Loading...
2000-12-19MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 19, 2000 CITY COUNCIL MEETING Members Present: Mayor Pat Meisel, City Council Members: Bob Brown, Leah Weycker, Mark Hanus, and Andrea Ahrens. City Manager Kandis Hanson, City Attorney John Dean, Brace Chamberlain, Building Official Jori Suthefland and Recording Secretary Sue Schwalbe PUBLIC PRESENT: Gregory Metz, 5718 Elm Road Mound Tom and Deb Noethke, 5580 Tonkawood Road, Mound David and Julie Willcox, 5989 Chestnut Road, Mound Todd and Michelle Schell, 6001 Chestnut Road, Mound Ken Berres, 57o24 Lynwood Blvd., Mound Richard Dluess, 2620 Halstead Lane, Mound Kevin and Lisa Schumacher, 2074 Grandview Blvd., Mound Valanoe J.Magnuss, 2052 Grandview Blvd., Mound Kevin Schumacher, 2074 Grandview Blvd., Mound George L. Fizer, II, 2117 Commerce Blvd., Mound Robert Schidlu, 4975 Beachwood Raod, Mound Led. Hentzges, 5648 Alder Road, Mound Hank Spoth 2241 Cottonwood Lane, Mound Sheila Murphy, 2044 Bellaire Lane, Mound Pat Murphy, 2044 Bellaire Lane, Mound Brett Stuempges, 5716 Lynwood Blvd., Mound Kris Morgan, 5716 Lywnood Blvd., Mound Mark Heese, 5826 Lynwood Blvd., Mound Tom Casey, 2854 Cambridge, Mound Thomas Stokes, 5201 Waterbury Road, Mound Steve Coddon, 5240 Lynwood Blvd., Mound Kathy Anderson, KKE Architects, Minneapolis Lorie Harem, The Laker, Mound Rod MacChauder Veto Hanson, Metro Plains Duane Norberg, 6015 Aspen Road, Mound Bob Polston, 5780 Lynwood Blvd., Mound Jeff Corn, 5764 Lynwood Blvd., Mound Terri Corn, 5764 Lynwood Blvd., Mound Bob Johnson, 2928 Westedge, Mound Paula Larson, 5713 Lynwood Blvd., Mound John Larson, 5713 Lynwood Blvd., Mound Laura Sport, 2241 Cottonwood Lane, Mound Kim Anderson, 5736 Lynwood Blvd., Mound Scott Logelin. Jubilee Foods, Mound Peter Meyer, Sun,et Road Peter Wimsath, 2201 Lynwood Blvd., Mound Deb Grand, 6023 Evergreen Road, Mound Peter Johnson, 3140 Priest Lane, Mound Jamie Demarais, 5272 Lynwood Blvd., Mound Mayor Pat Meisel opened the meeting at 7:32 p.m. and welcomed the public. A CKNO WZ EDGEMENT OF OUTGOING COUNCIL MEMBERS Mayor Meisel presented Council Member Leah Weycker (service January 1997 through December 2000) and Council Member Andrea Ahrens (service January 1989 through December 2000) with an engraved clock for their years of service as Council Members for the City of Mound. City Manager Kandis Hanson read a description of a volunteer and congratulated Council Member Ahrens and Council Member Weycker. Also a personal thank you from Mayor Meisel. APPR 0 VE AGENDA WITH ANY AMENDMENTS MOTION by Brown seconded by Andrea to approve agenda. MOTION carried unanimously. COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CI~ZENS PRESENT ON ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA. Bob Polston, 5780 Lynwood Blvd. Acknowledged Council Member Weycker and Council Member Ahrens service and appreciated their humanity. PUBLIC HEARINGS: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION CASE #00-59: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1800 COMMERCE BLVD. JOHN PASTUCK Staffrecommendations from Building Official Sutherland. The applicant, John Pastuck, has submitted a Conditional Use Permit, Minor Subdivision and Variance Application to construct a twinhome pursuant to City Code on the property located at 1800 Commerce Blvd. The property is located in the R-2 zoning district, which allows for two family dwellings, the property is also regulated in part by City Code which allows for subdivision by Conditional Use Permit with conditions. The proposal would split the parcel north/south creating two new lots that do not meet the m/n/mum yard requirement for Lake frontage of 40 feet as required. A public heating was conducted at the Planning Commission meeting where the Planning Commission determined the physical characteristics oft he site are not suitable for the subdivision due to the inadequate lot width at the lake. In addition, the proposed subdivision is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the existing land use in the area. The Planning Commission has recommended Council deny the conditional use permit, minor subdivision, and associated variances due to lack of hardship and compliance with the minimum requirements of the zoning ordinance. Staff recommends the application of John Pastuck for a conditional use permit, minor sub-division and associated variances for a Twinhome Development at 1800 Commerce Blvd., be denied for the following above reasons: Council Member Hanus had additional concerns; mainly