1998-08-11MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - AUGUST 11, 1998
The City Council 0f the City 0t Mound, Hennepin County, Minncs0ta, met in regular session
on Tuesday, August 11, 1998, at 7:30 PM, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road,
in said City.
Those present were: Mayor Bob Polston, Councilmembers Andrea Ahrens, Mark Hanus, Liz
Jensen and Leah Wcycker. Also in attendance were: City Manager Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City
Attorney John Dean, City Clerk Fran Clark, City Engineer John Cameron, City Planner Loren
Gorden, Park Director Jim Fackler, Building Official Jon Suthefland, and the following
interested citizens: Frank Weiland, Peter Meyer, Chris Loew, Deb Grand, Craig Gallol, Greg
Robbins, Diane McCurry, Pam Meyers, Mike Mueller, Thomas Stokes, and Megan Johnson.
The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. The Pledge of
Allegiance was recited.
The Mayor asked for a moment of silence for the people who died in Africa at the hands of
international terrorists.
*Consent Agenda: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by
the Council and will be enacted by a roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these
items unless a Councilmember or Citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed
from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence.
APPROVE AGENDA. At this time items can be added to the Agenda that are
not listed and/or items can be removed from the Consent Agenda and voted upon
after the Consent Agenda has been approved.
Councilmember Hanus asked that the Minutes from July 28, 1998, be removed from the Consent
Agenda.
*CONSENT AGENDA.
MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Hanus to approve the Consent Agenda as
amended. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
*1.0
APPROVAL OF SIGN PERMIT REQUEST,
INCREDIBLE FESTIVAL.
MOTION
Ahrens, Hanus, unanimously.
OUR LADY OF THE LAKE,
*1.1 APPROVAL OF LICENSES FOR OUR LADY OF THE LAKE INCREDIBLE
FESTIVAL - PUBLIC DANCE PERMIT & TEMPORARY 3.2 BEER PERMIT.
MOTION
Ahrens, Hanus, unanimously.
381
MINUTES- MOUND CITY COUNCIL - AUGUST I1, 1998
'1.2 APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 220, MOUND CITY CODE
RELATED TO EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS,
Ahrens moved and Hanus seconded the following:
ORDINANCE//100-1998
AN ORDINANCE AMF~NDING SECTION 220 OF THE
CITY CODE RELATED TO EMERGENCY
PREPAREDNESS
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carded.
'1.3
SET SPECIAL MEETING FOR TUESDAY, AUGUST lS, 1998, 7:00 P.M,,
BEFORE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING, TO ENTER INTO
EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR PURPOSES OF LABOR RELATIONS STRATEGIES
AND ISSUES. FOLLOWING EXECUTIVE SESSION, COUNCIL WOULD
RETURN REPORT ON THE EXECUTIVE SESSION AND THEN ADJOURN THE
SPECIAL MEETING AND MOVE INTO THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
MEETING,
MOTION
Ahrens, Hanus, unanimously.
*1.4
PAYMENT OF BILLS.
MOTION
Ahrens, Hanus, unanimously.
1.5 APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE JULY 28, 1998, REGULAR MEETING.
Councilmember Hanus stated that on page 3030 of the packet under Resolution $98-84, reads
as follows: "Councilmember Hanus stated that he feels we will be seeing more of this type of
permit request in the future." He would like this corrected to read as follows: "Councilmember
Hanus stated the Council should be prepared to see this case over and over because he felt that
it created a new standard that other cases are going to be measured against."
MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Jensen to approve the Minutes of the July
28, 1998, Regular City Council Meeting, as amended. The vote 4 in favor with
Councilmember Ahrens abstaining because she was not present at the July 28th
Meeting. Motion carried.
382
MINUTES ~ MOUND CITY COUNCIL - AUGUST 11, 1998
1.6
PUBLIC HEARING: CASE 98-46: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT~ LIGHT
STANDARDS & MONOPOLE AT 5600 LYNWOOD BLVD., WESTONKA
SCHOOL DISTRICT 277/US WEST WIRELESS, UNPLATTED 14 117 24,
PID 14-117-24 41 0011.
1.7
CASE 98-45; VARIANCE. HEIGHT CONSTRAINT. WESTONKA SCHOOL
DISTRICT 277/US WEST WIRELESS, 5600 LYNWOOD BLVD.,
UNPLATTED 14 117 24, Pti}//14-117-24 41 0011,
The Planner explained that Westonka School District //277 and U.S. West Wireless
Telecommunications are requesting two items.
