The URL can be used to link to this page

1995-11-28 AGENDA CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA MOUND CITY COUNCIL - REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 1995, 7:30 PM CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6. 7. 8. PAGE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 14, 1995 REGULAR MEETING, THE NOVEMBER 21, 1995 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING, AND THE MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 24, 1995 CITY COUNCIL MEETING WITH VERBATIM COVERAGE OF REQUESTED ITEM .................. 3382 - 3401 .CONTINUED DISCUSSION. PETITION FOR LOCAL IMPROVEMENT XXXX KILDARE ROAD, LOTS 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 & 26, BLOCK 11, SETON, PID'S 19-117-23-22-0036 THRU 0041. (STREET WITH CURB, GUTTER, WATER AND SEWER) ...................... 3402 - 3403 CASE #95-51: BART ROEGLIN FOR IRENE MCKINNEY, 2068 BELLAIRE LANE, LOT 58, MOUND ADDITION, PID 14-117-24 41 0031. VARIANCE FOR PORCH .................. 3404- 3416 APPROVAL OF PERMITS FOR WINTERFEST 1996 ............... 3417 - 3420 COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT ................. PAYMENT OF BILLS .................................... 3421 - 3429 INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOU~ FINANCIAL REPORT FOR OCTOBER 1995 AS PREPARED BY GINO BUSINARO, FINANCE DIRECTOR ................ 3430 - 3431 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 13, 1995 ....................................... 3432 - 3439 3380 Mound City Council Agenda Tuesday, November 28, 1995 Page 2 REMINDER; ANNUAL CHRISTMAS PARTY, FRIDAY, DECEMBER 8, 1995, PLEASE RSVP TO LINDA BY DECEMBER 1 ............................................. : BUDGET HEARING, WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 6, 1995, 7:30 P.M ............................................ REMINDER: CONTINUED BUDGET HEARING, IF NECESSARY, WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 13, 1995, 7:30 P.M ...................... REMINDER: SECOND COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER CHANGED FROM DECEMBER 26 TO DECEMBER 19, 7:30 P.M ........... ENCLOSED IS A MEMORANDUM DATED OCTOBER 2, 1995 FROM COUNCILMEMBER MARK HANUS REGARDING INFORMATION HE HAS SHARED WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AS IT RELATES TO HIS ROLE AS A COUNCIL LIAISON. HE ASKED ME TO INCLUDE THIS IN THE PACKET FOR NOVEMBER 28, 1995 .............................. 3440- 3441 3381 AGENDA TRUTH IN TAXATION PUBLIC HEARING 1996 BUDGET DECEMBER 6, 1995, 7:30 PM 1. Introductory Comments to the 1996 Proposed Budget. 2. Purpose of Annual Truth in Taxation Hearing. Impact of Levy on Property Tax Statements for Various Valued Homes in the City of Mound - Gino Businaro, Finance Director. 4. Questions of Department Heads. Should the Hearing be continued until December 13, 1995, 7:30 PM, or taken up at December 12, 1995 Regular Meeting for Adoption? Resolution approving the exemption from Lawful Gambling License for the Knights of Columbus #6005 for December 10, 1995 & March 16, 1996. 7. Other Business. 8. Adjournment. CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 December 6, 1995 TO: FROM: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL ED SHUKLE, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: 11-21-95 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE DISCUSSION REGARDING 1996 PROPOSED BUDGET Attached are the approved Minutes of the November 21, 1995 Committee of the Whole meeting regarding the 1996 Proposed Budget. Please refer to the last paragraph on the first page which references the discussion regarding balancing the revenues and expenditures within the General Fund. In other words, the Council consensus was as stated, to have the City Manager and Finance Director suggest a reduction in the expenditures of $22,990, which would balance the revenues and expenditures so there would not be any decrease in the fund balance as proposed, or any increase in the fund balance as proposed. On page 2 of the Committee of the Whole Minutes, the issue is discussed, referencing the following: Educational incentive for the PhD program for the Police Chief. Keeping City Hall open one night a week. Reduction of one Community Service Officer position. Reducing the Capital Outlay Expenditure for computers in the City Manager/ Clerk department and the Planning/Inspection department by $500 each. Not increasing the Recycling charge by fifty cents ($.50) as proposed and to leave it at a $1.50 per household. Depot improvements. Adding $2,000 back into the Budget to assist the Westonka Professional and Retail Council in the purchase of the spring and summer banners for downtown Mound. To cut the $1,500 from the Capital Improvement Fund for skating rink improvements. printed on recycled paper As the Minutes state, there was no consensus on any of the eight items except that the City Manager was directed to suggest the cuts in the budget of $22,990. Further discussion was to take place at the Truth in Taxation l-leafing scheduled for this evening. With regard to the $22,990, Gino Businaro, Finance Director, and myself, reviewed the Worker's Compensation and General Liability line items for each of the departments. Since we have some more current information with regard to the 1996 premiums for these two types of insurances, Gino prepared the attached which shows a more concise breakdown of insurance premiums and was able to arrive at a savings of $21,040. If you take that figure and adjust the Capital Outlay under the Computer Account of $2,350 by removing it from the General Fund for the purchase of a computer and printer and move it to the Capital Improvement Fund, you would have a savings of $23,390 which would exceed the amount that you had directed to have cut. After the Committee of the Whole Meeting, I had a discussion with Jim Fackler, Parks Director, with regard to some of his Capital Outlay items scheduled for the Capital Improvement Fund. He indicated to me that there is some indecision at the Parks and Open Space Commission level with regard to spending $15,000 on a play structure. He is telling me that we could delete the $15,000 in the Capital Improvement Fund for a play structure which would save $12,650 (paying for the computer and printer for the Finance Department out of the Capital Improvement Fund). I would support this adjustment. Let me address the eight items above separately to indicate my views to you on each of these issues: Educational incentive for the PhD program for the Police Chief. As we have discussed this in the Committee of the Whole, by deleting the educational incentive for the Police Chief, you would have a savings of $7,000. As I indicated to you at the previous Committee of the Whole meeting, the chief of police will not contest this proposed deletion. The documents that you have reviewed indicate clearly that this was an arrangement that could be subject to change and that it was never guaranteed. It was my intent to place the amount in the annual budget through the completion of the PhD program. I had suggested at the last meeting to try to help "soften the blow" that Mr. Harrell would take with regards to this payment, that perhaps the City would be interested in paying for one-half of the tuition payment for 1996. This would amount to approximately $3500. Mr. Harrell did not suggest this to me, I made this suggestion on my own. The Council did discuss this and talked about the possibility of including it within his base pay. I suggested that this approach not be used due to the fact that we are in compliance with the State's Pay Equity Law and to put that figure into the base salary would take the City out of compliance with the law. If the City Council would agree to pay for half, I would suggest that it be paid in a lump sum. Again, to emphasize the reason that Mr. Harrell received this benefit was that the City Council, at that time, stressed to me how important it was to retain Mr. Harrell as the Chief of Police for the City of Mound. I did what I could to carry out their directive and hence, it resulted in the educational incentive benefit. Keeping City Hall open one night a week. This was a practice that was in place several years ago that was intended to provide hours for persons who wished to seek city services out of the ordinary 8-4:30 work schedule. Over time it appeared that this service was not being utilized to the point it was worth keeping an employee present to work beyond the 4:30 time. We remained open from 4:30 pm to 7:30 pm, and although I do not have the statistics in front of me, the City Council determined that it didn't pay for itself to have an employee here. Some of the services that people perhaps would have sought were not available anyway, as the key people were not assigned to be here. I have not received any demands since we ended this service that have asked for a reinstatement of the service. In order for it to be worthwhile, I believe we would have to reschedule the workday so all of the employees could be present so that the services that you normally receive between 8 and 4:30 would now be available by adjusting the schedule so that rather than being open on a particular day, you would perhaps be open 12 noon to 8 PM. I am not sure that this would accomplish anything since a great deal of the activity at city hall deals with the Planning Department. Many of the people and/or companies are accustomed to applying for building permits during normal business hours. I do not believe that keeping city hall open one night a week would be cost effective. Reduction of one Community Service Officer Position. When the City added an additional position, we stepped up our enforcement of city codes. I have asked the police chief to prepare some information that indicates the type of work that the Community Service Officers are providing. By reducing one Community Service Officer position, I believe we are taking a step backwards in what was originally intended by adding another Community Service Officer. It would save the City approximately $12,000 to eliminate one Community Service Officer position. However, I think much has been accomplished since we have stepped up our enforcement. ® Reducing the Capital Outlay for Computers in the City Manager/Clerk Department and the Planning Inspection Department by $500 each. I see no problem with doing this and it would save $1000. 5. Not increasing the Recycling Charge by 50 cents as proposed and to leave it as $1.50 .0~//per household. Attached is a memorandum dated November 27, 1995 from Joyce .? Nelson, Recycling Coordinator, reviewing the costs to conduct the spring and fall ~ ecychng days. As you can see, the expenses outweigh what was received in collection. ~ All of the invoices have not been received for the fall, which would further increase the expenses. It seems to me that with the high interest in retaining the spring and fall recycling days and the ever increasing possibility of Hennepin County removing any reimbursement, that we should increase the Recycling charge as proposed in the budget, raising it from $1.50 per household to $2 per household. 3 Depot Improvements. Councilmember Jessen has been very interested in having the Depot improved inside and out. I have been working with a representative of the Westonka Historical Society regarding improvements that they see as important to the Depot. I do not have any cost estimates on any of the improvements at this time. But, I intend to pursue what they are interested in doing and to come back to you at a later date with either a proposed modification to the 1996 Budget or cost estimates for 1997 Budget purposes. Adding $2000 back into the Budget to assist the Westonka Professional and Retail Council in the purchase of banners for downtown Mound. I understand the rationale behind this idea. However, the City is already paying for the installation and take down of the banners as well as the storage of them. An analogy to this would be the Christmas decorations. We have utilized private donations and Central Business Parking assessments in the past to cover the cost of the decorations. If you treat the banners as the same way as the Christmas decorations have been treated, then it would be inappropriate for the City to purchase these banners. However, if you look at it from the standpoint of Mound Visions and redevelopment of downtown, the rationale is there to make a contribution towards the purchase of the banners. It depends on how you view the purpose of the banners and the overall impact to the economic development of the City. To cut the $1500 from the Capital Improvement Fund for skating rink improvements. I have no problem with this idea since there really isn't any specific plan laid out to design or construct a new skating rink facility. I hope this summarizes what we know to date and provides some additional information with regard to specific items that have already been discussed. If you have any questions with regard to this information, please do not hesitate to ask. The Department Heads will be present as well at tonight's meeting to answer any specific questions that you might have about their departments and budgets. ES:ls 4 How Your Property Taxes Are Determined Box I Total Proposed Local Budget - minus X times Box 2 All Non-Property Tax Revenue, eg: * State Aid * Fees, etc. = equals = equals Box 3 Property Tax Revenue Needed (Levy) divided by Box $ Total "Tax Capacity" (Formerly Assessed Value) Box ? = equals Property Tax Rate ("Tax Capacity" Rate) YOUR PROPERTY TAX = Your Property's Market Value X Class Rate(s) X "Tax Capacity"..Rate > X MINNESOTA PROPERTY CLASS RATES PAYABLE 1992 THROUGH 1995 HOMESTEAD First $72,000 market value ............................................ $72,000 to $115,000 market value ................................ Over $115,000 market vaJue ............................. ~ ........... Home of blind/paraplegic/disabled under $32,000 ...... NON-HOMESTEAD RESIDENTAL Non-homestead residential (1,2, or 3 units) .............. Non-homestead apartment (4 or more units) ............. Farmer's Home Administration Buildings ..................... Title II, MHFA, and section 9 buildings ......................... Mobile Home Park Land ............................................... NON-COMMERCIAL SEASONAL REC. RESIDENTIAL First $72,000 market value ............................................ Over $72,000 m~rket value ........................................... VACANT LAND Non-commerical/industrial/public utility ...................... Commerical/industrial/p ublic utility ............................... COMMERCIAL / INDUSTRIAL Preferential: Under $100,000 market value ................. 3.10% Preferential: Over $100,000 market value .................... 4.75% Non -preferential ........................................................... 4.75% Competitive Zone: First $50,000 market value ............ 2.30% Competitive Zone: Over $50,000 market value ........... 3.60% AGRICULTURAL Homestead: house, garage, & I acre under $72,000.. 1.00% Homestead: H/G/1 acre $72,000 to $115,000 .............. 2.00% Homestead: H/G/1 acre over $115,000 ........................ 2.50% Homestead: excluding H/G/1 acre under $115,000 ..... 0.45% Homestead: excluding H/G/1 acre over $115,000 ....... 1.3 & 1.6% Farm non-homestead: house, garage, & 1 acre ........ 2.80% Farm non-homestead: remainder .............................. 1.60% Payable Payable Payable 1992 1993 1994 & 95 1.00% 1.00% 1..00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.50% 2.00% 2.00% 0.45% 0.45% 0.45% 2.80% 2.50% 2.30% 3.50% 3.40% 3.40% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.30% 2.30% 2.30% 2.30% 2.00% 2.00% 2.20% 2.00% 2.00% 2.20% 2.50% 2.50% 4.75% 4.70% 4.60% 4.75% 4.70% 4.60% 3.00% 3.00% 4.70% 4.60% 4.70% 4.60% 2.30% 2.30% 3.60% 3.60% 1.00% 1.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 0.45% 0.45% 1.3&1.6% 1.0&1.5% 2.50% 2.30% 1.60% 1.5O% 1,280.00 1,280.00 Tax Capacity 1995 100,000 1996 100, 000 Value Homestead TaxHenn- 11/20/95 I :1!995 I :1996: I: Increaset Incr County Tax 479.41 487.67 8.26 1.72% City Tax 264.37 260.95 (3.42 - 1.29% School Tax 850.44 794.59 (55.86 - 6.57% Metro Transit 46.41 47.54 1.13 2.43% Watershed 3 29.85 19.57 (10.28 -34.43% Mound HRA 3.05 2.89 (0.15 -5.04% "Mosquito Control 4.44 3.34 (1.10 -24.78% Metro Council 5.66 9.28 3.62 64.03% .Solid Waste Debt 0.49 0.00 (0.49 - 100.00% Park Museum 4.77 4.88 0.10 2.14% Rail Authority 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00% Hennepin Parks 19.58 18.62 (0.96 - 4.90% Total I t 708.49 1 ~649.34 (59.15 - 3.46% Tax Distribution by Government as proposed for 1996 Schools (48.2%) City of Mound (15.8%) All Others (6.4%) Hennepin County (29.6%) Based on an $100,000 valued home. 720.00 864.00 Tax Capacity 1995 72,000 1996 79,200 Value Homestead TaxHenn- 11/20/95 County Tax 269.67 329.18 59.51 22.07% City Tax 148.71 176.14 27.43 18.45% School Tax 478.38 536.35 57.97 12.12% Metro Transit 26.11 32.09 5.98 22.91% Watershed 3 16.79 13.21 (3.58 -21.32% Mound HRA 1.71 1.95 0.24 13.95% Mosquito Control 2.50 2.26 (0.241 -9.74% Metro Council 3.18 6.26 3.08 96.83% Solid Waste Debt 0.27 0.00 (0.271 - 100.00% Park Museum 2.69 3.29 0.61 22.57% Rail Authority 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00% Hennepin Parks 11.02 10.48 (0.54 -4.90% Total 961.03 1,111.21 150.18 15.63% 2,220.00 2,500.00 Tax Capacity 1995 147, 000 1996 161,000 Value Homestead TaxHenn- 11/20/95 Ii~ 11995 I 1996 I Increase %lncr 'County Tax 831.48 952.48 121.00 14.55% City Tax 458.52 509.68 51.1 6 11.1 6% '"School Tax 1,474.99 1,551.93 76.93 Metro Transit 80.50 92.85 12.35 15.35% ..Watershed 3 51. ~' ~' 38.23 (13.55i - 26.16% Mound HRA 5.28 5.65 0.37 6.93% ~Mosquito Control 7.70 6.53, (1.18 - 15.30% '"Metro Council 9.81 18.13 8.31 84.72% Solid Waste Debt 0.84 0.00 (0.84 - 100.00% Park Museum 8.28 9.53 1.24 15.03% Rail Authority 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00% Hennepin Parks 33.97 32.30 (1.66) -4.90% Total ,,2,963.17 ,3,217.30 ,,254.138.58% 5,320.00 5,440.00 Tax Capacity 1995 302, 000 1996 308,0O0 Value Homestead TaxHenn- 11/20/95 ~l 1996 I IncreaseJ %lnCr C o~C--0-'~ty Tax 1,992.55 2,072.59. 80.03 4.02% City Tax 1,098.79 1,109.05 10.26 0.93% School Tax 3,534.66 3,376.99 (157.67-4.46% Metro Transit 192.90 202.04 9.14 4.74%~ ~Watershed 3 124.06 83.18 (40.88)-32.96% 'Mound HRA 12.66 12.29 (0.37 -2.90% .Mosquito Control 18.46 14.20 (4.26 -23.09% Metro Council 23.51 39.44 15.93 67.73% _Solid Waste Debt 2.02 0.00 (2.021 - 100.00% 'Park Museum 19.84 20.73 0.88 4.45% Rail Authority 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.00% Hennepin Parks 81.40 //.41 (3.99 -4.90% Total 7~100.92 7~007.96 ;92.96]- 1.31% 0 ~ 0 0 ~ 0 '"'4 ,~. ?- mx -~ x ~ X X ,,m~ Z Mound City Council Minutes November 14, 1995 MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - NOVEMBER 14, 1995 The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, November 14, 1995, at 7:30 PM, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Persons in attendance: Mayor Bob Polston, Councilmembers Andrea Ahrens, Mark Hanus, Liz Jensen and Phyllis Jessen; City Manager Ed Shukle, City Attorney Curt Pearson, City Engineer John Cameron, Finance Director Gino Businaro, Acting City Clerk Linda Strong. Also present were the following interested citizens: Dorothy and Bill Netka, Ken Custer, Julie Christiansen, Brad Alness, Tracy Ingrain, Peter Johnson and John Dean. The Mayor opened the meeting. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. RECYCLO'I-FO WINNER Mayor Polston announced that Eldon Maas had won 50 Westonka Dollars for recycling on October 24, 1995. He was not in attendance, his winnings will be mailed to him. 1.1 APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 24, 1995 REGULAR MEETING AND THE CONTINUED OCTOBER 24, 1995 MEETING TO DISCUSS THE 1996 PROPOSED BUDGET ON NOVEMBER 6, 1995. MOTION by Jensen, seconded by Jessen to approve the Minutes of the October 24, 1995 regular Council meeting. Councilmember Hanus mentioned item 1.15 - "Discussion of whether or not to schedule a special meeting to continue the discussion of the 1996 proposed budget, place the item on the November 21, 1995 Committee of the Whole or discuss at Truth in Taxation Hearing already scheduled for December 6, 1996' he stated the minutes were incorrect regarding the Jensen and Jessen stating they could not attend another meeting. Through Council discussion, it was the consensus to incorporate into the Minutes of October 24, 1995, the discussion vertabim regarding this item. Councilmember Hanus also stated the motion at the end of the meeting was not written correctly. This too will be verbatim in the Minutes. These Minutes will be brought back to the Council at the November 28, 1995 meeting. The vote was called and the motion carried 5-0. City Attorney Curt Pearson stated for the record and clarification that the Minutes were approved as amended, per verbatim per the tape as it relates to this section. Councilmember Hanus stated he would not have raised the issue except he knew that Polston, Ahrens and himself would have been willing to set up another date for the continued meeting that Jensen and Jessen could attend, had there been any interest by either Jessen or Jensen to attend another meeting. This is not was relayed at the Mound City Council Minutes November 14, 1995 10-24-95 meeting. He stated that is why it is an issue. Councilmember Jensen stated she would like to see this item verbatim before it became record. City Attorney Curt Pearson suggested that if Councilmember Jensen wished to see the minutes regarding this section verbatim, which is not before you now, that the Minutes be continued and revised and brought back to you in a form that everybody could agree on. The Council agreed to have the Minutes continued, revised and brought back at the next meeting. Mayor Polston stated the next Minutes to approve were of November 6, 1995, the continued Council meeting of October 24, 1995. MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Ahrens to approve the Minutes of the November 6, 1995 continued City Council meeting as presented. The vote carried with three voting yes, Jessen and Jensen did not vote. 1.2 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT (CBD) PARKING ASSESSMENT. Mayor Polston stated this public hearing was continued from the previous meeting at the request of Bill Netka, who was out of town and wanted the opportunity to address the Council on the CBD Parking Assessment. He reopened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to address the Council. Bill Netka, 2360 Commerce Blvd, requested the review of the Central Business District Parking and Maintenance Assessment for the fiscal year of 1994-95. He stated there had been incorrect changes in the factor used to calculate the assessment as correctly shown. The formula used was adopted by the City and members of the CBD in 1970. He was involved at that time and the same formula is still being used. He stated several fixed factors of the formula have been changed without formal review and hearings. This has resulted in the improper assessment distribution among the CBD business properties and improper payment of CBD credits. He requested a continued hearing and review by the CBD businesses, staff, Council and himself be done. Discussion The numbers of parking spaces available and who owned how many were discussed. These numbers need to be verified. Mayor Polston asked if there was anyone else who wished to speak with the Council regarding the CBD assessment. The Mayor returned the item to the Council. Hanus stated he had visited with Netka and discussed the formula. He felt the formula was efficient, but the numbers used in the formula had changed. Hanus referred to Tonka West property and column three of the breakdown sheet. It was known that Tonka West (property north of Coast to Coast) provides parking for the system, but column three states none are provided by Tonka West. Also, some businesses were making a profit from owning parking spaces in the system. Hanus stated there were enough questions 2 Mound City Council Minutes November 14, 1995 raised that this should be looked into. Hanus asked how long has it been since the numbers have been verified or changed? City Manager Ed Shukle stated he did not think the numbers had been changed for some time. Historically, they have used the same numbers. Shukle stated this formula has constantly and consistently been a problem between the people that do not provide any parking and those that do provide parking. Usually the businesses that provide the parking do not feel they are getting enough credit for them and the businesses that have no parking feel they are being charged too much. Ahrens stated that Dakota Rail property now provides more spaces than before. Shukle stated the parking was available to the City before, the City leased it, now it owns it and nothing had changed. Shukle stated that these assessments had to be processed by November 30, 1995 to Hennepin County as the costs are for the fiscal year 7-1-94 through 6-30-95 and the monies have already been expended and the credits have also been mailed. Shukle suggested that the Council adopt this assessment roll as submitted and do as Mr. Netka requested to set up a committee of representatives of the CBD, staff and Council to analyze the formula and try to improve it. There is not enough time to review this assessment now. Shukle clarified the costs that are included in the CBD Assessment as only the cost of snowplowing and of leases paid to property owners that receive credits paid back to them. One third of the cost of the snow plowing goes to the City and two-thirds is charged to the CBD. Finance Director Gino Businaro stated the numbers in the formula have been the same for the last 4-5 years. Shukle stated that four of the original 26 businesses have pulled out, leaving 22 businesses. Hanus stated the calculations used really depends on the type of business and employees that are in a building, and these change. Mayor Polston suggested the setting up of a committee and to work a more equitable system. He stated the assessment needs to be certified to the county. Mayor Polston closed the Public Hearing. He asked the Council to adopt the resolution on the CBD Assessment. Councilmember Jessen moved and Councilmember Jensen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #95-115 RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 1995 CBD PARKING MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT ROLL IN THE AMOUNT OF $13,241.53, TO BE CERTIFIED TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR AT 8% INTEREST, LEVY #13232 The vote was unanimously in favor. Resolution adopted. The Council agreed to deal with this CBD assessment public hearing before this date next year. Discussion was held regarding establishing a committee. Ken Custer, owner of Glass Plus, asked the city attorney if credits could be issued regarding under/over payments the next year? The attorney stated it would not work retroactively. He suggested the establishment of a committee. Mound City Council Minutes November 14, 1995 MOTION by Polston, seconded by Hanus, and carried unanimously to direct the City Manager to set up a meeting inviting the CBD business owners and the CBD tenants, staff, representatives of the Economic Development Commission and possibly the city engineer, to review the current CBD formula and figures used and calculations to come up with an agreement as to the CBD formula as soon as possible. 1.3 REQUEST FROM RICK & DENISE HANSON FOR A ONE YEAR EXTENSION ON RESOLUTION #94-131, APPROVING A LOT AREA VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A DETACHED GARAGE AT 2710 WESTEDGE BLVD., PART OF GOVERNMENT LOT 3, SECTION 23, PID 23-117-24 24 0008. City Manager Ed Shukle stated the applicants are requesting a one year extension of the variance granted by the City Council on September 27, 1994. The Planning Commission has recommended approval. Councilmember Ahrens moved and Councilmember Jessen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #95-116 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A ONE (1) YEAR EXTENSION OF A VARIANCE ORIGINALLY APPROVED BY RESOLUTION #94-131 FOR 2710 WESTEDGE BLVD., PART OF GOVERNMENT LOT 3, SECTION 23, PID #23-117-24 24 0008. The vote was unanimously in favor. Resolution adopted. 1.4 CONTINUED DISCUSSION: NO PARKING SIGNS ON FAIRVlEW LANE. City Manager Ed Shukle stated the Police Department had contacted the affected property owners as the Council had requested. He stated the report by the Police Chief resulted in the majority of the residents not wanting the signs removed. Shukle stated the petition was from the members of St. John's Church and the request was primarily for Sunday use. Councilmember Jessen clarified that this area was only from the mailbox at St. Johns's Church on Fairview to Bartlett. It did not mean all of the signs on Fairview Lane. The removal of this sign 'would not affect the daycare drop off area. Discussion regarded the stop sign at Fairview and Maywood and that it was installed because people were speeding through on Fairview. The removal of the No Parking sign as requested will not permit parking in front of affected owners driveways because the side of the street that the sign affected has no driveways. Councilmember Jessen moved and Councilmember Hanus seconded the following resolution: Mound City Council Minutes November 14, 1995 RESOLUTION #95-117 RESOLUTION TO REMOVE THE ONE NO PARKING SIGN ON THE WEST SIDE OF FAIRVlEW LANE THAT IS LOCATED BETWEEN THE DRIVEWAY INTO ST. JOHN'S CHURCH AND BARTLETT BOULEVARD. The vote was unanimously in favor. Resolution adopted. The Council felt the City Engineer should look at the street signs on Fairview that are there to see if a sign change should be made regarding the Council's actions of removing the no parking sign. 1.5 REVIEW OF 1996 DOCK APPLICATION FORMS. City Manager Ed Shukle stated that the dock forms have been reviewed by the Parks and Open Space Commission, and now need to be reviewed by the Council. These forms will be mailed at the end of December to the current dock holders. He referred to three changes from last year: 1). Dates were changed as 1996 is a leap year and there is one more day in February, 2). A sentence was added regarding chemicals draining into the lake and causing serious environmental problems, and 3). Chemical drift and runoff adversely affects the quality of lakes and streams. Shukle also mentioned questions asked by Councilmember Ahrens, and they were answered in the handout. The questions dealt with commercial docks and why some are charged a fee and some are not, the type of inspection the City Dock Inspector does with commercial docks, why buoys are being phased out and can a buoy permit and a dock permit be held by one individual? Jim Fackler, Parks Director, responded to these questions in a memo. Councilmember Ahrens felt it unfair some commercial docks are being inspected by the city dock inspector and not paying fees, they should be as all commons dock holders pay fees to the City. Fackler's memo stated that the policy has been any commercial dock site that does not rent slips out to non residents of the complex or association they are affiliated with, are not charged a fee. However, a commercial dock that is renting sites to non residents, using excursion boats or for profit type of operation, a fee is charged as outlined in Section 510:15 of the City Code. According to Code, the commercial docks require more inspections and regulations than private docks on commons, and some of them do not pay any fee. City Attorney Curt Pearson stated that the LMCD regulates only to the water's edge and commercial dock sites have an effect on the neighborhood as to the parking, noise, etc. This is where the City's ordinance comes in, as to the effect of the neighborhood. The City has an interest in these docks. The question was asked if the LMCD charges a fee, and do they inspect the commercial docks? Mayor Polston suggested the City inquire with the LMCD to see what they do with regard to commercial dock inspections. The applications were discussed. Councilmember Hanus stated the forms did not flow well. Ahrens also had several comments regarding the forms. Mound City Council Minutes November 14, 1995 1.6 SET PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE ISSUANCE OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR A WARMING HOUSE AND TWO OUTDOOR SKATING RINKS ON PROPERTY ASSOCIATED WITH A PUBLIC SCHOOL AT 5600 LYNWOOD BLVD. SUGGESTED DATE: DECEMBER 12, 1995 MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Hanus and carried unanimously to set December 12, 1995 as a public hearing to consider the issuance of a conditional use permit to allow for a warming house and two outdoor skating rings on property associated with a public school at 5600 Lynwood Blvd. 1.7 UPDATE ON WESTONKA COMMUNITY CENTER FACILITY STUDY. City Manager Ed Shukle updated the Council regarding the community center facility study. The Community Center Task Force has recommended the complete demolition of the old facility and reconstruction of a new facility. A workshop session has been scheduled for Thursday, December 14, 1995, at 7:30 pm in the conference room at the Community Center for the purpose of determining the interest by the school board and all of the area cities of Mound, Minnetrista and Spring Park. Each city has been invited to send two representatives. The city manager mentioned a resolution he had prepared with the Economic Development Commission supporting the construction of a new facility. This resolution has not been given to the School Board. Mayor Polston stated his concern regarding the funding of the new project. MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Ahrens to appoint Councilmember Jensen and Mayor Polston as representatives from the City of Mound to attend the workshop session on 12-14-95, along with representatives of Spring Park and Minnetrista, the Mound School Board and the Community Center Task Force to determine the level of interest by these representatives in pursuing a cooperative venture for the construction of an area community center facility. 1.8 APPLICATION FOR RESTAURANT LICENSE '"rilE COFFEE PLACE" AT LYNWOOD & COMMERCE. Acting City Clerk Linda Strong stated Julie Christiansen, proprietor, will open a new coffee shop on the corners of Lynwood and Commerce the week after Thanksgiving. Approval would be contingent upon proper forms and insurance. MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Jessen and carried unanimously to approve the restaurant license for "The Coffee Place", contingent upon proper applications and insurance. 6 Mound City Council Minutes November 14, 1995 1.9 PETITION FOR LOCAL IMPROVEMENT XXXX KILDARE ROAD, LOTS 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 & 26, BLOCK 11, SETON, PID NOS. 19-117-23-22-0036 THRU 0041. (STREET WITH CURB, GUTTER, WATER AND SEWER) City Engineer John Cameron stated this improvement was applied for the first time in 1978. The owners of the abutting properties refused to grant public right-of-way for the street, so the project on that portion of Kildare Lane was dropped. Tracy Ingram, representative of the sellers, was present. Cameron passed out aerial photo/maps to the Council. He stated Kildare Lane is an unimproved street going west off Kerry Lane. Improvements petitioned for are a street with curb, gutter, water and sewer and creating a cul-de-sac at the west end of Kildare Lane. The petition came from the property owners at this west end of the unimproved Kildare Lane. The owner to the east of these properties has no interest in improvements to the street and the cost involved. Mr. Ingrain stated that the property east of his clients is for sale also. If this improvement were to happen, all property owners abutting the improved portion of Kildare Lane would be assessed a portion of the cost. Cameron stated the street needs a 30' right-of-way and an easement would be needed. Cameron stated a feasibility study could be prepared at an estimated cost of $500 - $600. This cost normally is absorbed into the overall project cost when the improvement is done. However, if the project did not go through, Council suggested Ingram talk with his sellers to have them pay for the feasibility study, so the City is not expending funds for a private property owner. Consensus of the Council and the city engineer was to have Mr. Ingram talk with his clients to see if they would be responsible for the cost of the feasibility study should the project not go forward. The Council continued the petition until the 11-28-95 meeting, so Mr. Ingram could talk with the petition/property owners. 1.10 PAYMENT OF BILLS. MOTION made by Jessen, seconded by Jensen to authorize the payment of bills as presented on the pre-list in the amount of $261,660.46, when funds are available. A roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.11 ADD-ON ITEMS LIONS RENEWAL OF A "PREMISES PERMIT" FOR MOUND LANES City Manager Ed Shukle stated the Lions have requested a renewal of a permit to have pull tabs at Mound Lanes. Councilmember Ahrens moved and Councilmember Hanus seconded the following resolution: 7 Mound City Council Minutes November 14, 1995 RESOLUTION #95-118 RESOLUTION APPROVING A PREMISES PERMff APPLICATION FOR NORTHWEST TONKA LIONS FOR MOUND LANES, 2346 CYPRUS LANE The vote was unanimously in favor. Resolution adopted. EASEMENT WITH MEISELS - LOST LAKE CHANNEL City Manager Ed Shukle updated the Council. Meisels had agreed to the proposed Easement Agreement with the time extended until December 31, 1996 as the Council had requested. They did want inserted into the agreement the words 'retaining wall and walkway with steps'. This is on the plan, but not written into the agreement. MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Jensen and carried unanimously to approve the amended Agreement to Convey an Easement with the Meisels relating to the Improvement of Lost Lake Channel. 1.11 INFORMATION/MISCELLAN EOUS A. DEPARTMENT HEAD MONTHLY REPORTS FOR OCTOBER, 1995. B. LMCD REPRESENTATIVE'S MONTHLY REPORT FOR OCTOBER 1995. C. LMCD MAILINGS. D. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 23, 1995. LETTER FROM ALAN JOHNSON, PRESIDENT, NORWEST BANK, WESTERN SUBURBAN MARKET, WAYZATA, RE: CHANGES IN THE WAY NORWEST'S CUSTOMERS ARE USING BANKS. Fo INVITATION TO ATTEND THE ANNUAL CHRISTMAS PARTY SCHEDULED FOR FRIDAY, DECEMBER 8, 1995 PLEASE NOTE TO RSVP BY FRIDAY, DECEMBER 1ST TO LINDA AT 472-0600. REMINDER: COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE, TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 1995, 7:30 PM, AGENDA ITEM WILL INCLUDE: CONTINUED DISCUSSION ON 1996 BUDGET, STREAMLINING OF VARIANCES, AND A REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL WHO WILL SPEAK ON THE LIVABLE COMMUNITIES ACT PASSED DURING THE 1995 LEGISLATIVE SESSION. ENCLOSED IS SOME INFORMATION FOR YOU TO REVIEW PRIOR TO THE C.O.W MEETING. 8 Mound City Council Minutes November 14, 1995 The Council discussed whether to schedule the Metro Council representative for the January meeting. Council agreed to put it on January 1996 agenda for the Committee of the Whole meeting. MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Hanus and carried unanimously to adjourn the 11-14-95 City Council meeting. The meeting adjourned at 9:55 PM. City Manager Attest: Acting City Clerk 9 MINUTES - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - NOVEMBER 21, 1995 The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. Members present: Mayor Bob Polston, Councilmembers Mark Hanus, Andrea Ahrens, and Phyllis Jessen. Absent: Councilmember Liz Jensen. Also present: Mark Koegler, City Planner; Jon Sutherland, Building Official; Gino Businaro, Finance Director and Ed Shukle, City Manager. The topic of Variance Streamlining was introduced by Mark Koegler, City Planner. He reviewed a memorandum dated November 14, 1995 regarding the Planning Commission's discussion on Variance Streamlining. He reviewed two different statements related to this matter. He then reviewed information that had been compiled by Peggy James, Secretary, and Mike Mueller, Planning Commissioner, relating to variances that had been approved in 1993, 1994 and 1995 and what impact the proposed streamlining statements would have on those particular variances. The impact was minimal and it was the consensus of the Council to have the Staff further review the impact of actual variances to see if streamlining will really make an impact. It was basically the consensus to have the variances studied and then recommend streamlining statements versus creating streamlining statements and then seeing what effect they would have on the typical variances that have been approved. The Staff will report further to the Planning Commission who will then discuss it and then will submit a recommendation back to the City Council. City Manager Ed Shukle asked for some clarification as it relates to Public Lands permits on City of Mound projects. He indicated that routine maintenance such as tree trimming along right-of-ways to clear tree branches from growing into power lines' or trimming trees to avoid traffic hazards did not require Public Lands permits. He wanted the City Council's reaction to that. The consensus was that Public Lands permits did not apply in these cases. However, there was concern expressed by the Council as it relates to certain projects that the City Staff does that would involve major removal of trees and filling of areas and that it is important that the City of Mound follow the same standard as it requires citizens to follow. Jim Fackler was asked to come into the meeting from the Commons Task Force meeting to answer questions as it related to the project that was done on Beachside Road after the August 6, 1995 storm. He answered questions and clarified issues with regard to this matter. The 1996 Proposed Budget was then discussed. The Council reviewed some Capital Outlay items, line items and the consensus was to have the City Manager and Finance Director suggest a reduction in expenditures of $22,990 which represents the decrease in the Fund Balance as proposed. Minutes - Committee of the Whole page 2 Further discussion then was held with regard to issues previously discussed: Educational incentive for the PhD program for the Police Chief Keeping City Hall open one night a week Reduction of one Community Service Officer position Reducing the Capital Outlay Expenditure for computers in the City Manager/ Clerk department and the Planning/Inspection department by $500 each Not increasing the Recycling charge by fifty cents ($.50) as proposed and to leave it at a $1.50 per household Depot improvements Adding $2,000 back into the Budget to assist the Westonka Professional and Retail Council in the purchase of the spring and summer banners for downtown Mound To cut the $1,500 from the Capital Improvement Fund for skating rink improve- ments No consensus was reached on any of the above except that the City Manager was directed to suggest cuts in the Budget of $22,990. Further discussion regarding the entire Budget will be held at the Public Hearing scheduled for Wednesday, December 6,1995, 7:30 p.m. at Mound City Hall. Other business discussed were the roles and responsibilities of the Council Liaison as it related to the Planning Commission. Councilmember Mark Hanus indicated that the Planning Commission had requested that the City Council define what the role of the Council Liaison to the Planning Commission is. Hanus suggested that he already had provided what he thought his role was in the form of a memo. Council will discuss this issue further at its November 28, 1995 regular meeting. It was noted that there will not be a Committee of the Whole meeting in December. The next Committee of the Whole meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, January 16, 1996, 7:30 p.m., Mound City Hall. Upon motion by Jessen, seconded by Ahrens, and carried unanimously, the meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, City Manager ES:kb Mound City Council Minutes October 24, 1995 MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - OCTOBER 24, 1995 The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, October 24, 1'995, at 7:30 PM, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Persons in attendance: Mayor Bob Polston, Councilmembers Andrea Ahrens, Mark Hanus, Liz Jensen and Phyllis Jessen. Also present: City Attorney Curt Pearson, Finance Director Gino Businaro, City Manager Ed Shukle, Building Official Jon Sutherland and Acting City Clerk Linda Strong and the following interested citizens: Catherine and Jerry Palen, Craig and Nancy Wolfe, Raymond Loehlein, Ken Custer, Terry and Rita Hughes, Duane Norberg and Bob Baumann. Mayor Polston opened the meeting and welcomed those in attendance. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 1.1 Approve the Minutes of the October 10, 1995 Regular Meeting and the October 17, 1995 Committee of the Whole Meeting. MOTION by Jensen, seconded by Hanus and carried unanimously to approve the Minutes of the October 10, 1995 Regular meeting. MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Jensen and carried unanimously to approve the Minutes of the October 17, 1995 Committee of the Whole Meeting. 1.2 RECYCLO'R'O WINNER Mayor Polston stated that the Jeff Magnuson household had won 150 Westonka Dollars for recycling on October 17, 1995. 1.3 PUBLIC HEARING: Central Business District (CBD) Parking Assessments. Mayor Polston opened the public hearing and asked if there was anyone present who wished to speak regarding the CBD Parking Assessment. There was no one present. Mayor Polston stated there was a letter from Bill Netka, a member of the CBD, objecting to this assessment and asked that the hearing be continued until November 14, 1995, when he could attend the meeting. The Mayor closed the public hearing. MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Hanus, and carried unanimously to continue the public hearing regarding the CBD Parking Assessments until November 14, 1995. 3. Mound City Council Minutes October 24, 1995 1.4 PUBLIC HEARING: Delinquent Water and Sewer Assessments. Mayor Polston opened the public hearing and asked if there was anyone present who wished to speak regarding the Delinquent Water and Sewer Assessment. There was no one. The Mayor Closed the public hearing. Councilmember Ahrens moved and Councilmember Jensen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~t95-110 RESOLUTION ADOPTING DELINQUENT WATER & SEWER ASSESSMENT ROLL IN THE AMOUNT OF $47,038.18, TO BE CERTIFIED TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR AT 8% INTEREST, LEVY #13231 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS: The following three resolutions were made by Councilmember Jessen, seconded by Councilmember Hanus, and carried unanimously: 1.5. Case 95-45: Craig Wolfe, 4774 Kildare Road, Lots 6-8 & 18-23, Blocks 4 & 10, Seton, PID 19-117-23 22 0057, Variance for Addition. RESOLUTION ~t95-111 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE RECOGNIZING AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING LAKESIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A CONFORMING ADDITION AT 4774 KILDARE ROAD, LOTS 6, 7 & 8, BLOCK 4 AND LOTS 18-23, BLOCK 10, SETON, PID #19-117-23 22 0057, P&Z 95-45. 1.6 Case 95-46: Raymond Loehlein & Tarja Kala, 5982 Bartlett Blvd., Lot 11, Seifarth's Mound Bay Park, PID 23-117-24 42 0093. Variance for Garage. RESOLUTION ~95-112 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO RECOGNIZE AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING FRONT YARD SETBACK TO THE DWELLING TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A CONFORMING DETACHED GARAGE AT 5982 BARTLETT BLVD., LOTS 11, SEIFARTH'S MOUND BAY PARK, PID 23- 117-24 42 0093, P&Z ~95-46. 1.7 Case 95-48: Terrance & Rita Hughes, 6641 Halstead Avenue, Lot 17, Halstead Park, PID 22-117-24 43 0025 Variance for Fence Height. RESOLUTION #95-113 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A FENCE HEIGHT VARIANCE AT 6641 HALSTEAD AVENUE, LOT 17, HALSTEAD PARK, PID #22-117 24 43 0025, P&Z #95-48 2 Mound City Council Minutes October 24, 1995 1,8 Case 95-49: Gerald & Catherine Palen, 6345 Bartlett Blvd., Lot 18, Halstead Heights, PID 22-117-24 44 0033 Variance for Garage. Building Official Jon Sutherland stated the applicant is seeking a variance to allow construction of a detached garage that exceeds the height of the principal dwelling on the same lot. The new garage is intended to serve the dwelling on the lakeside lot, Parcel A. The applicant owns both lots as noted on the survey as A & B, and considered placing a garage on Parcel B to serve Parcel A. The Planning Commission recommended denial of the variance. The applicant was present and provided a new survey with updated water and sewer information. Through discussion with the Council and the Building Official and the applicant, it was determined that staff will work with the applicant to evaluate the options, to reasonably obtain a garage to serve the dwelling on parcel A. The Building Official will do a preliminary review of the lots for the applicant and this item will return to the Council. MOTION by Jensen, seconded by Jessen and carried unanimously to direct staff to work with the applicant to see if it is feasible to rearrange lot lines to accommodate a garage on Parcel A. 1.9 Case 95-50: Dennis Batty & Assoc, for Mound Evangelical Free Church, 2117 Commerce Blvd., M&B, Section 14, PID 14-117-24 41 0006. Variance for Addition. Councilmember Jensen requested paragraph #3 on the second page of the resolution be removed as it did not pertain to this item. The Council added "..of the parking lot". to the end of item ld. They discussed the bituminous surface needed on the proposed gravel parking lot. The church requested an 18-24 month extension on the permit to obtain financing for the bituminous surface. It was agreed that the church would do the driveway at the very end of the project, which gave them about 12 months to prepare. Duane Norberg and Bob Baumann were present. Councilmember Hanus moved and Councilmember Ahrens seconded the following resolution, as amended: RESOLUTION #95-114 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE VARIANCE TO SIDE SETBACK, NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES, AND HARDCOVER TO ALLOW FOR CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION AT 2117 COMMERCE BLVD., THAT PART OF SECTION 14, PID #14-117-24 41 0006, P&Z #95-50. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 3 Mound City Council Minutes October 24, 1995 1.10 Bid Award: Central Business District (CBD) Snowplowing Bid. City Manager Ed Shukle stated the only bid the City received was from Widmer Brothers, as like last year, and there was only one increase in the cost of the Tandem Dump truck of $3 per hour. Councilmember Jessen moved and Councilmember Ahrens seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #95-115 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING AND AWARDING THE BID FOR 1995-96 CBD SNOW REMOVAL TO WlDMER BROS. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.11 Motion Cancelling December 26, 1995 Regular City Council meeting and Rescheduling that Meeting to December 19, 1995. MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Jensen, and carried unanimously to reschedule the regular City Council meeting for December 26, 1995 to Tuesday, December 19, 1995. 