of creating new lots with variances. Also he requested some verification from the LMCD which the applicant has not yet provided. Mayor Meisel asked if the owner of the property was present. Steve Coddon, 5240 Lynwood Blvd., spoke for Mr. Pastuck. Mr. Coddon went the to LMDC and was informed there was only 22 feet of lakeshore. A compliant was made that this was illegal for docks. Mr. Coddon disagrees with the condominium idea. The other properties have out-lots and there is a tax statement this and no taxes are being paid on as it belongs to an association. Mr. Coddon stated that he was promised from staff that this would go pass when he informed staff of what he was going to do. City Council Andrea does not recall these issues with the LMCD. Building Official Jon Sutherland asked if Mr. Coddon is suggesting modification to this subdivision; which would mean starting the process again. Sutherland further explained that Mr. Pastuck telephoned and asked if the item could be tabled so that he could be present to address the council directly. However, due to the 60-day limitation this item should not be tabled. Council Member Brown would like this item tabled until the end of the meeting in case Mr. Pastuck arrives. MOTION by Brown seconded by Weycker, to suspend discussion until further t/me when the property owner arrives. MOTION carded unanimously CASE #00-68: ZONING AMENDMENT~ 5989 AND 5964 CHESTNUT BRENSHEI, I, DEVELOPMENT Steve Behnke, Fine Line Design Group. This is a property that exists at the end of an unfinished street labeled Chestnut Road. Currently the road ends at this location. Mr. Wilcox owns these four parcels for his residence. He also owns a parcel that exists in this area here, Lot 24. Brenshell Development has purchased these lots from the Moby's. All three parcels are being combined ha this application. They cun'enfly are zoned R-IA. We are requesting as part of the PUD process to down-zone R-1. None of the lots are less than the 10,000 square foot minimum and other than some internal, private yard setbacks, all setbacks comply with R-1 setbacks. A number of recommendations were handled at the Planning Commission. There were some observations that the original platting did not show thegxisting residence as part of the plat. This has been incorporated. Some recommendations in terms of right-of-way size and cul-de-sac size have now been incorporated. One change that was discussed at the Planning Commission Meeting was taking three lots and making five lots. The project is similar to the Seton Bluffproject. It was decided to incorporate a private drive because of typo and vegetation considerations. Because of the private drive, two of the lots are smaller. They do still meet R-1 standards. One of the recommendations that staff made was to add parking for the houses off the top of the lots. Chestnut Road extended into a cul-de-sac n front of the Wilcox home. One lot access south off of the cul-de-sac and a private drive that accesses to the north to a "T" that subsequently accesses to the homes in the south. The grade up this private drive is steep. It does approach 19%. Staff had originally recommended the need for additional guest parking. There is definitely adequate space in front of the garages in all cases here to handle the amount of extra parking that staff requested which is two extra spaces for house. There will be room for eight extra spark/ag spots on the individual lots. It becomes the individual homeowners responsibilities to take care of their own guest parking and to take care of their own maintenance of the driveways. Staff recommended that the setbacks from the front of the houses, the front being the garage doors, to the private drive be a minimum of 40 feet. The concept being that you need 20 feet per parking stalls. The two lots that are being restricted by the setbacks are actually the smaller of the two. However, we did feel that negotiating to a 15 feet setback was acceptable. Also accepting the private drive in this case does need to be labeled as a fire-lane and is 22 feet wide. This is not designed to be used for parking. We will be installing concrete curb for the private drives to meet city standards. There is a request f~om staff for an easement for city maintenance of the storm water pond, which exists, in the southeast quadrant of the cul- de-sac. The entire pond will be surrounded by a drainage utility easement to benefit the City of Mound. There was also a request by staff that the hydrant that is located at the end of the