New lighting standards at Hadorff Field.
As well as a telecommunications antenna which is associated with the new
lighting standards.
The Planner explained that he would address these two requests together and then he would
break them apart because they are somewhat independent of each other.
The Planner presented a hand drawn sketch that he had done showing essentially what is being
asked for. He did this because there was confusion at the Planning Commission with all the
information that was submitted.
The Planner reviewed the requests individually.
The Planner reported that what is being requested is to replace 8 existing light
poles at Hadorff Field (4 on each side) with 4 poles (2 on each side). The
existing poles are approximately 60 feet in height and would be replaced with
poles that are approximately 70 feet in height. The new lighting would be an
improvement to the existing lighting. In addition to the 4 lighting standards,
there is a telecommunications antenna which would be located on top of one of
the new poles in the northwest comer of the field. The request has some
elements that do not meet the code. Lighting standards are just like a structure
on the school district site. They require a Conditional Use Permit. There is no
permit history on the previous poles. They estimated the height of the existing
poles at 60 feet. The new poles at 70 feet would be an increase of approximately
10 feet. Also required with the lighting standards is a lighting plan to show how
the lights would aeffect neighboring property. That has been submitted and meets
the code.
The second request is for a telecommunications antenna. Approximately 2 months
ago the Planning Commission recommended and the Council adopted a
telecommunications ordinance to address these type of situations, because we
knew they would come to Mound eventually. The ordinance was adopted to
prepare for their location and how they could operate within the City. This
request did not meet the intent of that ordinance so the telecommunications
company U.S. WEST is asking for a variance to allow this tower to exist at this
location. When the ordinance was reviewed, the City identified two industrial
areas where tower facilities could be located. The Planner reported that
essentially what is being requested is a monopole tower which would only be
383
MINUTES- MOUND CITY COUNCIL - AUGUST I1, 1998
allowed in the industrial (I-l) district. The company has asked for integration of
the antenna onto this lighting standard. They are asking for a height variance to
what height they could locate this antenna at on the lighting structure. Although
it looks like a monopole tower, the request is to attach it to the lighting standard.
The Planner explained that antennas are allowed to be located on lighting
standards, utility poles, electric voltage lines, buildings, if the height does not
reach above the height of the structure by more than 20 feet. They are asking for
a variance of 30 feet which would allow this antenna to reach up to a height of
about 120 feet. This assumes that the Conditional Use Permit for the lighting
standards at 70 feet is approved. The Planner stated that essentially this is a
monopole tower with lights attached to it. He stated that in reviewing this
request, it was felt that this did not meet the intent of where the ordinance was
going. This was a monopole and we wanted some integration of this tower to
make it look more like a lighting standard than a tower because it seems to skirt
the intent of the code. The recommendation that was made to the Planning
Commission was to look at a height of approximately 90 feet for this antenna
which would allow 20 feet above the top of the lighting standard. That would be
in conformance with the code. U.S. West did not agree with this approach and
stayed with their original application.
The Planning Commission recommended a 30 foot height variance which passed
on a 3-2-1 vote. The Conditional Use Permit for the 70 foot lighting standards
was approved unanimously.
The Planner reported that since the Planning Commission Meeting, the City Attorney, City
Manager and himself have discussed the intent of the ordinance and how the lighting standards
were addressed. Initially there were several approaches to address the lighting standards:
1. Because there was no permit history, should a permit be required? It was
determined that we should require a permit.
2. Since we are going to permit it, how should we look at the height.9 The Planner
reco~nmended looking at it as a CUP encompassing everything that was being
asked for. Since then, it has been determined that it is in the best interests of all
the parties (school district, U.S. West, and the City) involved that we go back
and ask for a variance for the light standard height from 45 feet to 70 feet so all
interests are protected.
For those reasons, he wanted to lay this out for the Council to consider possibly sending this
back to the Planning Commission for the light standard portion of the request so that there can
be further review, study and findings of fact determined. This would be a height variance
showing practical difficulty and hardship to be included in the CUP.
The City Attorney pointed out that 3 of the 4 light standards are 70 feet tall each and the
ordinance permits, as a Conditional Use, light standards in that district, but no taller than 45
feet. This requires a variance for the 70 foot tall standards. That variance was not part of the
application process that went before the Planning Commission. The variance that was
considered was for the standard with the antennas. The City Attorney then stated that there is
another provision in the ordinance that states that an antenna can extend only 20 feet above the
antenna support structure. This proposed variance is for 50 feet above the antenna support
structure. The other variance from 45 feet to 70 feet has not been requested. Basically, they
need a Conditional Use Permit and a varianze for the light poles.
384
MINUTES- MOUND CITY COUNCIL - AUGUST 11, 1998
The Planner stated the replacement of the light poles is one request. The other request is for
the telecommunications antenna. The height of the light poles is covered in the Zoning Code.
The Planner then stated that what should have been done at the Planning Commission is to
consider the following separately:
1. A CUP for the 4 lighting standards;
2. A variance in the height of the 4 standards; and
3. A variance for the height of the antenna tower.
The Planner recommended that this be returned to the Planning Commission for
their review. He suggested opening the public heating, hear comments, close the
hearing, and have the Planning Commission review the variances at their August
24th Meeting. It could then come back to the City Council on August 25th.
The Council asked the applicants if this would work for the applicants.
Gregg Robbins, facility coordinator for Westonka Schools encouraged the Council to
approve the CLIP and variances. He stated they would like to have the project done by
the first football game, September 1 lth and first soccer game September 8th. He stated
the School District needs new lights and poles, reducing the number from 8 to 4 will
create more light on the field and less spill and glare on neighboring properties. He also
stated the existing poles are in poor condition and need to be replaced. U.S. West came
in with this proposal for an antenna on one light standard. He stated U.S. West is
funding 3/4 of this project. The estimated total cost of the project is $104,000. He then
stated they do not want to use the old lights because the poles are rotting and the wiring
is questionable. There was an incident last year where a person jumped on the guy line
wire holding a pole and crossed the electrical lines up above causing sparks above the
grandstand.
l
the Council discussed the lighting.
Councilmember Jensen stepped down from the Council because she is an employee of U.S.
West.
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
The following persons spoke in favor of approving the requests:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Michael Mueller, resident and Planning Commissioner.
Para Meyers, Supt. of Schools.
Craig Gallol, lighting consultant, for the School District.
Keith Radcliff, Activities Director, Westonka Schools.
Sally McCurry, School Board Member.
Peter Meyer, resident, Park Commissioner.
Scott Hoeschler, U.S. West, stated that they need the height of 120 feet for the antenna in this
location in order to operate properly.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
385
MINUTES- MOUND CITY COUNCIL - AUGUST 11, 1998
The Council discussed the requests. They asked if all the alternatives have been explored. The
Council discussed the fact that there needs to be practical difficulty and hardship shown to grant
the variances. The Council also discussed the telecommunications ordinance that was just
adopted two months ago and U.S. West had input into. The Council asked that Mr. Hoeschler
provide the City with some technical or engineering studies or reports showing that this the only
option available.
Mr. Hoeschler stated that he was told this would be a continued item tonight. Therefore, he did
not ask his engineers to come and was not planning on a big presentation with more information.
MOTION made by Polston to deny the variances because there no sufficient
hardship shown. The motion died for lack of a second.
Mr. Hoeschler asked that these items be continued to the next Council Meeting to allow him to
submit evidence of practical difficulty and hardship.
The Council discussed sending this back to the Planning Commission for further review.
MOTION made by Weycker to bring this item back to the next City Council meeting
so that the applicant can prepare for their presentation. The motion died for lack
of a second.
MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Weycker to have the applicant present to
the Planning Commission the engineering and technical data that they intend to
present to the City Council with their hardship and practical difficulty. Also that
the Planning Commi~ion make a recommendation that includes what the hardship
and practical difficulties are. This will go to the Planning Commission on August
24th and come back to the Council on August 25th. The vote was unanimously in
favor. Motion carried.
Councilmember Jensen returned to the City Council.
1.8
1.9
PUBLIC HEARING: PROPOSED PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT - NORWOOD LANE.
BID AWARD: NORWOOD LANE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT,
The City Engineer explained the background and stated that 2 bids were received as follows:
Northdale Construction Co. $72,950.56
Midwest Asphalt Corp. $87,224.50
The Engineer's estimate was $52,461.00. The Engineer stated there are several reasons for the
bids being 40 percent over the estimate:
1. the time of year and workload of the bidders; and
2. the small size of the project.
The Engineer recommended that the Council reject all the bids and rebid the project next spring
for completion in early summer 1999. He feels the bids in the spring will be much lower.
The Mayor opened the public hearing on the proposed improvement of Norwood Lane. There
was no response. The Mayor closed the public hearing.
386
MINUTES- MOUND CITY COUNCIL - AUGUST 11, 1998
The Council discussed what effect this rejection of bids will have on the developer of the twin
homes and his preliminary plat. The developer has one year to file a final plat which would be
June 23, 1999. If the preliminary plat needs to be extended, the developer would have to apply
45 days prior to that date, approximately May 1, 1999. Thc improvements need to be done
before final plat approval can be given. The Council asked that a certified letter be sent to the
developer apprising him of the situation.
The Engineer suggested going out for bids in March 1999, and then brought back to the Council
the first meeting in April for consideration. The public hearing could then be reopened on the
proposed improvement and assessment.
MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Jensen to reject all the bids for the
improvement of Norwood Lane. This project to be rebid in the Spring of 1999. A
decision on ordering the improvement will be deferred until after the improvement
is rebid and new public notice is given. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion
carried.
The Planner suggested that in the letter to the developer reference be made to extensions to the
CUP and variances that will also be needed.
COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT.
There were none.
1.10 APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 320, MOUND CITY CODE
RELATING TO ENCROACHMENTS ON LAKESHORE PUBLIC COMMONS,
The Building Official stated the proposed ordinance is in the Council packet. Also in the packet
are the minutes from the Planning Commission meeting where it was discussed.
Planning Commissioner Mueller what the Council considers a "reasonable time period", as stated
in Subd. 3 of the proposed ordinance. The City Attorney stated that was language the DCAC
wanted in the ordinance. Their feeling was that the owner should have ample opportunity to
correct whatever the problem may be. The Building Official stated if it was a life/safety issue
it would have to be corrected immediately. The Mayor stated that is correct and if the owner
did not take care of it then the City would. The Building Official did not have a problem with
the term reasonable time period. That would leave it to his discretion. The Council agreed.
Mueller then suggested replacing "fair market value" with depreciated replacement value". The
Council agreed.
Mueller stated that if an inspection is needed for a transfer of permit in Subd. 5, then the
language should be changed as follows. "Requests for transfer shall be made in writing to the
City Building Official who shall approve the transfer, after ins_nection, in writing unless
conditions exist which would constitute grounds for action pursuant to subdivision 8 below."
Hanus stated he would oppose this, because the permit was issued for a specified period of time
and just because the property transferred doesn't change the condition within the permit that was
already granted.
387
MINUTES- MOUND CITY COUNCIL - AUGUST 11, I~8
The Council discussed how new residents would know they have an encroachment. There is no
provision in the proposed ordinance for the permit holder to record the permit at the County on
their property. The Mayor stated it was the intent of the DCAC to create a mechanism to let
the potential buyer of property know that they have an encroachment on public land. The City
Attorney stated that the covenant mentioned in Subd. 6.b. doesn't say so but the covenant will
be recorded against the abutting private property. The Council struck the current language in
Subd. 6.b. which refers to the covenant. The City Attorney suggested putting language in the
covenant that would extend the permit if the permit is extended. Then the covenant would only
need to be filed when the permit is issued. This will need to be clarified before the proposed
ordinance is published and becomes law. The Council agreed.
There was a question about Subd. 5. The Council struck the last sentence in that subdivision.
The following is the end result of all the discussion, except for Subd. 6.b. which will be
clarified as mentioned above.
Councilmember Ahrens asked that the word "maintenance" be defined.
The City Attorney suggested the following: "Maintenance for the purpose of Section shall mean
The term "maintenance" as used in this Section shall mean "the use or keeping of any Subject
Structure on the lakeshore public Commons of the City." This will be added to the Statement
of Intent.
Mueller asked about Subd. 6, a. which states, "a written agreement, backed with security
deemed reasonable by the City Council, providing for the removal of the Subject Structure when
it is no longer under permit, and acknowledging the structure owners obligation to remove the
structure and/or pay for the cost of doing so."
The City Attorney pointed out that the word "may" is used in the first part of Subd. 6, not
"shall".
Mueller asked that the first sentence in Subd. 7 be modified as follows:
: ..... :~'~+ L':co::s'~tc::t "':"' +~'~ ' ' Unless orovisions under Subd.
~ apply, repair, modification or alteration of the Subject Structure will be treated as if the
Subject Structure were a non-conforming structure located on private property in accordance
with the provisions of Section 350:420, subdivisions 1 through 8. The Council agreed.
The Council made it clear that structural alterations to encroaching nonconforming structures
would go to the Planning Commission for their recommendations but that the intent of this is
not to perpetuate encroaching structures. It is to eliminate them on public Commons.
Chris Loew, 2181 Fairview Lane, stated that he is glad the Council is addressing this the way
they are because he bought his home not knowing there was an encroachment on the property.
He stated he is waiting for this ordinance to be adopted to do some repairs to his encroachment.
Councilmember Weycker questioned Subd. 1, and the phrase "should be permitted to remain"
because she felt this is jumping to a conclusion that we are trying to determine by this ordinance.
She suggested it read as follows: "The City finds and determines that certain structures which
were either constructed or placed on lakeshore public commons on or before April 1, 1976,
388
MINUTES- MOUND CITY COUNCIL - AUGUST 11, 1998
........ t~ .................. will 1~ su ect to the provisions contained or referenced in this
Section."
Councilmcmbcr Hanus stated that his understanding of what was proposed is to allow them to
remain under certain conditions.
Councilmember Weycker stated it is not really to let them remain, it is to determine whether
they should remain.
Councilmember Ahrens stated her understanding is to let them remain until they meet one of the
criteria in the ordinance to no longer remain.
Councilmember Jensen stated that even though the Council has said many times we want to get
rid of these structures, the purpose of this is to allow them to stay for as long as is reasonable.
After discussion, the Council decided to leave Subd. 1., as is.
Councilmember Ahrens asked what Subd. 3.e. means? The City Attorney stated that the
structure is in the way. This says it hinders the use of the Commons by others. Ahrens stated
she believes any structure could be hindering the use of the Commons by others. She stated
there could be other reasons such as there is no public land to get to the Commons. She felt the
encroachment would fall under this provision. She stated if this is the case, we are going to go
out and start tearing down boathouses, guest houses, and decks because they are all significantly
hindering the use of the Commons. The Mayor stated the verbiage was the collective
suggestions from the DCAC. The Mayor stated he feels this is referring to a structure that
significantly hinders access to the public Commons, and the owner is unwilling to remove it or
to alleviate the hinderance, within a reasonable time. Findings by the City Council on these
matters, shall be deemed conclusive, based on recommendations by the Staff. Councilmember
Ahrens stated she does not feel this is what Subd. 3.e. says.
Polston moved and Weycker seconded the following, as amended above:
ORDINANCE #101-1998
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 320:05 OF
THE CITY CODE RELATING TO
ENCROACHMENTS ON PUBLIC LAKESHORE
COMMONS
Councilmember Ahrens stated she cannot vote in favor of this because of Subd. 3.e.
The vote was 4 in favor with Ahrens voting nay. Motion carried.
SUGGESTED ORDINANCE
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 320:05
OF THE CITY CODE RELATING TO ENCROACHMENTS
ON PUBLIC LAKESHORE COMMONS
Section 320.05
Continuation of Certain Structures constructed on or before
April 1, 1976.
389
MINUTES- MOUND CITY COUNCIL - AUGUST 11, 1998
Subd. 1. Statement of Intent, The City finds and determines that certain structures which
were either constructed or placed on lakeshore public commons on or before April 1, 1976,
should be permitted to remain subject to the provisions contained or referenced in this Section.
The structures which are covered by this section a~e to include buildings (including boathouses)
'~^~-~ deck~, platforms, fences, flagpoles and birdhouse. ("Subject Structure").
Subd. 2. ~.{a'm:cr. ancc Special Permit for Sub_iect Structures. No person shall continue
to maintain any Subject Structure on lakeshore public commons without first receiving a special
maintenance permit from the City Council. Permit applications may be obtained from the city
building official.
Subd. 3. Criteria for Issuance, The City Council shall issue the special maintenance
permit unless it finds any of the following conditions to be present:
a. significant safety problems exist which the structure's owner is unable or
unwilling to rectify within a reasonable time period; or
b. safety hazards exist for which the cost of repair is equal to 50% or more of the
fa/r-market depreciated reolacement value of the structure prior to repair; or
c. the functional use of the structure is impaired such that restoration to functionality
would cost 50 % or more of the gaJ-r-mad~ depreciated replacement value of the
structure before repair;
d. aesthetic appearance of the structure has become so deficient that a restoration to
an acceptable appearance would cost 50% or more of the ~ depreciated
reolacement value of the structure before repair.
e. the structure significantly hinders the use of the public commons by others and
the owner is unwilling or unable to alleviate the hinderance within a reasonable
time.
Findings by the City Council on these matters shall be deemed conclusive.
Subd. 4. Permit Duration and Fee. Permits shall be for a five year period commencing
on January 1 of the year of issuance. The fee shall be in an amount as set by the council in
Section 510.[$75.00] which is payable in five equal annual installments of $15.00 each. The
first annual installment is due at the time of application and subsequent installments are due on
or before January I the last day of February of each year during the term of the permit. In
instances in which the permit holder is also the holder of a city dock license, the annual dock
license will not be issued until the annual installment has been paid unless the Subject Structure
permit holder provides the City with a written statement relinquishing all interest in the Subject
Structure and consenting to its removal by the City. Subject Structure permit fees will be placed
in a separate account which will be dedicated to expenditures incurred in the administration and
enforcement of activities under this Section.
Subd. 5. Transfer of Permit. Permits issued under this section may be transferred by the
permittee to third parties who become the owner and occupant of the property primarily
benefited by the Subject Structure. Such transfer shall not confer to the transferee any further
rights than those held by the transferor at the time of transfer. Requests for transfer shall be
made in writing to the City Building Official who shall approve the transfer in writing unless
conditions exist which would constitute grounds for action pursuant to subdivision 8 below. -~
390
MINUTES- MOUND CITY COUNCIL - AUGUST 11, 1998
Subd. 6.
granted under
a.
bm
Conditions for Issuance. The City Council may attach conditions to permits
this section. Such conditions may include, without limitation:
a written agreement, backed with security deemed reasonable by the City
Council, providing for the removal of the Subject Structure when it is no longer
under permit, and acknowlodging the structure owners obligation to remove the
structure and/or pay for the cost of doing so.
A covenant executed by the applicant in form acceptable to the City
indemnifying, holding harmless and agreeing to defend the City against any
claims based upon the continued maintenance of the Czuncll subject Structure.
Subd. 7. Repair, Modification and Alteration of Subiect_ Structure. Except to. '~e extent
:. ....: ......... , , · : ...... , , :,~. ,,. ......:~: ....~, ,~.:~ ~,~,:A- Unless orovisions under Subd.
3 apply, repair, modification or alteration of the Subject Structure will be treated as if the
Subject Structure were a non-conforming structure located on private property in accordance
with the provisions of Section 350:420, subdivisions 1 through 8.
Subd. 8. Termination of Permit. Permits issued under this section may be terminated and
the transfer may be declined upon a determination by the City Council that any of the following
conditions exist:
a. Any of the criteria described in Subdivision 3 of this section are found to exist;
b. The Subject Structure has been abandoned.
c. The permit fee has not been paid.
d. There has been a violation or lapse of any condition imposed on the permit.
Following notice of such termination, the City may exercise whatever remedy is
available to it either by contract or at law to secure the removal of the Subject
Structure.
1.1R BID AWARD: AUDITOR'S ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT,
The City Engineer reported 3 bids were received as follows:
Northdale Construction Co. $211,765.00
Buffalo Bituminous $283,086.50
Midwest Asphalt Corp. $334,302.00
The Engineer's estimate was $211,765.00. The bids were 23% over the estimate. He feels the
reasons for the high bids are the same as the bid for Norwood Lane: 1. Time of year;.
2. Contractors have more projects than normal;
3. The completion schedule; and
4. Weather conditions.
The Engineer related the following options:
Reject all the bids and rebid the project as soon as possible. With the three-
week advertisement requirement, the earliest we could expect to open bids
would be the week of September 14. The Council would not be able to award
the contract until their meeting on September 22. This would not allow
enough time to finish the project this year. In addition, rebidding at this time
of year mostly likely will not result in lower prices.
391
MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - AUGUST 11, 1998
Reject all the bids and rebid the project in February or March of 1999. This
would probably result in a reduction of unit prices, but there is no guarantee.
The only sure thing to happen, is that the project would not be completed
until approximately August 1, 1999.
Award the contract to the low bidder. Northdale Construction tells us they
are set to start the week of August 24. Unless we have an unseasonably wet
fall, we should have substantial completion by the end of October.
The Engineer recommended option //2. The Council discussed the options and the
recommendation.
MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Weycker to reject all bids for the
Auditor's Road Project and rebid the project in February or March of 1999.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
SETON BLUFF PROPOSED DOCK SITE.
The Park Director reviewed the background.
Staff recommends approval of the request as submitted based on staff having made
contact with the DNR and the LMCD verifying that the dock falls within their guidelines
and does not need a permit from these agencies.
By the addition of this site, 220 lineal feet of shoreline would be added to the current
29,000 lineal feet of non-contiguous shoreline that the City uses for its LMCD Multiple
Dock and Mooring Area License.
Councilmember Hanus objected to adding this site for the following reasons.
1. The addition of 220 feet only allows 4.4 BSU's (boat storage units) and what
is being requested is 6 BSU's.
2. What this addition does is drawing BSU assets from the Dock Program rather
than contributing to the program.
3. Because it can only be used by the residents of Seton Bluff and the general
public cannot use it, it should not be considered part of the public Dock
Program.
He felt the developer should get his own multiple slip license from the
LMCD.
The Park Director stated that currently the City is licensed for 590 BSU's and we are
using 492 BSU's. He pointed out that the multiple dock program is reducing the number
of BSU's because people are going from having two or more boats to one boat per site.
The Park Director also pointed out that if there is concern about losing BSU's, we could
include more footage in this by continuing on down the shoreline to Kerry Lane and
down around the whole point which has not been included in the shoreline footage.
Hanus did not agree. His contention is that all of this is currently included in the
shoreline footage.
392
MINUTES- MOUND CITY COUNCIL - AUGUST 11, 1998
There was discussion about vacating Longford Road. There was also discussion about
approving this for addition to the Dock Program for the remainder of this season and
looking at other options, i.e. vacation, at a later date.
MOTION made by Polston, seconded by Weycker to authorize the addition of
220 feet of unimproved shoreline known as Longford Road to the dock
location map. The Council also grantS a temporary public lands permit for 6
docks and direct Staff to prepare a report on the possibility of vacating
Longford Road. If the road is not vacated, this site would become a
permanent part of the dock program.
Hanus also disagreed with the amount to be charged for these slips, $150.00,
because they are all U shaped slips and he has to pay $235.00 for his lJ
shaped slip. The Park Director pointed out that Staff felt that a multiple slip
dock in the Dock Program is charged $150.00 and Staff considered this as the
same.
The vote was 4 in favor with Hanus voting nay. Motion carried.
REQUEST FROM THE CITY OF INDEPENDENCE ON
POSITION ON THE UPGRADE OF COUNTY ROAD
MINNETRISTA AND INDEPENDENCE.
MOUND'S
110 IN
The City Manager explained that the Cities of Independence and Minnetrista have been
working with Hennepin County for an upgrade to County Road 110 north of Mound.
There has been some opposition to the project by residents in Minnetrista. There was a
resolution brought before Public Service Committee by these residents in July to make
County Road 110 a Natural Preservation Route to halt this project. Independence is
asking for Mound's support. The City Manager has spoken with Jim Grube, Director of
Transportation from Hennepin County, who reported that the County Board met last week
about this and is asking for Mound's position on the upgrade of County Road 110.
The Council asked to have Mr. Grub to come to the next Council Meeting and bring
them up-to-date on this project.
INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS:
A. Department Head Monthly Reports for July 1998.
B. LMCD Mailings.
C. Notice from Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) regarding public
information and Public Hearing Dates for Proposed Rule B Revision.
D. Update from Hennepin County on the reconstruction of County Road 15
in Orono.
393
MINUTES- MOUND CITY COUNCIL - AUGUST 11, 1998
Eo
Invitation from Hennepin County to the dedication and open house
at Hennepin County's new Public Works Facility at 1600 Prairie Drive,
Medina, MN., Friday, August 14, 1998.
Committee of the Whole Meeting, Tuesday, August 18,
1998, 7:30 p.m., City Hall or following the Special Meeting
of the City Council to be held at 7:00 p.m.
Next meeting of the WCCB is scheduled for Thursday,
September 24, 1998, 7:00 p.m., Mound City Hall.
MOTION made by Weycker, seconded by Ahrens to adjourn at 1~1:58 P.M.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
~w~. S~ukle, Jr., City Manager
Attest: City
394
II'IgP'O[I ~£09 HDiV~
§
O~
~m~ ~o
~too
~,oo,[oo¢
L_J
0
z
C
~D
Z
0 o
I
C
Z
~8
,.
THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY