growth. I saw Mound as a diamond in the rough with lots of potential. Over the past 10 years, there has been continuous efforts by the City, the community and law enforcement to make our city clean, safe and a great place to live and raise a family. In my neighborhood I have seen a large increase of families with young children! I have witnessed investments and improvements in the Westonka School District. It has become an all around well respected school district. I felt so good about this community that I invested in two additional properties! Now I see this proposal for the development of high density housing and I scratch my head. Does the city really want to move in this direction? Is this really in the best interest of the residents of Mound? Does this benefit the residents of Mound or does this benefit others outside the Mound community? Does this create a positive development for the city of Mound that will attract small business to our community? The increased traffic alone will be enough to encourage one to avoid the business district. I question that this will be an asset to the community that residents will be proud of. I fear the issues that come with high density housing. I have heard of other communities that now regret the high density developments in their communities. I think Mound is a great community with so much potential for positive growth. If a high density development goes though, there will be no turning back if the direction of the community isn't a positive one. Do we really want high density housing as the centerpiece of our community? Please think this through before going down this path. Avery large number of Mound residents are definitely against the high density development in this area. Personally, I am all for the new construction in Mound that will bring in residents who want to contribute and invest in the community that will make it a cleaner, safer place to live adding to our quality of life! A place where people will want to move to and not away from in order to raise their families. Thank you for listening and your consideration. Dianne Lachenmaver - Subject: Commerce Place Redevelopment Project Dear Mound Planning Commission, Mound City Council I attended the last Mound City Council Meeting on 7/14 at Westonka PAC. I listened to the comments and suggestions from citizens about the Commerce Place redevelopment. Page 14b -1491 - Mound businesses are my'downtown'. I have been a longtime customer at Wells Fargo, Thrifty White then Walgreens. I previously supported John's Variety and now support Johnny's Garden Center and Jubilee. Both my daughters have worked at Scotty B's where we frequently dine, and both went to area schools (Hilltop, Grandview and MWHS). We go to church at OLL. I frequently use the Mound True Value, Mound Post Office. Previously when I worked at Target Corporate downtown Minneapolis, I rode the bus from the Mound Transit Station to from Mpls/Mound 5 days /week. I have loved living near Mound and raising my family here because of the small town feel. I loved taking my girls to see or participate in the parade when they were younger, attend dog days in the green space, etc. My husband and I jog or walk to Philbrook park from our home almost every day. Until Covid-19, I frequently went to the Mound Library. I am a frequent user of the Three Rivers trail that I access from Westedge that goes towards Mound, the Harbor District and Andrews Sisters trail. I have hoped someday to be able to share this special place with grandkids. I have volunteered in or on behalf of Mound residents on countless occasions through Girl Scouts, school and church activities, blood drives, etc. For these reasons, I am writing to you to letyou know that I care about Mound's future. I was sad when multi -unit senior housing went in across from Grandview, because itjust did not seem to be a good fit next to a school building, but at the same time I could understand with the changing demographics that more senior housing would be necessary, and it seemed to still fit with nearby residential, and not cause too much traffic congestion. I liked the revitalization of the Indian Knoll Manor apartments. I believe Mound needs revitalization at Commerce Place, but not the in the form of the current Schafer Richardson plan of 101 apartments, 233 parking spaces. It is not a good fit in this location that is better suited to retail or mixed use (some retail, lower density town -homes (like at Harbor District). The proposed three stories is too high for our small town feel. IF more high density residential housing is truly needed in Mound to support more revitalized retail, then please work to obtain plans that moves this housing somewhere else better suited to high- density residential space, and somewhere else that will not cause major traffic congestion for our area schools and bus routes, people going to work and passing through the Co. 15/Lynwood Blvd and 110/Commerce intersection (already congested), as well as the many people using Wells Fargo bank and parking lot. And please, when considering plans, make sure it is appealing .. See what Excelsior and Victoria have done. Here are priorities I'd like to see: • Upgrade or clean up the business fronts on Commerce / 110 heading south or consolidate them to Commerce Place. • Really listen to and partner with existing or prospective area business owners. Understand roadblocks they have encountered with Schafer Richardson • Take a step back and listen to the voice of your residents. • Take more time to understand Met Council's motivations. • Request Schafer Richardson to try to develop a plan that includes retail and lower density housing, or encourage them to sell to someone who will. Page 14c -1492- • Harbor district. Keep some of the green space. Good uses: dog park or dog friendly space, availability to continue with Farmers Market and Dog Days. I appreciate your time in considering my input and would welcome any feedback or questions. Kind Regards, Dianne Lachenmeyer Sandi Manson Dear Mound City Council Members and Planning Commissioners, I am a American citizen and Mound resident for over 36 years. I have maintained a very happy life in our small town on the edge of such a large city. This small town has the best of both worlds. Our only complaint in this area is concerning retail and restaurant options, especially fast food. I'm sure most in Mound feel the same. The current discussion "plan" on adding apartments to the Wells Fargo area strip mall is an extremely bad idea. We have tons of rental property already in our downtown area. This will cause major traffic problems to an area that has grown congested over the last few years. We really need more businesses to move to our area. I have heard from reliable sources that the developer, Schafer Richardson, has not been above board on their tenant dealings with this property. He has said businesses have not been interested in renting this space, when several businesses have tried to contact him but received no response. Also the owner has done no maintenance to the building or parking lot which would be a detriment for others to show interest on this property. Now I just heard about Ridgeview clinic wants to come back to Mound. They were wonderful to have in here in Mound. This would be a win win for Mound. Please work with them to come back. I see that the green space next to the trail downtown is slated for senior housing. This is another extremely bad idea. How about that space for the library that Hennepin county wants to build to replace our old outdated library. That would be an excellent location for this show piece. Please reconsider and vote no for these multiple residence building. Say yes to retail and the library project. Sincerely, Sandi Manson Mound taxpayer since 1983. FYI: My husband, Carey, and I built our home on property that has been in Carey's family since 1917. Page 14d -1493- Jacob Burgstahler -Regarding the Schafer Apartments, I think that adding the high density to the downtown is a good idea. It would create a customer base that would support a revitalization of the Downtown that stalled and disappeared due to the 2008 recession. My concern is that a fully residential complex does not fit into the downtown fabric. This would be more appropriate and align with the previous master plan if it was the same density but multi -use over retail. Although this building wasn't a part of the original master plan, we can see how the building's front would be very similar to the multi -use buildings proposed along Auditor. Having first floor businesses would tie in the new structure with the commercial nature of the bank and gym. Without that shared feature, a 100% residential structure would be a stark contrast at the edge of the parking lot and the rest of the downtown development. My other concern on the Schafer agenda would be for the traffic studies. The other proposed development is in the Harbor District (which I have strong design objections to the current plan - see below). Part of that proposal is removing Auditor Road. If that development does go through as proposed, the removal of Auditor is already going to stress our single intersection and transit operations in this area. Additional Information • Westonka Community and Commerce (WCC) requested a Zoom meeting which was held on 7/21 with Staff and Mayor Salazar to learn about redevelopment projects in downtown Mound including the Commerce Place proposal. -1494- Page 14e PLANNING REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Rita Trapp, Consulting Planner Sarah Smith, Community Development Director DATE: July 17, 2020 SUBJECT: Commerce Place 2"d Addition (Case No. 20-0]) Consideration of tabled Items from July ], 2020 Planning Commission meeting which include the Major Subdivision - Preliminary Plat and the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for Planned Unit Development (Plan Set dated 6/11/2020) APPLICANT: Trevor Martinez, SchaferRichardson LOCATION: 2220-2236 Commerce Boulevard MEETING DATE: July 21, 2020 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Mixed Use ZONING: B-1 Central Business District and R-3 Multiple Family Residential Note: Planning Commission members are requested to bring their July 7th Planning Commission packets to the meeting. Alternately, members may individually contact Staff and request an electronic copy of the report andsupport materials related to this request be forwarded by email. OVERVIEW At its J my ], 2020 meeting, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and considered a number of land use and subdivision applications for the redevelopment of Commerce Place Shopping Center into a 102 unit, market rate apartment building. At that meeting, the Planning Commission recommended approval, with conditions and findings, of the requested rezoning, the zoning text amendment, and the vacation of Fern Lane and existing drainage and utility easements. The Planning Commission tabled consideration of the Major Subdivision - Preliminary Plat and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) to the July 21, 2020 special meeting to allow additional time for Planning Commission consideration of these items. Planning Commission members should note that the public hearing for the major subdivision preliminary plat was closed at the July ], 2020 meeting. Therefore, additional in-person testimony and comment will be at the discretion of the Planning Commission 1495- REVIEW OF ITEMS UNDER CONSIDERATION The Planning Commission tabled the following two items to allow for additional discussion amongst its members. Preliminary Plat Platting is the process through which lots are created. The preliminary plat shows how the existing lots, as well as the vacated Fern Lane will be combined and then subdivided. As noted previously the Commerce Place 2na Addition encompasses 3.35 acres. The first lot created will be 2.11 acres in size and will encompass the apartment building and the parking areas to the east of the building. The second lot, which will be 1.20 acres, will encompass the surface parking area to the west that circles around Wells Fargo. The plat also shows 0.04 acres being dedicated as right-of-way. These are shown as small areas along Commerce Boulevard near the intersections of Shoreline Drive and Church Road. They can also be seen on page C-101 Site Plan by looking at the existing property boundary and the proposed property boundary. In evaluating the Preliminary Plat, the Planning Commission should be focused on the practicality of the plat taking into consideration the requirements of the City. Staff has not identified any issues with the plat itself. The plat is fairly straight forward in that it dedicates right of way as requested by Hennepin County. In addition, dividing the site into two lots seems appropriate given that the one lot has private access and shared parking agreements that encumber it. Conditional Use Permit (CUP) The Conditional Use Permit is the tool through which the City establishes the standards that a development in the Destination Planned Unit Development District will need to meet. Where possible, Staff has requested technical experts and/or third party review of project components, including traffic, parking, and stormwater, to provide the City with an evaluation of the project based on current industry standards, trends, and practices. While the City Code can be used as a reference -point for considering proposed project elements, differences between standard residential district requirements and what is proposed in a project do not clearly conclude that the project is inconsistent with the intent and purpose of the City Code. The Planning Commission is encouraged to consider these technical evaluation resources principally. Ultimately, the Planning Commission needs to evaluate how the project as proposed fits with the Comprehensive Plan and the City Code. As an advisory and technical body, the Planning Commission should be focused on making a recommendation and identify how the project needs to be modified to meet City requirements. -1496- PUBLIC COMMENT RECIEVED The following are additional comments received since the July 7, 2020 Planning Commission meeting: Email Comment Submitted to Staff • Anna Peters — "I was hoping this question and feedback could be addressed at the upcoming meeting; Has anyone looked into the occupancy of the Mist or the complex next to it? Navarre/Spring Park is more accessible to major highways so if those are difficult to rent or sell it might not be the best option for a town like Mound which is further West with less amenities." Written or email comments received by Staff after 1:00 p.m. on Thursday, July 16' will be presented at the Tues., July 21 special Planning Commission meeting to be included in the public record. Comments from July 14, 2020 City Council Meeting— During Public Comment (Item No. • Chris Carlson, 5950 West Branch Road, said he lives in Minnetrista but owns rental property. Carlson read a statement that stated he has previously written to Council on the concerns about so much high density. Carlson said the Comprehensive Plan includes a traffic study by Hennepin County that indicated the town is close to capacity and he knows many residents are concerned about traffic. Carlson quoted page 49 from the Comprehensive Plan and noted his biggest concern is the change in the small- town feel. • Karen Buffington, 4456 Radner Road, said they moved out here for the small town atmosphere and they want the Commerce Place property to remain zoned for business. Buffington urged the Council to table the issue due to the pandemic because no businesses are looking at expansion but in a year or two they will come back. Buffington asked the Council to consider other options for what Mound should be. • Venus Steffensen, 1838 Commerce Boulevard, read a statement that the majority of residents are not in favor and that she has a petition were 97% have a disapproval rating of development. Steffensen said Shafer Richardson is a member of the Met Council Urban Land Institute so they know where the transit hubs will be developed, they buy property and let it deteriorate so cities have to consider multifamily. Steffensen encouraged the Council to reach out to Anytime Fitness and other owners. Steffensen said Shafer Richardson's strategy is to create relationships with City Staff and create fatigue on the part of Council. Steffensen asked the Council to question Shafer Richardson's motive and strategy and acknowledge that we are not on a sinking ship and make Shafer Richardson come back with another plan. -1497- • Jason Zattler, 2345 Commerce Boulevard and business owner of Wiser Insurance, suggests the City put together an advisory commission of local business owners to come up with alternative solutions and not just go with Shafer Richardson's plan. • Matt Jenks, 6120 Beachwood Road, said he has been here a long time and that the City needs people to go the extra mile to find out what is going on. Jenks pointed to the $30M investment in the PAC the community was willing to invest and questioned the Council working with Shafer Richardson and not coming up with alternatives. Brant Nelson, 5527 Bartlett Boulevard, said he has lived here many years and recognizes Mound has been slow to develop compared to our neighbors in Excelsior and Wayzata. Nelson said he is not aware of all the discussions leading up to this proposed development, but he experiences high traffic near his home on Bartlett Boulevard. Nelson recognized his comment is coming from an emotional place but asked the Council to listen to your constituents as they want what is best for this community. • Merrick Morlan, 4842 Shoreline Boulevard and owner of 3soteric, said he talked to Shafer Richardson about moving near to Anytime and it was cost prohibitive so he understands the building as it is has to go, but he is wondering why the conversation on mixed use ended. • Chris Carlson, 5950 West Branch Road, asked about any discussions with Hennepin County about how much traffic has to increase for changes to roads to be made and what those changes might be. Mayor Salazar thanked the audience and said the development will be discussed at the July 21 Planning Commission meeting, noting the public hearing was closed so any additional comments will be at the Planning Commission's discretion. Mayor Salazar added the comments are being listened to. APPLICANT SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION In an effort to provide the Planning Commission information to support its consideration of the land use and subdivision requests, the applicant has prepared the attached narrative which addresses the following issues identified at the July 7, 2020 meeting: • History of the site and actions related to leasing and redevelopment • Target Market/Renter Profile • Parking • Amenities • Asset Management Plan The applicant has also provided the attached example of their standard in -unit finishes and features. STAFF SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION Comprehensive Plan Designation Concerns have been raised about whether the proposed project meets the designation of the site in the Comprehensive Plan. Going back to at least the 2010 Comprehensive Plan, this site has been identified as part of a mixed use district that includes commercial, office, and residential uses. As has been noted in each of the Comprehensive Plan, mixed use is not intended to be evaluated on a site basis, but rather across the entire district. The proposed project will not preclude redevelopment of the western portion of the full extent of the frontage of Commerce Boulevard become available. As Planning Commissioners may recall, during the comprehensive planning process a general market study was conducted. The market study involved a review of demographic and market trends and projections, as well as discussions with commercial property owners in the community. A few of the overall findings of the study were that the City will continue to have potential for household growth and that the City has more retail space than the market can fill. Given that more than 85% of private land in Mound is designated for single family residential, it is important to recognize that there are limited opportunities for the City to create housing opportunities that provide housing options for a resident's entire life -cycle. The mixed use areas were chosen for potential redevelopment as they are located along major corridors that are capable of handing the additional traffic and contribute positively to the health of the business community by providing residential households in close proximity. Predatory Offender Residency Restrictions Mound City Code Chapter 46 was modified in 2017 to include the City's regulations. Staff has not identified these regulations as a concern for this project. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff's recommendation for the major subdivision -preliminary plat and conditional use permit for Commerce Place 2na Addition is provided below. Please note that the conditions proposed are preliminary and subject to change as review and discussion of the development project continues. It is expected that the Planning Commission will take action regarding these items at the July 21 special to allow sufficient time for the City Council to consider these requests within its statutory timelines for land use and subdivisions Major Subdivision -Preliminary Plat Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval of the preliminary plat, as submitted, with the following conditions: -1499- 1. Concurrent approval of the rezoning, zoning text amendment, vacation of right of way and drainage and utility easements, and conditional use permit applications. 2. Applicant shall be responsible for payment of all costs associated with the preliminary plat application. 3. The applicant shall be responsible for recording the resolutions(s) with Hennepin County. Applicant is advised that the resolution(s) will not be released for recording until all conditions have been met. 4. Applicant shall be responsible for procurement of any and/or all local or public agency permits including, but not limited to, the submittal of all required information for building permit issuance. 5. The MCES SAC charge for the project shall be determined as part of final plat which shall be the responsibility of the applicant. 6. Sewer and watermain area trunk charges for the project shall be determined as part of the final plat. The current trunk charge for sewer and water, per unit, is $2000.00 each. 7. Sewer connection and water connection fees shall be determined as part of the final plat. The 2020 sewer connection and water connection fees are $240.00 each. 8. The park dedication fee amount shall be determined as part of the final plat as provided by City Code Sec. 121.121. 9. A development agreement shall be prepared as part of the final plat process. 10. Additional conditions from Staff, the Planning Commission and City Council. This recommendation is based on the following findings of fact: 1. The proposed major subdivision -preliminary plat is consistent with applicable development plans and policies of the City of Mound. 2. The physical characteristics of the site are suitable for the type of development and use being proposed. 3. The proposed development will not negatively impact the public health, safety, or welfare of the community. Conditional Use Permit Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval of the Conditional Use Permit for a planned unit development (PUD) as submitted with the following conditions: 1. Concurrent approval of the rezoning, zoning text amendment, vacation of right of way and drainage and utility easements, and major subdivision -preliminary plat applications. -1500- 2. This conditional use permit is approved for the following legally described property as stated in the Hennepin County Property Information System: (to be inserted). 3. The building materials and color scheme shall be subject to review and acceptance by the City. 4. Outdoor storage of boats, trailers, and recreational vehicles will not be allowed on the site. 5. Apartment unit decks and patios shall not be allowed for personal storage purposes. 6. The Parking Summary on page C-101 Site Plan shall be updated to accurately reflect the size and number of parking spaces. 7. Final design of any ADA spaces shall be approved by the Building Official. 8. A Development Agreement, to be prepared by the City Attorney, shall be required for the project and prepared as part of final plat. 9. Standards, expectations and procedures regarding the proof of parking area shall be established as part of the Development Agreement. As part of that agreement, the City of Mound shall have the right to request the proof of parking to be built, as well as to have a landscaping and screening plan prepared and implemented. 10. Additional information about snow storage shall be provided and subject to review and acceptance by the City Manager- Director of Public Works. 11. Plan to be revised to provide fencing adjacent to neighbors as mentioned in Planning Report. 12. The lighting plan shall be revised to meet City Code standards relative to light trespass on public streets and adjacent residential properties. 13. Applicant shall provide additional information regarding signage. 14. Applicant shall be responsible for payment of all costs associated with the conditional use permit application. 15. The applicant shall be responsible for recording the resolution(s) with Hennepin County. The applicant is advised that the resolution(s) will not be released for recording until all conditions have been met. 16. Additional conditions from Staff, the Planning Commission, and City Council. This recommendation is based on the following findings of fact: 1. The proposed use of the site is consistent with applicable development plans and policies of the City of Mound. 2. The physical characteristics of the site are suitable for type of development and use being proposed. -1501 - 3. The proposed development is providing adequate utilities and drainage. 4. The proposed development has sufficiently considered traffic impacts and access. 5. The proposed development will not negatively impact the public health, safety or welfare of the community. 6. The proposed project will diversify the types of housing available in the community by providing 102 new apartment units for the City of Mound. CITY COUNCIL REVIEW Consideration of these land use and subdivision requests is planned for the August 12, 2020 City Council meeting (note special/rescheduled Wednesday meeting night due to election activities) following completion of required publication and notification requirements. City Council public hearings are required for the rezoning, the zoning text amendment, the conditional use permit, the major subdivision/preliminary plat, and the vacations for the Commerce Place redevelopment project. -1502- July 15, 2020 To: Sarah Smith Community Development Director — City of Mound Re: Development Stage Application Supplement Commerce Place Redevelopment Ms. Smith, After the July 7`" Planning Commission meeting and the July 14`" public hearing held at City Council, it became apparent that there were questions from the public that were not clearly answered in the development stage application or previous sketch plan applications in 2019 or earlier in 2020 that should be addressed on record as part of the development review process. First, Schafer Richardson is a reputable and award-winning full-service real estate company with over 2,000 units of housing developed and our commercial portfolio currently contains over 3.5MM square feet of office, industrial and retail space across 44 properties. This building was purchased with the intent of owning a medically anchored shopping center, however, during the recession as a number of tenants terminated, vacated or abandoned their leases it became clear the real estate climate was not conducive to attracting new tenants, particularly with other newer product having high vacancy as well. Over the past 10+ years, despite best efforts to lease the building with physical signage, listings on industry standard digital databases and active conversations by our internal brokers, it has become clear that the business model envisioned for the building 40 years ago is not sustainable today. During the attempts to lease and market the space, Schafer Richardson worked in parallel on a large number of alternatives including townhomes, affordable housing, other market rate multifamily iterations, redevelopment of the commercial space, further subdividing the existing space, vertical mixed use options, combining parcels with Wells Fargo, partial multifamily redevelopment and retail preservation, etc. The currently proposal is internally the 17`" design iteration since the first joint sketch plan review submitted to the city in 2011. Additionally, Market Rate Multifamily is the highest and best use for the site. Vacancy in the submarket is extremely low, well below a 5-7% equilibrium point most market research firms would identify. Additionally, Mound is nearly if not fully built out with only redevelopment opportunities available. With this site identified in the comprehensive plan as part of a mixed district that currently contains little to no housing, housing makes the most sense here. The following sections are intended to provide additional light on why particular decisions were made about the application before you. -1503- Target Market / Renter Profile There are two main renter profiles for a new construction suburban market rate development: a young professional, generally aged between 25 and 35 who chooses to rent because of convenience and hesitancy to buy a home due to job mobility and those who are 50 and older who choose to rent to avoid home maintenance, enjoy the sense of community a multifamily building in their existing community brings and who want to leverage community amenities. Housing affordability is generally defined by the guideline of 30% or less of monthly gross income going towards housing. With that in mind, the income needed for average unit in this development would be approximately $65,000 per year, with the income baseline for the smallest units closer to $47,000 and the largest units approximately $85,000. These are well within local and metro area median household incomes which can be verified in the previously submitted market study. Parking As noted, our experience as a developer and the ongoing monitoring of our parking at properties within our portfolio, along with guidance from Steven Scott who manages over 10,000 units across the metro, has shown that the optimal parking ratio is approximately 1.1 to 1.15 parking stalls per bedroom. At this development we are over 1.7 stalls per bedroom which is well beyond typical parking utilization. Additionally, the 3rd party submitted traffic and parking study agreed that the amount of parking, even without the proof of parking, would be more than ample to serve the development. As it relates to covered parking, there were questions risen related to the number garage stalls. We are confident the number of garage stalls will be sufficient to serve the development as a number of tenants will opt for free surface parking instead of paying for a heated underground garage stall. This is particularly true for price conscious studio and alcove (enlarged studio) renters. In other suburban communities, they acknowledged this in their equivalent of the PUD process by making the requirement a minimum of 1 covered parking stall per 1 -bedroom or larger unit. Further, each underground stall, including circulation space, is approximately 400-450 square feet. With the smallest studios 488 square feet, it feels inefficient to require nearly as much space in a building for cars as for people, particularly when there is such an abundance of other parking options serving the development. Amenities While complete programming of the building is not yet complete it is expected that units will have stainless steel appliances, stone countertops, luxury vinyl plank wood look flooring and in -unit washer and dryers. select units will have balconies. Community amenities would include a fitness and yoga room, game room, community/club room, grilling patio, pet park, pet wash, and bike maintenance station. -1504- Asset Management Plan As noted previously, Schafer Richardson has been in business for over 25 years with over 2,000 units of housing developed. Our current portfolio contains about half of those 2,000 units, it should be noted however that a number of the 2,000 housing units developed were developed as condominiums and would not have been able to be retained in our portfolio. Additionally, of the multifamily sales that have occurred, most have been outside of our core Twin Cities market or were sold to existing partners in those transactions. For the foreseeable future, this development would function as a market rate multifamily development. In order to obtain and maintain good standing with financial partners, the building will have to perform to the market rate rental income standards used by financial partners to evaluate and fund this transaction. Payment standards for public housing are currently far below the rents that this building would need to achieve to avoid lender default and in order to qualify to rent from the building, an individual's income level would likely be too high to qualify for public housing assistance. That being said, it must clearly be stated that the project cannot and will not discriminate against individuals that meet the legitimate and industry standard screening criteria utilized by our properties. Thank you for providing this opportunity to provide further information on Schafer Richardson as an application and the proposed development before you. Best, Trevor Martinez Development Manager -1505- Standard In -Unit Finishes &Features M rNW11�11�kl a - 150 ■ ■ Schafer Richardson 0 Standard In -Unit Finishes &Features t v ` Y All 1 a � n y.- ■ ■ Schafer Richardson 0 0 -1507- ■ m !A At wvz A MINUTE EXCERPTS (DRAFT) MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 7, 2020 Chair Pelka called the regular meeting to order at 7:00 pm. Due to the COVID 19 pandemic, the meeting was held electronically by ZOOM. ROLL CALL Members Present: Chair David Pelka, David Goode, Sue Pilling, Jon Ciatti, Kevin Castellano, Jake Saystrom, Jason Baker, Drew Heal, and Sherri Pugh. Staff Present: Community Development Director Sarah Smith, Consultant Planner Rita Trapp, and Finance Director/Clerk/Treasurer Catherine Pausche. Members of the Public Present: Chris Carlson, Pat Buffington, Karen Buffington, John McKinley, Jane Anderson, Randy Lee, Janelle Chapman, Venus Steffensen, Johann Chemin, Jason Arsenol, Craig Rose, John Hubler APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA MOTION by Saystrom to approve the agenda, as amended, to add Staff Memorandum that includes additional comments received for the Commerce Place project; seconded by Baker. MOTION carried unanimously. REVIEW OF April 7, 2020 MEETING MINUTES MOTION by Saystrom to approve the April 7, 2020 meeting minutes as written; seconded by Heal. MOTION carried unanimously. BOARD OF APPEALS PC Case No. 20-07 Commerce Place Redevelopment Project and Commerce Place 2"d Addition 2200-2238 Commerce Boulevard Applicant: Schafer Richardson Staff Sarah Smith introduced Rita Trapp, the City's planning consultant. Trapp explained the procedures for how the meeting will run in the ZOOM format. Trapp identified the multiple land use and subdivision requests for the Planning Commission to consider. The project is located in downtown Mound at the NE corner of Commerce Boulevard and Shoreline Drive. Trapp noted the parcels on the graphic shown were indicated in red. The project does not include the Wells Fargo site. That will remain as is. -1509- Planning Commission Minutes - Draft July 7, 2020 Schafer Richardson is the owner of the property, including the existing shopping center. They are requesting multiple land use and subdivision approvals. The project will include the demolition of the existing shopping center, the construction of a three-story apartment building and Steven Scott Management, an associate of Schafer Richardson, will manage the property. The applicant completed a market study to evaluate whether or not to pursue a project in Mound and that study found that the site could support up to 121 units. The applicant is requesting 102 units. Rents could change, but the initial estimates are a range of $1,200 to $2,175. The City of Mound will not contribute financially to the project development. This would be considered a market rate apartment. Trapp offered history on the site. Commerce Place was built in 1986 and it is currently 32% occupied. Schafer Richardson has owned the property for more than a decade. They have explored several different development plans over the years. Trapp noted that state law requires the City to complete its review of this project by August 28th. The City would need the applicant's permission to extend that deadline. These rules did not change due to the pandemic and that is the reason the Planning Commission is being asked to consider the requests. Trapp outlined the requests. There is a public hearing on the major subdivision -preliminary plat which would create the lots needed to house the apartments. There is also consideration of a zoning text amendment, rezoning, vacation of right of way and drainage and utility easements and a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development. Trapp explained that the 2040 Comprehensive Plan has been adopted and that the comp plan identifies the project area as mixed-use. These uses include commercial, retail, office, multifamily residential and townhomes. Trapp shared a graphic with an example that describes what was intended in the comprehensive plan for this area. Multi -family and townhomes were specifically identified as appropriate uses in this area. The density proposed was supposed to be between 25-30 units per acre. The density of this proposal is 25 units per acre. This fits with what was approved for the Comprehensive Plan. Trapp discussed the rezoning proposal. The site currently has 2 zoning districts, Commerce Place being B-1 Central Business District and the 2 little parcels to the east of Fern Lane are R-3 Multiple Family Residential. The rezoning would be to change the parcels to Destination Planned Unit Development District. This is the same zoning that has been used across the street at Mound Marketplace. This designation would fit in the 2030 and the 2040 Comprehensive Plans. This rezoning in in keeping with what has been discussed for this area for a number of years. -1510- Planning Commission Minutes - Draft July 7, 2020 Trapp outlined the zoning text amendment that has been requested. When Staff evaluated the Destination Planned Unit Development District language the medium and high density residential, which was previously discussed as part of the comprehensive plans, was never incorporated into the text when the district was drafted. The zoning text amendment would be to modify the district purpose and the permitted uses to add medium and high density residential to that list. Trapp reviewed that the 2030 Comprehensive Plan listed this area as being 50% residential. So the text amendment would clean up an oversight that, if not amended, creates an inconsistency with the approved comprehensive plan. Trapp discussed the vacation of Fern Lane and the drainage and utility easements that are on the property. The vacation of Fern Lane would only include the portion that is bounded on either side by the project. It would not extend to the areas that are not owned by the applicant. The drainage and utility easements are located on the east side of the existing Commerce Place building and to the immediate east of Fern Lane. These are standard easements that have been determined not to be needed as they contain utilities that will be moved because of the proposed project. The requested vacations are the minimum that would be needed to support this redevelopment. It would allow the applicant to move the gas line to another location in order to facilitate where the new building would be located. Trapp outlined the preliminary plat. There are seven different parcels involved plus the vacation of Fern Lane. The intention is to combine the parcels together and create the necessary parcels to support the development. The site is 3.35 acres. There will be two lots created. The first lot is just over 2 acres which would include the apartment and parking in the rear. The second lot would be 1.2 acres and would contain the surface parking located to the west of the new building around Wells Fargo. Trapp explained that the reason for the two lots is that there existing cross access and parking agreements with Wells Fargo that need to be maintained and they need to be referenced to a lot. Lot 2 will have the access points and the parking that are subject to private agreements. There are some small pieces of right of way (ROW) along Commerce Blvd that Hennepin County requested be dedicated ROW and the applicant has shown those pieces to be dedicated. Trapp introduced the Conditional Use Permit (CUP). It is the City's tool to establish a Planned Use Development (PUD). A PUD is used to provide flexibility for areas that are difficult to develop or redevelop. As part of the regulations the appropriate dimension and design standards will be established. Trapp provided an overview of the dimension and design standards. The height of the project is proposed at 42 feet, 4 inches, which is appropriate for this district. Trapp shared a rendering from the applicant that shows the new building in proportion to the area. The proposed impervious surface cover is proposed at 73%, which is less than current conditions which are at 84%. Utilities are already established at this site so there are no concerns. Planning Commission Minutes - Draft July 7, 2020 Trapp provided additional detail about the proposed dimensions and design of the units. There will be studio, 1 -bedroom, 1 -bedroom plus den and 2 -bedroom units. Approximately 50% of the units will be 1 -bedroom units. The sizes range from 488 square feet to 1250 square feet, which is similar to other projects in Mound and are appropriate for the project. Trapp outlined the reduction in access points that the proposed project will provide. Some alleys and access points will be eliminated. The two access points that currently serve Wells Fargo on Commerce Blvd. will remain. The accesses on Shoreline and Church road will also remain. The accesses in the rear will be consolidated to one access and there will be no access on Fern Lane. Everything in the rear will be from one access and will serve the underground parking and a small parking area. Trapp discussed the traffic study that was completed by a third party consultant. The study showed that this will not create significant operational impact for the surrounding intersections and roadways. In fact, the study indicates there would be a decrease in the number of total daily trips by 126. A slight increase in the AM peak hour is projected of 18 trips, but it also shows a decrease of 18 trips in the PM peak hour. Trapp points out that if the site were remain a retail site and it were leased to full capaCity, there would be an increase of 1,000 total daily trips projected, including an increase of 5 trips in the AM peak hour and an increase of 108 trips in the PM peak hour. This information was requested by the City due to concerns voiced by residents in preliminary project discussions. The applicant is proposing 244 parking stalls. This includes 84 spots in the garage, 124 surface spaces and 36 for the Wells Fargo location. There are 28 additional parking spaces proposed on the east side of the building. The applicant proposed this as "proof of parking', meaning the parking spaces would not be built during initial construction but would be added if the City deems the additional parking is needed. Per the traffic study, the estimated parking demand is 179 spaces. This takes into consideration the Wells Fargo parking, as well as the unit parking for the development. The applicant has also noted that their typical standard is 1.1 to 1.15 stalls per bedroom, and this proposal would be 1.73 stalls per bedroom. Parking would be actively managed. Trapp also noted that the applicant is proposing designated bicycle parking. Trapp outlined the proposed building materials to be used. She notes the proposal has a peaked roof. The applicant proposed this style of roof after listening to comments at the neighborhood meetings where residents said they preferred a more residential character. Trapp discussed the proposed screening, buffering and landscaping. If the proof of parking is ever constructed, additional landscaping would be needed to ensure proper screening. Landscaping is primarily foundation and perimeter planting, including shrubs and perennials. Trees are proposed in the parking islands and other areas. No trees are proposed in the rear, -1512- Planning Commission Minutes - Draft July 7, 2020 because of the underground utilities. Outdoor amenities include a grilling area, a pet exercise area. Current fence on the rear will remain. Trapp outlined the agency comments. CenterPoint no longer has issues as the utility easement only serves the current mall. MCES had no comment and MCWD noted the proposal would reduce impervious surface by 10% so the project would be exempt from MCWD storm water requirements. Hennepin County provide a number of comments, including supporting the reduction in access points. The County requested additional right-of-way along Shoreline Drive and requested the dedication of an existing highway easement at the southwest corner of the site. Trapp outlined the public hearing notice and the steps that were taken to keep the public notified. Trapp noted the public comments that were received in advance of the Commission meeting. Commissioners were invited to ask questions of staff. Commissioner Ciatti asked for clarification about the Hennepin County request to grant the dedication of the highway easement. Trapp noted that Staff is not supportive of that request as the edge of the property is already at the edge of the parking area and not far from the building. Commissioner Baker asked how the proof of parking determination is made. Trapp replied that a condition would be in the developer agreement. The condition would provide the City the ability to request the parking to be constructed when it is deemed necessary. Commissioner Goode asked if the owner has a plan for parking boats for the tenants. Trapp suggests to defer the question to the applicant but that in the concept phase the applicant had indicates that boat parking would not be allowed. Chair Pelka asked if the development agreement would mention the "market rate" rents. Trapp explained that the rents will be determined by the applicant. Since the City has no financial stake in the project, there is no input from the City. The applicant noted previously that the rents presented in the Planning Report are preliminary and would be revised as the project evolves through construction. Commissioner Saystrom asked how the CUP will work. Trapp noted that most of the requirements are already met. Saystrom wondered if the existence of a PUD would change the steps the developer would be required to take to make a change. Trapp noted that changes to the PUD would require a public hearing to change the conditional use permit. Saystrom asked what type of change would trigger the public hearing, for example could the applicant change the number of units of one type or another. Trapp says code does not determine how many units a building has to contain only the minimum unit size. -1513- Planning Commission Minutes - Draft July 7, 2020 Commissioner Castellano sought clarification on if the project is in compliance with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan as a letter from the public states that it is not while the City says it is. Trapp said the City's opinion is that this project complies with the 2020, 2030 and 2040 comp plans. Trapp says she cannot speak about how someone would come up with a different conclusion, but for the City's perspective, the use, the building height, the zoning all agree with the last three Comprehensive Plans. Castellano wondered if the developer needs to have a plan in the event the project does not fill up as planned. Trapp says there are devices in place to ensure the developer executes the project as outlined in a development agreement. Trapp deferred Castellano's question regarding subsidized rents to the applicant. Commissioner Pugh asked for clarification on setback requirements. Trapp states setbacks are established for each district and there are limited setback requirements in the Destination District. Pugh noted that if the building were built right to the property line on Shoreline there is concern that it will create a "tunnel -like environment" and she wonders if the developer has discretion to decide how close it is to the road. Trapp showed the rendering provided by the applicant. She explained there is about 100 feet of right of way for Shoreline Drive. Pugh suggested the developer might consider improving the look by adding landscaping. Commissioner Baker wondered if the City has any mechanism to ensure the developer does not change the rents from market rate to subsidized. Trapp noted that from her experience and knowledge to provide "low income", "subsidized" or "affordable" housing is a much tougher process for the financer than to provide market rate and she is not aware of any tool the City can use to dictate this. Commissioner Saystrom asked about the code requirement of one covered parking spot per unit and noted that the application is 20 spots short of that. Trapp explained that there is not the space on the site to meet that requirement. Saystrom interjects that there is a way to do it but that would require the applicant to build fewer units. Trapp says yes, but then the project would most likely not happen because the finances wouldn't line up. Saystrom wondered why this issue keeps getting pushed aside. Castellano pointed out that one concern he has is that parking will spill out to local streets if the parking requirements are not met, as outlined in code. Trapp confirms that parking is always a concern and that she anticipates the site can accommodate the requirements with the Wells Fargo parking that won't be used after business hours. She also noted that not every allotted parking space will be needed at the same time. Accounting for people having different work schedules and different transportation needs, the City believes the proposed parking is sufficient. Costellano asked about the parking agreement with Wells Fargo and Trapp defers the question to the applicant question portion. Saystrom points out that residents could leave an unused car just sitting in a parking space, essentially, as storage for vehicles that don't run in the middle of downtown. Trapp says it's a good question for the applicant. Pelka pointed out -1514- Planning Commission Minutes - Draft July 7, 2020 it's difficult to work with hypotheticals. He says that having a covered parking space for each unit would alleviate a lot of the concern. Ciatti wondered what difference 20 cars will make. Pelka noted that having covered parking for each unit is a different product. It's a nicer product with garage parking. Smith suggest the parking discussion be saved for the applicant. She says the expectation is that the parking supports the project. Trevor Martinez, representative from Schafer Richardson, addressed the parking questions. They cannot include any additional underground parking as the project is designed. There is no room for more parking to the west because it would disturb the access and easements. The parking ratio is based on several other similar projects where residents would rather forego underground parking in order to have nicer interior unit. Each underground parking stall costs $25,000-$30,000 to build, meaning that the rent would need to be approximately $150 more per month in order to provide underground parking. Their experience is that some residents prefer a free surface parking option. In answer to the issue with storing junk vehicles on the lot, Martinez pointed out that the property management is strict on enforcing nuisance vehicles. He does not anticipate there being any issue with spill over parking and he reminds the Commission that the proof of parking is there for that reason. Pelka asked what rents better, flat roof or peaked roof, recognizing that the peaked design on this project was designed as such because of community feedback from Mound Residents. Martinez states that neither option effects rentals all that much, so that is why they decided to design it based on resident feedback. Pelka asked if there are balconies on the units. Martinez states there are balconies on 30-40% of the units and there is a large gilling and pet park area on-site as well. Pugh asked the size of the balconies. Balconies were estimated to be 8' x 4.5'. Martinez noted there is no storage allowed on the balconies. Baker asked for clarification if residents will need to pay separately for the underground parking spaces. Martinez confirmed there would be additional rent for an underground parking stall. Baker pointed out that then there could be even more parking spilling outside if all of the underground parking is not rented. Martinez explained that if they notice a lot of underground parking is not being utilized they would lower the rental rate to entice residents to use the spots. This has not been an issue at their other properties. Goode asked if the parking stalls are available on a first come/first served basis. Martinez confirmed. Baker asked if someone in a two bedroom could rent two stalls. Martinez confirmed that could occur. Saystrom pointed out that the parking could be accommodated, but not with the current design. He wondered if the applicant might be trying to get too much out of the property. Martinez responded that removing 20 units from the building would make the project financially unfeasible. Baker asked if the studios could be replaced with 2 -bedroom units. Martinez says that it is not feasible because the demand for 2 -bedroom units is low. The entire development industry, not just the applicant, has had a hard time leasing 2 -bedroom units because the rents are similar to what residents could pay for a mortgage, making it not price competitive. -1515- Planning Commission Minutes - Draft July 7, 2020 Ciatti wondered if, as other Commissioners have mentioned, the units were adjusted to be smaller or in a different bedroom configuration, it would make an even higher price point for rents. He asked if the applicant has tried those reconfigurations and if so, what the outcome was. Martinez responded that Schafer Richardson has been working to redevelop this site for at least 10 years. He believes from first discussions until today there have been approximately 17 different iterations discussed internally by the applicant, including townhomes, other configurations with apartment buildings and one that had retail on the bottom but that would extend the building to 4 stories in order to make the project financially feasible. Community feedback was that 4 stories was too tall so the applicant went back to the current 3 -story plan. Baker asked for clarification on the traffic study presented in the application. He asks if the study included the current use, with only two commercial spaces rented out vs. 100% occupancy of the current site. Martinez stated that the traffic study took several comparisons in to consideration. He pointed out the study was finalized prior to the Coronavirus outbreak. Pugh noted her biggest concern about the entire project is the traffic. Commissioner Pilling stated she would rather see something on that lot that looks nice even if it creates a little more traffic, because what sites there now is not what we want Mound to look like. Baker asked about bike parking. He wondered if all the bike parking is designated inside. Martinez stated that there is one bike parking slot in front of each underground parking stall. There are 2 additional bike storage rooms included in the design; one on ground level and one at another location in the building. Baker asks how many bike spots are outside the building. Martinez believes it is 10-15 spots outside. The outside spots are intended for daily use, and not for longterm bike storage. Saystrom asked about the impact on the schools. Martinez noted the property management company found in similar projects that 6-7% of renters have school age children, which would add 6-8 children in the school for this project. Saystrom asked if they expect 1 child per family. Martinez confirmed that with 80%of the units being studio and 1 -bedroom, it would be difficult to have more than one child in those units. Saystrom noted that number is much lower than he expected. Martinez pointed out that the typical renter being the "active adult" in their 20s and early 30s, as well as folks in their 50s and 60s just don't tend to have school age children. Pelka opened the public hearing. Chris Carlson, 5950 West Branch Road, Minnetrista (owns property on Tonkawood), wanted to note that the petition he submitted in 2018 was not specific to any details of the building. It specifically asked the City not to rezone the area to high density housing. He believes the petition is still applicable to this application because it speaks against high density housing, not any certain project. He stated that every time he visits his property on Spruce, with the -1516- Planning Commission Minutes - Draft July 7, 2020 exception of when parking restrictions are in place, there is parking spillover. Carlson asked if there is a minimum number or percentage of residents that sign a petition required to stop the project. Carlson also noted that, in his experience, developers always say they need to build a certain number of units or it won't be profitable. Pelka stated that the Planning Commission is only a recommending body and the final decision lies with the City Council. Carlson reviewed his comments that he, along with a huge number of members of the public, are opposed to this project because they do not want any more high density residential in Mound, and they for sure don't want it downtown. He suggested the developer make the exterior signs match and pave the parking lot and the building won't be that bad. Pat and Karen Buffington, 4456 Radnor Road, reiterated that putting high density housing in that location would ruin the downtown area. She would like to know what other options there. Why is putting a high rise, low income housing unit downtown the only option. She stated most people in Mound do not want this so she doesn't understand why the Planning Commission is going forward with it. Pelka stated this is the plan that was presented to the Commission for consideration. He explains that this is privately own land. The City does not own the land and therefore can't propose something different. Ms. Buffington asked what happened to the public library option. Pelka reiterated that this is not public land and building a public library was not presented as an option. Mr. Buffington noted that once you rezone a business district into residential, it's gone and it can't come back. John McKinley, 5948 Hillcrest Road, commented that the neighborhood meetings held by the developer showed 99% of the attendees were opposed to this project. He believed the 120 day guideline makes it difficult for the residents to voice their opposition and he believes the City could request that Schafer Richardson postpone the project so they can hear from more people. McKinley noted that Schafer Richardson has stated that they didn't have people who wanted to rent space. There were three realtors who said they had clients trying to rent space but their phone calls were not returned. McKinley does not believe the citizens of Mound need to help Schafer Richardson along in any way because they did this to themselves. Jane Anderson, 5060 Edgewater Drive, shared her belief that the City of Mound could be a mini -Excelsior or a mini -Wayzata if the City marketed itself right. She believed the City could be totally financed by points of interest including small shops, ice cream shops, realtors, all the things that make a beautiful small town or we can be a fourth tier, not on the map kind of suburbia. She believes we need to decide what we are and who we are and make a bigger plan. She suggests we pause and go at this again. Randy Lee, 5034 Tuxedo Blvd, indicated he is supportive of property owner's rights to develop their private land as they see fit. He noted he has issue when the owners are asking for exceptions and changes to zoning or variances that go against code. Lee states that it is not the residents' responsibility to bail out a property owner because they made a bad business decision. He believes the property owner should present a project that conforms to current -1517- Planning Commission Minutes - Draft July 7, 2020 code. He is supportive of the applicant doing any project that fits with current code. He struggles with the idea that residents must make concessions and changes so a corporation can see a return on their investment. Janelle Chapman, 1637 Eagle Lane, wondered what will bring the 20 -somethings to Mound vs. other communities that have better amenities. She doesn't believe that the proposed project is going to entice the target demographic that the property owners seek to move to Mound when they could get better amenities elsewhere. Venus Steffensen, 1838 Commerce Blvd, stated that residents believe the Planning Commission will honor the residents' wishes based on