private drive be able to meet fire department standards. We have accepted that as well. The bottom of the first page of the resolution, (packet page g4771) has an error. In that the "whereas" describes an extension of Chestnut Road with a proposed 70 feet right-of-way diameter. Next sentence a 30 feet fight-of-way is proposed at the west property line. This should actually be 40 feet right-of-way is proposed at the west property line. Also Packet page 4773 Item #7, shows a hardcover for each lot be not more than 30%. In a normal subdivision this would be handled on the road. I am asking for council consideration of either allowing the upgrade slightly of the hardcover, specifically for Lot 2 and Lot 3. Lot 3 as drawn is 29.7% and that is not taking into consideration any decks or sidewalks. We propose a 30% average for four lots or someway for allowing those two lots specifically a httle more coverage or a credit for the extra parking. Council Member Hanus suggested averaging the hardcover for all lots. Building Official Suthefland, beheves the Shoreland Management Ordinance with the tiering effect would allow 30% on the whole involvement and it would need to be covered under some consideration or restriction on the Lots. Mr. Behnke requested approximately 35% hardcover and continued that he has read through the balance of the Resolution and concurs with all the findings. Council Member Ahrens questioned Packet page 4771 on the bottom of the page is it 70 and 30 or 80 and 40? Council Member Hanus followed with that it was proposed by the applicant at 70 feet and staff indicated 80 feet. John Cameron cleared up the situation explaining this is how it was submitted. It was submitted with a 30 feet fight-of-way extension and a 70 feet diameter cul-de-sac. The code requirements for Mound are for a 50 feet fight-of-way and a 100 feet diameter fight- of-way. Mound standards in the past have been for the improved section of the cul-de-sac to be 80 feet diameter and there have been a number of variances granted. The right-of-my was reduced from 50 feet to 40 feet which is what staff is suggesting with an additional 5 feet on each side of the existing right-of-way that is to the west. The right-of-way for the cul-de-sac is reduced to 80 feet diameter with a 70 feet diameter improved street limit. There would be a 35 feet turning radius that would be improved and a 40 feet radius on the cul-de-sac. It is not called out in the Resolution itself. It is in Staff's report that is in the packet page 4798 item #3 in the preliminary plat. Mr. Cameron then explained the grade situation. The private street that is proposed is approaching 19%; however the cul-de-sac will have a flat landing area. The City's code for public streets limits the grade to 8% which is standard in most communities. Other communities limits private drives to 12% to 15%. At this time, the watermain ends at the end of the improved street. Applicant is proposing a watermain extension and a hydrant. Applicant was also requested to extend the watermain to the east line of their plat so that in the future the City could extend this watermain to Langdon Lane and connect to that main. Also one of the requirements was for the developer to furnish fire flows to meet the requirements of the Mound Fire Department. Also this property has unpaid utility assessments because there was no sewer and water exte~nded to this site. Staff's report on page 4800 explains the dollar amounts. The City would require this to be paid as part of this platting procedure. Council Member Weycker asked Mr. Cameron to explain the easement for the Storm Water Pond. Mr. Cameron explained the Storm Water Pond proposed in this area would gather the storm water in the cul-de-sac, go into the storm water pond, then an outlet into the wetland. The City owns this parcel. It was discussed with Greg Skinner he would prefer that the City maintain the Storm Water pond. The advantage is that the City does not have to rely on a homeowners association to maintain it. The Storm Water Utility Fund would pay for this maintenance. These types of ponds do not have to be cleaned for 15-20 years. At this t/me Mayor Meisel open the meeting to the public hearing. Mr. Stokes, President of Breushell Development. Reiterated what was previously discussed. Also the shed on the Wilcox property will be removed and some evergreen trees will be planted. David Wilcox owns the majority of the property and is supportive of this project. MOTION by Brown to approve the Resolution. Adding