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.”

MOUND PLANNING COMMISSION

REGULAR MEETING AGENDA TUESDAY, OCTOBER 5, 2021, 7:00 P.M.

MEETING LOCATION

COUNCIL CHAMBERS, MOUND CENTENNIAL BUILDING 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD, MOUND, MN

Page 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Review and approval of agenda, including any amendments 4. Review and action on Planning Commission meeting minutes 1 A. September 7, 2021 regular meeting 5. Board of Appeals A. Planning Case No. 21-07 9 Review/recommendation of proposed amendments to City Code Chapter 129 (Zoning Ordinance) and Zoning Map for consistency with 2040 Comprehensive Plan (Note: Tabled text amendments and proposed rezoning of property at 5084 Three Points Blvd from September 7, 2021 meeting) Applicant: City of Mound B. Planning Case No. 21-11 13 Review/recommendation of proposed amendment to City Code Chapter 42 (Nuisances) related to lighting Applicant: City of Mound C. Planning Case No. 21-12 18 Review/recommendation of proposed amendments to City Code Chapter 129 (Zoning Ordinance) related to fences and food trucks Applicant: City of Mound 6. Old / New Business A. 2021 Planning Commission Member Term Expirations – Goode / Heal / Castellano B. Request to cancel Tues., November 2, 2021 regular meeting and schedule special meeting to be held on Tues., November 16, 2021 at 7:00 p.m. due to school board election C. City Council liaison / Staff report 7. Adjourn The Planning Commission is an advisory body to the City Council. One of the Commission’s functions is to hold public hearings and make recommendations to the City Council. The City Council makes all final decisions on these matters. Mound City Ordinances require that certain documents and information be included in applications. The Planning Commission may postpone consideration of an application that is incomplete and may for other reasons postpone final action on an application. For each agenda item the Commission will receive reports prepared by the City staff, open the hearing to the public, and discuss the action on the application.”

QUESTIONS: Call Jen at 952-472-0603 or Sarah at 952-472-0604

MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION

SEPTEMBER 7, 2021

Chair Goode called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm.

ROLL CALL

Members present: David Goode, Samantha Erickson, Allen Andersen, Jon Ciatti, Jason Baker, Kevin Castellano, Jake Savstrom, Jason Holt.

Staff present: Community Development Director Sarah Smith and City Consultant Rita Trapp. Members of the public: Morgan Lazenby, 4684 Hampton Road; Cody Rolikod, 4684 Hampton Road; Trudie Levesque, 4684 Hampton Road; Barb Warren, 4636 Hampton Road; Graham Neve, 2601 Granger Lane; Ed Ring, 5211 Shoreline Drive; Jeanne and Jim Myers, 2321 Commerce Boulevard; Paula M. Larson, 5713 Lynwood Boulevard

APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA

Commissioner Baker requested Items No. 5 C and 5 D be switched due to the anticipated length for discussion of Item No. 5 C.

MOTION by Ciatti, to approve the meeting agenda with an amendment to switch the order of Items No. 5 C and 5 D, seconded by Castellano. MOTION carried unanimously.

REVIEW OF JULY 6, 2021 MEETING MINUTES

MOTION by Baker to approve the meeting minutes from July 6, 2021, as written, seconded by Ciatti. MOTION carried unanimously.

BOARD OF APPEALS Planning Case No. 21-08 Review / recommendation of variance for detached accessory structure at 4636 Hampton Road that exceeds the building of existing principal structure Applicants: Charles and Barb Warren

Smith presented an overview of the planning case and explained that the variance request is to allow construction of a garage that is taller than the existing principal structure at 4636 Hampton Road, which is not allowed by the accessory building regulations.

1

The property includes both improved and undeveloped frontage along Hampton Road. The current 1-story home, that was built in the 1970’s, includes an attached garage and has a low profile, pitched roof. If approved, the variance will allow the applicants to build a new garage, in a conforming location, that includes a gambrel style roof to provide accessory storage. Staff has calculated building height calculation at 17.65 feet. The house height is 16.6 feet. Smith further commented that the height of both structures will appear similar due to grades on the property and that the location of the accessory structure is further back than the current home.

Commissioner Savstrom inquired about how the building heights were calculated. Smith explained that the building lines facing the street for both the house and proposed accessory structure were used and the height was measured to the mid-point of the roof for both structures. She confirmed that the method of measuring building height is the same for a pitched roof and a gambrel roof so the type of roof was not a specific factor in the request.

Property owner/applicant, Barb Warren, was present at the meeting.

Commissioner Savstrom asked about a possible future driveway. Ms. Warren stated that the accessory structure is going to be used as a workshop/space and for storage and there are no plans for a driveway.

Staff recommended Planning Commission approval of the variance to include findings of fact and conditions.

MOTION by Baker to recommend that the City Council approve the variance application for the property at 4636 Hampton Road to allow the building height of the accessory structure to exceed the height of the existing house, with conditions and findings of fact included in the Planning Report; seconded by Castellano. MOTION carried unanimously.

Planning Case No. 21-10 Review/recommendation of request for substantial use determination by Mound Westonka Youth Hockey that proposed dry-land training use in tenant space in the Commerce Place Shopping Center, 2200-2238 Commerce Boulevard, is similar to “health club, fitness center, dance studio” use which is permitted use in the B-1 DistrictApplicant: Brad Butler on behalf of Mound Westonka Hockey Association

Smith outlined the request from the Mound Westonka Hockey Association for a determination that their intended use, to do dry land training in tenant space in the Commerce Place shopping center, is similar to the use category of “health club, fitness center, dance studio” as provided in in the City Code. Smith also briefly explained the substantial use regulations that were put in a few years ago state that a use must be specifically listed in the district regulation or it is not allowed. The City Code further states that a use can be determined to be substantially similar to an existing use after consideration by the Planning Commission and approval by the City Council.

2

Applicant Brad Butler from the Mound Westonka Hockey Association was present and explained they have limited space in Pond and Thayer arenas and this space will provide an area for their players to do dry land training and conditioning on a year round basis. Members of the Commission asked questions about the intended hours of use and number of players; also access to the training space. Mr. Butler clarified that the hours of operation would be after school and on weekends during the hockey season with teams generally using the facility immediately before or after their on-ice practices. The space they are proposing to lease is on the south side of the entrance/walkway near the back of the building. During the off-season the intention is to allow individuals to schedule hours to use the facility under the supervision of a coach. Access to the space is provided by a card reader system and app on phones. The association will be able to monitor who is using the space.

Smith stated that Staff’s recommendation is that the use be deemed to be substantially similar to the health club use category in the B-1 regulations to include conditions and findings of fact.

MOTION by Baker to recommend that the City Council determine the dry land hockey and conditioning use proposed by the Mound Westonka Hockey Association to be substantially similar to the “health club, fitness center, dance studio” use that is permitted in the B-1 zoning of the Commerce Place Shopping Center, with conditions and findings of fact; seconded by Castellano. MOTION carried unanimously.

Planning Case No. 21-07 Review/recommendation on proposed amendments to City Code Chapter 129 (Zoning Ordinance) and Official Zoning Map for consistency with 2040 Comprehensive Plan Applicant: City of Mound

Trapp reintroduced the proposed zoning code text and map amendments that were previously discussed at the Planning Commission’s July 7th meeting. The revisions being considered were identified and prioritized as part of the review for consistency with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Trapp reminded Planning Commissioners that consistency with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan is required by state statutes. Trapp noted that in her presentation she would provide a brief overview of each area and then note the adjustments made to the proposed amendments based on the July 7th direction from the Planning Commission.

Trapp noted that the non-residential use table, which identifies permitted, conditional and accessory uses, is proposed to be simplified as there is little difference between shoreland and non-shoreland district areas. The non-residential use table also will now include mixed use districts. Trapp noted that specific allowances for uses were changed for a few uses based on the commission’s direction at their July meeting. In making adjustments, she noted that Staff determined that the code would benefit from the changing of the term long-term care facility to senior facility so that use and a definition was added.

3

Trapp discussed changes to parking regulations, including the consolidation of code provisions from a few different sections and updates related to new districts. Since the July 7th meeting, Staff has explored how to address underground parking as the Commission discussion had been to potentially remove it from the code. Trapp suggested that a provision be added that would require underground parking when site conditions would allow. The provision would not have a minimum amount but a minimum amount of the building footprint that would need to be used. Staff has also added minimum parking requirements for the different types of units in a senior care facility. Trapp also noted that a new provision was added clarifying that parking spaces cannot be used for storage of vehicles or goods.

The C-1 General Business District is being proposed as a consolidation of the former business districts. It is needed because there are few properties remaining for commercial purposes after most are rezoned to mixed use. Trapp noted that Staff did review the two City of Mound parcels previously identified to be rezoned to C-1 and determined that they should be rezoned to residential to fit with the surrounding properties.

Trapp reviewed the location and proposed regulations of the two new mixed-use districts. She noted that Staff is recommending one section for both districts as most of the regulations are similar. After the July 7th meeting, Staff did make a change to the applicability section to further clarify which district standards would apply to an existing structure. For existing single-family detached dwellings, two-family dwellings and twin-home dwellings Staff is recommending to use the R-2 district. For existing multi-family structures Staff is recommending the use of the R-3 district.

Trapp noted that a few additional adjustments were made to the mixed use districts. One was to the building height table to make sure it was clear that two-family, twin home, townhouses or rowhouses are limited to 35 feet in height. Staff also reworded the stepback requirement as requested by the Planning Commission to require stepbacks along County Roads as well as when a building is adjacent to a residential district.

Trapp noted that changes were made to consolidate planned unit developments and planned residential areas to reduce confusion and simplify the process. No changes were made to the proposed amendments since the July 7th meeting.

Trapp reminded Planning Commissioners that while public hearings are held at the City Council for text and map amendments, Staff did send notifications to all property owners affected by the proposed rezonings about the Planning Commission meeting. Trapp noted that Staff did receive some clarifying phone calls and inquirers were invited to attend the meeting.

Trapp also noted that a letter from the representatives of 5084 Three Points Boulevard was received and included in the packet. As noted in the letter, the property owners do not want the City to rezone their property to residential as is proposed. The property owners were unable to attend the meeting. Trapp noted that the rezoning is proposed so that the property is consistent with the land use plan from the 2040 Comprehensive Plan.

4

In concluding her presentation Trapp noted that Staff is requesting consideration of whether the proposed text and map amendments could be recommended to the City Council.

Commissioners expressed general comfort with the proposed changes except for the parking regulations. In particular, there was concern about the possible provision relating to underground parking. Commissioner Ciatti asked whether the provision would result in properties unfairly having different regulations. Clarification was sought on who would determine whether or not the site could accommodate undergrounding parking and it was suggested that adding a statement similar to “as determined by the Public Works Director” would clarify the evaluation process. Trapp noted that Staff would have further discussion about how the standard could be applied and who would best determine when underground parking would be required.

Commissioner Savstrom expressed concern that the relaxing of parking regulations would reduce the quality of development in the community. He advocated retaining minimum parking requirements. Trapp noted that Staff is suggesting reevaluating minimum parking requirements, particularly underground requirements, as it does not seem to be reflective of what is possible given site constraints. Commissioner Ciatti suggested Staff explore potential incentives or alternatives that could be offered if a development couldn’t meet parking requirements.

Commissioner Baker requested clarification on the concerns expressed by the property owners at 5084 Three Points Boulevard. Trapp noted that the property owners have indicated that they would like to retain commercial use of the property. Trapp clarified that the recommendation for rezoning is based on the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, and that the land use plan was modified as the City did not want to see reuse of the property as commercial if redevelopment were to occur on the site. Commissioners indicated that it would be helpful to hear directly from the property owners. They also asked Staff to provide additional information about legal impacts from the potential rezoning and to respond to the points raised by the property owner in their letter to the Planning Commission.

MOTION by Baker to recommend that the City Council adopt the proposed zoning code text and map amendments proposed by Staff; seconded by Castellano.

Commissioner discussion to the motion identified the need to further clarify what is being excluded from the motion.

MOTION by Baker to amend the previous motion to exclude a recommendation of approval for the parking regulations and the rezoning of the properties around 5408 Three Points Boulevard with consideration to occur at the October Planning Commission meeting; seconded by Castellano. MOTION carried unanimously.

The original motion was then considered with the amendment. MOTION carried unanimously.

5

Planning Case No. 21-09 Consideration/action of Major Subdivision-Preliminary Plat of Sunset View Villa and Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development for property at 2631 Commerce Boulevard Applicant: Graham and Jessica Neve

Trapp presented an overview of the request. The applicant is proposing a major subdivision-preliminary plat to subdivide the property at 2631 Commerce Boulevard into two lots. One lot would contain the existing house and the other the existing four-plex, which would be converted to a duplex. Trapp noted that because it is a riparian lot, a shoreland planned unit development will be required. She also stated that the property is proposed to be rezoned to Mixed Use – Corridor in the zoning code update project so Staff used those regulations in its review of the proposed project.

Trapp stated that the applicant is proposing to retain and renovate the existing single family home on the property. The project will also involve a small addition to the home and the construction of a four car garage on the rear of the property. There are no concerns about setbacks because the existing structures are being retained, the new addition and garage are on the rear of the home in the center of the lot, and a PUD allows for flexibility in setbacks if needed.

Trapp noted that Hennepin County has expressed concern that the project proposes two driveways. As Commerce Boulevard is a County Road, Staff has included a condition directing the applicant to work with the County on configuring the access. Trapp noted a concern about parking for the fourplex/duplex. There should be space for four cars and a turn around. There is an existing ingress and egress easement with the property to the north that is proposed to be retained.

Trapp stated that Minnehaha Creek Watershed District will need to review and approve the plans. She further noted that no impervious surface information has yet been provided by the applicant. As this is a subdivision, each lot of the plat will be held to a maximum of 30% unless otherwise approved by the PUD.

Commissioner Savstrom asked whether this would be considered a flag lot and whether the City allows flag lots. Trapp responded that this would be considered a flag lot. Staff has not expressed concern about the shape of the lots given the existing structure placement, access limitations on Commerce Boulevard resulting in the need for a shared access, and the

6

topography of the lot which requires a longer, more indirect driveway for the single-family home.

The applicant, Graham Neve, noted that he is seeking to divide the lot as having two structures on a lot is difficult for appraisal purposes. Mr. Neve expressed concern about having the three accesses consolidated but indicated he would have further discussion with Hennepin County. He also noted that sightlines can be challenging in that area, especially with parking related to Surfside and the boat launch.

Commissioner Baker asked whether the applicant had concerns about meeting the 30% hardcover requirement. Mr. Neve stated that he didn’t think it would be an issue. There are opportunities to remove some existing hardcover by the converted duplex. It was also noted that the lot lines could be adjusted to address. Mr. Neve noted that they continue to work on resolving issues with the survey. There is potentially a small portion of ROW that was dedicated in the 1960s. There is also the ingress/egress easement that needs to be further clarified, particularly as it extends to the rear of the fourplex/duplex.

Mr. Neve was asked about the parking for the fourplex/duplex. He is thinking about fixing the asphalt behind the structure that is accessed through the ingress/egress easement. Mr. Neve noted the easement has been in existence since the mid-1980s and he is not sure exactly what it includes so it will need to be further clarified as part of a revised survey. Trapp noted that it would be preferred if parking can be addressed on site without having to have it be accessed through the neighboring property. With a new plat these are the type of issues that should be addressed.

The public hearing was opened at 7:40 p.m. No members of the audience spoke. The public hearing was closed at 7:41 p.m.

Chair Goode stated that the conditions proposed by Staff seem appropriate to him.

Commissioner Savstrom stated that he is uncomfortable as there are issues still unresolved. He also expressed concern that the City has regulations and that these projects do not follow those regulations.

Commissioner Baker noted that the purpose of conditions are to address concerns that the Planning Commission may have and asked whether others had ideas for additional conditions needed. Commissioner Castellano expressed support for the project with the conditions identified by Staff.

Commissioner Erickson asked for clarification about whether a Development Agreement would be needed. Trapp noted that generally Development Agreements are used when there are public improvements. Given that there are not public improvements with this plat, Staff did not think it would be needed. The condition was added to provide the opportunity for one if some

7

of the needed changes, such as with Hennepin County, would result in the need for a development agreement.

Commission Ciatti asked under what conditions the project would come back to the Planning Commission for review. Trapp stated that Staff would not expect there to be a need for the Planning Commission to review this project again. The structures and their location are unlikely to significantly change. The likely change is to the lot line in between the two structures. Otherwise, the plat will look generally the same even as the conditions are addressed. Trapp noted that the City Council has the option to remand review back to the Planning Commission if they feel additional review is warranted.

MOTION by Baker to approve the major subdivision-preliminary plat and conditional use permit for a shoreland planned unit development with the conditions and findings of fact presented by staff; seconded by Anderson. MOTION carried 7 to 1.

Commissioner Savstrom indicated he did not recommend approval due to the concerns that were noted in the discussion.

OLD/NEW BUSINESS City Council Liaison/Staff Report Smith thanked the Planning Commission for participation in the August Park Board meeting about the downtown park study. She also encouraged participation in the online survey about the park concepts. Staff and the HKGI consulting team will be attending two Mound Farmer’s Market and More events for community outreach about the park concepts.

Smith mentioned that Staff will be notifying Planning Commission members with 2021 term expirations.

ADJOURNMENT

MOTION by Castellano to adjourn at 9:35 p.m.; seconded by Andersen. MOTION carried unanimously.

Submitted by Jen Holmquist

8

PLANNING REPORT

TO: Planning Commission FROM: Rita Trapp, Consulting Planner

Sarah Smith, Community Development Director DATE: September 30, 2021 SUBJECT: Consideration of Part 1 Zoning Code and Zoning Map

Amendments Tabled from September PC Meeting MEETING DATE: October 5, 2021

At its October 5th meeting, the Planning Commission will continue its consideration of the two items tabled from its September 7th meeting as part of the Part 1 Zoning Code and Map Amendments:

1. Underground parking regulations2. Rezoning of property on Three Points Boulevard from commercial to residential

Staff will be prepared to further discuss the underground parking regulations at the meeting.

Relative to the proposed rezoning of properties on Three Points Boulevard, Staff has prepared the following information to respond to comments and concerns raised in the attached letter from the property owner. Staff will present additional information at the meeting relative to implications of the proposed rezoning on the property.

Approach to land use designation during the update to the 2040 Comprehensive Plan

In general, when considering changing land uses, the consideration is focused on “what if the existing property is sold or the existing building demolished, how do we want to guide the property for redevelopment?” In the 2040 Comprehensive Plan process, the most significant change community-wide was the shift towards mixed use for many of the existing commercial areas.

Remaining commercial areas of the City were then evaluated for their future designation. The Tonka Alano and Shoops Bay LLC properties were considered for medium density residential uses because of the surrounding residential neighborhood, the scale of the properties for redevelopment, as well as the existing residential uses/non-commercial uses currently on the properties. It was discussed and determined that medium density residential uses would suit the surrounding neighborhood better than commercial if the sites ever redeveloped.

9

The 2040 Comprehensive Planning process included the following outreach.

• March/April 2017: Online Engagement through Social Pinpoint • November/December 2017: Online Engagement through Survey • November 20, 2017: In-person Open House event with letters were sent to individual properties

that had changing land uses • October 30, 2018: Planning Commission held a public hearing about the draft of the Plan with

notice published in the paper and letters sent to individual properties that had changing land uses

• November 13, 2018: City Council authorizes submission of draft to Metropolitan Council. • February 28, 2020: City Council adopts the comprehensive plan after Metropolitan Council

authorization

Approach to rezoning process currently underway

Currently there are three business zoning districts: B-1, B-2, and B-3. Most of the current B-1 are being rezoned to a Mixed Use District (MU-D or MU-C). In an assessment of the remaining B parcels, it became apparent that three business districts were not necessary. A new C-1 district was proposed and any properties currently zoned for Business that were not being zoned Mixed Use were proposed to be rezoned for the new district. No additional assessment of the appropriateness of properties being rezoned to C-1 was conducted. The properties on Three Points Boulevard were not considered for C-1 because the 2040 Comprehensive Plan land use designation had guided it for medium density residential.

10

11

12

PLANNING REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Sarah Smith, Community Development Director DATE: September 30, 2021 SUBJECT: Proposed Amendment to City Code Chapter 42 (Nuisance) MEETING DATE: October 5, 2021

Summary. The Planning Commission is requested to review and provide its recommendation regarding a proposed amendment to City Code Chapter 42 (Nuisances) related to lighting/glare. The purpose for the proposed amendment is to incorporate new language in the City’s nuisance ordinance related to lighting. Presently, Mound City Code Code Sec. 129-318 discusses lighting and glare in all zoning districts and is specifically defined below:

Sec. 129-318. Glare. In all districts, any lighting used to illuminate an off-street parking area, sign, or other structure, shall be arranged so as to deflect light away from any adjoining residential zone or from the public streets. Direct or sky-reflected glare, where from floodlights or from high temperature processes such as combustion or welding, shall not be directed into any adjoining property. The source of lights shall be hooded or controlled in some manner so as not to light adjacent property. Bare incandescent light bulbs shall not be permitted in view of adjacent property or public right-of-way. Any light or combination of lights which cast light on a public street shall not exceed one footcandle (meter reading) as measured from the centerline of said street. Any light or combination of lights which cast light on residential property shall not exceed 0.4 footcandle (meter reading) as measured from said property line.

The proposed amendment was prepared by the City Attorney following the City Council’s discussion of the current regulations that took place at its July 13th meeting related to a recurrent lighting matter. In summary, the Council requested new language be added to the City’s nuisance regulations. A link to the July 13th City Council meting minutes is provided below: https://webserver.cityofmound.com/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=99393&dbid=0&repo=CityOfMound

13

Process. While the proposed ordinance amendment is non-zoning in nature, the process for formal review and consideration of the amendment will be the same as is required for a zoning text amendment, as described in City Code Sec. 129-34, and requires formal review by the Planning Commission and a public hearing to be held by the City Council following publication and posting of the public hearing, a notice a minimum of 10 days prior to the scheduled hearing; also posting of the draft ordinance on the City bulletin board and website pursuant to state statute. Recommendation. Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval of the proposed amendment to City Code Chapter 42. City Council Meeting Date. At this time, the tentative date for City Council consideration of the proposed amendment, to include a public hearing, is Tues., October 26th, assuming a Planning Commission recommendation is received at the October 5th meeting. Attachments.

• PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. _-2021 AMENDING CHAPTER 42 (NUISANCES) OF THE

MOUND CITY CODE REGARDING PUBLIC NUISANCES AFFECTING PEACE AND SAFETY

• Memorandum dated July 8, 2021 from City Manager Eric Hoversten regarding City Code as it relates to lighting/glare included in July 13, 2021 City Council meeting agenda packet

14

CITY OF MOUND

ORDINANCE ____-2021

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 42 (NUISANCES) OF THE MOUND CITY CODE REGARDING PUBLIC NUISANCES AFFECTING PEACE AND SAFETY

WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 412.221, subd. 23, the City of Mound (the “City”) is afforded with express authority to define nuisances and provide for their prevention and abatement via ordinance; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 412.221, subd. 32, the City is also afforded with the express authority to adopt ordinances that provide for the protection of public and private property, the benefit of residence, and the promotion of health, safety, order, convenience, and the general welfare of its residents; and

WHEREAS, in furtherance of its powers outlined above, and together with any additional powers that may be afforded to it under law, the City desires to define within its nuisance regulations practical and effective measures by which the obtrusive aspects of excessive and careless light usage that affects the nighttime environment in certain locations can be minimized, while preserving safety, security and the nighttime use and enjoyment of property; and

WHEREAS, to that end, the measures contained in this ordinance are intended to curtail

the degradation of the nighttime visual environment by requiring lighting practices that direct appropriate amounts of light where and when it is needed and decrease the wastage of light and glare resulting from over-lighting and poorly shielded or inappropriately directed lighting fixtures.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Mound does ordain:

Section 1. Section 42-4 (Nuisances Affecting Peace and Safety) of the Mound City Code is hereby amended as follows:

Sec. 42-4. Same—Affecting peace and safety. The following are declared to be public nuisances affecting public peace and

safety: . . .

(26) Any lighting used to illuminate an off-street parking area, structure, or area that is not arranged to deflect light away from any adjacent residential property or away from any public right-of-way or navigable body of water in accordance with the following provisions: (a) the light source shall be hooded or controlled so as not to shine light toward adjacent property; and

15

(b) floodlights or spotlights must be aimed no higher than 45 degrees above straight down (halfway between straight down and straight to the side). This subsection (26) shall not apply to (a) lighting within public property, right-of-way or easement for the principal purpose of illuminating public facilities, streets or highways; (b) lighting for public monuments, statues, and flagpoles; (c) lighting solely for signs, provided that all lights aimed at a sign must have all the light hit the sign (or be blocked by a shield/hood) and should shine from above instead of from below when practical; (d) temporary lighting for theatrical, television, performance areas, civic events, and construction sites; (e) underwater lighting in swimming pools and other water features; (f) lighting that is only used under emergency conditions; (g) lighting specified or identified in a City-approved permit; (h) lighting required by federal, state, county or city ordinances and regulations; (i) lighting for outdoor events; (j) seasonal lighting and related holiday decorations; (k) lighting required for the safe takeoff and landing of aircraft; (l) solar landscape lights; (m) indoor lighting; (n) lighting in a garage; (o) lighting not permanently affixed or installed on a property, handheld lighting, or lighting mounted on a functional vehicle; and (p) lights mounted on functioning farm buildings or used for active agriculture practices if used with a motion sensor.

Section 2. Effective Date. This ordinance becomes effective on the first day following the date of its publication, or upon the publication of a summary of the ordinance as provided by Minn. Stat. § 412.191, subd. 4. Adopted by the City Council this ________________day of ____________, 2021

__________________________ Mayor Raymond J. Salazar ______________________________ Attest: Catherine Pausche, City Clerk

Published in the Laker the _____ of _________________, 2021.

Effective the _____ day of _________________ 2021.

(Strikeout indicates matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter.)

16

CITY OF MOUND – CITY MANAGER 2415 Wilshire Blvd Mound, MN 55364

TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Eric Hoversten, City Manager and Director of Public Works DATE: July 8, 2021 SUBJECT: Review of City Code as it Relates to Glare LOCATION: NA _______________________________________________________________________ REQUEST: Instructions to staff in regard BACKGROUND: There has been a recurring complaint regarding glare over the water and impacting adjacent properties and docks. Our code discusses lighting and glare in all zoning districts in the language contained in Chapter 129.318. Sec. 129-318. Glare. In all districts, any lighting used to illuminate an off-street parking area, sign, or other structure, shall be arranged so as to deflect light away from any adjoining residential zone or from the public streets. Direct or sky-reflected glare, where from floodlights or from high temperature processes such as combustion or welding, shall not be directed into any adjoining property. The source of lights shall be hooded or controlled in some manner so as not to light adjacent property. Bare incandescent light bulbs shall not be permitted in view of adjacent property or public right-of-way. Any light or combination of lights which cast light on a public street shall not exceed one footcandle (meter reading) as measured from the centerline of said street. Any light or combination of lights which cast light on residential property shall not exceed 0.4 footcandle (meter reading) as measured from said property line. The light creates a spotlight blinding effect on the adjoining properties and particularly beyond them over the water at their dock ends. The Water Patrol has declined to engage on the matter in terms of any regulations it might have regarding lighting over the water or general navigation matters. When we have reviewed this recurring complaint in past instances with the City Attorney (dating back to 2018), we determined that there was insufficient language to address the matter. When measured at the property line, the cast light does not exceed the .4 foot-candle meter reading specified in the code. The light is contained within a fixture so is not a bare bulb. RECOMMENDATION: Council determine need for any further review of code by Staff and City Attorney to determine recommendations for possible expansion of language.

17

PLANNING REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Rita Trapp, Consulting Planner Sarah Smith, Community Development Director DATE: September 30, 2021 SUBJECT: Proposed Part 2 Zoning Code and Zoning Map Amendments MEETING DATE: October 5, 2021

At its October 5th meeting, the Planning Commission will be asked to review some additional changes to the Zoning Code. As in previous discussions, the intent and proposed changes are summarized following this cover page. The topics being addressed include:

• Fences • Food Trucks

18

Mound Ordinance Update – Proposed Language for Parking Standards

Intention

The current City Code regulates fences in residential districts based on the type of yard the fence is located in (front yard, rear yard, etc). The update below attempts to clarify that there are certain yards which would normally be considered “front yards”, that are more appropriate to consider as “side yards or rear yards” when it comes to fencing. These yards are those that abut unimproved fire lanes, alleys, and street frontages.

Changes to Code

Sec. 129-203. Fences.

(3) Residential district fences. a. Front yard fences may be solid or open and shall not exceed four

feet in height. b. Rear and side yard fences located behind the front yard setback

line may be solid or open and shall not exceed six feet in height. c. Fences may be solid or open and shall not exceed six feet in

height for fences located in yards that abut onto the following: i. Unimproved fire lanes having a width not exceeding 15

feet ii. Unimproved alleys having a width not exceeding 15 feet iii. Unimproved street frontages having a width exceeding 15

feet c.d Fences shall be required around swimming pools in conformance

with section 129-196(b)(1)c.

19

Mound Ordinance Update – Proposed Language for Food Trucks

Intention The current zoning regulations do not address the use of food trucks in Mound. The language below sets out to allow food trucks as an accessory use on private property for catering purposes as well as allow to restaurants to have a food truck on the same property. Issues of food trucks in public parks and in the public right-of-way are addressed in City Code Section 50-1 and City Code Section 50-2.

Changes to Code

Sec. 129-2. Definitions

Food Truck means a food establishment that is located in or upon a self-propelled vehicle licensed by the state, containing a mobile kitchen, where food and non-alcoholic beverages are stored, prepared, and served in individual portions to walk-up customers. Also known as mobile food unit.

Sec. 129-99. Allowable uses (residential districts) Within the non-residential districts, no building or land shall be used except for one or more of the following uses P = Permitted Use C = Conditional Use ( - ) = Not Allowed

Use R-1 R-1A R-2 R-3 Stds Accessory Uses

Food Truck P P P P Sec. 129-205

Sec. 129-135. Allowable uses (non-residential districts) Within the non-residential districts, no building or land shall be used except for one or more of the following uses P = Permitted Use C = Conditional Use ( - ) = Not Allowed

Use MU-D MU-C C-1 I-1 Stds Accessory Uses

Food Truck P P P P Sec. 129-205

20

Sec. 129-205. Food Trucks. The following section regulates the operation of food trucks located on private property in all zoning districts. For information on regulations for food trucks operating on public property or within the public right-of-way, see City Code Sections 50-1 and 50-2. (1) Where Allowed

a. Food trucks owned by a restaurant may be operated on the private property on which the restaurant is located. If the restaurant is a tenant on the property, then a signed letter from the owner of the property granting permission for the food truck operation is required.

b. Food trucks may be operated on non-restaurant private property only for the purpose of catering private events.

i. The food truck shall only sell food and beverage to people attending the private event.

ii. The food struck shall be located entirely on the property owned by the person or persons holding the event.

(2) Placement

a. No portion of the food truck shall extend onto any right-of-way. b. Food trucks shall not park in or in any way block or infringe on driveways, drive

aisles, sidewalks, access to loading/service areas, emergency access, or fire lanes.

(3) Licensing. All food trucks must have the required state and/or county licensing and

permits for operation. (4) Hours of Operation. The food truck shall be limited in operation to 7:00 a.m. to 10:00

p.m., unless otherwise granted by the City Council.

21