the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Her concern is that the vision keeps changing and is moving away from the stated goals. Residents rely on the Commission to perform due diligence and to find the best path forward obtain the goals. The 2040 plan identified the three projects as mixed zoning. In three of the areas proposed for mixed-use there is only residential being proposed which does not retain the 30% commercial noted for mixed-use. The developer of Commerce Place purchased the property understanding that there are and will be grants that will benefit from the transit center across the street and the property being worn down. For 8 years, Schafer Richardson has been in a position of decision making for the property. They have knowingly let the property get dilapidated and have not reinvested in the property, positioning themselves as victims and reported that no one is interested in putting in retail in that space, when they have not aggressively tried. Steffensen believes this is a well -orchestrated development strategy they have conducted across Hennepin County and the surrounding area. She stated that Trevor Martinez of Schafer Richardson comes from a background of promoting affordable housing with Dominium and prior to that he worked with affordable housing projects for the Met Council. Steffenson stated that Schafer Richardson positions market rate housing up front with the default safety mechanism for affordable housing or life cycle housing then converts that housing to housing choice vouchers, formerly known as Section 8. The market rates they propose are high for Mound residents and for the venue. She believes Schafer Richardson is covered because Hennepin County conforms to the law that restricts landlords from discriminating on accepting low income housing vouchers. It is Steffensen's opinion that Martinez's team and Steven Scott Management will coordinate with the housing authority to start reaching out to the hundreds of people waiting on their list. These housing vouchers covers most, if not all, of the rent. She says the residents of Mound will need to pay the full rents but others from other communities will pay next to nothing, as seen with Balsam Hill townhomes. Those residents are not from Mound, or nearby. So to assume that this project is going to be utilized by Mound and the surrounding neighbors is highly unlikely. Steffenson outlined how other proposals in the area would be eligible for the same grants as Commerce Place. Steffenson says 91% of 250 people polled want restaurants and shops in this area. She also noted an online petition that has 600 signatures. She noted the petition mentioned by Carlson earlier in public comments. She stated that residents want to protect previous investments at Mound Harbor District and maintain the green space to enhance quality of life and attract more -1518- Planning Commission Minutes - Draft July 7, 2020 commerce to the City. She requests that the Commission go back to the developers and require a plan that honors this request, including retail space in the plan. Steffanson wants to know who owns Commerce Place LLC and where is it located. Steffanson outlines that on other projects Schafer Richardson takes on a short term, 2 -year mortgage on a property and walks away immediately with 5 million dollars in equity due to grants and recovered developer fees. She wants to know if the Commission has research to understand their long-term strategy. Steffenson wonders why we would accept a plan from the developers that does not protect our investment in regards to green space, lake access and commercial/retail interest. Johann Chemin, 6039 Beachwood Road, agreed with earlier speakers. Chemin said that he attended the meeting in February and Schafer Richardson did not take any of those points into consideration. He wondered what demographics they are trying to attract with such high rents and ugly design. He believes that for the proposed rent amount, he would prefer living down town for cheaper and with more amenities. He thinks the project is trying to brainwash people with a grill and bike parking. For his taste, who cares about bike parking, if he had a bike he would put it in a garage. And if he were going to grill out, he would not want to do that looking at a parking lot. He would want some privacy in the back of the building, which would require the project being redesigned. Chemin stated that Trapp shut down any question asked by the Planning Commission with any dissent for the project. He also questioned her presenting the project saying "we". He wonders if it's "we" the citizens of Mound or "we" Schafer Richardson. Chemin believes that Trapp, as a representative of Mound, should be representing the interest of the citizens and the City. He believes she is biased in favor of the project and is not representing the City in a fair light. Chemin disputed Schafer Richardson's claim that they did due diligence to bring business to the existing building. The parking lot has never been resurfaced, the building fagade has never been changed and he knows from attending the meeting in February that there are some structural issues with the building. So he doesn't believe they tried to attract new business to this location. He requested that the Commission deny the project. He believes Schafer Richardson needs to present something that appeals to the citizens. Jason Arsenol, 2126 Fern Lane, opposed the apartments because he lives right near the project site. He recently moved to Mound and if the apartments had existed when he purchased he would not have wanted to buy it. He outlined the amenities from his previous apartment, prior to moving to Mound. He moved to Mound to enjoy the good school district and start a family and this project will have a negative impact on him. One of his concerns is that the proposal has gone through 17 versions and it's failed every time. He wonders why we keep re -addressing it. He asked about the Library proposal that was discussed at the December, January or February meeting. He believed a lot of people knew of a plan to move the library to where this building is and move this building where the library is. He believes a library with statues and picnic tables would be make this a Town Square. He requests that everyone step back and look into this more. -1519- Planning Commission Minutes - Draft July 7, 2020 Craig Rose, 5100 Edgewater Drive, noted that there are some things bothering him. He's hearing "affordable housing', "section 8" "high density housing" and "vouchers". This is his home, his family's home, his kid's attend school here and these things affect those. A developer is going to come in here and stuff that thing full of ... residents, strip the equity out and be gone and we'll be here to deal with it. John Hubler, 5448 Breezy Road, noted that approximately 10 or 15 years ago they rezoned Anthony Floral. He did a study where he took a map of the City of Mound and found that there was over 75% of high density rental units were located on a % mile radius from Grandview Blvd and Commerce a''/: mile radius contained the other 20%. He is not against rentals but he believes there was discrimination against residential R-1 property owners with all the high density rentals within % mile of one point and now we are discussing the facts of additional high density housing. Hubler commends the developer in exploring alternatives but he agrees with several of the previous speakers. He wonders if there have been impact statements from the police, fire department or the school. He asks if Met Council has any direction in this dictating what percentages of rental units that the City of Mound has to put through. Trapp responds to the public comments made. Trapp presented a graphic from the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. She points out the major corridors through Mound and says these areas are made to handle more traffic. If the City were to look at other areas of the City for high density residential, we would be looking at taking out single family homes. The density intensification is located along the corridors is where the City determined to focus those efforts. The City is fully developed so there is no open land where these projects can occur. There are limited options for the 20 -something resident who grew up in Mound and wishes to stay in Mound. This project would help provide that. Similarly, at the other end of the age spectrum there aren't a lot of options. Trapp corrected earlier statements indicating that while there have been previous iterations for this land, those were all either internal applicant discussions or concept plans presented to the City. This is the first formal application to the City. Trapp noted that the police and fire departments are on the distribution list for comment and no comments were received. Trapp says relative to the Met Council, the City needs to create a comprehensive plan to meet their requirements. The implementation of the comp plan is at the discretion of the City. The Met Council does not specifically comment on development projects with the exception of sanitary sewer services. The City decides how we move forward and if this is appropriate for the community. Trapp invited Martinez to address any questions he heard. Martinez clarifies about the amenities as compared to other properties in surrounding communities. He stated that the price points in those properties are comparatively higher and that often the amenities like a pool would require a much larger complex. Speaking on the amenities for this project, they offer high end interior finishes including stainless appliances, stone countertops, oversized tubs -1520- Planning Commission Minutes - Draft July 7, 2020 and showers in the bathrooms. They offer bike wash and pet wash stations, game rooms, yoga rooms and fitness/club rooms and community rooms and exterior amenities like the grilling area, pet exercise areas and lawns can be included as they refine the design. Martinez responded to the concerns about density. As proposed, this project provides 25 units per acre and the comp plan allows up to 30 units per acre. He also clarified about the transition to subsidized housing. There are 2 ways that a project can become subsidized. The government subsidizes construction costs and the developer agrees not to lower rents. This is not happening here. Schafer Richardson does not have any tax-exempt bonds or tax credits. This can be confirmed because if they had those bonds or credits they would have had to come to the City. The other way to become subsidized is an operational subsidy which is the project based section 8 vouchers. The Metro HRA payment standards for the studios and the 1 -bedrooms are $720 and $860. This is $500-$700 per month short of projected revenues. The applicant's lenders would never consent to the applicant cutting their rents by that amount. That would put the building in foreclosure and the applicant would lose 100% of the money they invested in the property. He explains that they cannot strip the equity out of the building. This is not a subsidized project. Martinez clarifies the discrimination laws others have spoke of. You can't discriminate against the use of Section 8 vouchers if that is the rents you are charging. However, if your rents are substantially above those payment standards, you do not have to accept those vouchers. Pelka asked how this project compares to The Mist as far as amenities, cost perspective and unit size. Martinez stated that the Mist was a condo project that was converted to rentals, making it unique. He believes that property went through a negotiated bankruptcy in order to make that transition occur. He stated that in terms of other properties similar to the proposed project, the units are slightly larger. Ciatti asked about the comments that Schafer Richardson intentionally not filling the commercial vacancies. He requested that the people who made the comments offer concrete evidence that it happened and that the applicant dispute it, if not true. Martinez denied the accusations. He says that he spoke to two of the three brokers who attended the February meeting. Martinez is only aware of one inquiry since 2018. That potential tenant was looking for temporary space while they remodeled their existing space. Trapp says that Ciatti is correct in that perhaps all questions can't be answered tonight and she suggests Staff create a list of follow up questions that can be answered and provided to the City Council to assist their decision. Ciatti also pointed out that the comments about what will happen if this is not what they say it is cannot be used in his decision. Goode asked if there has been any discussion between the applicant and Hennepin County about relocating the library to this site. Martinez indicated that he believes that was suggested at a previous Council or Planning Commission meeting as part of the concept review process, but Martinez is not aware of any such conversation between Shafer Richardson and Hennepin County. -1521 - Planning Commission Minutes - Draft July 7, 2020 Pilling noted that previously it was discussed that there would be no boat parking and she wants to add RVs to the list. Pilling recognizes that people are saying they don't want high density housing but the retail space that is available is not being used. She explained that Schafer Richardson has few options. Pilling believes houses equal business. In her opinion the Library point is a distraction and we should move on. Chair Pelka asked if there are any more questions for the applicant. Staff noted that three members of the public who have spoken previously have put their hands up. Staff asked that the commenters only offer new information and requests the comments be brief. Chris Carlson stated with Balsam Place he attended the Council meeting and was told by a Council member that the neighborhood meeting was his chance to voice his opinion. So he wants to know when the right time to voice his concerns. He asked if the Commissioners report to the City Council will include an "outswelling of community opposition" for this project. He also clarifies that the library option was just talk, and is not an option. He knows the library is slated to be demolished and rebuilt. Although, he believes this site would be perfect for the library, creating the perfect town square. Because of that possibility he opposes this project. Venus Steffensen asked Martinez for clarification on the voucher use program. She says if someone comes to them with a voucher, it is the law that they must accept it. The voucher choice program provides those dollars in the amounts he mentions but then allows the voucher holder to pay the difference. She provides an example that if rent is $1000 and someone has $700 voucher, they would pay $300 for rent. Then the federal subsidy would come from the state and go to the landlord. She asks for confirmation. She believes it would be a shame for people from outside the community to be able to live here for $300 but legacy Mound residents can't afford to have their children or their parents live in these apartments. Pausche noted that these comments will be forwarded to the council. Johann Chemin responded to the claim that the applicant did not try to rent the vacant space because the parking lot is not resurfaced, the facade is ugly and from the 80s. Staff pointed out that these points have been made and clarified that Ciatti requested earlier specific cases where the applicant did not rent to interested parties. Chemin responded to Martinez's comment that he is not aware of the Library discussion. He pointed out it was discussed at length in February. He wondered if Martinez is untruthful about this, what else is he hiding and misrepresenting. Pausche clarified that Martinez is aware of the conversation among the public but that his comment was that he is not aware of any discussion between the county and the landowner. Pat and Karen Buffington noted that they worked with the City to set up a Level III Sex Offender zoning. She wondered how that will be affected if this area is rezoned as part of this project. Pausche noted it will be public record. -1522- Planning Commission Minutes - Draft July 7, 2020 Pelka commented that the library is a public building. This applicant is a private owner. The City cannot mandate any sort of land swap unless the City buys the property. Public opinion and suggestions are great, but if we don't own the land, we can only deal with the project presented. Pelka wondered about the mixed-use element that would be lost with this project. He stated that is within the Commission's control. But commercial real estate is just not as valuable as residential. He pointed out that there has been no development in a long time and the questions he is hearing, in regards to allowing parking variances, how does that effect future development. Pelka closed the public hearing. Saystrom had a question for Pelka asking if the mixed-use is, in reference to the whole City or just this property. Pelka replies both. We are speaking specifically about this project, but if the City doesn't require that mix, will developers choose to only build residential? Saystrom believes the language being mixed-use includes residential only. Baker noted the two zoning questions around changing the zoning to Destination PUD to match the comprehensive plan and the text amendment to allow medium and high density, in that district, as a whole. Some of the other questions are relating to the specific CUP for this project. Pilling noted that she believes the residents would be happier if there were some space for Anytime Fitness and a restaurant in this project. Baker agrees. He remembers discussion of at least a little mixed-use, or the entire first floor. Ciatti agrees with Pilling that retail with apartments on top is desired in the community. Personally he would prefer that. However they must consider the current proposal. He wondered if it is a gamble to deny this project and forgo the tax revenues and the new residents for something that may or may not be proposed. He noted that Schafer Richardson had a concept plan that had retail on the bottom but that would have required a 4 -story building and the residents didn't like that either. He acknowledged the public opinion, however he recognizes the trends in commercial and retail space prior to the pandemic and now it's worse. He believes the risk of waiting for something that might not ever happen is too high. Saystrom agreed with the assessment for filling retail space in Mound. We don't have a good track record. Saystrom's concern with the PUD using it as a tool to get flexibility on the design. This includes parking. He asked if there are other concessions we will be giving away by approving that. Pelka agreed with the opinions on how retail is changing. He noted that people want retail but they go elsewhere. He wondered if we approve residential only are we taking out that unknown. He recognized that several people are voicing opinion against this project, but believes there are silent voices who would rather see anything other than what is there. -1523- Planning Commission Minutes - Draft July 7, 2020 Pelka goes back to the underground parking. He wondered why we are conceding to less than one underground stall per unit, as is code. Pilling interjected that the parking is the least of the worries. She believed if we want to keep the businesses that are already in town, we need to support them with more people that will frequent the existing businesses. Baker countered, if people equal business, then why wouldn't a mixed-use proposal be more appropriate. Pilling stated no restaurant wants to be here right now. Pugh agreed with Pilling. She pointed to mixed-use projects in Excelsior and Wayzata which have empty retail space with residential space on the top. Pugh noted there is a well maintained center across the street from this project that is finally nearly full after many years of struggling to find commercial tenants. She believes we need to look at the bigger picture. She pointed out that there is still a lot of space in town that can be commercial or mixed-use. In her opinion, moving forward with this would not take away opportunities for retail space. Pugh stated that we need to consider the quality of what happens at Commerce Place and how it can add to the community. Going back to parking, she noted that even if every unit had a spot, some residents wouldn't use it so there would still be parking outside. She doesn't think the parking debate should be a determining factor for approval or denial. Pelka disagreed. He believes the parking mandates the scale and if we give this exception, the next person to come along will want an exception and another. He doesn't think we should cave in on the rules that exist because they must exist for a reason. The rules create a certain quality of what will be built and a certain density. He doesn't think it's a non -issue. A lot of times the new stuff that gets built doesn't have enough parking. Pugh noted we do it all the time. She uses vehicle storage as an example. She said if we want to be consistent all the time, fine, but we haven't in the past. Pilling agrees that these things aren't enforced. Pelka pointed out those issues are not new construction. He believes it's an important issue that should not be ignored. Pilling stated the current building is an eye -sore. Pelka clarified that he is not suggesting we don't allow the construction; he just questions whether we should allow the parking exception. If not waiving the parking requirements makes the project smaller, it's not our problem. Pilling indicated that this is a small issue and we should work toward bringing more people into the City to help our existing businesses. Ciatti asked if there is data that supports the parking requirements that were written 20 years ago. Pelka wondered if 100 people coming here will make that much of a difference. He doesn't think that alone will transform anything. He does wonder that if we ask the developer to comply with the parking requirements, maybe that makes the building smaller and allows more green space, is that possible? -1524- Planning Commission Minutes - Draft July 7, 2020 Pilling reiterated that building this project will be better than the embarrassing existing building and she doesn't think we should question how investors want to spend their money. Ciatti noted that he understands Pelka's concern on bending the rules. He notes that the discussion would be different if they took an existing successful business and tore it down. This discussion is surrounding a run down retail area. Trapp interjected regarding the "bending the rules" comment as with a Planned Unit Development area you establish what is appropriate for that area and those elements are starting points, not set rules. She wants to clarify that we aren't "giving" them something that is against the rules. Trapp believes we need to focus on the entire project rather than the parking deficit of 20 spots. Pelka stated parking is not the only issues. There are still questions about traffic, the scale of the project and the green space included in the plan. We can say "we don't want it to be that big" and if it doesn't work out economically, someone else has to figure that out. Smith pointed out that the traffic and parking studies are based on current conditions, which is much different than it was 20 years ago. She stated the parking code is dated. The evaluation i5 that the parking, as proposed, meets the needs of the property. Smith points out there is still opportunity for mixed-use on the site, within the area and within the district. In regards to traffic, Smith says the current issues have been ongoing. The 2040 Comp Plan outlines that we will work with the county to improve those conditions. The developers aren't creating that issue because it already exists. The City Manager is working with Hennepin County to find options and alternatives. Smith suggested the residents who are concerned reach out to the County officials. The matters will only be resolved with the County's help. Smith notes that the rezoning amendments are consistent with the 2030 and 2040 plans. Baker asked for clarification from Smith on the opportunity for mixed-use on this site. He asked if she is referring to Wells Fargo. Smith confirms. Trapp says the intention is area -wide, not based on every single site. Baker clarifies that if Wells Fargo moved and something new came in we would still have a parking issue. Trapp confirms that parking would need to be addressed as part of any new project. Castellano said this proposal feels like a lot of building for that site. The outdoor amenities facing the parking lot feel crammed on the site. He doesn't think we need to make any concessions there. He believes the building could be profitable with fewer units. Trapp noted that if the recreational amenities were on the other side, she believes the neighboring residents would not like having that facing them. Pugh noted the feedback from the neighborhood meeting was why was the building situated with the rear facing the street. Pilling agrees that the front or back may make a difference for future development. Castellano says he's not opposed to the project but he thinks it could be better. Pilling says this is better. Castellano says he would like to see other options. Pilling asked how many times they have tried to redevelop it. Baker says this is the first proposal to the City. -1525- Planning Commission Minutes - Draft July 7, 2020 Ciatti suggested the Commission move to voting on the project. Pugh asked whether the PUD Destination Planned Unit Development can include both multi -family and retail commercial. Trapp states that if the rezoning is approved, yes. She says the zoning text amendment and the rezoning of this district are interconnected. She says this has always been the intention for the parcel but that this type of change historically has not been made until it occurs along with a development project. Pugh asked if this project doesn't go through, will the zoning still change. Trapp stated you need a project in place to make the change for the rezoning. MOTION by Pugh for approval of the zoning text amendment to modify City Code Section 129- 140, DEST-PUD destination planned unit development; seconded by Ciatti. Motion Roll Call: Goode -yes, Heal -no, Saystrom-yes, Costalano-yes, Pilling -yes, Ciatti, yes, Pelka-yes, Pugh -Yes, Baker -yes. MOTION carried 8-1. Heal did not want to comment on the no vote. MOTION by Goode to extend the Planning Commission meeting end time until 11:15 pm; seconded by Pelka. Motion Roll call: Ciatti-yes; Goode -yes; Heal -yes; Saystrom-yes; Pugh -yes; Pilling -yes; Castellano -yes; Baker -yes; Pelka-yes. MOTION carried unanimously. MOTION by Baker to recommend City Council approval of the rezoning of the parcels involved in the Commerce Place 2na Addition plat to DEST-PUD destination planned unit development district; seconded by Heal. Motion Roll call: Pelka-yes; Ciatti-yes; Goode -yes; Heal -no; Saystrom-no; Pugh -yes; Pilling -yes; Castellano -yes; Baker -yes. MOTION carried 7-2. Saystrom's no vote is because it is linked to a project he's not in favor of. Heal indicated that he will make a statement at the City Council meeting. MOTION by Baker to approve recommendation to City Council to approve the vacation of Fern Lane and the two drainage and utility easement encumbering this property as proposed in the Commerce Place 2na Addition; seconded by Heal. Roll Call, Pelka-yes, Ciatti-yes, Goode -yes, Heal -no, Saystrom-yes, Pugh -yes, Pilling -yes, Castellano -no, Baker -yes. MOTION carried 7-2. No comment by the dissenters. MOTION by Pugh to table the recommendation to approve of the Conditional Use Permit for a planned unit development (PUD) for further discussion by the Planning Commission to special meeting on July 21, 2020. Seconded by Heal. Roll Call: Pelka-yes; Ciatti-no; Goode -yes; Heal - yes; Saystrom-yes; Pugh -yes; Pilling -yes; Castellano -yes; Baker -yes. MOTION carried 8-1. The tabling is to provide an opportunity for the Planning Commission to respond to the public feedback regarding design and use, along with the issues discussed in regards to density, parking and traffic. MOTION by Baker to table the approval of the major subdivision preliminary plat for further discussion by the Planning Commission to special meeting on July 21, 2020; seconded by Goode. Roll Call: Pelka-yes; Ciatti-no; Goode -yes; Heal -no; Saystrom- yes; Pugh yes; Pilling- no; Castellano -yes; Baker yes. MOTION carried 7-2. Submitted by: Administrative Assistant Jen Holmquist -1526- 2415 Wilshire Boulevard Mound, MN 55364 (952) 472-0604 JAI a JTAM.7-11 i! I Dili Jll To: Planning Commission From: Sarah Smith, Community Development Director Date: July 7, 2020 Re: July 7, 2020 Mound Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda - Request to Amend Agenda, Under Item No. 3, to Add Additional Comment Received for Planning Case No. 20-07 (Commerce Place 2n'Addition — Proposal for a Redevelopment of the Commerce Place Shopping Center for a 102 -Unit Residential Project) --Agenda Item No. 5 Please see below recommended amendment to tonight's Mound Planning Commission meeting agenda, as provided under Item No. 3, to add an additional comment received for Planning Case No. 20-07 (Agenda Item No. 5): Additional Page No. 63A Dave Wilson — "Hi, is tonight's meeting available to attend in person or via Zoom? Also, what percentage of the units will be Section 8 and/or rent subsidized? Finally, has this project been fully approved by the full City Council." Dave Wilson Tuesday, July 7, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Agenda Additional Page - 63A Agenda Item No.5 — Public Hearing for review of major subdivision — preliminary plat and site development plans for Commerce Place 2"d Addition; also review of land use applications and vacation applications -1527- PLANNING REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Rita Trapp, Consulting Planners Sarah Smith, Community Development Director DATE: July 1, 2020 SUBJECT: Commerce Place 2"d Addition (Case No. 20-0]) Public Hearing — Major SubdivisionPreliminaryPlat; and review/discussion/consideration of Zoning Text Amendment, Rezoning, Conditional Use Permit (CUP)for Planned Unit Development and Vacation (right of way and drainage and utility easements) (Plan Set doted 6/11/2020) APPLICANT: Trevor Martinez, ShaferRichardson LOCATION: 2220-2236 Commerce Boulevard MEETING DATE: July], 2020 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Mixed Use ZONING: B-1 Central Business District and R-3 Multiple Family Residential The applicant, Schafer Richardson, has applied for multiple land use and subdivision approvals for the redevelopment of the existing Commerce Place Shopping Center generally located between County Road 15, County Road 110, Church Street, and Fern Lane. The redevelopment will include properties located at 2200, 2232, and 2238 Commerce Boulevard, as well as two properties to the east of the south end of Fern Lane. The redevelopment will include the demolition of the entire existing shopping center and the construction of a three-story, 102unit market rate apartment building. While the building will be developed and owned by an affiliate of Shafer Richardson, Steven Scott Management will provide property management services. The redevelopment will involve the vacation of a portion of Fern Lane, a drainage and utility easement that exits to the east of the current building, and a drainage and utility easement that exists to the east of the existing Fern Lane. While the existing parking lot will remain, it will be slightly reconfigured to address circulation in front of the proposed apartment building. The redevelopment will not include the parcel and associated parking that includes the Wells Fargo bank. Also notable, there are existing private access and parking agreements between 1528- the applicant and Wells Fargo. These agreements require that the applicant retain the existing driveways on County Road 15, County Road 110, and Church Street with substantially the same access for the bank. These agreements have impacted the proposed design of the redevelopment Additional background information provided in the applicant narrative includes the applicant's market study finding that the site could support up to 121 units. It was also noted that Mound has not had new market rate apartments for a few decades. While the final rent amounts may change as the project is developed, constructed, and leased, initial indications are that rent ranges will be $1,200 to $2,175 depending on the size of the unit. Project Plans Due to file size the Planning Commission packet contains a select set of the most referred to application materials. The full plan set is available using the hyperlinks provided below. Hardcopies of plans will be provided to Planning Commission members by request. • Mound Renderings and Context Study.pdf at: https://docu mentcloud.adobe.com/I i nk/track?u ri=u rn:aaid:scds:US:be6715fa-3e14-4a82-b445- 465ded7f7e47 • Mound Civil plans Il.pdf at: https://docu mentcloud.adobe.com/I i nk/track?u ri=u rn:aaid:scds:US:994d7aa8-4c9a-4bc7-b65e- d 1 b 28ff44632 • Traffic Assess ment_6.26.2020.pdf at https://www.cityofmou nd.com/vertica I/Sites/%7 B2E4C2OC8-5A79-4517-A724- CB4891DAF341%7D/uploads/Mound Apartments - Traffic Assessment 6.26.2020.pdf • Mound Elevations Il.pdf at: https://docu mentcloud.adobe.com/I i nk/track?u ri=u rn:aaid:scds:US:60f6de0b-eO85-474b-8257- c7977b350605 • Mound Floor Plans Il.pdf at: https://docu mentcloud.adobe.com/I i nk/track?u ri=u rn:aaid:scds:US:81a 61cda-6601-4611-93d8- 19234dd65cf9 • Finish Board.jpg at: https://docu mentcloud.adobe.com/I i nk/track?u ri=u rn:aaid:scds:US:3e7252c8-Oe53-47fO-ac70- 59cd7566aaad -1529- REVIEW PROCEDURE The applications under review include the following land use and subdivision requests: • Rezoning • Zoning Text Amendment • Vacation of a portion of Fern Lane and two drainage and utility easements • Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) • Major Subdivision -Preliminary Plat 60 -Day Land Use Application Review Process Pursuant to Minnesota State Statutes Section 15.99, local government agencies are required to approve or deny land use requests within 60 days. Within the 60 -day period, an automatic extension of no more than 60 days can be obtained by providing the applicant written notice containing the reason for the extension and specifying how much additional time is needed. For the purpose of Minnesota Statutes Section 15.99, "Day 1" is determined to be May 1, 2020 as provided by Minnesota Statutes Section 645.15. The 60 -day timeline, which would have originally expired on or around June 29, 2020, has been extended to August 28, 2020, per a letter provided to the applicant on June 26, 2020. Any further review timeframes would need to be agreed to by the applicant. 