and reco~izing on page 4787 the recommendation of John Cameron concerning the watermain and sewer charges. Cul-de- sac radius to be 80/40 as per Resolution on page 4773. Also a condition to realign the property line adjustment be made. Council Member Weycker seconded and added a correction under "A" number three and seven are the same. "The existing house on lots 25 and 26 legally described with a lot and block consistent with the subdivision platting. And the removal of the shed that was an existing three feet. Seconded accepted by Brown. RESOLUTION #00-123 A RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY PLAT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL FOR A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AREA BY CONDITONAL USE PERMIT, LOT AND STREET DESIGN VARIANCES FOR CI-IESTNUT ADDITION RESIDENTAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT 5989 AND 5964 CHESTNUT ROAD. P & Z CASE # 00-68 & CASE # 00-35 MOTION carries unanimously. CASE #00-35 PRELIMINARY PLAT, 5989 AND 5964 CHESTNUT ROAD, BRENSltEL£ DEVELOPMENT. Mayor Meisel opened the public hearing. Council Member Brown rescinds the motion until the public hearings are complete. MOTION by Ahreus, seconded by Brown to rescind the motion until the second public hearings. MOTION carried unanimously. Mayor Meisel opened the second public heating which address the preliminary plat. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Weycker to make the same Motion as made before with the conditions Council Member Weycker added. RESOLUTION # 00-123 A RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY PLAT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL FOR A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AREA BY CONDITIONAL US PERMIT, LOT AND STREET DESIGN VARIANCES FOR CHESTNUT ADDITION RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. CASE # 00-68 & CASE# 00-35 MOTION carded unanimously. ,4 CTION ON RESOLUTION APPR 0 ~NG A MINOR COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT: LOTS 18, 19, AND 20, L YNWOOD PARK CASE #00-66: ZONING AMENDMENT M]ETRO PLAINS DEVELOPMENT NW CORNER OF LYNWOOD AND COMMERCE CASE #00-65' PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AREA CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT METRO PLAINS DEVELOPMENT NW CORNER OF LYNWOOD AND COMMERCE CASE #00-64: PRELIMINARY PLAT METO PLAINS DEVELOPMENT NW CORNER OF LYNWOOD AND COMMERCE ACTION ON RESOLUTION City Attorney John Dean addressed the City Council. Today and w/thin the last few days information has been brought to the City's attention which has an impact as to how to be able proceed on this particular matter. The information comes in two forms. The first comment that has been made is in regards to the November 30, 2000, Planning Commission Meeting to make its recommendation on the various land use matters pending before it and the prelim/nary plat matter pending before it. Allegedly the meeting was at a time which did not comply with the requirements of the Open Meeting Law. That appears to be correct. The notice was posted at the City Hall the morning of the November 28, 2000, following the evening meeting of the Planning Commission. Had the notice been posted at the end of the evening on November 27, 2000, it would have been lawful notice. It was not posted until very early in the morning of November 28, 2000. This is a failure to comply with the requirements of the Open Meeting Law. The City has had discussions with the Developer over this issue. The City expressed to the developer that if the City Council were to proceed to consider these matters, there would at least be the basis for a challenge. Since the City did not have the authority lacking a valid recommendation fi.om the Planning Commission. The developer has taken the position that is a risk they do not wish to take unless there is a remedy. The remedy requires that we continue next week after giving proper notice of a Planning Commission Meeting. In this way, the City meets the intent and the letter of the Open Meeting Law. The other issue that was brought to the City's attention this evening was receiving a letter fi.om a law firm outlining a number of concerns about the process that is being followed. The letter also indicates a petition filed and signed by at least 25 individuals requesting an EAW be prepared for this project. The original of the petition either has been or is being filed with the EQB. The penitence of a petition requested an EQB has an impact on what the City Council can