1.12 Resolution Approving An Agreement to Convey an Easement and Authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to Sign Agreement - Pat & Paul Meisel, 5501 Bartlett Blvd., Lost Lake Improvement Project. City Manager Ed Shukle stated the City had been working with the Meisels and attomeys to come to an agreement regarding the City obtaining an easement on the Meisel property along the Lost Lake Channel for the Lost Lake Dredge project. He stated the Meisels approved this agreement with the understanding that the downtown Auditor's Road project is completed in the future. The Council discussed the costs associated with the conveyance. The Council wanted the date of 10-1-96, (item lc) that was set as the date the four main businesses must be acquired, to be extended until 12-31-96. The City Council reviewed the landscape plan for the channel entrance on the Meisel property. The City Attorney left the meeting to contact the Meisel's attorney to inquire about the date extension. He returned commenting the Meisel attorney did not object, he would contact the Meisels. Councilmember Ahrens moved and Councilmember Hanus seconded the following resolution with the change of date from 10-1-96 to 12-31-96 for the property acquisition date: RESOLUTION #95-116 RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AGREEMENT TO CONVEY AN EASEMENT AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO SIGN AGREEMENT - LOST LAKE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT - MEISEL PROPERTY 4 Mound City Council Minutes October 24, 1995 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.13 Petition Requesting the Removal of No Parking Signs on Fairview Lane Between Maywood Road and Bartlett Blvd, on West Side of Fairview Lane. City Manager Ed Shukle stated there was a petition requesting the removal of a 'No Parking" sign located on the west side of Fairview Lane by members of St. John's Church. Sgt. John McKinley had reviewed the request and recommended approval with a few conditions regarding the overgrowth along Fairview being trimmed, proper signs for winter no parking hours and mailbox accessibility. Councilmember Jessen stated there were no houses on the west side of Fairview Lane, and the parking issue dealt with Sundays. Previously, parking had been a problem regarding the daycare facility located in the church. Councilmember Jensen asked if the neighbors had been informed of the removal. Jessen stated the neighbors had not been informed, but they should be. MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Jensen, unanimously approved, to direct staff to discuss the removal of the "No Parking" sign on the west side of Fairview Lane between the mailbox and Bartlett Blvd., and return to the Council with information. At this time in the meeting, City Attorney Curt Pearson had returned from phoning the attorney for the Meisels (refer to item #1.12 in these Minutes). 1.14 Recommendation from Parks and Open Space Commission RE: Redefining Standards for Construction on Public Lands. City Manager Ed Shukle stated that the Parks and Open Space Commission had asked the Council to redefine the type of stairway required on Commons. The Parks and Open Space Commission wasn't sure what they were to require. The comments were that it is very difficult to build a stairway to the Uniform Building Code on the banks needing stairs due to landscape, tree roots, etc. Councilmember Jessen stated that the stairs should be built as safe as possible and supported building them to code. Hanus stated these stairs are on public land, not private land. There are no rules for private lake shore owners on how to build stairs to the lake. He wants the same rules for everybody. Ahrens commented on the immensity of new stairs on Commons, large and massive, lots of reailing. Councilmember Hanus asked about the legality of the stairs on Commons, who is liable? The city attorney would like to review previous opinions regarding the stairs on commons, and who is liable. He suggested discussing this with the insureance company and the safety experts and return to the Council with an opinion. The attorney stated that if a stairway is a private structure on public land, and it is there for the use of the general public, it is a public stairway. Mound City Council Minutes October 24, 1995 MOTION by Polston, seconded by Hanus and carried unanimously to direct the city attorney to carry out the request of the Parks and Open Space Commission and address the legal liability of private stairs built on public lands and to what construction standard should be followed. 1.15 DISCUSSION: Whether or not to schedule a Special Meeting to Continue Discussion on the Proposed 1996 Budget, place the Item on the November 21, 1995 Committee of the Whole or Discuss at Truth in Taxation Hearing already Scheduled for December 6, 1995. 6 Mound City Council Minutes O~tob~r 24, 1995 Mound City Council Minutes October 24, 1995 //~-~0uncilmember Hanus stated he wanted the entire Council to review the 1996 proposed budget. Councilmember Jensen stated there had already been one meeting and the entire General Fund had been discussed. Councilmember Jessen agreed with Councilmember Jensen. Mayor Polston wanted another meeting to discuss the 1996 ~/r~cPrOposed budget. cuncil,,mc,,"n, bcr Jcnscn and Jcsscn st,?.tcd t,hcy cc'.-!d not =ttcnd. / ,' 'MOTION by Mayor Polston, seconded by Councilmember Hanus to continue'e~ '~ / this meeting until Monday, November 6, 1995 at 7:30 pm to discuss the) ' proposed 1996 budget City Manager Ed Shukle asked what the topic would be, would they continue the discussion about the Enterprise Funds or go back and do General Fund? Mayor Polston stated the General Fund and Enterprise Funds. Jensen stated the General Fund was already discussed. Two councilmembers had been ill and were unable to attend at the 10-17 meeting. Councilmember Hanus mentioned information he had requested at the 10-17 meeting, that this could be brought to the November 6th meeting. 1.16 Payment of Bills. MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Polston, to authorize the payment of bills as presented on the pre-list in the amount of $153,939.03, when funds are available. A roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Councilmember Hanus asked about the monthly bills from McCombs Frank Roos dealing with material storage. City Manager Ed Shukle stated the project is still on going, road construction, maintenance, etc., and when John Cameron spends time he charges hourly. Mound City Council Minutes October 24, 1995 ADD-ON 1.17 TREE LICENSE The City Manager stated a company was caught trimming trees with no license, he was cited by the police and now had applied for a tree removal license. Precision Landscape and Tree has filed the appropriate documents and license approval is requested. MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Jessen and carried unanimously to approve the tree removal license for Precision Landscape and Tree, Inc. until April 1, 1996, insurance documents have been provided. 1.18 INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS: A. Financial Report for September 1995 as prepared by Gino Businaro, Finance Director. B. Planning Commission Minutes of October 9, 1995. C. Parks and Open Space Commission Minutes of October 12, 1995. Notice from the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission RE: Application for Rate Increase- Minnegasco. Memo regarding Councilmembers Ahrens' and Hanus' concern regarding tree trimming on Beachside Road, Three Points. The City Manager referred to a memo he had prepared regarding this item. Councilmember Hanus stated that it did not answer his questions. He stated there were 8 trees removed, not one or two as the memo stated and they were not leaning over. The fill was 3-6 feet from the lake, not 20', and there was no statement in the Shoreland Management Ordinance that stated a certain distance from the lake where a silt fence was to be used, as the memo states. Councilmember Hanus felt this was not the real story. Councilmem ber Ahrens was concerned that the City could just do anything on the commons, but residents had to have permits. City Manager Ed Shukle stated this is what he was told by the Parks Director. He would check with the Parks Director as to what happened. Ho REMINDER: Annual Christmas Party, Friday, December 8, 1995, American Legion. An Addendum to Association of Metropolitan Municipalities (AMM) 1996 Policies distributed at 10/10/95 regular meeting. Please add this to your policy booklet. Economic Development Commission Minutes of September 21, 1995 9 Mound City Council Minutes :24, 1995 meeting and October 19, 1995 meeting. At 9:55 PM, the October 24, 1995 City Council meeting was continued until Monday, November 6, 1995 at 7:30 pm. 10 Mound City Council Minutes October 24, 1995 City Manager Attest: Acting City Clerk 11 MINU'I'E:S - MOUND CiTY COUNCIL - NOVEMBER 14, 1995 1.9 PETITION FOR LOCAL IMPROVEMENT XXXX KILDARE ROAD, LOTS 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 & 26, BLOCK 11, SETON, PID NOS. 19-117-23-22-0036 THRU 0041. (STREET WITH CURB, GU'I-rER, WATER AND SEWER) City Engineer John Cameron stated this improvement was applied for the first time in 1978. The owners of the abutting properties refused to grant public right-of-way for the street, so the project on that portion of Kiidare Lane was dropped. Tracy Ingrain, representative of the sellers, was present. Cameron passed out aerial photo/maps to the Council. He stated Kiidare Lane is an unimproved street going west off Kerry Lane. Improvements petitioned for are a street with curb, gutter, water and sewer and creating a cul-de-sac at the west end of Kiidare Lane. The petition came from the property owners at this west end of the unimproved Kildare Lane. The owner to the east of these properties has no interest in improvements to the street and the cost involved. Mr. Ingrain stated that the property east of his clients is for sale also. If this improvement were to happen, all property owners abutting the improved portion of Kiidare Lane would be assessed a portion of the cost. Cameron stated the street needs a 30' right-of-way and an easement would be needed. Cameron stated a feasibility study could be prepared at an estimated cost of $500 - $600. This cost normally is absorbed into the overall project cost when the improvement is done. However, if the project did not go through, Council suggested Ingram talk with his sellers to have them pay for the feasibility study, so the City is not expending funds for a private property owner. Consensus of the Council and the city engineer was to have Mr. Ingrain talk with his clients to see if they would be responsible for the cost of the feasibility study should the project not go forward. The Council continued the petition until the 11-28-95 meeting, so Mr. Ingram could talk with the petition/property owners. PETITION FOR LOCAL IMPROVEMENT MOUND, MINNESOTA 18th day of October , 19895 TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA: We, the undersigned, owners of not less than 35 percent of the real property described as XXX Kildare Road, ~bur~, M~nnesota 55364 I~?ally descrik~ as: Lots 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 a_nd 26, Block Seton PIDhbs: 19 117 23 22 0036 th_rough 0041 and abutting on Kild~re easem~snt hereby petition that improvements be made by the construction of A City street with curb¢ gutter, water and sewer, beginning at KildareRoad and going w~$t on t_he KilSare ease~nt a~z~o>[iraately 360 f~t with a cul-de- sac at end of road. pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429. 