120 -day Subdivision Review Process Pursuant to Minnesota State Statutes Section 462.358, local government agencies are required to approve or deny subdivision requests within 120 days. For the purpose of Minnesota Statutes Section 462,358, "Day 1" is determined to be May 1, 2020 in accordance with MS. 645.15. The 120 -day timeline expires on or around August 28, 2020. An extension of the review period can occur if agreed to by the applicant. Public Hearings Planning Commission City Code Section 121-61 requires that a public hearing for review of the major subdivision/preliminary plat be held by the Planning Commission. The public hearing notice was published in the Laker on June 20, 2020 and posted on the City Hall bulletin board on June 16, 2020. The public hearing notice was mailed to all affected property owners located within 350 feet of the project area and all those properties in the original plats of Commerce Place, Fernwood Addition, or Lake Side Park A L Crocker's 1' Division on June 19, 2020. Information about the project was also added to the City's website on June 19, 2020. -1530- CitV Council According to City Code, the City Council is required to hold the public hearings for review of the rezoning, zoning text amendment, conditional use permit, and major subdivision/preliminary plat (Sections 129-34, 129-38, and 121-61). In addition, Minnesota State Statutes Section 412.851 authorizes cities to vacate streets and drainage and utility easements if it appears to be in the interest of the public to do so after a public hearing at the City Council. The public hearing for the vacation of streets and drainage and utility easements involves two weeks published and posted notice, as well as mailed notification 10 days in advance. Public Comments Received The City received the following comments about the project: Venus Steffensen— "I would like to voice my opposition to the proposed apartment complex to be located downtown. In addition, it is completely unacceptable to have a Zoom meeting to allow people to voice their opinions. Please reschedule this meeting to a date and time that would allow Mound residents to address the council in person. This is too big of a decision to pass through over a zoom call and immediately following a national holiday. Many residents are actively talking about this plan and are in overwhelming agreement not to move forward with the proposed plan. This should be voted on as a referendum, since it impacts all of the residents of Mound for a prime real estate location." Thank you, Venus Steffensen Rebecca Tuttle — "The letter to Fern residents was shared on Nextdoor. I do not agree nor want apartments being built in Mound as I feel like we have enough. We just bought this home because of the small town feel. Have incentives for businesses been looked at? We can still generate from visitors and maybe places like Jubilee will not monopolize in a food dessert. I would like to be involved in the zoom meeting and any other meetings about the proposal." Rebecca Boser Annie Hagaman - "Good afternoon Sarah. I am writing in regards to the 102 unit apartment building that Schafer Richardson wants to build on Commerce Blvd. This is a horrible idea! I live directly across the street from this location. No one wants to look out their windows and see a massive 3 -story building blocking what little evening sunshine we get on our street. Not to mention all the traffic. We get enough cars that cut through to avoid the stop light on Commerce and Shoreline. Add a hundred more cars to that and there will be no more quiet nights sitting on my deck. I can just imagine the visitor cars that will be parked along Church Road and Fern Lane. Right in front of my house! I see that they are thinking of destroying the easement/ drainage ditch on Fern Lane. Instead of looking out my back door and seeing nature, I will get to stare at a parking lot! I vehemently oppose this project. I hope you would consider -1531 - selling this parcel of land to a commercial builder who could bring some new businesses into Mound. Enough apartments!! Thank you for your time." Annie Hagaman (Mound resident since 2017) Tanya Musselman— "Sarah, Is this "affordable housing" (Le will the government be subsidizing costs to live herein any way?" Tanya Tanya Musselman - "What is it exactly? There is much debate among city residents as to who can live here. Why I am hearing you say is the government will not be subsidizing any of the units? That is contradictory to what I have heard... " Tanya Jane Anderson - "Greeting Catherine, I was informed that you may have the links to petitions regarding the two re -development projects in Mound. Would you kindly send those to me? Thank you in advance. Jane Anderson, 5060 Edgewater Drive, Mound, MN 55364 Jane Anderson - "Thank you! Catherine, is there any value in a petition now? Or is it too late? A letter from Venus Steffensen, 1838 Commerce Boulevard, Mound, MN was received by email on July 2na and has been included as an attachment. Comments received after 1:00 p.m. on Thurs., July 2, 2020 will be provided as part of the July 7th public hearing presentation for the matter. Planning Commission members advised that the City received a petition on an earlier concept plan that was submitted by the applicant in April of 2018, however no development applications were submitted for this initial concept plan. A copy of the petition has been included. NEIGHBORHOOD/RESIDENT MEETINGS During the concept plan process for the current proposal, the applicant held 2 meetings with neighborhood property owners in December 2019 and February 2020 to discuss the proposed project. Neighborhood meetings were also held on previous proposals in April 2018 and November 2018. -1532- STAFF / CONSULTANT / AGENCY / UTILITIES REVIEW Copies of the request and supporting materials were forwarded to involved departments, consultants, agencies, and private utilities for review and comment. Members are advised that some comments have been or are in the process of being addressed by the applicant with the June 11' updated/revised submittal. A summary of the comments received is provided below: Chuck Mayers, CenterPoint Energy—Charles Mayer CenterPoint Energy initially filed an objection to the project as there are gas mains in both the drainage and utility easement and the part of Fern Lane that is being vacated. The applicant followed up with CenterPoint Energy and it was determined that the lines do not serve any properties other than the subject parcel. CenterPoint Energy will prepare an estimate for the abandonment of the lines that the developer can include as part of the development cost. Carla Stueve, Hennepin County Transportation Department As further described in the included letter, Hennepin County had the following comments about the proposed project: • Support for the reduction in the number of access points. Additional discussion desired if any future development occurs in this vicinity. • Request additional right-of-way along Shoreline Drive for a future widened sidewalk or trail within the boulevard. Staff notes that the right-of-way in the vicinity of the project area is already 100 feet or more and extends to the edge of the existing parking lot. Staff does not support additional dedication of right-of-way due to site constraints. • Request for the dedication of an existing highway easement at the southwest corner of the site as right-of-way. • Note that storm water discharge rate must be less than existing flows as the county storm water system can not take additional drainage. • Construction within the right-of-way will require an approved permit from Hennepin County. • Request, if feasible, that all utility connections and parking lot paving completed prior to the Summer of 2021 in anticipation of upcoming mill and overall project on Shoreline and Commerce. Chris Remus, MCES Interceptor Services MCES Engineering has no comments on the proposed site as our facilities are not directly -1533- adjacent to the project site. Erin Manlick, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District As proposed, the project would fall under redevelopment of a site 1-5 acres in size, and they are proposing a reduction in impervious surface of over 10%, so they are exempt from MCWD stormwater requirements. It looks like this project will only require an erosion control permit from us. DEVELOPMENT SUBMITTAL REVIEW Comprehensive Plan The project area is designated as Mixed Use in the City's 2040 Comprehensive Plan. As described in the future land use table on page 32, mixed use is "meant to support a variety of commercial, residential, and public uses." The designation was intended to provide flexibility so that property owners have options when considering redevelopment. To provide further clarification of the City's intent, each mixed use area has its own one-page description of the intent, character and approach to mixed use. As seen in the attached summary, the Village Center Mixed Use Area, of which this project is a part, is intended to have predominantly commercial uses with some townhomes or multifamily residential. The mix of uses may happen horizontally on a site, such as is proposed in this area, or vertically within the same building. The use of this site for residential is in keeping with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The City of Mound evaluates density on an area -wide basis. For mixed use areas such as Village Center Mixed Use Area, density is evaluated based on the area identified as having the potential to redevelop in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan and any areas proposed to be redeveloped as part of an application that may not have been previously identified. For the Village Center Mixed Use Area, the total potential redevelopment area is 4.04 acres. Based on the 102 units proposed, the density of the Village Center Mixed Use Area will be 25 units per acre, which is in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan density range of 12 to 30 units per acre. It should be noted that any future development in the Village Center Mixed Use Area will be limited to a maximum of 19 additional dwellings. Rezoning The development site currently has two zoning districts. The former Commerce Place Shopping Center is zoned B-1 Central Business District, while the parcel to the east on Fern Lane is zoned R-3 Multiple -Family Residential. The applicant is requesting to rezone the property to the Destination Planned Unit Development District. This rezoning would be in keeping with the Mixed Use designation in the Comprehensive Plan. The Destination Planned Unit Development District has been in place since the development of Mound Marketplace across the street and has been historically used as the district for mixed use areas north of County Road 15. -1534- Zoning Text Amendment A zoning text amendment is needed to Sec. 129-140 to add multifamily residential as a permitted use in the Destination Planned Unit Development District and to modify the district purpose to acknowledge that residential is one of the intended uses in the district. Staff is supportive of this zoning text amendment as there is inconsistency between the previous comprehensive plans and the zoning ordinance. In the last two Comprehensive Plans, the Destination District is described as a "mixed use area on edges of pedestrian district which are primarily retail, office or service oriented but that can include medium or high density residential." The 2030 Comprehensive Plan also estimated that as much as half of the developable area guided as Destination may be residential. While the inclusion of residential in the Destination District is referenced in the Comprehensive Plan, the Destination District in the zoning code does not reference multi -family residential. The proposed zoning text amendment would address this inconsistency by adding multifamily dwelling units under the list of permitted uses. The inclusion of multi -family residential as a permitted use is consistent with how multi -family residential is treated in the Pedestrian Development District. The specific text amendments would be as follows: Sec. 129-140. DEST-PUD destination planned unit development district. (a) Purpose. The destination district is intended to allow for retail sales and services intended to serve the needs of the local population. This district is primarily oriented at the motoring public because of its location along minor arterials roadways and good visibility. Medium and high density residential may also be included in this district. (b) Permitted uses. The permitted uses in the DEST-PUD district are as follows: (14) Multifamily dwelling units —with renumbering of existing (14) to (22) Vacation of Fern Lane and Easements The applicant has requested the vacation of a portion of Fern Lane, a drainage and utility easement that exists to the east of the existing building, and a drainage and utility easement that exists to the east of Fern Lane. The vacation of Fern Lane and the vacation of the drainage and utility easement just to its east will facilitate reconfiguration of the site to allow the construction of a future parking area. The vacation of the drainage and utility easement on the east side of the existing building will allow the applicant to move the utilities within the easement and construct the building in that location. A new drainage and utility easement is proposed farther east on the development. In considering the vacations, the City is required to find that the vacation is "in the interest of the public." For this plat, the public interest achieved through the vacations is the redevelopment of the site. -1535- Preliminary Plat (Sec. 121-61 through Sec. 121-64) The Commerce Place 2"d Addition encompasses 3.35 acres. The site will have two lots. The first, which will be 2.11 acres in size, will encompass the apartment building and the parking areas to the east of the building. The second lot, which will be 1.20 acres, will encompass the surface parking area to the west that circles around Wells Fargo. The plat also shows 0.04 acres being dedicated as right-of-way. These are shown as small areas along Commerce Boulevard near the intersections of Shoreline Drive and Church Road. They can also be seen on page C-101 Site Plan by looking at the existing property boundary and the proposed property boundary. Conditional Use Permit (CUP) The City of Mound uses the Conditional Use Permit as the regulatory tool for establishing the standards for a development in the Destination Planned Unit Development District. The intent of a planned unit development (PUD) is to provide design flexibility for areas that may be difficult to redevelop due to existing conditions, such as natural resources, soils, topography; transportation access; or existing structures or agreements. As can be seen by the limited number of standards in the Destination Planned Unit Development District, the intent is that each PUD will establish the appropriate dimension and design standards that will support the development of a project on the site. Through the PUD process, requests for standard flexibility are examined within the overall project context rather than just as individual items. For example, consideration often needs to be given to the interrelationship between requirements for parking, stormwater, open space, and building height. The following review will assess all aspects of a site plan review and highlight any areas where flexibility will be addressed through the Planned Unit Development. Use (Sec. 129-140) Section 129-140 lists permitted and conditional uses for the Destination Planned Unit Development District. As a result of the zoning text amendment, multifamily dwelling units is listed as a permitted use within the district. Lot Size and Site Plan (Sec. 129-140) The Destination Planned Unit Development District does not have any specific lot size or setback requirements for structures outside of distance from the ordinary high water level (CHWL). Rather, setbacks are as agreed to in the site plans for the PUD. Building Height (Sec. 129-140) The maximum height of a building in the Destination Planned Unit Development District is 50 feet. The applicant is proposing three residential stories on top of one level of underground parking. The roof is proposed to be pitched as was requested through neighborhood meetings. The midpoint of the roof is proposed to be 42 feet, 4 inches, which meets the district maximum. The building height will be verified with the architect and civil engineer as part of -1536- the final platting and building permit processes. Impervious Surface Coverage (Sec. 129-140) Section 129-140 (e) (3) states that the maximum impervious surface shall be 75% or as approved by the PUD. The applicant is proposing an impervious surface coverage of 73% for this development. It should also be noted that the amount of impervious surface on the site will be reduced from the current amount of 84%. Unit Size (Sec. 129-199) The City has established minimum unit sizes for its residential developments. As shown in the chart below, all units will meet the City's minimum size requirement. Unit Type Required Minimum Size Unit Size Number of Units Studio/Alcove 480 sq. ft. 488 to 615 sq. ft. 25 1 Bedroom 640 sq. ft. 750-850 sq. ft. 55 1 Bedroom plus Den 640 sq. ft. 900-1,050 sq. ft. 4 2 Bedroom 760 sq. ft. 1,125-1,250 sq. ft. 18 Parking. Access and Circulation (Section 129-323) Access The redevelopment area is bounded by Highway 15, Highway 110, Church Road, and Fern Lane. Currently the site has two accesses on Highway 15, two accesses on Highway 110, three accesses with Church Road, and one access on Fern Lane. As a result of the redevelopment, multiple accesses to the rear of the existing shopping center will be removed, including the one on Highway 15, one on Church Road and one on Fern Lane. The reduction in the number of accesses is seen as favorable for motorized and non -motorized safety. Traffic To assist in the review of the proposed development, the applicant has submitted the attached Traffic Assessment from Spack Solutions. The intent of the study was to provide a high-level traffic and parking analysis of the proposed development. The study evaluated future impacts as compared to existing conditions and to what would occur if the site was fully leased with retail tenants. The traffic analysis findings included the following: • No significant operational impacts are anticipated for the surrounding roadways and intersections. -1537- • On weekdays, the proposed apartment will result in a decrease in 126 total daily trips, an 18 trip increase in total a.m. peak hour trips, and a 18 trip decrease in total p.m. trips as compared to existing conditions. Staff notes that if the site were to remain retail and was redeveloped with new tenants there would be an increase in 1,000 daily trips, 5 a.m. peak hour trips, and 108 p.m. peak hour trips. • The Intersection Impact Analysis did not identify any particular issues for surrounding intersections. The highest hourly volume increase is ten vehicles, which occurs for the northbound right turn at Church Road and Highway 110 during the p.m. peak hour. According to the report that is an increase of about one vehicle every 6 minutes. Parking Similar to other standards like setbacks, the amount of parking is established through the PUD. The determination of the appropriate amount takes into consideration a number of factors, including site operations, traffic studies, applicant experience, and anticipated long-term management strategies. Given the existing cross -access and shared parking agreements for this site, parking needs to be examined for both the proposed apartment and the Wells Fargo bank. The table below summarizes parking proposed as shown in the civil and floor plans. Staff identified in their review that there is a slight discrepancy between the civil plans and the parking summary in the Traffic Assessment. Staff has requested clarification from the applicant pertaining to the difference. For purposes of the Planning Commission review, Staff has focused on including the calculations from the civil and floor plans as those would be the referenced documents in any approvals. Space Type Underground Apartment Subtotal 1 Wells Fargo Subtotal 2 Proof of Parking Site Total Standard 9 x 18 82 120 202 33 235 28 263 ADA Stalls 2 4 6 3 9 0 9 Total 84 124 208 36 244 28 272 In evaluating the appropriateness of the proposed 244 constructed and 28 proof of parking stalls, Staff offers the following for Planning Commission consideration: • The Traffic Assessment generated an estimate for parking generation using the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)'s ITE Parking Generation, 5th Edition. This estimate found that the total weekday peak period parking demand is 179 spaces, well under the number of proposed spaces for the site. • The applicant noted in their narrative that their company standard is to provide 1.1 to 1.15 stalls per bedroom. The parking as proposed would provide 1.73 stalls per -1538- bedroom, which is why they would like to avoid constructing the additional 28 stalls of parking until it is determined that it is needed. • Providing parking to meet resident needs will be important to the property manager to ensure maximum leasing of the site, so ongoing active management of parking will occur. • For reference purposes, the City Code's parking minimum range for multifamily dwellings is 2 to 2.5 spaces per unit with one being enclosed depending on the zoning district. This range would equate to the site having 233 to 284 parking spaces to accommodate the apartments and the bank if each use was considered independently. Given that most of the site parking is shared and that full use of the parking areas by residents, customers, and employees is not likely to occur, the proposed 244 stalls with 28 proof of parking seems to meet general City practice relative to parking. • The applicant has also provided designated bicycle parking areas. According to the Site Plan there are 10 outdoor guest parking stalls and 94 resident parking stalls in the underground garage. Applicant is requested to provide information about the location of the bicycle parking stalls as the number of stalls indicated seems high given the space designated. It should also be noted that Sec. 129-323(c)(4) states that when a required off-street parking space for six cars or more is located adjacent to a residential district, a fence between 4 and 5 feet in height shall be erected along the residential property line. While there is an existing fence on the south side of the rear parking area that will remain, the fence does not extend all the way around the proof of parking area. Staff recommends that the proof of parking area not be initially constructed to preserve more open space on the site. Provisions pertaining to the future development of the proof of parking area, including who determines it is needed, will be included as part of the Development Agreement. Staff notes that at such time as the proof of parking area is constructed, a fence and landscaping will be required. The Landscape Plan notes that there are snow storage areas located on the rear of the building. One of the snow storage areas is on the proof of parking area. If that parking area is ever developed, then a new snow storage area will have to be identified. Staff has concerns that there is not enough snow storage planned for the site as none of the parking areas can be used for snow storage in the winter. Staff recommends that a condition of approval be that the snow storage areas be reexamined and revised in a manner that meets the approval of the City Manager - Public Works Director. Building Materials (Sec. 129-328) -1539- The renderings provided by the applicant show stone along the bottom, horizontal siding on the second floor, and shaker style as an accent along the roof line. The colors noted on the elevation include silver gray, reflective white, and deep granite. Materials include six inch engineered wood lap siding, cultured stone, engineered wood shake siding, and engineered wood board and batten panels. A sample board is available for review as part of the plan links. Materials samples will be brought to the City Council meeting. ,Screening and Buffering (Sec. 129-316) Screening should be provided along the eastern portions of the property that are adjacent to the residential homes. Screening should be achieved with fences, walls, berms, hedges, or other landscaped materials. Initially, the proof of parking area is proposed to remain undeveloped to provide part of a buffer. As noted previously in the parking section, it is expected that if the proof of parking area is constructed, a fence and landscaping will be provided. Landscaping (Sec. 129-317) City Code requires a minimum of one tree per dwelling unit, which would be 102 trees for this development. The code also requires a complement of understory trees, shrubs, flowers, and ground covers to complete a quality landscaped treatment of the site. The Landscape Plan focuses primarily on using foundation and perimeter plantings with a particular focus on creating an inviting community gathering area in the front of the building. The plan identifies more than 680 shrubs and 900 perennials throughout the site. Trees are identified for the areas to the south, west, north and northwest of the building. The area immediately to the southeast of the building is not identified for tree planting as there is underground storm sewer and watermain in that vicinity. There is an existing fence along the property line that is proposed to remain. In total, the landscape plan identifies the retention of 5 existing trees and the installation of 28 deciduous trees, 13 coniferous trees, and 18 ornamental trees. While this does not meet the requirement of 102 trees, flexibility can be granted through the PUD recognizing the site constraints that limit additional planting. There is also a berm planned for the north side of the building. It should also be noted that there are trees within the proof of parking area that would be able to be retained if the parking area is not required to be constructed. If the proof of parking area is needed then a landscaping and screening plan will be required to be prepared and implemented. The landscape plan will be reviewed by a Landscape Architect on behalf of the City prior to final approvals to ensure there are no concerns about what is proposed. -1540- Glare (Sec. 129-318) City Code requires that any lighting shall deflect light away from any adjoining residential zone and from the public street. Lighting cannot exceed 1.0 foot candle at a street property line nor 0.4 foot candle at a residential property line. In general, the photometric plan provided meets those requirements with a few exceptions. Revisions will be needed to address lighting in the rear of the site along Fern Lane and in the proof of parking area. Additional information is also requested along Commerce Boulevard to ensure lighting is not brighter than required. Refuse (Sec. 129-315) The trash and other refuse for the apartments will be collected and stored underground within the building. Utilities 1. Public water and sanitary sewer utilities have already been established for the site. 2. The MCES SAC charge for the project shall be determined as part of final plat which shall be the responsibility of the applicant. An MCES Sewer Availability Charge determination letter shall be provided by the applicant. 3. Sewer and watermain area trunk charges for the project shall be determined as part of the final plat. The current trunk charge for sewer and water, per unit, are $2000.00 each. 4. Sewer connection and water connection fees shall be determined as part of the final plat. The current sewer connection and water connection fees are $240.00 each. Stormwater As noted previously, the site design will reduce the impervious surface area by more than 10%. MCWD noted in its review that due to this reduction it does not require additional stormwater management treatment nor State of MN volume reduction. The applicant has indicated that stormwater will drain through a piped conveyance system and discharge either north to Harrison Bay or south to Lost Lake. Catch basin inlets and storm manholes will use sump structures and baffles to reduce sediment leaving the site. Park Dedication As provided by City Code Sec. 121-121, a park dedication fee, in lieu of land dedication is recommended by Staff. The required park dedication amount shall be determined as part of the final plat. Signage Signage information about the project but has been requested but not provided. Initial discussions with the applicant indicate that a monument sign will replace the existing sign on Commerce Boulevard and Church Road. Additional signage details may be provided at the meeting. Details about signage are expected to be included in the PUD approvals. -1541 - RECOMMENDATIONS Staff's recommendation for each application of the Commerce Place 2na Addition submittal package is provided below. Please note that the conditions proposed are preliminary and subject to change as review and discussion of the development project continues. Rezoning Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval of the rezoning of Lot 7 and Lot 8 of Fernwood Addition from R-3, Multiple -family Residential, to DEST-PUD destination planned unit development district. This recommendation is based on the following findings of fact: 1. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the Mound 2030 Comprehensive Plan and Mound 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Zoning Text Amendment Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval of the zoning text amendment to modify City Code Section 129-140, DEST-PUD destination planned unit development district as follows: (a) Purpose. The destination district is intended to allow for retail sales and services intended to serve the needs of the local population. This district is primarily oriented at the motoring public because of its location along minor arterials roadways and good visibility. Medium and high density residential may also occur in this district. (b) Permitted uses. The permitted uses in the DEST-PUD district are modified to add the following: (14) Multifamily dwelling units (c) Permitted uses currently numbered (14) to (22) will be renumbered to (15) to (23) This recommendation is based on the following findings of fact: 1. The proposed text amendment follows the intent for the district as described in the Mound 2030 Comprehensive Plan and Mound 2040 Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposed use is appropriate for a mixed use district. -1542- Vacation of Fern Lane and Two (2) Drainage and Utility Easements Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval of the vacation of Fern Lane and the two drainage and utility easement encumbering this property as proposed in the Commerce Place 2nd Addition plat as the vacations facilitate the redevelopment of the site. Conditional Use Permit Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval of the Conditional Use Permit for a planned unit development (PUD) as submitted with the following conditions: 1. Concurrent approval of the rezoning, zoning text amendment, vacation of right of way and drainage and utility easements, and major subdivision -preliminary plat applications. 2. This conditional use permit is approved for the following legally described property as stated in the Hennepin County Property Information System: (to be inserted). 3. The building materials and color scheme shall be subject to review and acceptance by the City. 4. The Parking Summary on page C-101 Site Plan shall be updated to accurately reflect the size and number of parking spaces. 5. Final design of any ADA spaces shall be approved by the Building Official. 6. A Development Agreement, to be prepared by the City Attorney, shall be required for the project and prepared as part of final plat. 7. Standards, expectations and procedures regarding the proof of parking area shall be established as part of the Development Agreement. As part of that agreement, the City of Mound shall have the right to request the proof of parking to be built, as well as to have a landscaping and screening plan prepared and implemented. 8. Additional information about snow storage shall be provided and subject to review and acceptance by the City Manager- Director of Public Works. 9. Plan to be revised to provide fencing adjacent to neighbors as mentioned in Planning Report. 10. The lighting plan shall be revised to meet City Code standards relative to light trespass on public streets and adjacent residential properties. 11. Applicant shall provide additional information regarding signage. 12. Applicant shall be responsible for payment of all costs associated with the conditional use permit application. 13. The applicant shall be responsible for recording the resolution(s) with Hennepin County. The applicant is advised that the resolution(s) will not be released for recording until all -1543- conditions have been met. 14. Additional conditions from Staff, the Planning Commission, and City Council. This recommendation is based on the following findings of fact: 1. The proposed use of the site is consistent with applicable development plans and policies of the City of Mound. 2. The physical characteristics of the site are suitable for type of development and use being proposed. 3. The proposed development is providing adequate utilities and drainage. 4. The proposed development has sufficiently considered traffic impacts and access. 5. The proposed development will not negatively impact the public health, safety or welfare of the community. 6. The proposed project will diversify the types of housing available in the community by providing 102 new apartment units for the City of Mound. Major Subdivision -Preliminary Plat Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval of the preliminary plat, as submitted, with the following conditions: 1. Concurrent approval of the rezoning, zoning text amendment, vacation of right of way and drainage and utility easements, and conditional use permit applications. 2. Applicant shall be responsible for payment of all costs associated with the preliminary plat application. 3. The applicant shall be responsible for recording the resolutions(s) with Hennepin County. Applicant is advised that the resolution(s) will not be released for recording until all conditions have been met. 4. Applicant shall be responsible for procurement of any and/or all local or public agency permits including, but not limited to, the submittal of all required information for building permit issuance. 5. The MCES SAC charge for the project shall be determined as part of final plat which shall be the responsibility of the applicant. 6. Sewer and watermain area trunk charges for the project shall be determined as part of the final plat. The current trunk charge for sewer and water, per unit, is $2000.00 each. 7. Sewer connection and water connection fees shall be determined as part of the final plat. The 2020 sewer connection and water connection fees are $240.00 each. 8. The park dedication fee amount shall be determined as part of the final plat as provided by City Code Sec. 121.121. -1544- 9. A development agreement shall be prepared as part of the final plat process. 10. Additional conditions from Staff, the Planning Commission and City Council. This recommendation is based on the following findings of fact: 1. The proposed major subdivision -preliminary plat is consistent with applicable development plans and policies of the City of Mound. 2. The physical characteristics of the site are suitable for the type of development and use being proposed. 3. The proposed development will not negatively impact the public health, safety, or welfare of the community. CITY COUNCIL REVIEW In the event a recommendation is received from the Planning Commission, it is anticipated that the requests will be considered by the City Council at their August 12' meeting. Public hearings are required for the rezoning, zoning text amendment, conditional use permit, major subdivision/preliminary plat, and vacations. -1545- 2415 Wilshire Boulevard, Mound, MN 55364 Phone 952-472-0600 FAX 952-472-0620 Planning Commission Date City Council Date FEES MAJOR SUBDIVISION PPLICATION 2 4-�,'7L2a Case No. C if 23 BE SUBMITTED WITH APPLICATION. CHECK BOX TYPE OF APPLICATION FEE SKETCH PLAN REVIEW $200* X PRELIMINARY PLAT $350+$15 per lot * for Existing Property PID and Legal Description FINAL PLAT $350+$15 per lot * X CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/ PDA $350' X ESCROW DEPOSIT $5,000" X VARIANCE $200" X Rezoning ($35110); Zoning Text Amendment ($350) TOTAL $ $6,615.00 * CALL THE MOUND PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO CONFIRM CURRENT FEES. PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE. Major Subdivision Information (1/8/2020) Page 5 of 6 -1546- SuhjectAddress 2200-2236 Commerce Blvd PROPERTY INFO Name of Proposed Plat Commerce Place 2nd Addition Lot EXISTING Please See Survey on Page 2 of the Civil Submission LEGAL for Existing Property PID and Legal Description DESCRIPTION APPLICANT The applicant is Mother Email tmartinez@sr-re.COm Name Commerce Place, LLC 900 North Third Street Minneapolis, MN 55401 Address Phone Home (612) 314 1597 Work Fax Name Email OWNER (if other than Address applicant) Phone Home Work Fax Name Email SURVEYOR/ Address 901 North Third Street Suite 120, Minneapolis MN 55401 ENGINEER Home (612) 860 - 7004 Work (612) 260 - 7981 Fax (612) 260 -7990 Phone Major Subdivision Information (1/8/2020) Page 5 of 6 -1546- Case No. 2c,-0-7 Description of Proposed Use: Redevelopment of a strip shopping center into a 102 -Unit Apartment Building 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. See Attached Traffic Study and Narrative 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: $ $20MM RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS: Number of Structures: 1 Lot Area Per Dwelling Unit: 1428.48 sq. ft. Number of Dwelling Units/Structure: 102 Total Lot Area: 145,807 sq. ft. Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, () no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. Application must be signed by all owners of the subject property, or explanation given why this is not the case. I certify that all of the statements above and statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I acknowledge that I have read all of the information provided (including Section 121 of the Mound City Ordinance) and that I am responsible for all costs incurred by the City related to the processing of this application. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Commerce Place, LLC ,,.d1-2 Bradley J. Schafer Print Applicant's Name Applicant's Signature April 29, 2020 Date Commerce Place, LLC Bradley J. Schafer April 29, 2020 Print Owner's Name Owner's Signature Date Print Owner's Name Owner's Signature Date Major Subdivision Information (1/8/2020) Page 6 of 6 -1547- 2415 Wilshire Boulevard, Mound, MN 55364 Phone 952-472-0600 FAX 952-472-0620 • A 1 APPLICATION Application Fee and Escrow Deposit required at time of application. City Council Date: A—�D Applicant Name Info Address Case No. -2 C, c7 Planning Commission Dater o:ZQ or Commerce Place, LLC Email 900 N 3rd St, Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone Home tmartinez@sr-re.com Work (612) 314-1597 Fax FOR AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING It is requested that Section: I�- i goof the Mound Zoning Ordinance be amended as follows�� Vl2 I V S—P C� ty1G<k I�y� ICthhP >k,�� .J-�10 �1 S�rl C� CSS Reason for amendment This amendment appears consistent with the "mixed use" intent of the original ordinance. This amendment would allow for the development of housing uses within this zoning designation, increasing the activity and foot traffic in Mound's downtown. Zoning Amendment Information (3/30/2020) Page 4 of 5 -1548- FOR AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING MAP / ZONING DISTRICT COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING It is requested that the property described elow and shown on the attached site plan be rezoned from zone to zone I cAl�` ' Vre V) 1ST✓iC� Address & Legal of Subject Property Address Lot Addition Current Zoning: R1 R1A R2 Block PID# R3 B1 B2 B3 (Circle one) Owner of Subject Site Commerce Place, LLC tmartinez@sr-re.com Name Email o� Address 2200 - 2236 Commerce Blvd and Unassigned Fern Ln Phone Home Work(612)314-1597 Fax Present Use of Retail Strip Center Property Reason for To allow housing to be developed within this this zoning designation. Amendment I certify that all of the statements above and statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I acknowledge that I have read all of the information provided and that I am responsible for all costs incurred by the City related to the processing of this application. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Commerce Place, LLC c7 (�gieY Applicant's Signature Date 7/02/2020 By: Bradley J. Schafer, President Owner's Signature Commerce Place, LLC 8aa� Date 7/02/2020 By: Bradley J. Schafer, President Zoning Amendment Information (3/30/2020) Page 5 of 5 -1549- 2415 Wilshire Boulevard, Mound, MN 55364 Phone 952-472-0600 FAX 952-472-0620 APPLICATION Application Fee and Escrow Deposit required at time of application. Planning Commission Case No, Ci PI t e or rint the following information: ease PROPERTY Subject Address 2200-2236 Commerce Blvd and Unassigned Fern Ln INFORMATION Name of Business Commerce Place, LLC Lot(,) 6, Block 1, Commerce Place AND Lots 7,8 Block 1, Fernwood Block LEGAL DESCRIPTION Subdivision PID# Many / Multiple See Survey Page 2 APPLICANT The applicant is: Owner X Other_ Email tmartinez@sr-re.com Name Commerce Place, LLC Address 900 N 3rd Street, Minneapolis, MN 55401 Work (612) 314-1597 Cell Phone Home E -Mail Address tmartinez@sr-re.com Fax Name Email OWNER (if other than Address applicant) Phone Home Work Cell Name Salhre-Bergquist Inc Email ejwirtz@sathre.com ARCHITECT, 150 South Broadway Wayzata, Mn. 55391 Address SURVEYOR, OR ENGINEER 952-476-6000 Cell Phone Office Fax ZONING PP Circle: R-1 R -1A R-2 R-3-2 B-3 DISTRICT J Description of Proposed Use: 102 unit market rate multifamily development. Conditional Use Permit Info (3/30/2020) Page 4 of 5 -1550- Planning Commission Case No. 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. We anticipate additional foot traffic and support to surrounding businesses. A traffic study has been attached to this application In summary, the traffic impact to the community is proiected to be de minimous largely due to the —far fewer trips generated by residential uses, as opposed to commercial uses. We are also carefully limiting (and eliminating) ingress and egress points to mitigate existing confusion. 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: $ $19MM-$20MM Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, () no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. No - only sketch plan reviews which did not proceed to a development stage application. Application must be signed by all owners of the subject property, or explanation given why this is not the case. Commerce Place, LLC By: Bradley J. Schafer, President Print Applicant's Name Applicant's Signature Commerce Place, LLC grvd ftGafer By: Bradley J. Schafer President L — Print Owner's Name Owner's Signature 7/02/2020 Date 7/02/2020 Date Print Owner's Name Owner's Signature Date City Code Section 129-38 relating to Conditional Use Permits must be reviewed by the applicant. If applying for a two family dwelling, City Code Section 129-102 must be reviewed by the applicant. Conditional Use Permit Info (3/30/2020) Page 5 of 5 -1551 - 2415 Wilshire Boulevard, Mound, MN 55364 Phone 952-472-0600 Fax 952-472-0620 Application Fee and Escrow posit required at time of application. �1 Planning Commission Date Ju 6 ` _ ��%'G Case No. aCly� City Council Date ne 23 - Please tvne or print clearly APPLICANT Name Commerce Place, LLC Email tmartinez@sr-re.com Address 900 North Third Street Minneapolis MN 55401 Phone (Home) (Work) (612) 314-1597 (Cell) E -Mail Address tmartinez@sr-re.com Fax Adjacent Address 2200 - 2236 Commerce Blvd and Unassigned Address Fern Lane Commerce Place Shopping Center Name of Business PP 9 ADJACENT PROPERTY (APPLICANT'S PROPERTY) Lot 6, Block 1, Commerce Place AND Lot 7, S, Block 1 Fernwood Addition ZONING L f Circle: R-1 R -IA R-2 R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3 C`IU 1'P DISTRICT Gly AREA Please see page 3 of the Civil Submittal under "Proposed dreet TO BE Vacation" and "Proposed Easement Vacation". VACATED REASON To combine and redevelop the subject property consistent with the submitted development FOR REQUEST stage entitlement application submitted parallel to this request IS THERE A No. Upon completion of the redevelopment of these parcels, there will no longer be a public PUBLIC NEED need for this land. FOR THIS LAND? I certify that all of the statements above and statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I acknowledge that I have read all of the information provided and that I am responsible for all costs incurred by the City related to the processing of this application. Commerce Place, LLC B��'(4y Z faFev Bradley J. Schafer May 1, 2020 Print Applicant's Name Applicant's Signature Date Commerce Place, LLC Print Applicant's Name vacation Information (313012020) Page 4 of 4 &gd6 � �laafe� Bradley J. Schafer Applicant's Signature Date -1552- May 1, 2020 Development Plan Submittal Narrative The proposed concept plan shows the redevelopment of the Commerce Place Shopping Center, located at the northeast corner of Commerce Boulevard and Shoreline Drive. Existing Structures, excluding the Wells Fargo which is owned independently on a separate parcel, would be redeveloped into a 102 unit market rate apartment building. Fern Lane would be partially vacated to allow for additional land for proof of parking. The building would be developed and owned by an affiliate of Schafer Richardson. Steven Scott Management would provide property management services. The construction of a new apartment building in the community will expand housing options in Mound. No market rate apartment buildings have been constructed within the city in decades. This building will support the city's goal of lifecycle housing to accommodate a wide range of incomes ages and types of households in the community. The site location also supports the City's Transit Oriented Development goals and the Transit Center directly south of the property. Residents will be able to walk to the local businesses for their needs and utilize nearby transportation options to access employment or other activities. More residents walking in this area will support the city's investment in pedestrian oriented infrastructure, and businesses within the central business district of the community. Buildine Desien and Heieht: The proposed building would be three residential stories on top of one level of underground parking. While a flat roof design would reduce the height of the roof's peak, community feedback and shoreline design guidelines suggest that a pitched roof is more appropriate. At previous neighborhood meetings and public meetings, it was determined that the previous roof pitch and overall height were a concern. To that end, the peak height was reduced by approximately eight feet and the slope taken down to 7:12 The roof base is 31' 6" with a midpoint of 42' 2" and a peak at approximately 52' 8". The building footprint is 34,300 square feet and would be comprised of a wood frame structure over masonry. Parking: Schafer Richardson has found that a best practice for sizing parking for a market rate multifamily development is approximately 1.1 to 1.15 stalls per bedroom. This development provides approximately 1.73 stalls per bedroom or 2.04 stalls per unit, with the potential to accommodate 28 additional stalls in the proof of parking area identified on C-101 of the civil submittal. The parking described above is comprised of 84 underground stalls and 124 surface parking stalls. Separately, Wells Fargo has 36 parking stalls. Based on our experience in developing both residential and commercial properties in other suburban markets, we believe ample parking would be provided to both Wells Fargo and residential users. -1553- Site Access and Relationship with Adjacent Uses: Site access is anticipated to be substantially similar to the current Commerce Place shopping center. The west, or primary, side of the development would maintain the existing curb and lot line at the property. Vehicular access to the existing surface parking lot abutting the Wells Fargo property would remain as - is. The western parking lot would be slightly reconfigured to calm vehicular traffic. Church Road, an existing public street, would provide an access point for the building's underground parking and the eastern surface parking lot. Fern Lane would be partially vacated in order to continuously develop parcels to the east and west and maintain a proof of parking area. This would also limit access to that road for current residents, as opposed to be another parking lot entrance for this development. The existing two-way entrance off of County Road 15 on the east side of the existing development would be eliminated as well as one of the two eastern access points Church Road and the existing access from Fern Lane would be eliminated as well. Site Desien and Landscape: The current site layout will accommodate grass, as well as trees and other plantings. A patio, grilling area, and pet exercise are planned to be located in the large western courtyard. Garbage and recycling for the building would be stored within the underground parking garage on the site. For the full landscape plan and details, please refer to sheets L-101 and L-501 of the civil plans. Stormwater and Existing Infrastructure: Because the site design reduces impervious surface area by more than 10%, the development the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District does not require additional stormwater management treatment nor State of Minnesota volume reduction. The stormwater system will drain through a piped conveyance system and discharge either north to Harrison Bay or South to Lost Lake. Catchbasin inlets and storm manholes will utilize sump pumps and baffles to reduce sediment leaving the site. See details on sheet C-203 of the civil submittal. The building's location allows the development to utilize existing infrastructure in the community, such as water and sewer lines, utilities, and streets and sidewalks. This creates efficiency both for the community and for the development itself. See details on C-301 of the civil submittal. Re -platting: A re -platting of the eastern parcels is be necessary to combine the vacated portion of Fern Lane with the eastern and western current parcels. The exact location of parcel boundaries can be found on the proposed preliminary plat included in the civil submittal. -1554- Unit Mix and Types: The building will be composed mostly of one bedroom and studio units, with some two-bedroom options. Of the approximately 102 units the mix is projected with a combined 25 studio and alcove units, 55 one -bedroom units, 4 one -bedroom plus den units, and 18 two-bedroom units. Approximate unit sizes are planned to range from 450-615sf for alcoves and studios, 750-850sf for a one -bedroom, 900- 1050sf for a one -bedroom plus den and 1125-1250sf for a two-bedroom. Viewpoint Consulting Group, Inc. was engaged to complete a third -party market study for the subject site delivered on April 6, 2020. The report found that the site the site could accommodate up to 121 units of a similar unit mix to what we have proposed based upon industry standard rental demand calculations. This study and would place rents in such a development between $1,200 and $1,375 for a studio, $1,400-$1,825 for a one-bedroom/one-bedroom plus den, and $1,950-$2,175 for a two- bedroom. The proposed development will be priced in a comparable range to this report. Rent levels will adjust as design, development, construction, and lease up progresses. Property Management: Property Management of the building would be provided by Steven Scott Management who manages over 10,000 apartments and townhomes throughout the region. Comparable properties include The Overlook on the Creek in Minnetonka, Residences at 1700 in Minnetonka and Victoria Flats in Victoria. Conclusion: The proposed redevelopment will assist the City of Mound achieve its goals of: housing stock diversification; supporting transit -oriented development and infrastructure investments; adding active uses and increased vitality to the central business district; appropriately increasing population density to support nearby retail, restaurants, and services; and act as a catalyst for additional investment and development in the community. -1555- Intent The Village Center Mixed Use Area is centered around the intersection of Commerce Boulevard and Shoreline Drive. There are existing retail stores, restaurants, the Transit Park & Ride ramp, and Veteran's Memorial Plaza. While the existing area is dominated by commercial uses, there is potential for redevelopment in the northeast corner of the intersection. Redevelopment should be a mix of residential and commercial uses, with the commercial uses located along Shoreline or Commerce to activate the street level of those corridors. The mix of uses may be organized vertically within the same building or horizontal among multiple buildings on the site. Emphasis should be placed on circulation to and within site. Considerations Some level of commercial is preferred to be maintained at the site. Commercial should be located near Commerce or Shoreline at street level to help activate those corridors Building heights should be taller along Commerce and lower towards the adjacent single family neighborhoods Care should be taken with respect to site access from Commerce and Shoreline Internal circulation should support pedestrians Acreage (gross) 22.94 Redevelopment area (net) 3.82 • Residential 70% • Commercial 30% Residential Unit Townhomes, Types Multifamily units/ Residential Densities F12-30 acre January 2020 -1556- Land Use Plan 35 Linear District The Linear District is located along Commerce Boulevard (CSAH 110) connecting the Pedestrian District to Mound Bay Park. It is an important corridor because it serves as an entrance to Downtown Mound from the south and west. The Linear District currently has a mixture of uses, including various types of residential, commercial, and institutional. The area is squeezed between Lake Langdon, Lost Lake and Cooks Bay and contains some lots that are shallow in depth. It is anticipated that the Linear District will redevelop with small projects at various times rather than one large redevelopment effort. Redevelopment as a single project would likely be challenging as there are a number of existing uses that are likely to remain which separate other properties that have the potential for redevelopment. It is intended that the Linear District continue to contain a mixture of residential, commercial and institutional uses. The residential uses are intended to be primarily medium density residential. Commercial development in this area is intended to be more office -oriented to take advantage of its attractive setting or retail establishments related to the nearby lake access and Mound Bay Park, such as bait or gift shops. Community scale, automobile oriented uses, are intended to be in the Destination District Rather than the specific uses in the Linear District, it is the character of the redevelopment that is more of a concern. Development plans in the Linear District should consider the area's location on important natural resources, its proximity to Downtown, and its connection to Mound Bay Park. Redevelopment is envisioned to be smaller in scale and mass, have a lower profile and with architecture more residential in character. Principles which should be considered as redevelopment occurs include: • Enhance the walkability along Commerce Boulevard through walkways and pedestrian scale design, such as placing buildings closer to the roadway with parking in back or on the side of the building. • Protect the natural resources, including wetlands and shoreline, through design such as innovative storm water treatment methods. • Consider allowing views and connections between buildings to the adjacent natural resources. • Incorporate medium density or live/work housing to accommodate a wide range of lifestyle and household types. • Avoid large expanses of parking by creating smaller, scattered parking, structured parking and adding landscaping. Destination and Industrial Districts The Destination District is located along Shoreline Drive (CSAH 15) and Commerce Boulevard (CSAH 110). The Destination District is currently comprised of commercial land uses such as retail and offices, as well as some limited housing. The Destination District is more automobile -oriented than the Pedestrian District with buildings being set back further from the street with parking in front and automobile conveniences such as drive-thrus. Recognizing the recent redevelopment that has already taken place along Commerce Boulevard, it is anticipated that redevelopment in the Destination District will likely occur along Shoreline Drive, east of the Pedestrian District. Another area anticipated for redevelopment over the long term is the Industrial District. The Industrial District encompasses the Balboa Business Center and adjacent lands for industrial uses. It is anticipated that the Land Use Mound Comprehendve Plan Page 4 ♦ 8 March 9, 2010 -1557- redevelopment of the Industrial District will take longer than the adjacent Destination District because of the costs of removing the existing facilities and the potential for environmental issues as it is a former manufacturing site. The hope is that the success of the Pedestrian District will spur redevelopment over the long-term in the Destination and Industrial Districts to create a stronger entrance into Downtown Mound and enhance the walkability of the area. Recognizing that the automobile will likely continue to be the primary mode of transportation over the long-term, the Destination District will continue to be the location of choice for uses which are overwhelmingly automobile -oriented. As most redevelopment efforts in the next 10 years will be focused on Downtown Mound in the Pedestrian District, this Comprehensive Plan supports the continuation of existing land uses in the Destination and Industrial Districts until redevelopment is more imminent. Prior to significant changes taking place, such as the assembly and redevelopment of multiple parcels, a master plan should be completed. If smaller redevelopment projects occur, consideration should be given to how to make the redevelopment compatible with the existing area while incorporating design components to enhance walkability, complement the Pedestrian District, and ensure its long-term compatibility with future redevelopment of the area. Principles which should be considered as redevelopment occurs include: • Enhance the walkability through pedestrian walkways and pedestrian scale design. • Locate buildings along Shoreline Drive closer to the road with parking in back. • Incorporate a variety of medium and high density housing types to provide a wide range of living opportunities. • Avoid large expanses of parking by creating smaller, scattered parking and structured parking. • Create well landscaped parking lots and public spaces. • Create connections to the Lost Lake Greenway and the Dakota Rail Trail. • Incorporate innovative storm water treatment methods. • Protect natural resources, including wetlands and shoreline. • Consider locations for parks and open spaces to serve the increased residential densities in the area. Redevelopment of Public/ Institutional Uses The 2030 Comprehensive Plan specifically identifies public/ institutional uses, such as city -owned facilities and schools, as separate land uses. While there are no specific plans at this time for the redevelopment of any institutional sites, there is the potential over the next 30 years for one or more of these sites to be redeveloped in an effort to serve the public in the most efficient and effective manner possible. While a Comprehensive Plan Amendmentwill be needed for the redevelopment of any of these sites into other uses, redevelopment of institutional sites to other uses will require an analysis of the land uses and character of the surrounding neighborhood as part of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Mound Comprehendve Plan March 9, 2010 -1558- Land Use Page 4 ♦ 9 -h- 10• wM _ - TEL 3 I 954.3 954.4 o I I L _ I s� 953.3 952.8 - 952.4 x 954. �S x 953.4 1 i �_- EASEMENT PER ',x;9528 as FND IP , 2w`i DOC. N0. 4501380 ~~"" y,D., 951.2 �✓i/TfEquNu�.. IVP F,'Oil 0"nn,r re. J4k 2 942 7` _ i 942.0 i a 942.6 �� 942. x 942.3 �21 > > 9% .5 < s 942.7 0 gRc - 56 03 l 4 . V - - - - - - - - c. c- 5� . '3 5'08"W 42.2 GAS- - 00 945.7 i '�'-T- 50.18 a X951. 949.9 948.2 x 942.9E ^ 60 - , t7 2 2 T 942.2 c� R� 1 .0 Pj F� ' S03013�52-W - --- - orlu 15.39 _ x 945.8 9 .1 942.8-9aZ.7- x 951.5 O i^ V40 H D I 1 NL II zs 4 � NORTH I. _ I _ >DRAINAGE AND__ SSQ°47 0111,42"W 9 o_i 1/_z3� ' �_� ('T,'tiq 94V., �II `1J I \ O 30 60 4- Fo v� � \ - - - 953.4 953.0 5 v v u YY 952.4 FIND IP 1/2 951 3 �' UTILITY EASEMEN7�� s 4 - / I y 4R x=995 2 943.7 5 9.46 9 L2 51.4 549.3 ND IP 40'G ND DRILL® E V 942.7 9 ti0 I ° - - - - - _ kat/ �i 52' 951. 95 951.4 N �(i9 / 8, i O 944.$ _�_\�I\\�; R\ 1 426 3 9.1 O ^ 7 ` - NO TH INE F L T 2 ? - - - 951.3 T951.3 51.4 - 94.6 \ F \ i 10 942.9 ` ,- 40 954.1 x 952.7 i1 BL CK I, CO MERCE P NOR H LIVE 0 T - 1 4 0/16 7 >_ w I ?\ x I \ \ V 53. ACE -- 112.5 > a \F �./ Y PLO K I, COM IERC O a 944 0 g,y� H x I _ _ W PLACE 9 ` 943.5 \ Q z to �Z W - r 949.fi � i`.ii v 945. a> ' I I 9 31I�,p.- '�y 94 2 o w �- as I I I I YJ \ Vw1 �' w� Cs w O 944.4 I 1 9414.; I - - w Q Z 951.0 _ ".1�`'� o co h 94f z I I 0¢[ H 947.1 947.2 FFE= ' 0 I U Q I I I I c 95 m4 O 3 o a oo J 3� x m 1.4 946.8 O o� O 944567 w w 94 . I I I I .2 Y o V� �� (P '/ 945 J 945.3 ---�- PROPOSED STREET VACATION 3 = p i / ., ,o m I-- 945.5 1 \5.5 I I I 9145. 945 / 1 )46.0 p -�- 94 ..)46.7 46J 1 / 1 STORY BRICK BUILDING i3.8 O1 946.2 946- r I I I I 4 0 /l' i ® FFE=�- 952.9 � _ 9 952. moi' 1, 946.8 ^ 9 950.1 FFE= m / 952. d�> �� <� 94fi 8 946.4 i 3 31 I SOUTH LINE OF LOT 6, FND IP 2476 f I Z 94s.7 6° '08'y I i o 173.29 946.a�94s.4 FND IP z47s m 1 = 715 I % (-BLOCK, I, FERNWOOD / �n 946.4 I 94.9 _ s.z zo 946.0 Ih001 I N86°96 '(gysfij{�LoG 176.00 >� 46.4 °' 946.4 / i ADDITION FND IP 1/2 °'� 6 h / 1 9s .6 ° - V FFE. FND IP- 29 2 y �I� --- 4JD IF 1/2" 1449.8 945.7 � 469 it I I Is I 1 A. to 950. S86' 46' 08"E / FOUND 1/2 946.4L'®1 946.7 ,6c 946.7 //11� �� - 1 �r I 1 946.7 1 O •` I I �n 949.3 1 _ 949. i INCH IRON -.I P US _,A:7 EMENT VAC.A 1 IVIV �n - I I 94 A- FND I 10938 95 945.5 95 946.4 PIPE MARK I z 0.i 0.8 _24 6 7 4 a eI�LZ �r 4 8 27 / > I _ - - - _ - - L _ 1 1 0 V I 1 1 L 1 < vUi 945.7 45.i� EVO \ % i / �' 949.8 z FFE= J i 1/ 947.4 I 1 948. 9 9 5 `-+J' `i �- -' DRAINAGE AND, UTILITY U w >) 95 3949.4 1 1 ,> O ��1 EASEMENT VACATED PER __.'1 10 I- `� 49.5-- 9 9. 948.9 94 . 4 .0 << z 945.80. I 945.1 / o 11 9471r3 _ -,n0 r DOC. N0. FND P 1/2 a x^9S7.9 I I I I 94 .� CD 949.49, 49.3 48.°- .5� �n l3� <- H _ 5 m� 943. \TL 947.7 014 846.6 94 . 45.2 ®945.V / FFE= FFE= m 1 w 5 i w FND ,''r, a O r� _ _ qCL FP ] x7F 946.7 9 .1 I I 945.0 1 I 1 a W o GAS 94 .6 9 0 I m 945.2 I _Z w I 952.3 G 9 E3 a 1�' 0 1 6 cn �49I14 LE _ _ I z cr, / `��. s I ��co 0 7 I I ww I 950.3.-- I ;��.1 Q.� �� 7 FFE= 945.2 n ® m I®945.p., 945.D o0 I 945. 4s.fi 9481 Id 950.4. 950.fi950.$ E) ND BLE LE)INGS 947.5 x W o W I ATF cA F -- - /cc v � o - a I 9 Da 1 I I 944.8 a "� (' +� w 195.3 � .. w Q / O ;.� I x 49.9 95 .6 �+ .2 1� SOU 94210 0 95' _ I}, o v� / 'WN 4� II 1 4 . , ® ® ®I- O TH LINE OF LOT 8, / 1p 'l1 '3 --. v 944.7 w z FILE- ~451 Z x/944. \x/91;1T�LS- 1 N 950.2 V1 z I \n ADDTQN FERNWOO �P �P C1� O 9 .2 ? a ri' FFE= FFE= ,-� 1v..' /00 c 94 V I J 945.1 0 9 9 � / G� 9448 85.3 9 5.1 945.2 I y --L----- _ FE STORY BRICK BUILDING to � 0 9 s9�a5.3 � aFRsIP z499ao FND IP z47s -I-II \` -t- �/ ��P NO ' 948.9 945.3 ¢ 1 9 5� 945. 945.8 \ _ FENCE x 50.5 `/ 1�---FOUND 2 INCH �O / 945.0 o I r 9'42.2 o ^ - I / 944. 44.5 / IRON PIPE MARKED EDGE OF OVERHANG--�� 1 f 9 4,5 - FEN E -FENCE 64.0 947.2 945.58 L ,�94 . 944.4 944.77 �2 pfi4 RLS 24764 N86°46'08"W 9$4.7 945.0 ^ I II 1 --- 94' VV } B0. %® 95 .2 �� B L K 1 J 74.00w 1 9 S8if 17'23" No IP 247x4 O iu,- 1 ° T 941.9 N "' 944.3 Q 9HE-45.1 1 FFE= D P 47 4 F601P 7 9 4.2 5 - _ U� I+ E i� 51151 947.9 7 944.2 v �_ 945.1 945.1 1z ----T__ / o `I \ww --FOUND 2 N a g� 948. 948.0 / 947.3 Q Q FON - 1943.fi °� Q d I R ON 24764r1ARKED -'� w R o O 9 9.5 E, FFE= f'i 945.4 ® Az 0 g O O` V 9.91 I 947.6 C:,7 944.3 44 � 0 NFFE=°.2 w w II 94 2 / 945. x-943. 3,7 945.1 FILE - 947.5 947.2 945.7 94 Do L® 4 7, 945.1 �1 a ^ o �^ I 947.5 945.4 94 .949 4 6 44.6 944. 943.5 h I "- v 1 947.5 945.8 o _PROPOSED EASEMENT VACATION m I � 947.4 7� 45 � Q o S w FIRE %� e l I 42 1858.7 9947.7 94r7.4 94 .0 } o a HOOKUP O 1 H 1 947.5 946.6 }441 48. �0 V X943.4 ;�9 ,, =1 I w I EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION: rc I I r g47 2 g 1 943. 43.4 's V FFE. I N w h m g\46.2 9U46.1 // 44.5 °z / i 945.2 A w U LL 944.1 ® -F 4 G a O I (AS SHOWN ON CERTIFICATE OF TITLE NO. 1461 332) U ^ - No IP ,/2 J O 94.3 I a 94x. 943.7 I II STORY BRICK BUILDING ti 947.1 947. 946.0 ° l I FFE= ��l - „) O � � Lots 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, Block 1 ,Commerce Place; V 914.0 , 52" yy FND IP 2Aaj^ 4 943.4 FFE= 40. o ' n o x9 8.0 V 948.1 9A8~µ7$_1 S77�g3 Q9 943.4 4 943.1 � 9gr3.3 � � N86°46'08"W 13321 943.5 A I r) f` and 3 i' m ! 4 ,4, 7 FND IP 1/ 1(0.? O - o A o I I r C`` �, 943.5 /' I I`E FILE- FILE- Z 10.0. rA I Lots 7 and 8, Block 1 , Fernwood Addition. 943.0 94 .3 0 94 .2 943.3 943.6 I v' \I, 94 Z IV X94 �. ��I� Eqs MEN m 4 843.3 FILE -41 PROPOSED STREET VACATION o A Nov i l rn 10 v I &D I CE \w ° ,° I - - - - 4 .1 = w I That portion of Fern Lane, dedicated as Willow Street on the plat of LAKESIDE P_ �� 946.2 DRAINA E AND _ ° N / C) C, g 4 4ss - -- - -- -- UTiur EASEMENT�o NI RpOFoaN / v 911. 941.3 N�� I PARKA. L CROCKER'S 1ST DIVISION MOUND, MINNESOTA, lying southerly of o o = o - 2 4 23 - - - - - - _ - - N I \w the westerly extension of the southerly line of Lot 6, Blockl , FERNWOOD "C N o 1 A d I ADDITION and norther) of the wester) extension of the south line of Lot 8, 6. _ S87°19'11 "E - - 941.4 II 4 < -� 5 5 o d o Y Y x9 6.4- 4�' 944.8 / 941.4 41.4 i J II /' -------- Block 1, said FERNWOOD ADDITION . yy 9 9.4 z D I o � �as. DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT ,' i3 'W` � � 1 I -- _ _ _ - _ I I g PER PLAT of COMMERCE PLACE_, ' \ 941 I PROPOSED EASEMENT VACATION e 9 96 94 .1 d Oa n VA qr`a 1 �� 41 X11 7 1� �4 .9 - V o gg ro� Co Qom �„ g 940.7 C. ENCE v v 9 / 3 .0 1 1 0_ 940.9 FN P E E _- TV V -TEL I W O� O ,ya' -1116 `+! 8 ,1E cTV F GAS AS� I --- FO- CTV TEL A p%- FO CTV- All those particular Drainage and Utility Easements as dedicated on the plat 0 945. N 1 I n E U IT 1 NS FO u' OHU FO - ad PS89° E �g432 Fo 940.2 PAVER SIDEWALK 939 -- cas- COMMERCE PLACE, Hennepin County, Minnesota shown covering Lot 6, Block 1, o ; 940 2 > -�'- > ° 38.6 said COMMERCE PLACE. 0 39.4 21 C3> 587 7' 3"E, Fo 44. 94.1 HHI PAVE 1aE c1v Fo FOUND 1/2 INCH p J / --- �> > ___ 21'RGP > I 940. >� IR o olof AR Ems-- 7� 1 i�� 944.0 i Tc -re > I 1r wM 15. RCP F 1 I 5 40344 All those particular Drainage and Utility Easements as dedicated on the plat of / EO• - TEL \\ c6E�-FOUND 1/2 INCH 12"wM�C 1 > >�>s�° s FERNWOOD ADDITION, Hennepin County, Minnesota shown covering Lots 7 and 8, Block 1, said FERNWOOD ADDITION. 10 2 E IRON PIPE 40344 ARKED - I I ' �, 3 38. C� 15"RCP _ ° _ 5°01 1 N77° g - I I 9. z` NOTE: THE EXISTING EASEMENTS TO BE VACATED COVERING LOTS 7 AND 8, TEL " ' ° BLOCK 1, FERNWOOD ADDITION WILL WILL BE REDEDICATED ON THE NEW PLAT UE SEALED 1z" MSH T ' - " „�•� , a rr, �, �' ' '� 9. E93 "8 938.0_ 937 EXCEPT ADJACENT TO FERN LANE AS SHOWN. K V I I 1 9 0. 15"40.4- 939. - 94� - > 15' SAN > 44.0 P. - 1.411� 944.4 943. 942. -12"WM CALL BEFORE YOU DIGI Gopher State One Call TWIN CITY AREA: 651-454-0002 TOLLFREE: 1-800-252-1166 SURVEY NOTES: 1 . BEARINGS ARE BASED ON THE HENNEPIN COUNTY COORDINATE SYSTEM NAD 1983. BEARINGS ARE DIFFERENT THAN SHOWN ON THE RECORDED PLATS. 2. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN PER SURVEY PROVIDED BY SATHRE-BERGQUIST. THERE MAY SOME UNDERGROUND UTILITIES, GAS, ELECTRIC, ETC. NOT SHOWN OR LOCATED. 3. TOPOGRAPHY AND IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN PER SURVEY PROVIDED BY SATH RE- B ERG QU IST. 4. CORNERSTONE LAND SURVEYING, INC. HAS NOT VERIFIED THE IMPROVEMENTS, UTILITIES AND ELEVATIONS SHOWN ON THIS PRELIMINARY PLAT. DEVELOPEMENT DATA TOTAL PARCEL AREA = 145,807 SQ. FT. / 3.35 ACRES LOT 1, BLOCK 1 = 91,744 SQ. FT. / 2.11 ACRES LOT 2, BLOCK 1 = 52,201 SQ. FT. / 1.20 ACRES DEDICATED ROADWAY = 1,862 SQ. FT. / 0.04 ACRES -1559- EASEMENT NOTES THE FOLLOWING EASEMENTS AND OR ENCUMBRANCES ARE AS SHOWN ON CERTIFICATE OF TITLE NO. 1461 332) 1. Subject to drainage and utility easements as shown on the record plats of plats of COMMERCE PLACE AND FERNWOOD ADDITION, 2. Subject to covenants, conditions, restrictions, including a right of re-entry and forfeiture of title upon default, as shown in deed Doc. No. 1729545, 3. Subject to and together with the covenants, restrictions and Easements contained in Doc. No. 2063218; (See Order Doc. No. 2632081) 4. Subject to covenants and restrictions contained in paragraph 6 of CR Doc. Nos. 51 16756 and 5353313 but free from the other covenants and restrictions contained therein as to part of the above Lots 2, 4 and 5, Commerce Place 5. Highway Easement per Doc. No. 4501 380 6. Highway Easement per Doc. No. 39315 1 5 COMMERCE PLACE 2ND ADDITION PRELIM 1 NARY PLAT CONTACT: Trevor Martinez Development Manager 900 North Third Street Minneapolis, MN 55401 Direct: 612.314.15 97 Cell: 612.877.2648 Fax: 612.359.5858 TMartinez@sr-re.com www.sr-re.com COUNTY/CITY: H EN N EPI N COU NTV C QTY O F MOU IV D REVISIONS: DATE REVISION 4-23-20 PRELIMINARY PLAT 6-11-20 PRELIMINARY PLAT CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me, or under my direct supervision, and that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the state of Minnesota. Daniel L. Thurmes Registration mher_ 25718 Date 4-2 3-20 PROJECT LOCATION: 2200-2238 COMMERCE BLVD. P1D#1311724320169 P1D#1311724320168 P1D#1311724320157 P1D#1311724320156 P1D#1311724330079 P1D#1311724330080 P1D#1311724330081 Suite #200 1970 Northwestern Ave. Stillwater, MN 55082 Phone 651.275.8969 danC@cssurvey .net CORNERSTONE LAND SURVEYING, INC. FILE NAME SURVEDL36 PROJECT NO. EDL20036 PRELIMINARY PLAT IIII 11\ 6 CONCRETE \\\ C-501 PAVEMENT JOINT T CURB TRANSITION TO / EXISTING CURB SECTION 'BITUMINOUS 8 INTERLOCK AT �\ MATCHLINE C501 ° 11 STOP SIGN \\% CONCRETE CROSS 10 �; _ ' C-501 R1-1 ❑ �� 1 - - = - GUTTER C-501 _-�'�k — — I ® T - CHURCH ROAD MATCH EXISTING III I�------------- I I EXISTING PROPERTY LINE CURB SECTION �� 0 - --I I PROPOSED PROPERTY LINE - _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ PEDESTRIAN 1 T CURB Ile A \ RAMP C-502 o TRANSITION co III I \ — �� — _ _ — PROPOSED do, MONUMENT SIGN _ 6.s' \ II III I \\ . . T — -- .. . . . .R10 $ Bs12 cuR6- - & . . GUTTER 1 _.� 3.54 =. ... . . . . . . . . --.1T.�= -. r \ \ I EXISTING IIII .': INTER KA PROPERTY LINE . MATCH.LINE(TYP). 43 II'I I III I III I IIf.I .. .. .. .. .. ................ ... ..... .. .. . . . . . . .. . ... ... ... ... . PROPOSED EXISTING-LIGHT.........OPROPERTY LINE ...... ....... P . a s .. ... ... .. ... I I. . . . . . . ....III I II ` B612.CUR54..... �� moo. . . 11 .{I II. . . . . ' .. . II l GUTTERffP)..... ... .. ... II II. . . .'�� . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9' . . . . . . ....... . . . . . . . . I I I I . �' . 'd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . . . . . . . . . . ............. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ` I \ \\ \ . I. l �\\\ \\\.\ ............................... ....................... .. ........... \\ a. .1.. . . . . . . . \\ \ \� � . c! t=. . . DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT (TYP) r----- ___ J r I \ cF \ ............. ... \\ >f ............................ ............ I \ w ............... \ "\ ............ ................................... 1. ........... II . ... .. ........ . \.\ \ III'. ...I.... ....I. .I. .I . .I. .I. .... 1 .... ....... ..... ®mm®mwal 102' II III -__ _ /f 1. . .......... ....... 1\� J I . . . . . . ......... I ff \ - II I. \\\ ,r/ - �.. ........ .... . . I . I q I I! \\\\\ ,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .fff ►► O `.��_ �''. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., ►q ►�1 ___ ♦ -- I II I I ...............III il1ll .. .... BITUMINOUS 8 .......� * ..... ........— I I l . l ..I . ........ ..... I / .. ........ ........ ....... ........ ..... m .. ......INTERLOCK AT a .. �. �. II �\\ //. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... . . . .x� . . . . . . 6'� . . �� . I .. . N. . ....... MATCHLINE . C -5U1 .... ... . `t'.. � 02 I ...............� Z ........................ I . .1 ... . .j. . ..... .. C) io............ .. .. ............ ............................... �... ... .... ....... ..... ..............................� .�.............................� . . O .. . ............................/.. ......................... .. .. ... .... .. .. ......... . . .' -.................... .... .. .. .. ... ... .... .. . .... ... ... ... ... .. .......... ..�.. .. .. .. . . .25. . . . . . .'........................ .. I I I 10.8' ..�� ROOF OVERHANG I R rF SEE ARCH' +r..... ....... II )II,Q3 �. +. _....... ........ ........ ..... .. .... .... . I I Q a I DECK (TYP) ) .... .........— SIDEWALK 5. �SEE ARCH ..... ........ ....... ..... JOINT. . .. �9'.. 62 0501' . +....... ........ N .. .-\ . .Z.� .Z. . . . It . l { j . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 . . . . ..... . . . . . .. F.3QSTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IIII. I I III 1 II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... .............POLE.................... ............................... .. . '_. 24 . L,41 I . . . . . II I \ I III I \\ I .I. III I III I \ I --- 3{► III I \ I i I III \ Ra,d III III I \ III III I \ I III III I \ II I CONCRETE PAVEMENT (a i I III III I \ \ \ SECTION I I III III III III I \\ ��6 III Uj III I \ I - III z III----- �-- I III Q iii I ----------------J � CONCRETE CROSS 10 I III J III I I GUTTER C-501, III Z III I 1 3 -STORY BUILDING 34,300 SF FOOTPRINT 1 1ST FLOOR FFE = 948.0 1 GARAGE FIFE = 937.0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I C-102 LU III I I DECK (TYP) I l LLLj III I I III SEE ARCH 6.79' - Lu 14 MODULAR BLOCK I I � O C-501 RETAINING WALL I18' r� _=_------------- ---------- --- ---- III -- ?____��- 1 I I I I I - ------_— --------------- K 4 I 131 ORN�AMENT4 I I I I I I -_--- ___ - -_- h N C-501 i{ I C-501 FENPE I I I I I II 1 1 1 1 i 111111111111 91 ER —_-_H -- E_�AI IVI YI - = DUTY UTY II =I � ,I t r I Il i i�IitI Il; IiIiII' l � CD ASPHALT (TYP) PROOF OF PARKING RAILS I 2A LIGHT DUTY N ASPHALT (TYP) SERS, EADS zo _ -ZI__ ===I-_--_ B612CURB & GUTTEREXISTING FENCE AND RETAINING WALL TO REMAIN ... . . ... . .CONCRETE SIDEWAL PAVEMENT SECTIO CONCRET STAI L HAND STARS WITH 8-6" RI 15.5" THF MOUND APARTMENTS I --- I I I I ♦ I I I I I I I I I PATIO (TYP) I �: SEE ARCH r I I I ROOF OVERHANG I I I I SEE ARCH I I I I I I I I DRAINAGE AND UTILITY I I I EASEMENT (TYP) I I 1 BITUMINQUS.INTERLOCK .... ...... ........ ........ ...... .. m_ ...... .71 ... .... . I cs, o, ...... AT MATCHLINE-(TYP) ...................................... ........... ... .... .. ... ... I Il i .. ... . . . . . . . . . I I' — — — \ \. . . . . . . . . ��—.. _^LI� I Iii. - .` \ _____ \ .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . � � (`� 1 r- 6�7 /%_'ice^ \\�\ PROPOSED \\.... ..... \\ _ �\ _ -_ _ _ _ - /, MONUMENT SIGN \\ ........ ....1 / \\ i g / ---_----- __ PROPOSED PROPERTY LINE EXISTING PROPERTY LINE Ir I II IL===-- SITE PLAN 1"=20' LYN -_ - SIDEWALK MATCH EXISTING PAVERS MATCH EXISTING CURB SECTION - 1560 - I I I I I I I I I I ® I . 3.67' I I I I I I I I I I ------------___---------j_ I I 7 SITE PLAN NOTES 1. VERIFY ALL FIELD CONDITIONS AND UTILITY LOCATIONS PRIOR TO EXCAVATION/ CONSTRUCTION. IF ANY DISCREPANCIES OR UNKNOWN UTILITIES ARE FOUND THAT IMPACT DESIGN OR IMPAIR CONSTRUCTION, THE ENGINEER AND OWNER SHOULD BE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFIED. 2. DIMENSIONS SHOWN ON THIS PLAN ARE TO THE PROPERTY LINE, EDGE OF PAVEMENT, FACE OF CURB AND BUILDING FACE. 3. MEET AND MATCH EXISTING CONDITIONS. PROVIDE TRANSITION AS NECESSARY. 4. ON-SITE CURB TO BE B612 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 5. ALL CURBS TO HAVE 3/4" EXPANSION JOINTS AT A MAXIMUM OF 100'-0" AND CONTROL JOINTS AT A MAXIMUM OF 10'-0". 6. ALL PARKING STALLS TO BE PAINTED WITH A 4" WIDE YELLOW STRIPE. ACCESSIBLE ROUTES AND ACCESS AISLES TO BE PAINTED WITH A 6" YELLOW PERIMETER BORDER AND 4" WIDE STRIPE, 18" ON CENTER, AND 45 DEGREES TO STALL. 7. PROVIDE PAINT SYMBOLS AND SIGNAGE AT ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES. 8. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONSTRUCT ALL PAVEMENTS TO CONFORM WITH THE CORRECT LINES AND FINISHED GRADES ON THE PLANS. NO PONDING OF WATER WILL BE ALLOWED. MATCH EXISTING PAVEMENT GRADES AT TIE-IN POINTS. CUT CONTRACTION JOINTS AT EXISTING JOINT LOCATIONS. 9. CONTINUE CONCRETE PAVEMENT JOINTS THROUGH CURB. 10. SAW ALL CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION JOINTS, CLEAN DEBRIS, BLOW DRY AND IMMEDIATELY SEAL WITH JOINT SEALANT. 11. REINFORCE ODD SHAPED PAVING PANELS WITH #3 BARS AT 24" EACH WAY. AN ODD SHAPED PANEL IS CONSIDERED TO BE ONE IN WHICH THE SLAB TAPERS TO A SHARP ANGLE WHEN THE LENGTH TO WIDTH RATIO EXCEEDS 3 TO 1 OR WHEN A SLAB IS NEITHER SQUARE NOR RECTANGULAR. 12. SEE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR LOCATIONS OF STAIRS, DOORS, COLUMNS, STOOPS, ETC. 13. SEE ELECTRICAL SITE PLANS FOR LIGHTING LOCATIONS AND DETAILS. 14. THE COST OF ALL CITY PERMITS AND INSPECTIONS SHALL BE BORNE BY THE CONTRACTOR. 15. REFER TO SHEET C-203 FOR SWPPP AND C-204 FOR EROSION CONTROL REQUIREMENTS. PROJECT SUMMARY AREA SUMMARY EXISTING PROPOSED SITE TOTAL = 145,807 SF. 3.347 AC. 4 STALLS LOT 1, BLOCK 1 = 91,744 SF. (2.106 AC.) PARKING GARAGE STALL LOT 2, BLOCK 1 = 52,201 SF. (1.198 AC.) 2 STALLS DEDICATED ROW = 1,862 SF. (0.043 AC.) OUTDOOR BICYCLE PARKING TOTAL LOT 1 AND LOT 2 = 143,945 SF. (3.305 AC.) 94 STALLS IMPERVIOUS 121,154 SF. (84%) 105,080 SF. (73%) BUILDING COVERAGE 34,073 SF. (23%) 34,473 SF. (24%) PARKING, WALK, & TRASH 87,081 SF. (61%) 62,523 SF. (43%) PROOF OF PARKING NIA 8,084 SF. (6%) PERVIOUS AREA 22,791 SF. (16%) 38,865 SF. (27%) PARKING SUMMARY 0 -1 PROPOSED PARKING 236 STALLS 8'X18' ACCESSIBLE STALL 4 STALLS 8.5'X18' STANDARD STALL 120 STALLS PARKING GARAGE STALL 82 STALLS PARKING GARAGE ADA STALL 2 STALLS PROOF OF PARKING 28 STALLS OUTDOOR BICYCLE PARKING 10 STALLS GARAGE BICYCLE PARKING 94 STALLS LEGEND HEAVY DUTY BITUMINOUS BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT MILL & OVERLAY CONCRETE PAVEMENT DGRAVEL/ PET SURFACE PERVIOUS AREA • • Know what's below. 20 60 Call before you dig. I SCALE I=FE t 1 0 cpc co Lo of � co �z Y Z Q � m c W z C? z co w z 0 x a " 0 -1 E z N p O N P I U W J W 2 y _ H LU Ln fn0wr�U '62m Ln m Vz m o W ts F_3 O N Z w N 3 0 F_o LU 0 x � a Q p _ J a cc rn rn ` Q U rnLLI �� Z z N N LU Z e e Q U Ol L o W coz Q 0 D ISSUES/REVISIONS: CITY SUBMITTAL 04.24.2020 CITY SUBMITTAL II 06.11.2020 SITE PLAN PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION INOT FOR DATE 06-11-20 ❑ PERMIT/BID SET ❑ CONSTRUCTION SET C-101 ❑ AS -BUILT SET PROJECT NO. ❑ NOT TO SCALE SRM20002 O U Z 2t 8 OW Z LL U LL' — W � � rnLL1wFz Z U W O F U W J W 2 y _ H OZ 0 0 fn0wr�U EL U) H a� ~ o W to z fn J • r=`LL�"a 0 ami O N U E2N- ON05 U O LU LU 0 x � a Q p W coz Q 0 D ISSUES/REVISIONS: CITY SUBMITTAL 04.24.2020 CITY SUBMITTAL II 06.11.2020 SITE PLAN PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION INOT FOR DATE 06-11-20 ❑ PERMIT/BID SET ❑ CONSTRUCTION SET C-101 ❑ AS -BUILT SET PROJECT NO. ❑ NOT TO SCALE SRM20002 2t 8 OW p o U d a W� ozooa -: 0 NIDz=�==z rnLL1wFz Z U W C ¢ m L=O OZ 0 0 fn0wr�U N U S z t r o � 0 0 z W- Z U Z L w Q U j U p 0 Ri owl = IL y LL W = i O W �o W coz Q 0 D ISSUES/REVISIONS: CITY SUBMITTAL 04.24.2020 CITY SUBMITTAL II 06.11.2020 SITE PLAN PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION INOT FOR DATE 06-11-20 ❑ PERMIT/BID SET ❑ CONSTRUCTION SET C-101 ❑ AS -BUILT SET PROJECT NO. ❑ NOT TO SCALE SRM20002 N 1111 I ---- \\\111 CHURCH ROAD CONCRETE QgMp�// /�� __---- ----- ------ --- CONCRETE — ll SIGN I I II � 0 III ---II III I I II III It /11 III Iii IlIi I III I 1 III------ III III III II III III III III I I I 11 I— EXISTING TREE 1 l\ !Il III I I III (TYP) II III II� I I III EXISTING LIGHT III II I �II POLE III I I I �lii i III 1l� III II III _ II II II II II II �� X111 4 II III I I �`� III III III AA I I i I AREA OF EXISTING III III UNDERGROUND �; 5 III III III a II I ELECTRIC III III III I I I� I II III III too 40 \ 1 \\`— — —�\ \\\ II► III I \\\ \ II I I \\\ I III II ♦' III i II = —_=______ _— -- __ III 1 \I\1 II III I--- ------ =---- =-- — ------ ----- — III 1 11�� I I III O CONCRETE -- III III I ❑------------------- \\\l Ill Ip ----I ----__-- � 1 —1 I III c� Ilr---%� + II I III � I III II 1 + II III I I 1 1 + + + III II II III I III 1 + + II I + III I III III 1 +++ ++ III I III , III 1 II I III II III 1 ++++++++ II I III II III + + II I II II III 1 + + II II 1 � + + I II II III 1 III i ii 7 STORY BRICK BUILDING} ii i1i 1 II I II oil II I II li III 1 . ii I ii li ill I 1 l II It iII I II II .I I III 1 " _. II I II It 11 III 1 m II I II _j It III LJJI I I i i Q 11 111 I 1 0 W II I ii iii 1 II I LU z II I II z 11 I I 1 0 I II I I I I 111 Q li li 1 1 III I I I Z 1 1 1 1 III tr l 1 11 i i U ii1 1 1= I I ii1 �i i1i 1 -D I I i I D 11 Ili i t li I 1 o i j i t iil r-===—'� I I I I w I I I JI III _ — — — — — 11 CONCRETE 11 1 —41 [it 1 + + + I I I i i li CONCRETE �I I IIII1 i� 1 1 ++ II 1 + + II 11 III ___--_—,p %ll 1\1�=11 + + + + + II I Ill 11, 9t:-, III 11 j �I 1,111 AREA OF EXISTING UNDERGROUND, � f 1 1�\`_ �Il ' STORMSEWER RAMP I --------------------------------------------- IL--------------------------------------------- LANDSCAPE PLAN T. = 20' LYNWOOD BLVD. 1\IPTAI I M^^I/\"AI\IT MIAKI^r EXISTING DECORATIVE RESTORE MULCH `EXISTING DECORATIVE FENCE IN RIGHT-OF-WAY FENCE -1561 - IMENT SIGN ARCHITECTURE III I \ I \ \ I I I III I \ I III I \\ I III I \ I III I \ I II I III III I \\ III \ I INSTALL EDGING ON III I ii PROPERTY LINE III I \ \ I I I III III I \ \ I r III III I \ I _ I 9 Caul III I \\ I III \\ I I III III I ' III LJJ III I \ I �--- ' III Q iii I ----------------J —I _ RETAINING WALLUj li I I III U_ III I I I I -__-Lu I EXIST. BLDG -- - _-- T=- -- _ - - ------------------------- L� ---- ---- _____ � II I I I I I ---- ---------- --- I I I I � I I I I I I III I I i1 I III SNOW STORAGE I I III I PROOF OF PARKING III I I I III I I I I I I� I III JIII I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I 1 1 10 __ �____ �___ '��I FENCE X_ X FENCE EXISTING FENCE I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I AREA WITH I I I UNDERGROUND STORMSEWER I I I & WATERMAIN I I I I I I I I i I I I EXISTING FENCE I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I � I I I I I I I I —=====0============= — [) LANDSCAPE NOTES 1. LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR FINISHED GRADING AND POSITIVE SURFACE DRAINAGE IN ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS. LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR MUST ENSURE THAT THE FINAL GRADES ARE MET AS SHOWN ON GRADING PLAN. IF ANY DISCREPANCIES ARE FOUND, IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT FOR RESOLUTION. 2. ALL PLANT MATERIALS ARE TO CONFORM WITH STATE & LOCAL CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS AND THE CURRENT ADDITION OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NURSERYMEN STANDARDS. ALL PLANT MATERIALS ARE TO BE HEALTHY, HARDY STOCK, AND FREE FROM ANY DISEASES, DAMAGE, AND DISFIGURATION. 3. QUANTITIES OF PLANTS LISTED ON THE PLAN ARE TO GOVERN ANY DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE QUANTITIES SHOWN ON THE PLANT SCHEDULE AND PLAN. PLACE PLANTS IN PROPER SPACING FOLLOWING LAYOUT FIGURES. 4. TOPSOIL TO BE MNDOT 3877.213 LOAM TOPSOIL BORROW FOR LANDSCAPED AREAS AND PLANTING BEDS. PROVIDE ROOTING TOPSOIL BORROW MNDOT 3877.2E FOR PLANT RESTORATION, WATER QUALITY, AND FILTRATION PLANTING. 5. SPREAD PLANTING SOIL AT MINIMUM EIGHTEEN (18) INCH DEEP IN ALL PLANTING BEDS PRIOR TO PLANTING. THOROUGHLY WATER TWICE TO FACILITATE CONSOLIDATION PRIOR TO PLANTING. DO NOT OVERLY COMPACT SOIL. PLANTING SOIL TO HAVE A PH BETWEEN 6.5-7.5, BE FREE OF CHEMICAL CONTAMINANTS, DEBRIS, LARGE ROCKS GREATER THAN 1/ 2" DIAMETER, AND FRAGMENTS OF WOOD. SUBSOIL SHALL BE SCARIFIED TO A DEPTH OF 4" BEFORE PLANTING SOIL IS SPREAD. 6. MULCH TO BE SHREDDED HARDWOOD BARK MULCH (MNDOT 3882 TYPE 6), CONSISTED OF RAW WOOD MATERIAL FROM TIMBER AND BE A PRODUCT OF A MECHANICAL CHIPPER, HAMMER MILL, OR TUB GRINDER. THE MATERIAL SHALL BE SUBSTANTIALLY FREE OF MOLD, DIRT, SAWDUST, AND FOREIGN MATERIAL AND SHALL NOT BE IN AN ADVANCED STATE OF DECOMPOSITION. THE MATERIAL SHALL NOT CONTAIN CHIPPED UP MANUFACTURED BOARDS OR CHEMICALLY TREATED WOOD, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, WATER BOARD, PARTICLE BOARD, AND CHROMATED COPPER ARSENATE (CCA) OR PENTA TREATED WOOD. THE MATERIAL SHALL BE TWICE -GROUND/ SHREDDED, SUCH THAT; NO INDIVIDUAL PIECE SHALL EXCEED 2 INCHES IN ANY DIMENSION. 7. APPLY FOUR (4) INCH DEPTH OF SHREDDED HARDWOOD BARK MULCH IN FOUR (4) FOOT DIAMETER RING AROUND ALL TREES. 8. EDGE ALL SHRUB BEDS WITH 3116"X 5.5" MILL FINISHED ALUMINUM EDGING WITH STAKES. ALL EDGING TO BE COMMERCIAL GRADE. 9. APPLY FOUR (4) INCH DEPTH OF SHREDDED HARDWOOD BARK MULCH IN ALL SHRUB AREAS AND APPLY THREE (3) INCH DEPTH OF SHREDDED HARDWOOD BARK MULCH IN PERENNIAL AREAS. PRIOR TO MULCHING, APPLY PRE -EMERGENT HERBICIDE TO ALL PLANTING BEDS. 10. APPLY PRE -EMERGENT TO MULCH IN PLANTING AREAS TO PROHIBIT WEED GROWTH. APPLICATION RATE TO BE PER MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS. IF WEEDS APPEAR IN TREATED AREAS DURING THE FIRST YEAR, LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR TO REMOVE ALL WEEDS AT NO ADDITIONAL COST. 11. APPLY FOUR (4) INCH DEPTH OF 1-1/2 - 2 INCH DARK GRAY TRAP ROCK MULCH OVER GEOTEXTILE FABRIC IN AREAS INDICATED ON PLAN. 12. INSTALL 18"- 24" DARK GRAY BOULDERS AT CONCRETE FLUMES AND AREAS INDICATED ON PLAN. 13. INSTALL 6"- 12" DARK GRAY TRAP RIP RAP IN BOTTOM OF INFILTRATION AS SHOWN ON PLAN. 14. ALL TREES ADJACENT TO VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION SHALL HAVE LOWER BRANCH AT 6 FEET MINIMUM ABOVE PAVEMENT. 15. THE ENTIRE LANDSCAPE AREAS SHALL BE IRRIGATED WITH AN UNDERGROUND IRRIGATION SYSTEM AND AUTOMATIC RAIN SHUT -FF SENSOR. NO WATER IS ALLOWED ON ANY PAVEMENT, PARKING, WALKWAY, AND BUILDING. THE IRRIGATION CONTRACTOR IS TO DESIGN AND SUBMIT SHOP DRAWING OF IRRIGATION DESIGN AND CALCULATIONS TO LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT FOR REVIEW 5 DAYS PRIOR TO PURCHASING AND INSTALLATION. IRRIGATION DESIGN IS TO MEET ALL CITY AND STATE PLUMBING CODES AND REQUIREMENTS. 16. FOLLOW LANDSCAPE DETAILS FOR ALL INSTALLATION, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 17. LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN PLANTS IN HEALTHY CONDITION THROUGHOUT WARRANTY PERIOD. THE WARRANTY PERIOD IS TWO FULL YEARS FROM DATE OF PROVISIONAL ACCEPTANCE UNTIL FINAL ACCEPTANCE. WARRANTY PERIOD FOR PLANT MATERIAL INSTALLED AFTER JUNE 1ST SHALL COMMENCE THE FOLLOWING YEAR. LANDSCAPE SUMMARY TOTAL TREE REMOVAL 24 TREES GROSS FLOOR AREA 34,300 X 3 =102,900 SF. LOT 1 & 2 SITE PERIMETER = 2,707 LF TOTAL RESIDENTIAL UNIT =102 UNITS PROPOSED FOR PED -PUD ZONED 28 DECIDUOUS TREES 13 CONIFEROUS TREES 5 ON-SITE SAVED EXISTING TREES 18 ORNAMENTAL TREES 689 SHRUBS 908 PERENNIALS RESTORATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY PLANTING BED • • Know what's below. 20 60 Call before you dig. I SCALE IN FEET t 1 0 m c co Lo or co cm o: Z Y Z Q � OD c N cL O 0 Z r - z w z O a ° p E E N p O 2t810 - w Ln m F -Ln u~iaFOR '==30co Vz m Z = 2 Z ¢��mm0 m F_Z 3 N U 2r LU wH 3 < m><o� 3 0 ?M c o z a 3 Q v~i O _ J a o 0 0)ch ` �Q r**: r**: U) - mw 00 Z Z N N W - w �z r1ir4 Q U _ Ol L O. ISSUES/REVISIONS: CITY SUBMITTAL 04.24.2020 CITY SUBMITTAL II 06.11.2020 LANDSCAPE PLAN PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION INOT FOR DATE 06-11-20 ❑ PERMIT/BID SET ❑ CONSTRUCTION SET L-101 ❑ AS -BUILT SET PROJECT NO. ❑ NOT TO SCALE SRM20002 2t810 p U d ozorr w�z rnaZi u~iaFOR '==30co Z = 2 Z ¢��mm0 O pZ y�nrnr�U N U 2r o moO o z p0.0 m><o� m ?M c o z a 3 Q w 2 - O W 0 �o ISSUES/REVISIONS: CITY SUBMITTAL 04.24.2020 CITY SUBMITTAL II 06.11.2020 LANDSCAPE PLAN PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION INOT FOR DATE 06-11-20 ❑ PERMIT/BID SET ❑ CONSTRUCTION SET L-101 ❑ AS -BUILT SET PROJECT NO. ❑ NOT TO SCALE SRM20002 PLANT SCHEDULE SUBSTITUTIONS: IF ANY SUBSTITUTIONS ARE REQUIRED, SUBMIT WRITTEN DOCUMENTS AND PROPOSED SUBSTITUTIONS TO LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT FOR APPROVAL 5 DAYS PRIOR TO PURCHASE AND/OR INSTALLATION. L❑o I II///❑ — a LAWN s \ a=�j/II��III\�\❑\ / PICNICAREA a PROVIDE PLANTING BED TOP OF MULCH BELOW TOP 12" MIN. AROUND PLANTS OF PAVEMENT ROOT MATURE KEY QUANT. COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME SIZE COND. SIZE DECIDUOUS TREES 1/2" ABOVE SURFACE MATERIAL PROVIDE MULCH POCKET (SEE LANDSCAPE NOTES) ALONG CURB INSTALL STAKES PER MANUFACTURER'S a 5 FIRST EDITIONS ACER X FREEMANII 2.5" CAL. B&B 40'H X 30'W (SEE LANDSCAPE NOTES) EDGING AT PLANTING MATADOR MAPLE SAILSTON' a a ;• 8 RIVER BIRCH BETULA NIGRA 12' CLUMP B&B 40'H X 35'W N0 5 PRAIRIE GOLD POPULUS TREMULOIDES 2.5" CAL. B&B 30'H X 20'W ASPEN 'NE ARB' \ a 10 SWAMP WHITE QUERCUS BICOLOR 2.5" CAL. B&B 50'H X 40'W OAK \ EVERGREEN TREES + ° 5% + -I� 3 NORWAY SPRUCE PICEA ABIES 6' HT. B&B 50'H X 25'W II IAAv IL + 6 BLACK HILLS PICEA GLAUCA 6' HT. B&B 40'H X 20'W ° SPRUCE 'DENSATA' FERE NO MOW LAWN + ��Allll/�❑ = 4 EASTERN WHITE PINE PINUS STROBUS 6' HT. B&B 60'H X 25'W + + + ORNAMENTALTREES 9 AUTUMN BRILLIANCE AMELANCHIER X GRANDI FLORA 1.5" CAL. B&B 20'H X 15'W SERVICEBERRY 'AUTUMN BRILLIANCE; + + 0 9 THORNLESS COCKSPUR CRATAEGUS CRUS-GALI 1.5" CAL. B&B 15'H X 15'W + HAWTHORN VAR INERMIS + + DECIDUOUS SHRUBS + 0 67 MUSKINGGUM CORNUS RACEMOSA 24" HT. POT 2.5'H X 3'W + DOGWOOD 'MUSZAM' + p 22 BUTTERFLY DIERVILLA SESSILIFOLIA 24" HT. POT 4'H X 4'W ° BUSH HONEYSUCKLE 'BUTTERFLY' + ® 5 DWARF BURNING EUONYMUS ALATUS 24" HT. POT 5'H X 5'W + BUSH 'COMPACTUS' + Q 76 ANNABELLE SMOOTH HYDRANGEA 24" HT. POT 3'H X 3'W HYDRANGEA ARBORESCENS CD 89 GRO-LOW F aWWTICA 24" SP. POT 2'H X 4'W FRAGRANT SUMAC 'GRO-LOW' O 86 SEM ASH LEAF SORBARIA SORBIFOLIA 24" HT. POT 3'H X 3'W SPIREA 'SEM' p 91 GOLDFLAME SPIRAEA X BUMALDA 24" HT. POT 2.5'H X 3'W SPIREA 'GOLDFLAME' �j 42 COMMON PURPLE SYRINGA VULGARIS 36" HT. POT 12'H X 8'W LILAC 69 PRAIRIE PETITE SYRINGA VULGARIS 24" HT. POT 3'H X 3'W LILAC 'PRAIRIE PETITE' CONIFEROUS SHRUBS 20 MANEY JUNIPERUS CHINENSIS 24" HT. POT 4'H X 5'W JUNIPER 'MANEYI' 22 BROADMOOR JUNIPERUS SABINA 24" SP. POT 1.5'H X 4'W JUNIPER 'BROADMOOR' €,i 34 RUSSIAN CYPRESS MICROBIOTA DECUSSATA 24" SP. POT 1.5'H X 4'W 25 DWARF NORWAY PICEA ABIES 24" HT. POT 4'H X 4'W SPRUCE 'PUMILA' Q 41 TECHNY THUJA OCCIDENTALIS 48" HT. POT 12'H X 6'W ARBORVITAE TECHNY' PERENNIALS *0 908 KARL FOERSTER CALAMAGROSTIS ACUTIFLORA 1 GAL POT 3'H X 2'W FEATHER REED GRASS 'KARL FOERSTER' MERLOT ECHINACEA PURPUREA 1 GAL POT 2'H X1.5'W CONEFLOWER 'MERLOT' BIG TIME HAPPY HEMEROCALLIS 1 GAL POT 1.5'H X 1.5'W DAYLILY 'BIG TIME HAPPY' RAINFOREST SUNRISE HOSTA 1 GAL POT 1'H X 1.5'W HOSTA 'RAINFOREST SUNRISE' KOBOLD LIATRIS SPICATA 1 GAL POT 2'H X 1.5'W BLAZINGSTAR 'KOBOLD' DENIM'N LACE PEROVSKIAATRIPLICIFOLIA 1 GAL POT 2'H X 1.5'W RUSSIAN SAGE 'DEMIN'N LACE' DEAMII BLACK EYED RUDBECKIA FULGIDA 1 GAL POT 2'H X 2'W SUSAN 'DEAMII' WALKER'S LOW NEPETA FAASSENII 1 GAL POT 2'H X1.5'W CATMINT 'WALKER'S LOW AUTUMN FIRE SEDUM SPECTABILE 1 GAL POT 1.5'H X1.5'W SEDUM 'AUTUMN FIRE' SHENANDOAH SWITCH PANICUM VIRGATUM 1 GAL POT 3'H X 2'W GRASS 'SHENANDOAH' SUBSTITUTIONS: IF ANY SUBSTITUTIONS ARE REQUIRED, SUBMIT WRITTEN DOCUMENTS AND PROPOSED SUBSTITUTIONS TO LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT FOR APPROVAL 5 DAYS PRIOR TO PURCHASE AND/OR INSTALLATION. L❑o I II///❑ — a LAWN s \ a=�j/II��III\�\❑\ / PICNICAREA a (TYP) a 2 DECIDUOUS TREE 501 PLANTING mP) � 43 a a + + + + + + +I a + + I+ a + +I a P + I + + + + + + 42" HIGH + + ORNAMENTAL FENCE NO MOW LAWN c : • } a a + ❑ ---- o- I a NO MOW LAWN + + + + \❑\\\III//// LAWN I PICNICAREA + + j 3 CONIFEROUS TREE } } } ❑ ❑ L-501 PLANTING + + I ��///I� III\\\�❑ (TYP) + + + L — - �� + + + I e +a ENLARGED LANDSCAPE PLAN 1 = 10' LEGEND SOD EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN NO MOW LAWN --T--//41 • 5015 EDGING AT PLANTING BED (TYP) INSTALL EDGING B" BEYOND FENCE POST CENTER 4 SHRUB PLANTING L501 (TYP) SOD AT HARDSCAPE (TYP) AWN/ NIC AREA a PROVIDE PLANTING BED TOP OF MULCH BELOW TOP 12" MIN. AROUND PLANTS OF PAVEMENT NO SCALE 1Y MIN. MULCH (SEE LANDSCAPE NOTES) EDGING (SEE LANDSCAPE NOTES) TOP OF EDGING TO BE MAXIMUM NT 1/2" ABOVE SURFACE MATERIAL PROVIDE MULCH POCKET (SEE LANDSCAPE NOTES) ALONG CURB INSTALL STAKES PER MANUFACTURER'S a INSTALLATION TOP OF MULCH BELOW GUILDLINES TOP OF CURB PLANTING SOIL (SEE LANDSCAPE NOTES) EDGING AT PLANTING BED a a 3 ° V N0 gQ a \ a z tiz o mf \ + ° 5% + + IL + s o +� + ° N FERE NO MOW LAWN + a PLP + + + + + \+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + I + + + ° + + + + + + Y� + + + + a (TYP) a 2 DECIDUOUS TREE 501 PLANTING mP) � 43 a a + + + + + + +I a + + I+ a + +I a P + I + + + + + + 42" HIGH + + ORNAMENTAL FENCE NO MOW LAWN c : • } a a + ❑ ---- o- I a NO MOW LAWN + + + + \❑\\\III//// LAWN I PICNICAREA + + j 3 CONIFEROUS TREE } } } ❑ ❑ L-501 PLANTING + + I ��///I� III\\\�❑ (TYP) + + + L — - �� + + + I e +a ENLARGED LANDSCAPE PLAN 1 = 10' LEGEND SOD EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN NO MOW LAWN --T--//41 • 5015 EDGING AT PLANTING BED (TYP) INSTALL EDGING B" BEYOND FENCE POST CENTER 4 SHRUB PLANTING L501 (TYP) SOD AT HARDSCAPE (TYP) AWN/ NIC AREA a - 1562 - ONE FLAG PER COMPACT PLANTING SCARIFY SIDES OF PRIOR TO PLANE REN._._.__. _...._.._ __...... _.___,..___.. _... PLASTIC PRIORTOPLANTING LOOSEN ROOTS PRIOR TO PLANTING ONE FLAG PER V COMPACT PLANTING 1 SCARIFY SIDES OF PRIOR TO PLANT DOUBLE STRAND 14 GA. WIRE & 3 STEEL STAKES AT 120 DEGREE INTERVALS S' STEEL STAID= INSTALL ON THE SIDE OF PREVAILING WIND i8" POLYPROPYLENE OR POLYETHYLENE, 40 MIL, 1-112" WIDE STRAP II, q�21;g13Ultll:b9i:1:T9:IN: ROOT FLARE AT FINISHED GRADE OR FIRST MAJOR BRANCHING ROOT AT 1 INCH BELOW SOIL LINE MULCH, EDGING, & DISH RING (SEE LANDSCAPE NOTES) CUT AND REMOVE TOP 1Pd BURLAP (MIN.), rVt WIRE BASKET, AND ALL NYLON CORD PLANTING SOIL WATER & TAMP TO REMOVE AIR POCKETS NOTES MAINTAIN TREE IN PLUMB POSITION THROUGHOUT THE WARRANTY PERIOD (SEE SPECIFICATIONS). TREE STAKING AND ITS METHOD ARE OPTIONAL TO CONTRACTORS. TWO ALTERNATIVES ARE SHOWN. DECIDUOUS TREE PLANTING CONIFEROUS TREE PLANTING MAKE SAUCER AROUND PLANTS PROVIDE PLANTING BED 12" MIN. AROUND PLANTS MULCH (SEE LANDSCAPE NOTES) EDGING (SEE LANDSCAPE NOTES) PLANTING SOIL (SEE LANDSCAPE NOTES) �1 PROVIDE PLANTING BED TOP OF MULCH BELOW TOP 12" MIN. AROUND PLANTS OF PAVEMENT NO SCALE 1Y MIN. MULCH (SEE LANDSCAPE NOTES) EDGING (SEE LANDSCAPE NOTES) TOP OF EDGING TO BE MAXIMUM NT 1/2" ABOVE SURFACE MATERIAL PROVIDE MULCH POCKET (SEE LANDSCAPE NOTES) ALONG CURB INSTALL STAKES PER MANUFACTURER'S a INSTALLATION TOP OF MULCH BELOW GUILDLINES TOP OF CURB PLANTING SOIL (SEE LANDSCAPE NOTES) EDGING AT PLANTING BED - 1562 - ONE FLAG PER COMPACT PLANTING SCARIFY SIDES OF PRIOR TO PLANE REN._._.__. _...._.._ __...... _.___,..___.. _... PLASTIC PRIORTOPLANTING LOOSEN ROOTS PRIOR TO PLANTING ONE FLAG PER V COMPACT PLANTING 1 SCARIFY SIDES OF PRIOR TO PLANT DOUBLE STRAND 14 GA. WIRE & 3 STEEL STAKES AT 120 DEGREE INTERVALS S' STEEL STAID= INSTALL ON THE SIDE OF PREVAILING WIND i8" POLYPROPYLENE OR POLYETHYLENE, 40 MIL, 1-112" WIDE STRAP II, q�21;g13Ultll:b9i:1:T9:IN: ROOT FLARE AT FINISHED GRADE OR FIRST MAJOR BRANCHING ROOT AT 1 INCH BELOW SOIL LINE MULCH, EDGING, & DISH RING (SEE LANDSCAPE NOTES) CUT AND REMOVE TOP 1Pd BURLAP (MIN.), rVt WIRE BASKET, AND ALL NYLON CORD PLANTING SOIL WATER & TAMP TO REMOVE AIR POCKETS NOTES MAINTAIN TREE IN PLUMB POSITION THROUGHOUT THE WARRANTY PERIOD (SEE SPECIFICATIONS). TREE STAKING AND ITS METHOD ARE OPTIONAL TO CONTRACTORS. TWO ALTERNATIVES ARE SHOWN. DECIDUOUS TREE PLANTING CONIFEROUS TREE PLANTING MAKE SAUCER AROUND PLANTS PROVIDE PLANTING BED 12" MIN. AROUND PLANTS MULCH (SEE LANDSCAPE NOTES) EDGING (SEE LANDSCAPE NOTES) PLANTING SOIL (SEE LANDSCAPE NOTES) �1 SHRUB PLANTING T NO SCALE wo INSTALL PLANTS ACCORDING TING LS MO ND PLANTING RE MOUND PLANTING AREA ABOVE CURB LEVEL MULCH PROVIDE MULCH POCKET (SEE LANDSCAPE NOTES) ALONG CURB a BACKFILL WITH PLANTING SOIL TOP OF MULCH BELOW (SEE LANDSCAPE NOTES) TOP OF CURB i w� SCARIFY BOTTOM PRIOR TO PLANTING PLANTING AT PARKING ISLAND DOUBLE STRAND 14 GA. WIRE & 3 STEEL STAKES AT 120 DEGREE INTERVALS 18" POLYPROPYLENE OR POLYETHYLENE, 40 MIL, 1-1/2" WIDE STRAP 8' STEEL STAKE INSTALL ON THE SIDE OF PREVAILING WIND ROOT FLARE AT FINISHED GRADE OR FIRST MAJOR BRANCHING ROOT AT 1 INCH BELOW SOIL LINE MULCH, EDGING, & DISH RING (SEE LANDSCAPE NOTES) CUT AND REMOVE TOP 1/3 BURLAP (MIN.), WIRE BASKET, AND ALL NYLON CORD PLANTING SOIL WATER & TAMP TO REMOVE AIR POCKETS iGll�: TREE TRUNK PROTECTOR 9'X4' DIA. POLYTHYLENE EXPANDABLE PROTECTOR ARBORGARD MODEL 13389, MANUFACTURED BY FORESTRY -SUPPLIERS (8005475388), ORAPPROVED EQUAL. SEE TREE PLANTING MAINTAIN TREE IN PLUMB POSITION THROUGHOUT THE WARRANTY PERIOD (SEE SPECIFICATIONS). TREE STAKING AND ITS METHOD ARE OPTIONAL TO CONTRACTORS. TWO ALTERNATIVES ARE SHOWN. PROVIDE PLANTING BED NTSCHEDULE RSPACING 12" MIN. AROUND PLANTS 12'MIN. SET TOP OF ROOT I"ABOVE GRADE MAKE SAUCERAROUND PLANTS MULCH (SEE LANDSCAPE NOTES) EDGING (SEE LANDSCAPE NOTES) PLANTING SOIL (SEE LANDSCAPE NOTES) LOOSEN PRR TO PLANTING SCARIFY SIDES IIID BOTTOM PRIORTO PLANTING PERENNIAL PLANTING HOLD SODDED AREA 2"BELOW PAVING SURFACE TOPSOIL SOD AT HARDSCAPE EDGE NO SCALE ❑PREUMINARYMOT FOR X CONSTRUCTION O❑ PERMR/910SEr 03 ❑ CONSTRUCTION SET 10 30 Know what's below. Cell before you dig. mmmmmmmmmmj SCALE IN FEET ❑ ASBUILTSET ❑ NOTTOSCALE c zO 0) W W 5 Z L � 0 Z Q z U W J W < W W 2 O� O U 50 cc ` N ISSUESIREVISIONS: CITY SUBMITTAL 64242626 CITY SUBMITTAL II 66112626 LANDSCAPE DETAILS DATE 06-11-20 L-501 PROJECT NO. SRM20002 O.. e wo v ya 4 � a Nz w� a 3 V N0 gQ a W z tiz o mf 5% IL s o -Fu, N c zO 0) W W 5 Z L � 0 Z Q z U W J W < W W 2 O� O U 50 cc ` N ISSUESIREVISIONS: CITY SUBMITTAL 64242626 CITY SUBMITTAL II 66112626 LANDSCAPE DETAILS DATE 06-11-20 L-501 PROJECT NO. SRM20002 ■■ Schafar ■■ Richardson II AMCON Mound Apartments Mound, Minnesota 55364 - 1563 - RENDERING 1 April 24, 2020 To: Dominik Jenson, Schafer Richardson From: Jonah Finkelstein, PE Max Moreland, PE, PTOE Date: June 26, 2020 Re: Traffic Assessment—MoundApartments Purpose of Report and Study Objectives A new 102 -unit apartment is proposed at the northeast corner of Hennepin County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 15 and Commerce Boulevard in Mound, Minnesota. This development will replace an existing commercial strip mall. This technical memorandum presents a high-level traffic and parking analysis of the proposed development. The primary purpose is to determine the amount of traffic to be generated by this development compared to the existing development and how that impacts surrounding intersections. The peak period parking demand for the development will also be forecast and compared to the proposed parking supply. A site plan dated June 11, 2020 is attached for reference. Conclusions using standard trip generation data for the proposed 102 -unit multi -family housing development and comparing to the existing trips at the site, the expected weekday changes in traffic volumes are: • A decrease in total daily trips by 126 trips. • An increase in total a.m. peak hour trips by 18 trips. • A decrease in total p.m. peak hour trips by 18 trips. No significant operational impacts are anticipated for the surrounding roadways and intersections due to trips from this proposed redevelopment. If the buildingwas to remain retail land use and was redeveloped to newtenants, an increase of roughly 1,000 daily trips, 5 a.m. peak hour trips, and 108 p.m. peak hour trips would be expected. The site is proposing to include 238 total parking stalls; 203 for the residential development and 35 for the existing bank. It is anticipated that the peak period parking demand for the development will be 177 parking stalls. This suggests the proposed parking supply for the site will be sufficient. Some or all of the western parking area may need to be used for shared parking between the bank and apartment to accommodate parking demands on site. It is recommended bicycle parking be provided on site for residents and visitors. Additionally, the drive aisle widths will need to be checked within the parking area near the newly proposed ADA spaces. -1564- Site Characteristics The redevelopment site is located on the north side of CSAH 15 east of Commerce Boulevard. The existing strip mall will be removed as part of this project and redeveloped into a three- story, 102 -unit apartment building. There is an existing Wells Fargo Bank that will remain in the parking area for this site. There are currently eight access points to the development: • Two right-in/right-out accesses on CSAH 15 • One right-in/right-out access on Commerce Boulevard • One enter only access for the bank drive-thru on Commerce Boulevard • Three full accesses on Church Road • One full access on Fern Lane As part of this development, three accesses are proposed to be removed. This will leave: • One right-in/right-out access on CSAH 15 • One right-in/right-out access on Commerce Boulevard • One enter only access for the bank drive-thru on Commerce Boulevard • Two full accesses on Church Road There are 80 garage parking stalls proposed for the apartmentwith 188 surface parking stalls proposed. Of the surface parking stalls, 43 will be on the east side of the building exclusively for the apartment wh ile the remaining 145 will be on the west side of the building. The spaces on the west side of the building will be available to both the apartment and bank. These parking spaces include 10 ADA accessible spaces in the surface parking on the west side of the building. Trip Generation Forecasts The traffic forecasts for the site are based on the data and methods published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 1011 Edition. The ITE Trip Generation Manual is a compilation of traffic data for various land uses from existing developments throughout the United States. Additionally, locally collected trip generation data collected by Spack Solutions is also used for traffic forecasts. Table 1 presents the weekday trip generation with the bank and the proposed apartment. Table 1— Weekday Trip Generation source Description Daily Trips AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour (size) Multi -Family Mid - Entering Exiting Entering Exiting Entering Exiting ITE 221 Rise Housing 277 277 10 27 27 18 (102 Units) ITE Drive-in Bank 912 (4 drive-in lanes) 250 250 22 14 53 55 ITE Total Site Trips 527 527 32 41 80 73 Local Apartments 224 224 5 27 29 15 (102 Units) Local Drive-in Bank 343 343 19 12 34 39 (4 drive-in lanes) Local Total Site Trips 567 567 24 39 63 54 -1565- As shown in Table 1, the trip generation based on ITE or local rates are relatively close. Based on best practices, the local rates are used in this analysis. Existing Site Traffic Counts were conducted at the existing eight site access points over a 48-hour period in February 2020. The counts from the two days were averaged to give typical volumes entering and exiting each site access. Daily, a.m. peak hour and p.m. peak hour volumes were determined at each access and for the entire site. Table 2 shows a summary of the averaged counts with the full count data attached. Table 2 - Existing Site AM 29 16 8:00 - 9:00 PM 61 74 4:00 - 5:00 Daily 1 630 1 630 Changes in Site Traffic Table 3 shows a comparison in the number of trips currently being generated by this site (from Table 2) and the number of trips forecast to be generated by this site (from Table 1). Table 3 - Site Trips Comparison Daily Trips AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Scenario Entering Exiting Entering Exiting Entering Exiting Forecasted With the proposed site, the daily and p.m. peak hour site volume are forecast to be less than those generated bythe existingsite. The a.m. peak hourvolumes are anticipated to be higher. An additional review was completed comparing the trip generation of the proposed residential development to the trip generation of a fully utilized retail development. This comparison helps show if the proposed residential land use would generate more or less traffic than a redevelop retail development. It was assumed the existing retail development building's square footage remained the same for the redeveloped retail building. Table 4, below, presents this comparison. -1566- I aOLe 4 - KesaR V. Keslaentlal Lana use Lomparlson source Description Daily Trips AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour (size) Local Apartments (102 Units) Entering 224 Exiting 224 Entering Exiting 5 27 Entering Exiting 29 15 Local Drive-in Bank 343 343 19 12 34 39 (4 drive-in lanes) Total Site Trips 567 567 24 39 63 54 Shopping Center ITE (39,800 SF) 751 751 23 14 73 79 Local Drive-in Bank (4 drive-in lanes) 343 343 19 12 34 39 Total Site Trips 1,094 1,094 42 26 107 118 Retail—Residential 527 527 18 -13 44 64 As shown in Table 4, if the existing retail land use was redeveloped into a new retail development the daily trip generation would be roughly double of that projected by the residential development. Additionally, both a.m. and p.m. peak periods would see increases of trip generation with 5 additional a.m. trips and 108 additional p.m. trips. It is worth noting that ITE data was used for the retail portion of this analysis as the locally collected data focused more on larger shopping centers than smaller strip malls. Intersection Impact Analysis As mentioned, the overall number of trips to the site are anticipated to be lower with the redevelopment of the site. However, the impact of site trips on surrounding intersections is examined to confirm whether or not there may be significant impact in any specific areas. To do so, vehicles need to be distributed from the development throughout the roadway network. A trip distribution pattern for trips going to/from the proposed residential development was developed based on location and access to the surrounding region. That pattern is: • 30% of the generated traffic to/from the east on CSAH 15 • 25% of the generated traffic to/from the south on Commerce Boulevard • 15% of the generated traffic to/from the west on CSAH 15 • 30% of the generated traffic to/from the north on Commerce Boulevard using the trip generation and trip distribution, new trips for the residential development were routed through the following intersections: • CSAH 15 & Commerce Boulevard • CSAH 15 & Belmont Lane • Commerce Boulevard & Church Road The existing site traffic was directionally counted entering and exiting each site access. Those trips were then distributed through the public intersections. It is noted that approximately 30% of existing site trips leaving the site exit to the east on Church Road. While some of these trips are likely heading to the neighborhood east of the site, it is assumed a majority of these vehicles are destined to eastbound CSAH 15. -1567- The forecast change in site trips at the surrounding intersections with the redevelopment of the site areseown in Figure1. 1568- As seen in Figure 1, the highest hourly volume increase for any intersection is ten vehicles, which occurs for the westbound left turning movement at Commerce Boulevard & Church Road during the a.m. peak hour. That equates to an increase of approximately one vehicle every six minutes for that movement. Based on these volumes, none of the surrounding intersections are anticipated to be significantly impacted by redevelopment site traffic. Site Plan Review The proposed concept site plan was reviewed from a transportation perspective to determine if the plan provides appropriate circulation and minimizes conflicts. The following are key transportation elements of the concept site plan. The site plan is attached. • Car Circulation: Cars will be able to enter and exit this site at five different access points allowingfor full circulation to and from the site. Based on the site plan, the drive aisle west of the newly proposed ADA parking stalls appears to be too narrow for two-way traffic in a parking lot with 90 -degree parking spaces. This area is shown below. To make the drive aisle wide enough (approximately 24 feet), one of the parking rows on either side of the aisle will need to be removed, or the green space bump out will need to be cut back. M • Truck Circulation: A move -in area is designated on the northwest side of the proposed building. With multiple access points, trucks will be able to pull through the western side of the site without needing to back up other than getting into the loading area. Trash/recycling collection areas will need to be designated on site in an area accessible to garbage trucks with minimal impact to vehicle circulation. • Bicycle Stalls: No bicycle parking is shown in the attached site plan. It is recommended secure bicycle parking areas be provided for residents and visitors. This includes long-term bicycle parking within the building for residents and short-term outdoor bicycle parking for visitors. • Parking Layout: Parking aisles are laid out in a way that pedestrians do not need to walk through parked cars to get to/from the building. • Walking Paths: Connections are made from this site to the surrounding sidewalks along CSAH 15 and Commerce Boulevard. • ADA Parking: Four ADA parking spaces are proposed near the front entry of the apartment building. Six ADA spaces are shown elsewhere in the parking area with two -1569- near the front of the bank and four more towards the middle of the parking area. Those four spaces near the middle of the parking area currently serve the commercial building that will be replaced by the apartment. With additional ADA spaces planned for the apartment, the need and location of those ADA spaces could be reconsidered. Parking Generation The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) has put together a document, ITE Parking Generation, 511 Edition, that compiled parking demand data from different land uses. Using that data, weekday peak period parking demands were calculated for each land use of this redevelopment. Those peak period parking demands are summarized in Table 5 along with the proposed parking supply. The site is proposed to include 238 total parking stalls with 203 flagged on the attached site plan for apartment use. The developer also has 28 additional stalls worth of space set aside on the northeast corner in proof of parking as shown in the site plan. Table 5 — Peak Period Parking Demands Multi -Family Mid -Rise Housing 102 Units 134 203 Drive-in Bank 12,000 square feet 45 35 SITE 912) I Total Site 1 179 1 238 1 As shown in Table 5, the peak period parking demand for the entire site is forecast to be well within the proposed parking supplyfor the site withoutthe inclusion of the proof of parking spaces. This suggests the proposed parking supply for the site will be sufficient. The bank portion of the site may have a higher parking demand than 35 spaces, but with the excess apartment parking spaces, some or all of the western parking area can be used for shared parking between the two land uses to accommodate the total site parking demands. Attachments • Concept Site Plan • Existing Count Data -1570- Venus Steffenen 1838 Commerce Blvd. Mound, MN 55364 VIA EMAIL July 2, 2020 Sarah Smith Community Development Director Ray Salazar Mayor, City of Mound RE: MAJOR SUBDIVISION -PRELIMINARY PLATAND SITE DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR COMMERCE PLACE 2ND ADDITION FROM SCHAFER RICHARDSON INVOLVING PROPERTIES IN THE COMMERCE PLACE SHOPPING CENTER. (RFOJI) in a residential development inthe Mound Harbor Districtfrom Lifestyle Communities & Partners. Lake Langdon Townhomes 22 units Commerce Blvd, Dear Mayor and Community Development Manager This letter is to inform you that many of the residents of Mound are concerned that the Mound City Development Committee has decided to hold a virtual ZOOM meeting to discuss the Major subdivision site development plans on July 7th. As you can imagine, the decision to conduct a virtual meeting during the Covid19 crisis is alarming and presents the appearance of limiting access and debate on this serious long term decision for the residents of Mound. Only recently has the general public gained more understanding of the plans being considered for our downtown area. These plans are in direct conflict with the findings of the 2040 plan and require significant changes in zoning and access to the core of our city. The rezoning of these areas from commercial to mixed zoning is clearly stated as a possibility and outlined in the 2040 plan. These plans are simply that, plans. As many of us understand the current situation and path forward, it would appear mixed zoning is not the goal of the City Development Commissioners. In fact, the proposed plan as it sits now eliminates virtually all commercial use of said properties. This rezoning goes against the feedback and wishes of many of the Mound residents, as represented by the input to the 2040 plan. It is also our understanding there is another proposed redevelopment along Commerce Blvd in or around the Twin City Closets storefront and is being referred to as Langdon Lake Townhomes. All three of these developments are in direct conflict with the feedback provided by the community in the 2040 Plan. To that end, there should be more debate and input verbally, in person at the next City Development Meeting on July 7th. Ifthis is not possible, we respectfully request to have this meeting rescheduled to a more appropriate time and place where the residents of Mound may actively participate in the meeting allowing for residents to ask questions of the committee in person. In addition, over the past two weeks I have been gaining more insight into our community's wishes. The first poll started on Next Door was removed by an unknown administrator. I then went back in and -1571 - more accurately positioned the questions to delineate High Density Apartments. As of this communication we are at 260 votes with 91% of the respondents opposed to this development. Due to the previous poll being removed by an unknown source, I felt it was necessary to create a petition that was separate from Next Door app. to ensure our voices are recorded. Currently we have a petition on Change.Org that has been active for 72 hours. This petition was placed on Next Door so it targeted our residents and the close nearby communities such as Minnetrista. As of this communication that petition has 383 signatures and is growing by the minute. As you can imagine, we are very concerned that due to the Covid19 crisis that we are unable to communicate effectively with our fellow citizens of Mound, MN on this far reaching decision surrounding the future of our city center. Again, I am respectfully requesting the rescheduling of the July 7th Zoom call to a later date that will allow public discourse in person. I feel the ability to ask questions in a live- in person environment is a logical and necessary responsibility expected from our city leaders. Below you will find the verbiage of the petition, as well as screenshots of both the poll and petition online. I look forward to to your response and communication of the proposed changes on line. Petition on Change.Org We the residents of Mound are concerned about the future sustainability and quality of life in downtown Mound. Please stop rezoning commercial real estate to residential areas for higher density housing in downtown Mound, MN. We believe that adding more condos or apartments will negatively impact ourtown. Utilizing prime commercial real estate for a few residents limits our future ability to attract restaurants and shops for the benefit of all Mound residents. We the undersigned ask that the Mound City Council stop approving such projects without a referendum vote by the residents of Mound. We are concerned about current and future proposals including but not limited to "The Commerce Place Shopping Center Plans". We feel encouraging businesses to downtown Mound would be a positive step, while building high density housing, especially right in the center of town would have a negative impact on our community. Most agree that the current retail buildings have not been held to the standard that a city would expect, due to the lack of reinvestment by the current owner. The current owner of the property wishes to build high density housing on the property which has been zoned for commercial business use for decades. The current owner has stated this is the only way for this site to be profitable. While the residents have compassion for this situation, the residents do not feel the current owners should be permitted to steer the development of the site in a manner the community does not desire. The owners (not current residents of Mound) took a risk in purchasing the site knowing the current zoning requirement, the fact it has not paid off as zoned should not lead to a rezoning to the detriment of the community by destroying the core of our community and change the character of our City. -1572- Home V.p Cgc,r Neighborhood TJ: Heip ,'o cr5d,a _ or -one' K— Baer C, asatry .o<i. S Fount ❑ x � 13 ra a WO m © 010 G'O O a s . ®i c. 6 s 613 x + O Venus Steffensen cad • 2 nm.:�� They removed our PoII aboutthe high density housing last week. you minkthei want to hear the truth? They den'tl Wa werewell over 200 responses within 2a hours. 829E of respondents did notwant to see Itlgh density apartments built downtown We have been silenced by the removal, l need you to poll again and I will screenshot hourly. I have a screanshot after hours and we had 92 responses at 8G%.I also have the screenshot that says the post was removed. Who can remove our WI<e? We d. Choose one: QQ We want shops and restaurants downtown ' O We,antl04highdenidyapanmenbdowntown - f'' -i Generale 33 neighborhoods Q-' TA.,, V 25 C.—mrs .. • 10 ®p Type here to search ❑ x ©Q13DO 131331®IC,C 3'13.01313 + 4 C i changeom c r I — rc, n II ehange.org Start a petition My petitions Brovse hlerbcfslip a ow After a video surfaced of George Floyd being murdered by Minneapolis police,l5-year-okl Kellen steted a Panton demanding r justice. it's now the biggest petition ever on Change.org and officers have been arrested and charged But we haven t yet seen justice. You gn the pert' here to send a massag that Black lives matter Vote against high density apartments downtown Mound. 383 "non" athoo e.r.w .. Vote against high density apartments downtown Mound. Sincerely, Venus Steffensen Mound Resident -1573- HENNEPIN COUNTY MINNESOTA June 4, 2020 Sarah Smith Community Development Director 2415 Wilshire Boulevard Mound, MN 55364 Re: Preliminary Plat Review — Mound Apartments (Received 05/07/20) County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 15 (Shoreline Drive) and (CSAH) 110 (Commerce Boulevard) Hennepin County Plat Review ID #368413(Reviewed 05/12/20) Dear Ms. Smith: Please consider the following county staff comments in your review of this preliminary plat to redevelop the Commerce Place shopping center site into a 102 -unit apartment building: Access: We support the proposal to reduce the eight overall site accesses to five, including a removal of the alley connection to Shoreline Drive in the rear of the building. In the future, should another redevelopment opportunity arise, we welcome further discussion on access consolidation near the Commerce Boulevard and Shoreline Drive intersection. Right -of -Way. To provide space for a future widened sidewalk or trail with boulevard, the county requests a 5 to 10 -foot sidewalk and trail easement along Shoreline Drive. Additionally, as referenced in the plan sheets, the highway easement doc. #4501380 in the southwest comer of the site be dedicated as right-of-way. This will preserve the space for public needs at the corner (sidewalk, sight distance, and signal infrastructure). Storm Water/Drainage: Please ensure discharge rates remain less than existing flow rates. The county storm water system will not take water from new drainage areas. Additional treatments may be needed if flow rates cannot match existing. Contact Drew McGovern: 612-596-0208, drew.mcgovern0hennepin. us Permits: Please inform the developer that all construction within county right-of-way requires an approved Hennepin County permit prior to beginning construction. This includes, but is not limited to, driveway and street access, drainage and utility construction, trail development, and landscaping. Hennepin County Transportation Project Delivery Public Works Facility, 1600 Prairie Drive, Medina, MN 55340 612-596-03001 hennepin.us -1574 11 - If feasible, we request any and all utility connections and parking lot paving are completed prior to the Summer of 2021 in anticipation of the county's mill and overlay project for both of these segments of Shoreline Drive and Commerce Boulevard. Contact.- Michael Olmstead: 612-596-0336, mtchae(.o(mstead @hennepin. u More information: Please contact us for any further discussion. Bob Byers: 612-596-0354, robert.byers@hennepin.us or Jason Gottfried: 612-596-0394, iason.gottNed@hennepin.us Sincerely, C-� --�tWAA4.- Carla Stueve, PE, PTOE County Highway Engineer -1575- a 1575- Hennepin -1576- Legend Hennepin County Natural Resources Map Streams Date: 12/16/2019 Wetlands Potential Wetland - HCWI - Probable Wetland - HCWI Probable Wetland - NWI A A I *• 4 •I J J' •4 Ji f 'r r * + n 4 .NP w30 * _ No results Comments: 1 inch = 100 feet N This data (i) is furnished 'AS IS' with no representation as to completeness or accuracy; (ii) is furnished with no warranty ofany kind; and (ii) is notsuitablefor legal, engineering or surveying purposes. Hennepin County shall not be liable for any damage, injuryor loss resulting from this data. COPYRIGHT© HENNEPIN COUNTY 2019 -1576- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i VICINITY MAP ,j _--_—_-------------- // > f0 — I / 0�' R L_----------- - --,,,s I--r---�--- @ — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — ----- J /III I v - CHAR CH-RDAD =— — w I I Z I \ \ I � 3 111 I \ I I I I yl — — — ui yi Ili �• illli Z ul I vV I II w IIII \ - II u— l \ 1111 I II�— i i III m 11i lil lui III II I iili iii ----------L--- at3 ul l II III III III - III III I = \\ III III II III a.\ 3 ��QI IAS }� —_t— -- `l � pll Ili .L,I .I 1R e J III m I 41�/ 0= Z I W Iii ------ 1 STORY BRICK BUILDING a � ism j, �9 �'"'.`y A��i�� ii'� 5+��°��i��L �► v� � LYNWOOD BLVD v LOCATION MAP NOT TO SCALE O NOT TO SCALE PROJECT CONTACTS r0 TREVOR MARTINEZ �� I 900 NORTH THIRD STREET • C-004 42 • T (612) 314-1597 i F, a• .. •• '. . a C-204 .. C-301 I - ry ERIK PETERSON DESIGN BUILD/ 6121 BAKER ROAD, SUITE 101 DETAILS CONTRACTOR MINNETONKA, MN 55345 T (651) 379.9090 N` a* • • 4'wl F (651) 379-9091 • ELAN DESIGN LAB, INC. MARCIE WESLOCK, PE CIVIL ENGINEER ■ '`day , �b a • LANDSCAPE ELAN DESIGN LAB, INC. ■ ARCHITECT i 4�t a � ism j, �9 �'"'.`y A��i�� ii'� 5+��°��i��L �► v� � LYNWOOD BLVD v LOCATION MAP NOT TO SCALE O NOT TO SCALE PROJECT CONTACTS -1577- SHEET INDEX C-000 COVER SHEET C-001 SCHAFER RICHARDSON TREVOR MARTINEZ DEVELOPER 900 NORTH THIRD STREET FINAL PLAT SHEET 1 OF 2 C-004 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401 T (612) 314-1597 SWPPP C-204 F (612) 359-5858 C-301 AMCON CONSTRUCTION ERIK PETERSON DESIGN BUILD/ 6121 BAKER ROAD, SUITE 101 DETAILS CONTRACTOR MINNETONKA, MN 55345 T (651) 379.9090 DETAILS L-101 F (651) 379-9091 L-501 ELAN DESIGN LAB, INC. MARCIE WESLOCK, PE CIVIL ENGINEER 901 N 3rd STREET SUITE 120 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401 T (612) 260-7981 LANDSCAPE ELAN DESIGN LAB, INC. PILAR SARAITHONG, RLA ARCHITECT 901 N 3rd STREET SUITE 120 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401 T (612) 260-7982 SATHRE-BERQUIST, INC. JARED AVERBECK, PLS LAND SURVEYOR 150 BROADWAY AVENUE S WAYZATA, MN 55391 T (952) 476-6000 CORNERSTONE LAND SURVEYING LAND SURVEYOR 1970 NORTHWESTERN AVENUE DAN THURMES, PLS STILLWATER, MN 55082 T (651) 275.8969 COMMUNITY CITY OF MOUND SARAH SMITH DEVELOPMENT 2415 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD T (952) 472-0604 DIRECTOR MOUND, MN 55364 PUBLIC WORKS CITY OF MOUND ERIC HOVERSTEN DIRECTOR/ 2415 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD T (952) 952-472-0609 CITY MANAGER MOUND, MN 55364 -1577- SHEET INDEX C-000 COVER SHEET C-001 CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY 0-002 PRELIMINARY PLAT C-003 FINAL PLAT SHEET 1 OF 2 C-004 FINAL PLAT SHEET 2 OF 2 ;dlib=r7gdd6]IYICaL`I�I:1� C-101 SITE PLAN C-102 ENLARGED SITE PLAN C-201 GRADING PLAN C-202 ENLARGED GRADING PLAN C-203 SWPPP C-204 EROSION CONTROL PLAN C-301 UTILITY PLAN C-501 DETAILS C-502 DETAILS C-503 DETAILS C-504 DETAILS L-101 LANDSCAPE PLAN L-501 LANDSCAPE DETAILS E-101 PHOTOMETRICS PLAN M01 IND M E NTS MOUND—MINNESOTA CITY SUBMITTAL APRIL 241 2020 z 0 U o E a S c a Nz g • 3 Z W v 3 F- J 0 0 CD e a •� a pn pn VI x Z z N N w - .r z u 7 Lu m O Z0 w CZ C D Q � z U W � J � m 0 0 U 0r o Z w uWi 0 O 0 U O C N ISSUES/REVISIONS: CITY SUBMITTAL 04 24 2020 COVER SHEET ❑PRELIMINARYINOT FOR !� CONSTRUCTION DATE 04-24-20 ❑ PERMITBID SET El CONSTRUCTION SET C-000 AS -BUILT SET PROJECT NO. NOT TO SCALE S R M20002 os 0 Oozoa 9 p1y 5 ZZ w V j SO W � � % Z �M z rzz$zwz y�o�a Sa�3 Q w Z i o wiaZ�z Fo�wo d a Lu W � o 7 Lu m O Z0 w CZ C D Q � z U W � J � m 0 0 U 0r o Z w uWi 0 O 0 U O C N ISSUES/REVISIONS: CITY SUBMITTAL 04 24 2020 COVER SHEET ❑PRELIMINARYINOT FOR !� CONSTRUCTION DATE 04-24-20 ❑ PERMITBID SET El CONSTRUCTION SET C-000 AS -BUILT SET PROJECT NO. NOT TO SCALE S R M20002 :�grco Oozoa 9 p1y F Z ZZ w V j SO W � � % �N7 6 t 0 z rzz$zwz OV.L a Sa�3 . w o 7 Lu m O Z0 w CZ C D Q � z U W � J � m 0 0 U 0r o Z w uWi 0 O 0 U O C N ISSUES/REVISIONS: CITY SUBMITTAL 04 24 2020 COVER SHEET ❑PRELIMINARYINOT FOR !� CONSTRUCTION DATE 04-24-20 ❑ PERMITBID SET El CONSTRUCTION SET C-000 AS -BUILT SET PROJECT NO. NOT TO SCALE S R M20002 x954.5 I A CBS Rim -941.8 Inv -9 38.8 CBS Inv=9 8f� ® Rim -941.6 Inv -938,8 V Inv -939.1 1 I. /� 945 \ I x954.3 ,9 2___042.2- -9412 42 2 - 1 954.4 gh26 �I'� 422 9421 S RAMP �I 9426 �� I� SM ) >. > > x L o > Rim 9423 m �Np�/ # Inv 933:7 N / �. r�� Inv 932.9 E �W... �I I v)d- ` !� n Rim -941.6 �.... -.mft� ^ ` 6Inv-933.1 S N84" 942 2 Inv 9329 W m nBvs 939.6 ° 5 p gAz. 35'08 W WMI \ o �9,g W\ / ,20 Inv -9j9.7 10' I 2� 5 t✓ CBS Inv -939.5 o o x6; -'Rim. 9436 V (� 21.45 CBR 9420 Rim 941.4 \ - _ .P '-1- d=7°4051 Rim=941.7 nv 939.7 -v � 1 �uJ -CHURC 11J._ _.. Inv - 9341 3I. Inv=939.7 a m Inv -939 .. \ 954.2 • a � N86°46'0 � � "W `61_ _ � gk aye � oN /, co cReNE 8 W 278.4 ° 42 Io 10 °953 4 a a 6 I Q..4� L./ 942 7. -i n 953.3 953.0 9528.CONCRETE 951.2.. 1.. I RAMP I� 214.14 FND IP 1/2 a.•... 949.3 948.3... FN ISMH N SIGNII 9509 64.32 0 rJ Gj.g5 444.6 Rim 53,8 O �--L! 951.4 O __11 m I \ v Q1nv 9 6.4w O. '1 -(`7� 'i 126 0/16.7�� 75.4 pj w Inv- 3 3 II - HIG // m m � � I I � \ SAY EASEMENT PER DOC. N0.4501380 � � 1 � \ °' / I I I I h. \ v i Z 943.2 03 t w - r I i \ EL to w J I `F�•y111 I N CONS PAD- ° m \ / Ln 1.4 FEE- a2 I Q.. I I L (\ I \ (Per Schedule A of Tide Commitment No. NCS-865593-WLS issued by First American Tide Insurance Company) PARCEL L Lots 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, Block 1, COMMERCE PLACE, Hennepin County, Minnesota PARCEL 2: Lots 7 and 8, Block 1, FERNWOOD ADDITION, Hennepin County, Minnesota. (Torrens Property, Certificated No. 1197588) 1) Site Addreas: COMMERCE PLACE: 3 © Lot 2: 54,063 Sq. Ft. - 1.24 Acres Unassigned address, Mound, Mn 55364 Lot 3: 10,170 Sq. Ft. - 0.23 Acres 2238 Commence Blvd., Mound, Mn 55364 Lot 4: 22,201 Sq. Ft. - 0.51 Acres 2232 Commerce Blvd., Mound, Mn 55364 Lot 5: 14,277 Sq. Ft. - 0.33 Acres 2200 Commerce Blvd., Mound, Mn 55364 Lot 6: 32,465 Sq. Ft. - 0.75 Acres Unassigned address, Mound, Mn 55364 FERNWOOD ADDITION: °1D Lot 7: 3,027 Sq. Ft. - 0.07 Acres Unassigned address, Mound, Mn 55364 Lot 8: 5,947 Sq. Ft. - 0.14 Acres Unassigned address, Mound, Mn 55364 Total Ama:142,150 Sq. Ft. - 3.263 Acres IN In / BU _9554. 1p0 / a. ° ap �� / STORY BRICK BUILDING 3.8 x \MPh - '� Ici� Nn "' O` q� • N LL 946.8 .N -FFE-� _� - _ _ �'1 / X946- 1 �m I�j m FND IP I� = 9 0 y 953. D• ° a W L L. �.a �•\ /� \� - FFE= /E °' - i' N256'"46'08 4 -1' CV h ^ 50.2 m ✓' 0 92�� 0' is. 946.8 3.8 P 9x6 2 1 tfi. \ "UNE _... cO? ° N p° END IF 1/2 9,n ..,.. M /.ND 47�g., NF D IP 2474 .. I "_�. N8�°46 L) 99.72 J / I p,1) 86 46 OS W 176.pj.0. 945:8../ .RAMP ,26, . C ®RETE FFE= - ..46.7 946.0.......1 `°....I m o ' 949.6 T. BL \ ,.. „ 1 FP •a j.... L� -� . m 1'�). FND IP 2 1 I POINT A . F • 946.7 0 /29.2 s / 948.8 / 1t5'RC PcoF _ / 1 SII I 949. / c p - �� z ND IF to b h �I 0 �0 �i �7 - 94 6.21 N Y r N I - 7 I 1101 w 6 < o N86°46'08"W N _,t Q 4I m o I /\ m o;a a 142.82 FEE- I I I J EE / 1 O cFs 9493°..a°848.9 ,948.9 �"bNCRET a s 945.1 ."i I. // ,•^w; h� \R ,L� N S86 4348E \ END IF I/2 ,`✓` ° a a ° a.. / FEE- FEE- I 1 s 943.5 O I ro.� I. o� 945.0 I - I g. 73 C2 GAS 945.2 d. �,.. 949.4 0l a h 9 .7 1 CBR 1772. I ° �� ° /J `/� I W �° 3 h / FFE= �.� Rim 944.6. Cc •. FFE= O L.L\ R ^) 945.0 1 2 pp 949.6 FEE- Inv 937.2 NE Uh mea 1 1 Q I 50.4. 950 O MH O m. Inv 9370 5 • o I 5 949.7 GATE G E '131m 951.7 to 947.5 Inv 9382 W w<` R jJy L u� I� 5 IT / J T -II- 1=t 1rix 9 s9 N ° ° '� �/ v a P�i '� CONC PAD - a �,. LRS oc. ^( Inv 9 59 SR9. 95 rn ^. o. y1 't°a 6.0 moi `N 1 In SI I III / \O\ / _L� N 9 - ~ In =935 . w. a ° / F 4V FFE= FEE- FFE= L . I 947.0 \9 949.9 950.2® MH ® Jo- r� / / � Q� 0.1'/- " I �Z 0 � / �l• I^' �� 9428 C 947.2 Q �"]' 945.1 945.1 O° ° I.. A8 - 0 V J 945.1 OC r'7 1 \ - -+' N RIm=950.5 {. F� 945,3':. 85.3 O I Q `346 m Inv=A39r6'N& N / / 1 6�ttT FENCE STORY BRICK BUILDING 4.3 zPe 10 I I I \945.4 o� I ortk r m �\. V I iv V I ° ° n ° • ° v I I 945.4 EocE,oF°ovE�HA c R CdpPCRETE ✓I � FEN i FENCE _ o w n 3 I. ley. /I (h P 944.5 / I 947< • `fi 9 5.2 %I �^ I 40.00 S87°17'23"E 99 75 V Qi �I l e N K) N 4 1P 24764 I m I S870 17'23" E CC °m O \ m az /109.3 1 m \ �. L m ^ a a _� FEE - J, \1 I I /� \ ro I / 1 w v 5.8 945.1 FEE - 945.1 \ V� , % / v Q a ;c4 0 �a 945.1 945.1 N� AA In948A /. W to /' 1 a Q cn DAN �� W p}� I 1 °�� CBR I v Y a m \. i. �IyppF �� 10 go I sr Rim _ m _ q ` I VJ U. - w 947.6 9476 / 44 `�° <° N, xFFE= �� Icp R 4 Q�M� Inv=938.8 / 945 1 •I m O ro 945.1 I 15� 9814 , �� JI I l L.. m - < � , 1 1, 9 r2�' g v '1 a • a fl0 ® FFE.1 V Ia FEE- / ^2� , w' 945.1 I 0 - w I '. 948.4 ° C013CRETE Rim 943.0. o°` "O I I I q / \\ I n o 948 a G // 943. .o i ro 1 Do - / w 948 0� e� 47 5 �. /Inv -936.2 N 00° o w \, •u� I I \ / / I 948 0 47 �2 ('Z Inv -936.1 S 'gid w �.a. �. �o c TE ` ° ° VQ I' ' , 6 2' A, i FFE= I I n �. �F> 45 ....9436 O o ^` `r. a <� COT PAD-- o AI/ W O I \ END IF I/2 Ih ° a - N \ ' gA 1 V AD Vw / \ 4 I ° 943.7 rc RAMP 9431 ,., C��CRET° N 1 STORY BRA CK SU1LDING ^� // LIN IP 247 9 FFE= FEE- I O \ V a1.00�...... /.'. w -� a 5.� 943.4 943.5 1 O I I „ RAMP o tGZ11W 1 / 9 � X4.0 / N86°46'08"W 33.21 i ^I Z I BEL` \�N87°1420 W / �3 / /q, CO g 1s� m o% 3,00 / 5�� / $ F �� FFE= gFFgqE�� 6 a PAT- FEE- 943.3 CONC PHU-- ?Fr I O a `)r 943.3 W 17. tom. M 6.4;- A 947.5 ...9471 �/ E"`, I- Ln r 2 �nQ, m 1 /CC0 .'CBS \ �' Oma'" Z I V.. - I Rim 460. ccxr P Inv -9 I I W. � § V ! YS I I SRH I 11� / ENT PER.COMMERCEPLACE`�f� �( Ri R 94 n U., ( 1 JO Rm 94s.a / N l / DRAINAGE & UT ITY EASEM $ 94 / QO C PAD- . /1 In' =934 h V' m Ippv 928.6 N SIM Inv' 935 h i t\ 1 6.3 6 n I 9400 k 928:fi s ata HIGHWAY EASEMENT ER DOC. IN 4 0138 Rim- 417 I Inv 934 m 5. Ov 4 34� Inv 28.4.'E m ¢6 �,--Q �� j nv-9 7.8 P I/2 DEC. FE E H ND lP I �. 017 D7 �� > / S DEG FENCE _ 1 gyp.. ` 8 i �> 15 RCP NH ST 4� 1 ST OxRAMP FO�Fa� I I (n h x e 4`87 / 1 DE.. FENICE 9 .6- GA5 94 GA a34+�- FO sr :1;A RIm-. .7 CBS FO FO e ,O,�J" �J,9.5 BENC sr 336 E RAMP w �.» sr GASR_ �� Inv=933 8 N Inv -932.1 W I es EL O I 1124"RCP ¢ > > zi"Rei CBS d= 5 34 35 , a W �- rad-- 938i -93� Inv -933.6 N - 1 << '_394 H > > ¢ SM 1 Inv 93.0 E SMH Rim 9 9 S 39-�-- n _ x 3 RAMP ¢ �� 1 4 \Rim-937.8lh v I o _�15"RCP 5 ;.' _ io Rim 2 9 R.�1116 4V �R�im- 3 '> 0'.W > 15 "RCP - -J Inv-9°73-NVf L. 2 GG -L � � ��B � Inv.=9279 E1 Inv=9332 W Inv 93305 �---� -� SEA EDSHUT 1 37.. "1 \d '-In 303.53.. �, nv.=9280 W Inv -9332 NW v%. Inv -932.9.E > nv 9274 E t tl �%. , W ¢ I m'='940= 0 �_ > ''" Inv 92 .8 N GO 1h' IZ oQa OR. � 1 Inv=934 6 W .p .Inv=933 1 E v� CD 5 ... . 5 517` L Inv -9345 E v 938.4 SMH 15"RCP z 09• • I Rim 93Z2 VD ��.. Inv -927.4 W R.. SMH n ��..... �.. D Inv -9J.3 E '. in..1....... / _ �_ '.2'.' �' V 938.8 Rim -944.8 Ma C4� YNW 15"Rt.'P�.. Inv -932.7 N �. �.. 940.3.. Inv -932.7 W / / T 940.9 75"SAN > Inv -932.5 S "E o n m I FIELD CREW NO. BY DATE REVISION I h rti th t thi 1 rt d b d direct and that I dol L' ed DM AT CL DRAWN EMW/DBP CHECKED JJA DATE 3-15-20 USE (INCLUDING COPYING, DISTRIBUTION, AND/OR CONVEYANCE OF INFORMATION) OF THIS PRODUCT IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED WITHOUT SATHRE-BERGQUIST, INC.'s EXPRESS WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION. USE WITHOUT SAID AUTHORIZATION CONSTITUTES AN ILLEGITIMATE USE AND SHALL THEREBY INDEMNIFY SATHRE-BERGQUIST, INC. OF ALL RESPONSIBILITY. SATHRE-BERGQUIST, INC. RESERVES THE RIGHT TO HOLD ANY ILLEGITIMATE USER OR PARTY LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR DAMAGES OR LOSSES RESULTING FROM ILLEGITIMATE USE. ereby ce fy a s survey, p an or repo was prepare y me or un er my supervrsron am a y Li Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Dated this 6th day of April, 2020. Jared J. Averbeck, PLS Minnesota License No. 53642 42.2 FENCE X X- FRI IP 24764 941.9 OARS 84/ 4, ur0� � m SATHRE-BERGQUIST, INC. m150 SOUTH BROADWAY WAYZATA, MN. 55391 (952) 476-6000 Co N 407 WWW.SATHRE.COM c�FRs P 0, 2) Flood Zone Information: This property appears to lie in Zone X (area determined to be outside of the 0.2% annual chance floodplain) per Flood Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel No. 27053CO283F, effective date of November 4, 2016. 3) Parcel Area Information: COMMERCE PLACE: Lot 2: 54,063 Sq. FL - 1.24 Acres Lot 3: 10,170 Sq. Ft. - 0.23 Acres Lot 4: 22,201 Sq. Ft. - 0.51 Acres Lot 5: 149277 Sq. FL - 0.33 Acres Lot 6: 32,465 Sq. Ft. - 0.75 Acres FERNWOOD ADDITION: Lot 7: 3,027 Sq. Ft. - 0.07 Acres Lot 8: 5,947 Sq. Ft. - 0.14 Acres Total Ama:142,150 Sq. Ft. - 3.263 Acres 4) Benchmark: Elevations are based on Hennepin County Control Point:Station Name: Mound which has an elevation of: 937.83 feet (NAVD88). Zoning Information: The current Zoning for the subject property is: Lots 1-6, Block 1, COMMERCE PLACE - B-1 (Central Business) R3 (Multiple Family Dwellings): Front - 30 feet Rear - 20 feet Side - 20 feet Height - 3 stories or 35 feet Lots 7-8, Block 1, FERNWOOD ADDN. - R-3 (Multi Family) (Per Mound City Code - 350-635) B 1 (Central Business): Auto -Destination District (Auto Oriented Commercial) Please note that the general restrictions for the subject property may have been amended through a city process. We could be unaware of such amendments if they are not in a recorded document provided to us. We recommend that a zoning letter be obtained from the Zoning Administrator for the current restrictions for this site. We have not received the current zoning classification and building setback requirements from the insurer. 5) Utilities: We have shown the location of utilities on the surveyed property by observed evidence only. There may be underground utilities encumbering the subject property we six unaware. Please note that we have not placed a Gopher State One Call for this survey. There may or may not be underground utilities in the mapped area, therefore extreme caution must be exercise before any excavation takes place on or near this site. Before digging, you are required by law to notify Gopher State One Call at least 48 hours in advance at 651/454-0002. Bearings are based on the Hennepin County Coordinate System (NAD 83 -1986 adj.) 30 15 0 15 30 60 CTAT F TN PPPT m v 0 o m J Fence ties are shown on the side of the boundary line that the fence is located on. SURVEY LEGEND CAST IRON MONUMENT © PIEZOMETER IRON PIPE MONUMENT SET cT, iIrc v4 4P ,X V� w7 .. IRON PIPE MONUMENT FOUND < GUY WIRE t RHES II x. a I ROOF DRAIN CHISELED "X" MONUMENT SET °1D C CHISELED "X" MONUMENT FOUND OS c. � ,I IL%1� DEBAR MONUMENT FOUND Q SANITARY CLEANOUT 11 'Ii% sT STORM MANHOLE PK NAIL MONUMENT FOUND �jlr J J N 0 ® IMOD BLVD F G �I I I �� i7 SURVEY CONTROL POINT 4 FLARED END SECTION In n' Y S BUILDING COLUMN T x IiliD A� L 11 -/ s /� TREE DECIDUOUS CABLE TV PEDESTAL SANITARY SEWER TREE CONIFEROUS REMOVED ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER TEL TREE DECIDUOUS REMOVED D.HF�� L�'NW,uI� A L ELECTRIC METER v �I,IWFLINE TTA�•=h� .� P ELECTRIC OUTLET OO l art l YARD LIGHT 0 UTILITY PEDESTAL LIGHT POLE BE UTILITY VAULT FIBER OPTIC MANHOLE OW WATERMAIN MANHOLE OARS 84/ 4, ur0� � m SATHRE-BERGQUIST, INC. m150 SOUTH BROADWAY WAYZATA, MN. 55391 (952) 476-6000 Co N 407 WWW.SATHRE.COM c�FRs P 0, 2) Flood Zone Information: This property appears to lie in Zone X (area determined to be outside of the 0.2% annual chance floodplain) per Flood Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel No. 27053CO283F, effective date of November 4, 2016. 3) Parcel Area Information: COMMERCE PLACE: Lot 2: 54,063 Sq. FL - 1.24 Acres Lot 3: 10,170 Sq. Ft. - 0.23 Acres Lot 4: 22,201 Sq. Ft. - 0.51 Acres Lot 5: 149277 Sq. FL - 0.33 Acres Lot 6: 32,465 Sq. Ft. - 0.75 Acres FERNWOOD ADDITION: Lot 7: 3,027 Sq. Ft. - 0.07 Acres Lot 8: 5,947 Sq. Ft. - 0.14 Acres Total Ama:142,150 Sq. Ft. - 3.263 Acres 4) Benchmark: Elevations are based on Hennepin County Control Point:Station Name: Mound which has an elevation of: 937.83 feet (NAVD88). Zoning Information: The current Zoning for the subject property is: Lots 1-6, Block 1, COMMERCE PLACE - B-1 (Central Business) R3 (Multiple Family Dwellings): Front - 30 feet Rear - 20 feet Side - 20 feet Height - 3 stories or 35 feet Lots 7-8, Block 1, FERNWOOD ADDN. - R-3 (Multi Family) (Per Mound City Code - 350-635) B 1 (Central Business): Auto -Destination District (Auto Oriented Commercial) Please note that the general restrictions for the subject property may have been amended through a city process. We could be unaware of such amendments if they are not in a recorded document provided to us. We recommend that a zoning letter be obtained from the Zoning Administrator for the current restrictions for this site. We have not received the current zoning classification and building setback requirements from the insurer. 5) Utilities: We have shown the location of utilities on the surveyed property by observed evidence only. There may be underground utilities encumbering the subject property we six unaware. Please note that we have not placed a Gopher State One Call for this survey. There may or may not be underground utilities in the mapped area, therefore extreme caution must be exercise before any excavation takes place on or near this site. Before digging, you are required by law to notify Gopher State One Call at least 48 hours in advance at 651/454-0002. Bearings are based on the Hennepin County Coordinate System (NAD 83 -1986 adj.) 30 15 0 15 30 60 CTAT F TN PPPT m v 0 o m J Fence ties are shown on the side of the boundary line that the fence is located on. SURVEY LEGEND CAST IRON MONUMENT © PIEZOMETER IRON PIPE MONUMENT SET cT, POWER POLE IRON PIPE MONUMENT FOUND < GUY WIRE DRILL HOLE FOUND Ro ROOF DRAIN CHISELED "X" MONUMENT SET Ls LIFT STATION CHISELED "X" MONUMENT FOUND OS SANITARY MANHOLE DEBAR MONUMENT FOUND Q SANITARY CLEANOUT PK NAIL MONUMENT SET sT STORM MANHOLE PK NAIL MONUMENT FOUND ® STORM DRAIN PK NAIL W/ ALUMINUM DISC ® CATCH BASIN SURVEY CONTROL POINT 4 FLARED END SECTION A/C UNIT GAS UNDERGROUND TREE CONIFEROUS BUILDING COLUMN PYYYYVI TREE DECIDUOUS CABLE TV PEDESTAL SANITARY SEWER TREE CONIFEROUS REMOVED ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER TEL TREE DECIDUOUS REMOVED ELECTRIC MANHOLE O TELEPHONE MANHOLE ELECTRIC METER r TELEPHONE PEDESTAL ELECTRIC OUTLET OO UTILITY MANHOLE YARD LIGHT 0 UTILITY PEDESTAL LIGHT POLE BE UTILITY VAULT FIBER OPTIC MANHOLE OW WATERMAIN MANHOLE FIRE DEPT. HOOK UP ® WATER METER FLAG POLE -0- WATER SPIGOT FUEL PUMP 0 WELL FUEL TANK Mw MONITORING WELL GAS METER m CURB STOP GAS VALVE D4 GATE VALVE GAS MANHOLE �C' HYDRANT GENERATOR R -v I IRRIGATION VALVE GUARD POST ary POST INDICATOR VALVE HAND HOLE SIGN MAIL BOX se SOIL BORING WOE WALKOUT ELEVATION FEE FIRST FLOOR ELEVATION GTE GARAGE FLOOR ELEVATION TOE TOP OF FOUNDATION ELEV. LOE LOWEST OPENING ELEV. 0 CONCRETE 0 BITUMINOUS --�-�- BUILDING SETBACK LINE CTv CABLE TV CONCRETE CURB -sso_ CONTOUR EXISTING 9 6 o CONTOUR PROPOSED GUARD RAIL DT DRAIN TILE ELc ELECTRIC UNDERGROUND FENCE 0 FIBER OPTIC UNDERGROUND GAS- GAS UNDERGROUND DHu OVERHEAD UTILITY PYYYYVI TREE LINE > SANITARY SEWER » STORM SEWER TEL TELEPHONE UNDERGROUND RETAINING WALL OTL UTILITY UNDERGROUND WATERMAIN TRAFFIC SIGNAL TTS -r-rT RAILROAD TRACKS $ RAILROAD SIGNAL C RAILROAD SWITCH 0SATELLITE DISH a WETLAND BUFFER SIGN FILE NO. Certificate of Survey 74787-002 MOUND, PREPARED FOR: MINNESOTA Schafer Richardson, Inc. May 13, 2020 City of Mound 2415 Wilshire BLVD Mound, MN 55364 Attn: Sarah Smith, Community Development Director sarahsmith@cityofmound.com 952-472-0604 RE: Objection Letter: Vacation request of a Drainage and Utility Easement and Fern Lane of Commerce Place Shopping Center project, Per Preliminary Plat Commerce Place 2nd Addition, 4-23-2020, Location 2200-2238 Commerce BLVD., CNP size 11/4" Distribution gas main in both requested vacation of DU&E and Fern Lane. Dear Sarah Smith: Concerning the above Vacation request of a Drainage and Utility Easement and Fern Lane that is part of the Commerce Place Shopping Center project. Per Preliminary Plat Commerce Place 2nd Addition, dated 4-23-2020, CenterPoint Energy objects to the Preliminary Plat of Commerce Place 2nd Addition request at this time until easement rights have been obtained over these gas mains. Since these Distribution gas mains are an important part of our system for this area, we must object to the proposed Preliminary Plat of Commerce Place 2nd Addition until suitable easement rights are reserved to CenterPoint Energy under MnSta 160.29 & MnRule 7819.3200. Please reserve an easement to CenterPoint Energy, created by and within the Preliminary Plat of Commerce Place 2nd Addition, establishing drainage and utility Easements or private easements to CenterPoint Energy covering the existing gas mains. We may consider removing our objection should the petitioner wish to reimburse CenterPoint Energy the cost of relocating the existing Distribution gas main. To discuss this and other options that may be available, please have the petitioner contact Emily Suppes, Engineer Gas, at 612-321-5363. Thank you for the advance notice, and please send me a copy of the final action on this proposed vacation. -1579- — GENERAL LOCATION ONLY. DO NOT USE TO LOCATE FOR EXCA 11 [I] n r Plotted by: i231947 Plot Date: 12/13/2019 42' SCL 18' ECL 40' SCL 20' ECL J W U ry W O U 'ECL CHURCH RD 3612 6977 3' TR CL -6 S�ORELINE DR Respectfully, CENTERPOINT ENERGY Chuck Mayers, SRWA Right of Way Agent III Office - 612-321-5381 charies.mayers@centerPointenergy.com PC: Keith Collver, Supervisor Field Operation, CenterPoint Energy Chandler Mohn, Advance Foreperson, CenterPoint Energy Dan Christensen, Staff Engineer Gas, CenterPoint Energy Emily Suppes, Engineer Gas, CenterPoint Energy -1581 - er I am concerned about the quality of life in Mound, Please Elected officials stop rezoning small town f higl.h believe that density housing. Mound has enough traffic and congestion. I am concerned about losing o adding more Condos or Apartments will negatively impact our town, Our quality of life. We the undersigned ask that the Mound council stop approving such projects. We are concerned about current and future proposals Including but lan dated April 2 1018. 91 not limited to The Commerce Place Shopping Centeno I Tha(Isee rooe tvlfor Commerce Plaey partments in the ps currently zoned B-1 please -1582- Z6 I am concerned about the quality of life in Mound, Please Elected officials stop rezoning areas for higher density housing. Mound has enough traffic and congestion. I am concerned about losing our small town feel. I believe that wn, our ty e the adding more Condos or Apartments c'h negatively ojects.IWe are conceroned bouts cur'rentf and future prundersigned ask that oposals Including but the Mound council stop approving 91 not limited to The Commerce Place Shopping Center Plans, (I see only apartments in the plan dated April 2 1018. units with only a mention of active community space ). The property for Commerce IPlace is currently zoned B-1 please keep it as B-1. P_ J✓b Y/ "'o I15 12� �� v 1 "I ,v, d C��r�� ^ I -1583- I am concerned about the quality of life in Mound, Please Elected officials stop rezoning areas for higher density housing. Mound has enough traffic and congestion. I am concerned about losing our small town feel. 1 believe that adding more Condos or Apartments will negatively impact our town, our quality of life. We the undersigned ask that the Mound council stop approving such projects. We are concerned about current and future proposals Including but not limited to The Commerce Place Shopping Center Plans, ( I see only apartments in the plan dated April 2 1018. 91 units with only a mention of active community space ). The property for Commerce Place is currently zoned B-1 please keep it as B-1. ' Car�hr)'d 1��-- fff Tw L g y I tov L;: i /`75 COU' - ° 4� 3 6'i 1`6 . Li :)z 55 �( LI I / t F, 3(O a [8 i n GI toVp vis Lck �r 553(0 0'1 C4, ) j'A4-) f% z/- C/ � 1 -1584- �a I am concerned about the quality of life in Mound, Please Elected officials stop rezoning areas for higher density housing. Mound has enough traffic and congestion. I am concerned about losing our small town feel. I believe that adding more Condos or Apartments will negatively impact our town, Our quality of life. We the undersigned ask that the Mound council stop approving such projects. We are concerned about current and future proposals Including but not limited to The Commerce Place Shopping Center Plans, ( I see only apartments in the plan dated April 2 1018. 91 ). The property for Commerce Place is currently zoned B-1 please units with only a mention of active community space keep it as B-1. 1P III ��-� Si / C I a It�,. / I L (--.C�' I t .pq G 0 l C- Ilk I.i/j I •WEMV W �i b )0 5 Sp�,r✓!dw' `}- /l �-/f keg I ld i ch nLAeto�� 1'Ica sae"a* L-tJ k 7,--)& n� kZb 1 M i I -1585- D I am concerned about the quality of life in Mound, Please Elected officials stop rezoning areas for higher density ic and congestion. 1 am concerned about losing our small town feel. 1 believe that housing. Mound has enough traff en such will negatively impact our town, Our quality of life. We the undersigned ask that adding more Condos or Apartm the Mound council stop approving such projects. We are concerned about current and future proposals Including but not limited to The Commerce Place Shopping Center Plans, (I see only apartments in the plan dated April 2 1018. 91 units with only a mention of active community space ). The property for Commerce Place is currently zoned B-1 please it as B-1. I 9 �— 55, 1 -1586- HarborJULY 2020 VS 2019 GROSS DATE SALES CUSTOMERS AVERAGE TICKET PROFIT '20 '19 '20 119 +/- '20 119 +/- '20 '19 +/- '20 Monday 1 6,881 326 Tuesday 2 9,882 394 Wednesday 1 3 14,870 23,362 -36% 416 708 -41% 36 33 8% 30% Thursday 2 4 21,141 18,423 15% 582 659 -12% 36 28 30% 29% Friday 3 5 30,062 12,155 147% 808 466 73% 37 26 43% 28% Saturday 4 6 23,706 16,583 43% 736 627 17% 32 26 22% 28% Sunday 5 7 6,844 6,402 7% 242 280 -14% 28 23 24% 29% Monday 6 8 7,009 6,323 11% 270 285 -5% 26 22 17% 29% Tuesday 7 9 8,197 6,196 32% 351 293 20% 23 21 10% 30% Wednesday 8 10 9,102 7,633 19% 347 330 5% 26 23 13% 29% Thursday 9 11 11,224 9,398 19% 345 368 G% 33 26 27% 29% Friday 10 12 18,644 16,567 13% 580 614 G% 32 27 19% 28% Saturday 11 13 15,961 18,174 -12% 504 698 -28% 32 26 22% 29% Sunday 12 14 8,893 7,921 12% 324 356 -9% 27 22 23% 29% Monday 13 15 7,011 7,442 -6% 317 306 4% 22 24 -9% 29% Tuesday 14 16 8,027 9,139 -12% 280 380 -26% 29 24 19% 30% Wednesday 15 17 11,102 8,758 27% 343 348 -1% 32 25 29% 28% Thursday 16 18 12,537 11,388 10% 394 407 -3% 32 28 14% 30% Friday 17 19 21,282 17,711 20% 693 638 9% 31 28 11% 29% Saturday 18 20 20,230 16,427 23% 634 612 4% 32 27 19% 29% Sunday 19 21 8,002 7,419 8% 305 329 -7% 26 23 16% 30% Monday 20 22 7,861 5,228 50% 308 261 18% 26 20 27% 31% Tuesday 21 23 8,734 6,827 28% 291 307 -5% 30 22 35% 31% Wednesday 22 24 9,763 8,473 15% 319 368 -13% 31 23 33% 30% Thursday 23 25 13,766 8,442 63% 437 345 27% 32 24 29% 28% Friday 24 26 20,068 15,576 29% 637 600 6% 32 26 21% 27% Saturday 25 27 15,282 16,116 -5% 472 622 -24% 32 26 25% 30% Sunday 26 28 5,689 3,827 49% 226 201 12% 25 19 32% 30% Monday 27 29 7,542 6,027 25% 302 284 6% 25 21 18% 30% Tuesday 28 30 8,513 7,381 15% 324 318 2% 26 23 13% 29% Wednesday 29 31 8,986 7,754 16% 331 355 -7% 27 22 24% 30% Thursday 30 12,687 442 29 30% Friday 31 20,937 598 35 28% TOTAL - July 403,672 329,835 22.39% 13,158 13,085 0.56% 31 25 22% SALES CUSTOMERS AVERAGE TICKET '20 r 19 +/- '20 19 +/- '20 r 19 +/- January 206,266 200,588 3% 9,060 9,093 0% 23 22 3% February 199,745 202,948 -2% 8,058 8,842 -9% 25 23 8% March 303,365 218,472 39% 9,433 9,553 -1% 32 23 41% FIRST QTR 709,376 622,008 14% 26,551 27,488 -3% 27 23 18% April 289,247 219,696 32% 8,830 9,482 -7% 33 23 41% May 349,437 275,530 27% 10,741 11,569 -7% 33 24 37% June 381,517 295,685 29% 12,554 12,060 4% 30 25 24% SECOND QTR 1,020,201 790,911 29% 32,125 33,111 -3% 32 24 33% July 403,672 329,835 22% 13,158 13,085 1%r 31 r 25 22% TOTAL - Year to Date 2,133,249 1,742,754 22% 71,834 73,684 -3% 30 24 26% -1587-