do in deciding these matters. The statue states the City cannot take any action that finally authorizes the project during the penitence of the petition. There are some limitations that are placed on the City. It is my recommendation to the City Council that of the items that are pending, the City Council should not proceed with the Conditional Use permit or the Variance. The Preliminary Plat could be proceeded with tonight. It is my recommendation that the public hearings on these matters be opened and then the matters be continued to Wednesday, December 27, 2000. At which point the Planning Commission would meeting, consider the matter, make a recommendation to the City Council, then the City Council would then act on the various items that are pending before it. MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Brown to continue the public hearing to Wednesday December 27, 2000, at 7:30 p.m. for a joint public hearing with the Planning Commission. Council Member Ahrens questioned is this for every matter that is pending? Attorney Dean that is correct and that the Planning Commission does not have to take testimony at that hearing. MOTION carried unanimously. Bob Polston has a petition for an EAW for presentation to the City Council and is requesting that the City Council review this. I(im Anderson, 5736 Lynwood blvd., is concerned with the 60 day role. As per John Dean this will not go over. CONSIDERATION OF A GREEMENTS PERTAINING TO WESTEDGE BL VD. See four (4) draft agreement in packet page 4904. Mr. Cameron explained the development to Westedge Road and the watermain extension that is anticipated on the southern half of Westedge Road. There has been m~merous discussions on all four of these agreements at a staff level, between Jori Dean, John Cameron, and Loren Gordon. Also with the City of Minnetrista city staff, their en~neer, and their city administrator. All those revisions are in the agreements in the packet. For information purposes, staffwas at the Minnelrista Council Meeting last night and presented the final plans that are in the packet. Minnetdsta notified all the residents in the area of Westedge Road. Two or three of the residents were present. This was not a public hearing; however residents were given a chance to add their input. We were in agreement on the plans not the agreements. It is my understanding that this will be continued at the Minnetrista City Council Workshop Session on January 16, 2001. Page 4906 on the packet, there is a draf~ of a Westedge Road extension agreement. This covers the area at the south end where the gravel road connects to the existing blacktop on Westedge and Halstead. There are items the developer of the Minnetrista property has asked to be included in this agreement. The developer requested better layout and road alignment that will address the concerns of the residents on Halstead Lane. This may become complicated because we will require some additional easements from Met Council Environmental Services. The City of Mound has a huge easement for both utility and road. The alignment to be used when this road is redone would go outside that existing easement in one area. Also, Westedge Road that is improved in front of the old waste treatment plant is shoved all the way to the south edge of the existing right..of-way. Mayor Meisel informed Mr. Cameron that she received a telephone call from the developer explaining they are very much in favor of doing whatever Mound requires on that 150 feet stretch of road. The developer is asking Mound staff to design the spec to build with Minnetfista's approval. This needs to be tied to the property in case this development does not happen in 4-5 years. Council needs legal opinion on how to make sure this happens. Minnetrista's Mayor feels that if this agreement were in force, Minnetrista would enforce the agreement. Mr. Cameron spoke with the developer after the meeting last night. The impression that he gave staff was that he wanted final plans and specs completed. Mr. Cameron explained that process would be the burden of the city of Minnetfista or the developer. Mound will provide the alignment that would be approved by the Mound City Council. When t/me comes for this project to move forward as part of a development; that information should already be available. The way it stands now, the developer would handle it all-at no cost to the City of Mound. Mr. Dean explained the document that we have with Minnetrista is that Minnetrista will not give subdivision approval until the