5. Examined, checked, and found to be in proper form and to be signed by the required number of owners of property affected by the making of the improvement petitioned for City Clerk Tracy T. Ingram A1 Excellence Lake Minnetonka 2477Shadywood Road Orono, Minnesota 55331 Each Office Independently Owned and Operated RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO RECOGNIZE AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING SIDE YARD SETBACK TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A CONFORMING SCREENED PORCH AT 2068 BELLAIRE LANE, LOT 58, MOUND ADDITION, PID 14-117-24 41 0031 P&Z CASE #95-51 WHEREAS, the owner, Irene McKinney, has applied for a variance to recognize ~an existing nonconforming side yard setback of 4.3 feet to the north side, resulting \~na 1.7 foot variance, in order to construct a conforming screen porch on top of an existing deck, and WHEREAS, this nonconforming setback was previously recognized Resolution #87-201, and WHEREAS, the subject property is located in the R-2 Zoning District which requires a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet, a front yard setback of 20 feet, side yard setbacks of 6 feet, and a rear yard setback of 15 feet to the east, and WHEREAS, impervious surface coverage is conforming at 30.6%, and WHEREAS, the request is a reasonable use of the property and does not further encroach into the nonconforming setbacks, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval· NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby grant a variance to recognize an existing nonconforming side yard setback of 4.3 feet to the north side, resulting in a 1.7 foot variance, in order to construct a conforming screen porch on top of an existing deck, subject to the condition that runoff from the new roof be contained within the lot. A drainage plan shall be prepared by the applicant and approved by staff that effectively deals with the new drainage conditions. The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420. Proposed Resolution McKinney Page 2 It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land: Construction of an 1 1' x 14' screened porch on the existing deck. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lot 58, Mound Addition. This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. 1VI21NKri' OF A MEETING OF THF. MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMRER 13, 1995 CASE ~95-51: BART ROEGLIN FOR I~__~N_.E MCKINNY, 2068 BELLAIRE ~t LOT $8, MOUND ADDITION, PID 14-117-24 41 0031. V~_~_I~NCE FOR PORCH. The Building Official reviewed the applicant's request for a variance to recognize an existing nonconforming side yard setback to the dwelling in order to construct a conforming screen porch on top of an existing deck. The existing principal structure is ~onconforming to the north side with a 4.3 foot setback, resulting in a 1.7 foot variance. This variance was previously recognized by Resolution #87-201. Impervious surface coverage is conforming at 30.6%. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance as the request is a reasonable use of the property and does not further encroach into the nonconforming setbacks. Hanus questioned why a copy of the previous resolution was not included in the packet. Staff apologized for not having the resolution in the packet and confirmed that it will be included in the Council packet. Mueller commented that he would like staff to review how the proposed construction will affect drainage and run off onto the neighboring properties and suggested that it be added as a condition. MOTION made by Mueller to recommend approval of the variance as recommended staff, including the condition that runoff from the new roof be oontalned within the lot or that it be meet the Building Official's satisfaction. Motion seconded by Glister and carried unanimously. This request will be heard by the City Council on November 1995. 28, 294 November 10, 1987 RESOLUTION NO. 87- 201 RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE TO ALLOW AN ADDITION FOR LOT 58, MOUND ADDITION; PID NO. 14-117-24 '41 OO31 (2068 BELLAIRE LANE) P & Z CASE NO. 87-674 WHEREAS, the applicant has applied for a variance to recognize an ex.lstlng nonconforming 4.3 foot side yard setback for Lot 58, Mound Addition; PID No. 14-117-24 41 O031; and WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-3 One and Two Family Zoning District, which according to City Code, requires a 30 foot front yard setback, 6 foot side yard and 10 foot side yard setbacks and a 15 foot rear yard; and · ' WHEREAS, Section 23.404(8) provides that alterations may be made to building containing a lawful nonconforming resldential unit when the aiteratlon will improve the llvlbillty thereof, but the alteratlon may not increase the number of units; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and does recommend approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota as follows: "i. That the City does hereby authorize theex'isting'nonconforming princlpal structure setback at 2068 Bellaire Lane; PID No. 14-117-24 41 OO31. 2. City Council authorizes existing structural setback violation and authorizes the alteration setforth below, pursuant to Section 23..404(8) with the clear and express understanding that the use remains.as a lawful nonconforming use subject to all the provisions and restrictions of Section 23.404. 3. It is determined that the livibility of the residential unit will be improved by authorizing the following alterations to the nonconforming use property: Expansion of the principal structure with a !.4 by 26 foot one story addition as shown on the site plan identified as Exhibit A. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Johnson and seconded by Councilmember Abel. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Abel, Jensen, Johnson and Smith. The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: none. Councilmember Jessen was absent and~excused.~ ~,/~/.~ ~ / Attest: City Clerk ' ~e'ybr j v 68-95 5-14-68 RESOLUTION NO. 68-95 RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCE (Lot 65 & N~ Lot 62, Mound) WHEREAS, the owner of Lot 65 and N~ Lot 62, Mound Addition has asked for a side yard variance in order to replace an old garage with a new garage, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has recommended a side yard variance to 6' be granted, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE VILLAGE COUNCIL OF L~OUND, MOUND, MINNESOTA: That a side yard.variance to 6' be granted on Lot 65 & N~ Lot 62, Mound Addition for a garage, provided all other requirements are met. Adopted by the Council this 14th day of May, 1968. ~n_a~ CITY OF MOUND STAFF REPORT 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: CASE NO. LOCATION: ZONING: Planning Commission Agenda of November 13, 1995 Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official ~ ~ Variance Request Bart Roeglin for Irene McKinny 95-51 2068 Bellaire Lane, Lot 58, Mound Addition, PID 14-117-2441 0031 R-2 Single Family Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting a variance to recognize an existing nonconforming side yard setback to the dwelling in order to construct a conforming screen porch on top of an existing deck. This property is located in the R-2 zone which requires a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet, a front yard setback of 20 feet, side yard setbacks of 6 feet, and a rear yard setback of 15 feet to the east. The existing principal structure is nonconforming to the north side with a 4.3 foot setback, resulting in a 1.7 foot variance. This variance was previously recognized by Resolution #87-201. Impervious surface coverage is conforming at 30.6%. COMMENTS: The porch addition is a reasonable use, enhances the use and function of the property without any further encroachment or increase in the nonconforming status. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request for a variance as the request is a reasonable use of the property and does not further encroach into the nonconforming setbacks. JS:pj The abutting neighbors have been notified of this request. This case is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on November 28, 1995. printed on recycled paper Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Distribution: VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 City Planner Public Works City Engineer DNR Other Application Fee: $50.00 Case No. ~ ~-~[ Please type or print the following information: Address of Subject Property ~ 0 (,o '~ Lot ~'~" Block p4c~,4/~.y/ Day Phone / Owner's Name Owner's Address Applicant's Name (if other than owner) Address ~:~_atQ (A)~5~ 7/33 ~-~'~cr~ Day Phone 1. 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/ df resolutions. &'-l--7_o l ii-lO-ff'l Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): Variance Application (11/93) Pa~e 2 Case No. Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located9. Yes (), No ~).. If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): SETBACKS': required requested VARIANCE (or existing) Front Yard: (~EEW) Side Yard: ( W ) Side Yard: ( N S E W ) Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) Lakeside: ( N S E W ) : (NSEW) ft. ft. ft. Street Frontage: ft. ft. ft. Lot Size: sq ft sq ft sq ft Hardcover: sq ft .sq ft sq ft Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes ~ No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use: Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( -~oo narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil ( ) too small ( ) drainage (~)~xisting situation ( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify Please describe: Variance Application (11/93) Pe~c 3 Case No. Was the hardship described above created by the action of an~on.,e, having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), Nonce, t, If yes, explain: W?s_ th~ hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No~ If yes, explain: Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (), No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? 9. Comments: O(-~~ '~--6 AM Dc._ ~)~. t~f_~5 9ed ~ / ' / I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Date Date 3 417-- CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR CENTURY 21: WINDWARD PROPERTIES INC. OF LOT 58, MOUND HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA Scale: 1" : 40' Date : 9-14-87 o : Iron marker ~_~.): Spot elevation Datum: Mound City Sewer I hereby certify that'.this is a true and correct representation--~' of a survey of the boundaries of Lot~, Round, the location of all existing buildings, if any, th.ereon, and the proposed loca- tion of a proposed addition. It does not purport to show other improvements or encroachments. COFFIN & GRONBERG, INC. Mark S. Gronberg Lic. No. 12755 Engineers, Land Surveyors & Planners Long Lake, Minnesota CITY OF MOUND HARDC0VER CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) IIPROPERTY ADDRESS: ~ ~ ~ --~U._~rl/~~ OWNER'S NAME: _.~~ i~Lr.~_~(,~,,MCy/ / SQ. FT. X 30% LOT AREA LOT AREA LOT AREA )). $c~ se. FT. x 40% SQ. FT. X 15% = (for all lots) .............. = (for Lots of Record*) ....... = (for detached buildings only) *Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted and approved by the Building Official. HOUSE DETACHED BLDGS (GARAGE/SHED) DRIVEWAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. DECKS Open decks (1/4" min. opening between boards) with a pervious surface under are not counted as hardcover OTHER 5iO~/~L~5 LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT x = X = TOTAL HOUSE TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ................. / ~--x ~-co = -/~-c~ /~_ x ~ o = ~/~D ~ x z_~ = ~ TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC .................. TOTAL DECK I/ TOTAL OTHER x S = x 5'- = TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE ~~OVER (~t.~_~r~ n,~.. .............................. PREPARED BY u~ ~~ DATE ADDRESS: ZONE: REQ. LOT AREA: EXIST. LOT AREA: SURVEY ON FILE? Y~)N0 q. lq-8"/ LOT OF RECORD?~N0/? REQUIRED STREET FRONTAGE/WIDTH: ~ ! EXISTING LOT WIDTH: 57,5' EXISTING LOT DEPTH: 7_~ ! REQUIRED SETBACKS PRINCIPAL BUILD/IN~/ FRONT: N S FRONT:~{, S EE(~ S DE: LFA E w SIDE: -N(~s~ W REAR: N W LAKESHORE: '-/ TOP OF BLUFF: HOUSE 50' {measured from O.H.W.} ACCESSORY BUILDING/GARAGE/SHED FRONT: N S E W ~ · FRONT: N S E W SIDE: N S E W 4' or 6' SIDE: N S E W 4' or 6' REAR: N S E W 4' LAKESHORE: 50' {measured from O.H.W.) TOP OF BLUFF: EXISTING AND/OR PROPOSED SETBACKS: PRINCIPAL BUILDING/HOUSE _ FRONT: N S E W SIDE: E W SIDE: E W REAR: N S E W LAKESHORE: TOP OF BLUFF: HARDCOVER CONFORMING7 NO / 7 ACCESSORY BUILDING/GARAGE/SHED FRONT: N S E W FRONT: NS E W SIDE: FN'~S E W SIDE: '"~ S E W ' REAR: N S E W LAKESHORE: TOP OF BLUFF: IS THIS PROPERTY CONFORMING7 YES (N;> 7~. summar[zes a port~ requ,rements out ine in t e ity o oun onlng Ordinance. For further information, contact the City of Mound Planning Department at 472-0600. SUNSET RD ~o (5) C]..IUI~ C:N ' At,~ER' RD ~ O0 0 0 I0 ~28) CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 November 16, 1995 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL ,1) LINDA STRONG, ACTING CITY CLER WlNTERFEST 1996 - PERMITS The Northwest Tonka Lions are preparing for Winterfest 1996, to be held January 12-14, 1996. They have applied for a Public Gathering Permit for Mound Bay Park, a Temporary On-Sale Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor Permit and a Sign Permit to have various signs around Mound promoting the event. Approval is contingent upon current insurance. Is printed on recycled paper $10.00 for 3 days, plus · :~,~/// / ~ --/ ~' -- / '~ ~,/~ ~ $2.~ ~r ~y ~r Dat~ Permit Will ~ U~ ~ ~:Ten c°n~ufiveDays ?:' LIC~SE t CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, M]NNF. SOTA 55364 TF_M~RARY ON-SALE NON-INTOXICATING MALT LIQUOR__~PERMIT . Event: Phone No.: Section 810.10, SuM. 2. Liability Insurance. (a) Prior to the issuance of any Beer license, the applicant shall demonstrate proof of financial responsibility with regard to liability imposed by Minnesota Statutes Section MOA. 801 to the City Clerk and to the Commissioner of Public Safety as a condition of the issuance or renewal of his license. Proof of financial responsibility shall be given by filing a certificate that there is in effect an insurance policy or pool providing the minimum coverages for dram shop liability as required by Minnesota Statutes, Section 340A.409, Subdivision 1. It is the intent of this section to require the minimum insurance coverages and amounts m:luired by Minnesota law. Name of Insurance Co.: Amount of Coverage: Section 810:10. Subd. 1. Application Form. In the case of any application for a Temporary 'On-Sale' license to allow sale and consumption of beer on public land or public school lands, the applicant shall, prior to issuance of such license, file the written consent of the owner of such lands to such use of its lands. ~ Signature SIGN PERMIT APPLICATION QUASI PUBL'Tc FUNCTION - PORTABLE SIGN City of Mound, 5341 Ma'ywood Road, Mound, MN Phone: 4,72-0600 FAX: 472-0620 ,55364 '-'Portable signs, used for the pu. rpose of directing the public used in conjunction with a governmental unit or quasi-public functions. The period of use shall' not exceed ten (10) consecutive days and requires approval of the City Council. Signs shall be placed on the premises of the advertised event, and/or on such other premises as apprOVed _by the City Council when granting the permit. A permit is required, however is. exempt.from all fees. NUMBER OF SIGNS: E OF SIGN: X banner temporary ;IZE OF SIGN: ~ feet high x DESCRIBE REASON/PURPOSE FOR REQUEST: wall mount ~ree standing ,- permanent ~' ~ feet wide = ~ square fe~ DESCRIBE SIGN (message,_materials, is it illuminated, etc. ): Applicant ~ Signature Date ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL ON: BILLS -November 28, 1995 BATCH 5112 Total Bills $111,545.49 $111,545.49 -i -I CITY OF MOUND BUDGET EXPENDITURES REPORT October 1995 83.33% October 1995 YTD PERCENT BUDGET EXPENSE EXPENSE VARIANCE EXPENDED GENERAL FUND Council 69,330 7,140 Promotions 4,000 0 Cable TV 1,380 0 City Manager/Clerk 184,000 14,348 Elections 2,670 23 Assessing 51,700 2 Finance 155,920 11,169 Computer 24,800 661 Legal 103,520 12,093 Police 833,350 85,768 Civil Defense 4,610 342 Planningllnspections 162,280 14,349 Streets 400,860 23,695 City Property 101,160 16,975 Parks 133,530 11,519 Summer Recreation 28,960 7,415 Contingencies 15,000 277 Transfers 140,960 10,587 58,839 4,000 723 132,579 1,951 52,649 128,873 14,755 82,447 666,119 2,170 122,400 311,553 90,144 112,151 28,969 20,125 105,867 21 167 2 39 89 10,491 0 657 51,421 719 (949) 27,047 10 045 O73 231 440 880 307 11 016 21 379 (9) (5,125) 35,093 84.87% 100.00% 52.39% 72.05% 73.07% 101.84% 82.65% 59.50% 79.64% 79.93% 47.07% 75.43% 77.72% 89.11% 83.99% 100.03% 134.17% 75.10% GENERAL FUND TOTAL 2,418,03--0 216,363 t ,936,314 48t ,716 80.08% Area Fire Service Fund 285,330 Recycling Fund 118,590 Liquor Fund 197,410 Water Fund 371,690 Sewer Fund 1,019,480 Cemetery Fund 5,840 Docks Fund 78,700 21,284 253,065 32,265 88.69% 10,605 113,265 5,325 95.51% 16,611 164,539 32,871 83.35% 25,286 308,835 62,855 83.09% 65,145 949,458 70,022 93.13% 377 3,676 2,164 62.95% 3,234 46,163 32,537 58.66% exp95 11/15195 G.B. CITY OF MOUND BUDGET REVENUE REPORT October 1996 83.33% GENERAL FUND Taxes Business Licenses Non-Business Licenses and Permits Intergovernmental Charges for Services Court Fines Other Revenue Charges to Other Departments October 1996 YTD PERCENT BUDGET REVENUE REVENUE VARIANCE RECEIVED 1,254,200 0 618,256 (635,944) 49.29% 9,800 95 3,614 (6,186) 36.88% 66,000 18,031 93,326 27,326 141.40% 888,590 583 509,021 (379,569) 57.28% 47,850 778 6,731 (41,119) 14.07% 60,000 5,569 54,481 (5,519) 90.80% 81,900 898 20,003 (61,897) 24.42% 0_ 837 9,087 9,087 N/A TOTAL REVENUE 2,408,340 26,791 1,314,518 ~) 54.58% FIRE FUND RECYCLING FUND LIQUOR FUND WATER FUND SEWER FUND CEMETERY FUND DOCKS FUND 326,786 34,679 285,905 (39,880) 87.76% 88,320 12,104 106,033 17,713 120.06% 1,400,000 105,372 1,152,923 (247,077) 82.35% 400,000 33,516 330,203 (69,797) 82.55% 730,000 58,992 592,688 (137,312) 81.19% 5,650 200 2,795 (2,855) 49.47% 70,800 (4,535) 66,340 (4,460) 93.70% 11/16/95 revg$ G.B. M NUTES OF A MEETING OF TH-E MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 13, 1995 Those present were: Chair Geoff Michael, Commissioners Michael Mueller, Bill Voss, Jerry Clapsaddle, Ed Surko, and Becky Glister, City Council Representative Mark Hanus, City Planner Mark Koegler, Building Official Jon Sutherland and Secretary Peggy James. Commissioner's Weiland and Crum were absent and excused. The following people were also in attendance: None. MINUTES The Planning Commission Minutes of October 23, 1995 were presented for approval. MOTION made by Voss, seconded by Mueller to approve the Planning Commission Minutes of October 23, 1995 as written. Motion carried unanimously. CASE ~95-51: BART ROEGLIN FOR IRENE MCKINNY, 2068 BEn?.ATRELANE, LOT 58t MOUND ADDITIONt PID 14-117-24 41 0031. VARIANCE FOR PORCH. The Building Official reviewed the applicant's request for a variance to recognize an existing nonconforming side yard setback to the dwelling in order to construct a conforming screen porch on top of an existing deck. The existing principal structure is nonconforming to the north side with a 4.3 foot setback, resulting in a 1.7 foot variance. This variance was previously recognized by Resolution #87-201. Impervious surface coverage is conforming at 30.6%. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance as the request is a reasonable use of the property and does not further encroach into the nonconforming setbacks. Hanus questioned why a copy of the previous resolution was not included in the packet. Staff apologized for not having the resolution in the packet and confirmed that it will be included in the Council packet. Mueller commented that he would like staff to review how the proposed construction will affect drainage and run off onto the neighboring properties and suggested that it be added as a condition. Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 1995 MOTION made by Mueller to recommend approval of the variance as recommended staff, including the condition that runoff from the new roof be contained within the lot or that it be meet the Building Official's satisfaction. Motion seconded by Glister and carried unanimously. This request will be heard by the City Council on November 28, 1995. CASE ~95-52: MOUND HOCKEY ASSOCIATION / WESTONKAPUBLIC SCHOOLS, 5600 LYNWOOD BLVD., M&B, UNPLATTED, PID 14-117-24 41 0058. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR W~RMING HOUSE. Chair Michael opened the public hearing. There was no one present to speak on the issue, Chair Michael closed the public hearing. Concern was expressed that the applicant and no residents were present. Staff confirmed that all residents within 350 feet received a notice for the hearing. City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the applicant's request for a conditional use permit to install a hockey rink, a warming house, a free skating area, and lighting for the hockey rink. The hockey rink was used last year. The warming house will be constructed on skids to allow it to be relocated in the future, if necessary. The proposed improvements are considered to be part of the school complex since they are being constructed on school property, and therefore the issuance of a conditional use permit is required. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of a conditional use permit to allow installation of a lighted hockey rink, a free skating area and a warming house subject to the following conditions: Facilities shall comply with all applicable building and fire codes. Lighting shall be installed in a manner that will not impact adjacent residential properties. Prior to installation of the lighting, the applicant shall submit a lumen plan showing lighting that is contained on the school district property. Mueller expressed a concern regarding the lighting. The Planner explained that the lumen plan will include foot candle readings on a plan sheet. 2 Planning Commission Minutes November I3, 1995 Hanus stated that the warming house is very close to the rink and questioned if it will also be used as a press box. The Planner stated that it is his understanding it will be used strictly as a warming house and the window is to allow for viewing of the rink only. Hanus questioned if there should be any change in parking requirements? Clapsaddle noted that in the winter he has seen vehicles parked on the grass and ball fields. Michael commented that during hockey games the lot is full. The commission suggested that the lights will boost the use of the outdoor rinks. It was Koegler's opinion that the increase in usage would be minor. Mueller feels that people who did not receive a public hearing notice will be impacted by the lights, such as the properties on Elm Road and Bellaire Lane. He emphasized that there are no structures or trees blocking the view to this area, and he would like to see these residents notified. Clapsaddle suggested that the CUP could be reviewed in one year. Mueller commented that the lighting plan will not deal with elevation. It was noted that the football field uses lights. Mueller stated that the residents on Elm and Bellaire would not be as affected by lights at the football field as they would be by lights at the hockey rink because of their location. MOTION made by Mueller to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit as recommended by staff, with the condition that the verbiage in condition #2 be made more clear to better describe how the lighting may impact the neighbors, and with the condition that the owners at PID numbers 14-117-24 41 0031, 0032, 0033, 0059, 0049, 0054, and 0046 be notified with a letter explaining that a Conditional Use Permit has been requested and that lighting is part of the plan, and that they be notified about the upcoming public hearing at the City Council meeting. Motion seconded by Clapsaddle, and carried unanimously. This request will be heard by the City Council on December 12 1995. ' VARIANCE STRE~MLININ~ City Planner, Mark Koegler, explained to the Commission that based on the direction received at the last meeting, staff has taken the two motions approved by the Commission and attempted to translate them into statements that can be further modified and eventually put into ordinance form. Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 1995 Draft Streamlininq Statement ~1: Nonconforming residential properties that have received variance approval within the past 20 years for principal structure setbacks, lot area, lot depth or width, hardcover, and/or street frontage may be improved by adding a conforming addition to the principal structure or adding a conforming detached accessory building provided that the principal structure is in sound condition as determined by the Mound Building official. Furthermore, impervious cover on said lots shall be compliant with Section 350:1225, Subd. 6.B.1. of the Mound Zoning Code or shall not exceed the amount allowed under prior variance approval. Draft Stre~mlininq Statement ~2: Residential properties having only one (1) nonconforming condition may be improved by adding a conforming addition to the principal structure or by adding a conforming detached accessory building provided that the property complies with the following standards after application of the one nonconforming condition: Side Yard Setbacks: 75% of the setback required by Code Front Yard Setbacks: 75% of the setback required by Code Rear Yard Setbacks: 90% of the setback required by Code Lot Area: 90% of the lot area required bY Code Lot Width: 90% of the lot width required by Code Lot Depth: 90% of the lot depth required by Code Improved Street Frontage: 50% of the frontage required by Code Koegler noted that these are in very preliminary form, and after review by the Planning Commission they can be revised and sent to the Committee of the Whole on November 21, 1995 for initial review and then would come back to the Commission for formal review and recommendation. Discussion - Draft Streamlininq Statement ~1: Lakeshore setbacks were discussed. Mueller and Hanus agreed that lakeshore setback variances should not be included in this draft. Mueller commented that if it is a minor variance it may be okay, but it would depend on how much. Hanus noted that shorelines can change over 20 years. Mueller suggested that lakeshore issues should be dealt with differently. Glister questioned if this would not be prejudice against lakeshore properties. Koegler noted that if the Commission is going to consider allowing a certain amount of lakeshore setback, they could look at the shore impact zone at 25 feet which is already accepted by the DNR. Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 1995 Surko expressed a concern that as they get further away from current ordinance requirements, it gets more complicated and he questioned if they are not making too many exceptions. It is his opinion that they should not convolute a process which may make situations worse 20 years from now. Mueller referred back to the lakeshore setback and emphasized that the lake is Mound's primary natural resource and so they should not be lenient on lakeshore setbacks and hardcover. Koegler noted that there are environmental reasons to support more stringent lake setbacks. Clapsaddle questioned the legitimacy of streamlining. Koegler commented that Mound's ordinance already has some streamlining provisions in its code, such as reduced setbacks for lots of record. He feels there is a significant difference between draft statements #1 and #2. With #1 it would be hard to overturn previously approved actions, but #2 it is more difficult to accept. The Building Official noted that reducing the number of variances was a goal of the previous council and was also prompted by the high approval rate of variances. Mueller commented that they are changing the code to better reflect what the changing needs are to reduce the amount of variance requests and/or re-recognition. If they can reduce the number of variances by 20%, then they have accomplished something. You cannot write a code to cover every problem. Surko questioned how streamlining advances the goal of the Comprehensive Plan. Koegler replied that draft statement #1 will not advance or take away, it is only a convenience for the citizens. Draft #2 is more debatable if it is furthering the goal because it allows for more flexibility and it downgrades standards. Surko commented that #1 alleviates the volume of requests coming to the City and allows us time to concentrate on other areas of planning. His main concern is if it advances the vision for Mound. Clapsaddle questioned if "20 years" is the right number of years to go back for recognizing previously approved variances. Mueller stated that twenty years ago he feels the Planning Commission had dealt with similar issues and had the same concerns. Mueller commented that he is not necessarily in favor of streamlining if it will alleviate only 3.6% of the variances per year. 5 Planning Commission Hinutes November 13, 1995 Surko commented that the Council asked for the Planning Commission to work on this issue so they should forward to them their best proposal. Hanus noted that every council member warmly welcomed the proposal to streamline in order to make the process simpler, to reduce time spent by the commission and staff, reduce costs, as well as reduce citizen frustration. Voss commented that variances belong in a public forum, especially if people do not understand that their property is nonconforming, then they should go through the process. He does not believe there is an overwhelming public need to streamline variances. Clapsaddle questioned if the Planning Commission wants to support this issue or not. Voss supports sending this to the City Council to bring it out in the open for discussion, but after it comes back he will probably not vote in favor. Surko suggested that they move forward with draft ~1. A poll was taken to determine the number of' years in which they should go back for. allowing previously recognized variances: Clapsaddle 10 Surko 20 Voss 2 Glister 10 Mueller 20 Hanus 20 Michael 20 Average 15 Impervious surface coverage variances were discussed. Mueller referred to the last sentence within Draft ~1, which states ,'impervious cover on said lots shall be compliant with Section 350:1225, Subd. 6.B.1. of the Mound Zoning Code or shall not exceed the amount allowed under prior variance approval." Mueller wants it made clear that if a variance was approved for a setback prior to the adoption of the hardcover ordinance, this does not mean that the hardcover was approved. In otherwords, if the hardcover is currently nonconforming and was never previously recognized by a variance, it would not qualify for streamlining. Koegler questioned if it would be the Commission's intent to also allow for a conforming addition to a nonconforming accessory structure. The Commission agreed yes. 6 Planning Commission Minutes November I3, 1995 MOTION made by Mueller to forward Draft Streamlining Statement #1 to the City Council with the following amendments: 1) previously recognized lakeshore setbacks should not be included, and 2) conforming additions to existing nonconforming accessory structures may be allowed provided all the other requirements comply. Motion seconded by ross. Motion carried unanimously. Hanus suggested that before this streamlining draft is reviewed by the Committee of the Whole, he would like to know how many variances would be affected. MOTION by Hanus to request staff to research the number of variance from the last five years that this provision, as being proposed, would impact. Motion seconded by Glister. Motion carried unanimously. Discussion - Draft Streamlininq Statement ~2. Koegler commented that the percentages could be altered. views this method as lowering the City's standards. Koegler Mueller commented that he has no objections to the percentages as presented. Clapsaddle agreed that if the concept is accepted, he does not have a problem with the percentages either. Mueller commented that newly divided lots should not be allowed to have a 5,400 square foot lot area. Koegler noted that this draft statement does not deal with additions to existing nonconforming detached accessory buildings, and suggested that the language could be cleaned up. He feels it is important to send a concept to the council and then they can fine tune the language. Surko does not agree with the draft. He feels it is irresponsible to say that he would go along with this because it eludes what he is doing here, and dilutes what the Planning Commission is doing here. He has no problem with percentages, but he does have a problem with the whole thing. Mueller noted that Weiland would probably agree with Surko. Clapsaddle commented that he does not know if he agrees either, but the Commission is trying to present a reasonable version, whether they support it or not is another thing. Hanus questioned if it would be appropriate to send this message to the Council. Hanus suggested that he could carry the message to the Council. 7 Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 1995 Mueller suggested that they research what the impact will be on the number of variances that would have been affected. Hanus suggested that they let the Council see the draft. He does not want to see it delayed another month. Surko commented that draft #1 is okay with him, but #2 is not. MOTION made by Mueller to move forward to the Council Draft Streamlining Statement #2 for their review, along with the statement that only one existing nonconformity applies when using this method, and not any multiple portion of those items. Also, staff should determine how many variance cases this method would have affected in the last five years. Cl&psaddle seconded the motion with the Amendment that this draft include conforming additions to existing nonconforming detached structures. Motion carried 6 to 1. Those in favor were Clapsaddle, Voss, Michael, Mueller, Hanus, and Glister. Surko was opposed. This issue will be reviewed by the Committee of the Whole on November 21, 1995. Mueller requested from staff a clarification about contiguous undersized lots of record which were under the same ownership prior to the zoning ordinance, and if they are each sold to separate individuals, either prior to the zoning ordinance or after adoption of the zoning ordinance, if they can be denied the right to build on those lots. Koegler suggested that he believes they already have correspondence from the attorney relating to this issue. CITY COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE'S REPORT Mueller asked Hanus about the Palen case and questioned if the Council was suggesting a lot line rearrangement with a lot area variance. Hanus explained their intent is that each lot should retain 10,000 square feet and if the applicant was to persue this option they would have to go through the subdivision process. It was also suggested that the applicants do preliinary work with staff to determine if it is a feasible option. MOTION made by Surko, seconded by Mueller, to adjourn the meeting at 9:40 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Chair, Geoff Michael Attest: 8 To: From: Mound Planning Commission Mark Hanus Council Representative October 2, 1995 Subject: Response to comments made at the September 11th Commission meeting It has become apparent that there is a misunderstanding by some Planning Commission members as to the roles of the Council Representative and the Commission itself. The following represents my position regarding recent comments at the September 11th meeting. I hope that when you read this, that a better understanding will prevail. It is the Commissioner's responsibility to ensure that the minutes represent their concerns. The minutes are the primary vehicle for recording, documenting, and passing of meeting information. If the minutes do not reflect what an individual intends, he or she is responsible to see that the minutes are corrected. It is the Council Representative's responsibility to honestly and openly represent the Planning Commission's positions if or when the Council asks for this information or wishes any elaboration on the minutes or the discussions at the commission meeting. It is not the Council Representative's responsibility to cast aside his or her convictions or beliefs to champion the position or cause of any Commissioner or that of the Planning Commission as a whole. It is not the Council Representative's responsibility to ensure that each Councilmember has read the commission minutes or to ensure that every point that the commission discussed is brought up at the council meeting. All of the above are contrary to what was insinuated at the last meeting by some individuals. Staff does not get upset if the commission does not follow their recommendation and the same should hold true of the commission relative to the council. Please understand that staff, the commissions, and the council all make decisions from slightly different perspectives. When in this situation we are bound to have differing opinions from time to time. It was pointed out at the last meeting that there has been only one variance denial since the current council has been in place. This is not correct. The very night of the Hoy case the Larson case was also denied. Additionally, the Thompson case on Red Oak, was denied in concurrence with the Planning Commission at the last council meeting. There was also reference to the impression that (quoted from the minutes) "every other variance has been approved with exceptionally minor conditions". I must remind you that the vast majority of these cases have been acted on with no chan,qes to the commissions recommendations. The Planning Commission would have a legitimate concern if the Council Representative was misrepresenting what the commission recommends or any deliberations that have taken place. This did not occur during my tenure as a Commissioner and will not happen as long as I am the Council Representative. I wish this position to be offered for the record in response to the comments from the last meeting. MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 9, 1995 CITY COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE'S REPORT. The commission discussed with Mark Hanus the role of a City Council liaison to an advisory commission. Hanus' interpretation of his responsibility as a Council Representative is, "to honestly and openly represent the Planning Commission's positions if or when the Council asks for this information or wishes any elaboration on the minutes or the discussion at the commission meeting." Mueller questioned if the Council would agree with Hanus' interpretation. MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Clapsaddle to request from the City Council a clarification of the role and responsibilities of a council liaison. Motion carried 8 to 1. Those in favor were: Mueller, Clapsaddle, Surko, Voss, Michael, Crum, Glister, and Weiland. Hanus was opposed. Hanus stated that he was opposed because he feels he has already related to the Commission what his role should be. The Commission asked for an update from Hanus on the response received from the City Attorney relating to their concerns about the Park Dedication Ordinance. Hanus explained that he thinks the attorney misunderstood their concerns, and he will have to review the issue with him. 8 ! ! I!