sub-divider has entered an agreement with the City of Mound for the development of the 150 feet stretch of road. CONSIDERATION OF PROP$OAL ON RETIREMENT POLICY. Sergeant John McKinley representing the Retirement Council Committee presented the following proposal: At the time of retirement, employees may elect one of two options: 1. Employees may cash out of vacation and sick time accruals in a h~rnp sum form, as per the current policy; or All or part of vacation and sick time accruals may be deposited into an interest-bearing fund that will finance employee and dependent health and dental insurance premiums until Medicare age, or until the finances are depleted. The employees must make a choice at the time of retirement. Council Member Hanus stated that he does not agree with this whole issue. The Council is benefiting the people who use their sick days. The Council should look at other alternatives/methods to identify the abuse, without these types of measures. Council Member Ahrens believes the Council is going in with the wrong attitude toward this. Sergeant McKinley explained employees would be able to place up to 100% of their accrued sick time into an interest bearing account for health/dental insurance premiums. This 100% would be the maximum mount placed into that account. An employee who normally receives 45% severance pay from the sick bank could leave up to the 45% in the interest bearing account. The City for a total of 90% of the sick bank would match this 45%. Conversely, an employee who would normally receive 55% of the accrued sick bank would receive a matching 45% fxom the City for a capped total of 100% of the sick bank. Any funds in the account may be used by the employee to pay in.qurance premiums and upon reaching the age of Medicare coverage, for supplemental insurance. Should the employee precede a spouse in death, the spouse may draw on the remaining funds for insurance premiums or may close the account receiving all funds contained therein. An employee may choose to place any or all of their vacation into this interest bearing account in addition to whatever sick time accrual is placed into that account. Per our conversation, the Finance Director will be checking into which companies are available to manage said accounts and the maximum amounts which can be deposited into those accounts at any one time. It is our understanding that this account, which will be managed by this outside company, will allow the employee to chooses the investment options for the total amount deposited into said account. Mayor Meisel has directed the committee go back to the drawing board. CASE #00-59 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1800 COMMERCE BLVD., JOHN PASTUCK CASE #00-67 MINOR SUBDIVISION 1800 COMMERCE BLVD., JOHN PASTUCK Mayor Meisel re-opened the public hearing regarding item 5A and 5B. Mr. Coddon explained that Mr. Pastuck is still not available. Mr. Coddon is addressing the Resolution Item lB and believed it not to be accurate. Also the 60-day situation is something to address. Council Member Brown asked again for the property owner. Council Member Hanus explained the building is not the issue. The splitting of the lots is what the question. These lots are 22 feet wide at the lakeshore side. Council Member Brown stated the Council could only approve or deny because the owner is not present. Mr. Coddon asked if this is denied does the owner have to wait one year to come before the council. Council Member Weycker would like to move to table under the condition that the applicant/owner is willing to forgo the 60-day role if not we move to deny. As per Mr. Dean, this has been extended another 60 days from today. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Ahrens to table this Resolution and to continue the public hearing and bring this back to the planning Commission next month. MOTION carried unanimously. INFORMA T/ON MI$CELLANEO US LMCD correspondence. Council Member Ahrens is asking for direction for retrieving some of the fees from the LMCD. The City of Mound administers its own dock program and yet pays the LMCD for it. $5,506.25. City Manager Kandis Hanson will discuss with Jim Fackler. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Weycker to adjourn meeting at 11:00 p.m. Council will use same packet to save on photocopies and delivery charges. Staffwill provide an agenda for the next meeting. December 19, 2000 Kanclls Hanson, City Manager Attest: Acting City Clerk THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY