Loading...
1992-08-11August 11, 1992 MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - AUGUST 1Lt 1992 The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, regular session on Tuesday, August 11, 1992, in the Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. met in Council Those present were: Mayor Skip Johnson, Councilmembers Andrea Ahrens, Liz Jensen, Phyllis Jessen and Ken Smith. Also present were: city Manager Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Clerk Fran Clark, City Attorney Curt Pearson, Building Official Jon Sutherland, Finance Director John Norman, Fire Chief Don Bryce, City Engineer John Cameron and the following interested citizens: Jim Kuehn, Keith Foerster, Philip & Christina Hahn, Tom & Sandi Effertz, David & Tammy Bye, Keith & Linda Mitchell, Tom Bullock, Mark Hanus, Richard Indritz, Ted & Brenda Breckheimer, Sue Weibel, Walter Wolfe, Orval Fenstad, Gene Garvias, Jeffrey Andersen, Shirley Andersen, Janet Zingsheim, Scott Lindquist, Paul Larson, Jim McKinnon, Ernest & Jill Walters, Pat & Paul Meisel, Mark Gronberg, Paul Larson and John Royer. The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 1.0 MINUTES MOTION made by Smith, seoonded by Jensen to approve the Minutes of the July 28, 1992, Regular Meeting, as submitted. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.1 APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION TO ALLOW THE REPAIR TO A BOATHOUSE LOCATED ON DEVON COMMONS ABUTTING 4729 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, C&ROLE MUNSON The Building Official presented photographs that were taken today showing the current condition of the property. There has been no change. He then reviewed the proposed resolution with the Council. The Council discussed item 4 of the resolution which requires that the boathouse be removed within 30 days of the expiration of the Maintenance Permit. The Council then discussed the structural condition of the boathouse. They then discussed the message that they wanted to impart to any future Council that a minimal amount of repairs be done because they do not want to extend the useful life of the boathouse. Ms. Munson's attorney, Richard Indritz, was present and objected to some of the items in the proposed resolution: 1) that the building is in a hazardous condition; 2) the language in #4 requiring the removal of the boathouse. His contention was that a future Council 149 150 August 11, 1992 could decide if the boathouse should be removed. He stated that the permit is a renewable maintenance permit. He also stated they do not believe the boathouse is hazardous and refereed to Ms. Munson's structural engineer's letter. He asked that the "shall" in #4 of the proposed resolution be changed to "may". The Building Official disagreed with Mr. Indritz on the hazardous building issue. There was discussion on the structural engineer's letter regarding the boathouse. The Mayor stated that the Council is trying to send a message that the boathouse should probably be removed now but that they are going to allow it to remain for the duration of the permit with minimal repairs and that whoever buys this property or owns it at a future time will understand that they will probably be required to take down the boathouse when the permit expires in December of 1994. The City Attorney pointed out to Mr. Indritz that nowhere in the ordinance does it refer to a renewable permit. He further stated that what the Mayor is saying is that he doesn't believe that Mr. Indritz's client should put a lot of money into this on the premise that it is going to be kept because the whole purpose of this ordinance is to get rid these structures. Therefore, the clear understanding should be either with Ms. Munson or anyone else who comes in the future that the boathouse should come down. It would come down now if the Council had not granted the permit in December 1991, and the Council could without granting and passing this resolution take the position that this is a hazardous building and move to have it removed which would bring this into litigation. Mr. Indritz stated that his position is that what the Council is trying to do is bind future council actions when that is not provided for in the code. The City Attorney stated that what he is hearing is that the Council does not want anybody to misunderstand the fact that the Council is considering allowing some work that should be an implication that there is going to be a renewal. In fact, the Council is saying they feel it should come down now, but if Ms. Munson insists that it be kept for 2 years and she is willing to spend the money, do so with the understanding that if she does, the boathouse is probably going to come down in 2 years. The Mayor asked if Ms. Munson wants this resolution passed allowing the repairs to the boathouse. Mr. Indritz stated that if Ms. Munson has to take the boathouse down in two years, the resolution is not necessary. He further stated she will be happy to make the repairs but she does not feel she has to make the repairs to this building at the City Council's direction because those damages are not severe enough. She recognizes that repairs need to be made. 150 August 11, 1992 The Mayor stated that what the Council is trying to do is get these structures off the Commons when the building is amortized and in a state of disrepair to the point where its useful life is over, it should be removed. Mr. Indritz stated, yes, but that it's Ms. Munson's position that its useful life is not over. The Building Official quoted the following from the structural engineer's letter, dated June 15, 1992: "You should be aware that because of the present poor condition of the walls, the repairs mentioned above are only a temporary solution and the structure will continue to deteriorate. It is impossible to predict the longevity of the structure." The Building official stated that it is his position that the building is in a hazardous condition. Councilmember Jensen offered the following language replacement to the proposed resolution: The private use of public land is discouraged and shall be terminated at the earliest opportunity and the current Maintenance Permit allows for use of the boathouse until December 10, 1994. It is the intent of this City Council that the boathouse be removed within 30 days of the expiration of the Maintenance Permit at the sole cost of the applicant/abutting owner and the area shall be restored to a natural condition as approved and under the direction of the Parks Director, City Engineer, and Building official. The City Attorney suggested that this resolution be recorded at Hennepin County so that anyone who might purchase this property would be aware of the terms of this resolution when doing a title search. In which case, the following language also needs to be added to the proposed resolution: "This Maintenance Permit 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." and "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 minimal repairs shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk." Jensen moved and Johnson seconded the following resolution with the above language included: 151 August 11, 1992 RESOLUTION #92-100 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC I.~kNDS PERMIT FOR CAROLE MUNSON TO ALLOW MINIMAL REPAIRS TO AN EXISTING BOATHOUSE ON PUBLIC PROPERTY KNOWN AS DEVON COMMONS DIRECTLY ABUTTING LOT 6, BLOCK 7v DEVONv 4729 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE Mr. Indritz stated that Ms. Munson's insurance agent has informed her that while some insurance may be available to protect against collapse of the structure that they will not insure against all events that occur on City property. Councilmember Smith stated that if she cannot provide insurance, then the structure should be taken out right now. He further stated that the City should not be liable for a building that the City has already said is dilapidated and ready to fall down. There was discussion on the requirement for liability insurance. The Mayor stated that he feels Ms. Munson should be responsible to obtain insurance to protect the City for a structure that she wants to keep, that the City doesn't think should be there, that the city is trying to be accommodating and let her keep for the duration of the permit. Mr. Indritz stated his client would just not be responsible for insurance for accidents that might occur on City property. The Council stated they are concerned about liability and want this covered. Councilmember Smith moved to call the question. died for lack of a second. The motion The City Attorney suggested that if the Council is going to pass the resolution in lieu of what Mr. Indritz has said, he would amend paragraph 3 to read as follows: Il3 . Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide the city with a certificate of insurance in the amount of not less than $600,000 general liability and coverage to protect herself and the City against any loss on the property (boathouse)." The Mayor asked if #3 should read the City is named insured. The City Attorney stated yes, that the applicant provide the City with a Certificate of Insurance protecting the City and Ms. Munson. 152 August 11, 1992 The Building Official asked what would happen if the minimal repairs where not completed by the November 1, 1992, date in the proposed resolution. The City Attorney stated that the following provision can be added to the resolution to cover this: "It is a further condition of this permit that if everything required by this resolution is not completed and all repairs completed by November 1, 1992, the boathouse shall be removed immediately thereafter." The vote on Resolution #92-100 with the above amendments was 4 in favor with Ahrens voting nay. Motion carried. 1.2 CASE ~92-036= WILLIAMS HIBB$, 5860 IDLEWOOD ROAD, LOT 4 & 1/2 OF LOT 5, BLOCK 1, THE HIGHLANDS, PID ~23-117-24 42 0014, VARIANCE - REPAIR FOUNDATION - APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION OF DENIAL Jim McKinnon, attorney representing William Hibbs, asked that this item be withdrawn from the agenda. He stated Mr. Hibbs does not own the property. The City Attorney suggested that this matter be continued for 2 weeks pending a letter from Mr. Hibbs withdrawing his application. MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Jensen to continue this item for 2 weeks allowing the applicant to submit a letter withdrawing his application. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.3 APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION FOR A CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LANDS ~ERMIT, 4729 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, CAROLE MUNSON The Building Official stated that the resolution is as discussed a the previous meeting. The Council asked that the word "guardrail" in the title be deleted. Johnson moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution. RESOLUTION #92-101 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC L~NDS PERMIT FOR CAROLE MUNSON TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A STAIRWAY ON DEVON COMMONS, DOCK SITE 42314, ABUTTING 4729 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, LOT 6, BLOCK 7, DEVON The vote was for in favor with Ahrens voting nay. Motion carried. 153 August 11, 1992 Mr. Indritz asked to speak on behalf of Ms. Munson. He stated that it is his understanding that approval of the connection between the stairway on the side of the hill was approved as indicated in the resolution dated, April 28, 1992. This had to do with a step down from that approved walkway to the level area created by the retaining wall and for a guardrail along the retaining wall. The Mayor stated that as discussed at a previous meeting, the Council is not allowing the guardrail. Mr. Indritz stated he understood this. Mr. Indritz further stated that this is against the Park & Open Space Commission's recommendation, against the Staff's recommendation and the City is aware that there have been problems with regard to that retaining wall and possible injuries in the past. The Mayor stated that that is the why it was specifically stated in the resolution that there needs to be plantings done along that area to delineate the edge so that people don't walk off the edge. Mr. Indritz stated that that question was asked of staff at the Park Meeting and they recommended against that and recommended that a guardrail be put up. The Council asked when Ms. Munson is going to remove the deck. Mr. Indritz stated that Ms. Munson was waiting for a determination on what to do with the guardrail before removing the deck because the guardrail is an intregal part of the existing deck. Mr. Indritz stated that the deck will be removed at the first available opportunity and that his client is out of town. The Council asked that staff give a report on the progress of the removal of the deck at the next Council Meeting. 1.4 COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT Keith Foerster, 4645 Island View Drive - expressed concern about any precedent set by the City Council regarding buildings or structures on Commmons and how the precedent is being set that if something is going to be removed that the City Council can mandate what has to be done and then pass all those costs on to the home owner of that abutting land. He stated he thinks it is a dangerous precedent. It is great for the City because it is a win-win situation for them, they get rid of the building and they don't have to pay a cent for it, but for the land owner it can become a financial burden and being an abutting'land owner and having 120 some feet of land with retaining walls and so on it could essentially make a person like himself have to give up his house because he couldn't afford to replace or do that type of work. Mr. Foerster asked that because of one or two people who have broken the law, by not obtaining the necessary permits, that the Council not let this become an adversarial relationship with the abutting Commons landowners. 154 August 11, 1992 Mr. Foerster further asked that there be communication between the Commons landowners and the Council by discussing the problems and coming up with amicable solutions because the abutting Commons landowners do provide a service to the City by maintaining the areas. The Council explained there have been a number of people who have asked for stairways, lights, etc. and there were amicable solutions for these people. The Council further explained that the adversarial relationships are with very few people. 1.5 CASE ~92-037= MOUND COLLISION & PRINT, SCOTT LINDQUIST, 2334 COMMERCE BLVD., PARTS OF LOTS 6, 7, 8, MCNAUGHTS ADDITION, PID ~13-117-24 33 0050, VARIANCE - FREE STANDING SIGN The Building Official explained the request. Commission recommended approval. The Planning Johnson moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION %92-102 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SIGN VARIANCE FOR MOUND COLLISION AND PRINT AT 2334 COMMERCE BLVD., PARTS OF LOTS 6, 7 & 8, MC NAUGHT'S ~DDITION, PID %13-117-24 33 00S0, P & Z CASE %92-037 Councilmember Jensen asked for the following correction in the proposed resolution, the third whereas should read as follows: "WHEREAS, the subject property is a corner lot and is allowed one sign per street frontage, therefore it is allowed to have two signs at 48 square feet each which would total 96 square feet in area: and". The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.6 CASE ~92-041~ PAUL L~RSON, XXXX INVERNESS LANE& XXXXHAMPTON ROAD, LOTS 6, 7, 8, & N 1/2 OF VAC. HAMPTON, BLOCK 10, PEMBROKE, PID ~19-117-23 33 0093-0095, MINOR SUBDIVISION & VARIANCE The Building Official explained that the applicant is seeking approval of a minor subdivision to create two buildable parcels. One of the parcels requires a variance due to inadequate frontage on a public street. The City Engineer had prepared some comments in a separate report. The case was reviewed by the City Planner, Street Superintendent and the Sewer & Water Superintendent on site with the City Engineer. At the Planning Commission meeting there were many comments made by various neighbors and are in the Planning Commission Minutes of July 27, 1992. Those comments were 155 August 11, 1992 mainly about drainage concerns. The Building Official then showed an overhead with the drainage pattern for the sites. The initial proposal that was submitted by the applicant was rejected by Staff and then the applicant revised his proposal and that was what was given to the Planning Commission. Staff and the Planning Commission recommended approval with a following additional condition: "6. Develop in accordance with drainage plan as proposed." This condition was added because of the concerns of the neighbors. The Council reviewed the drainage plan. They then discussed requiring drainage easements along the lot lines. The City Engineer stated that would be possible. Mark Gronberg, engineer for Paul Larson, stated they would have no problem allowing some drainage and utility easements on the lots. Mr. Gronberg explained that swales would be installed on the lots and this would slow the water down. The Council discussed the storm water ponding area on Parcel A. They then discussed the original plan which the applicant could have obtained two building permits for without having to apply for a variance. They would have both fronted on Inverness. The plan that is being proposed now, the Staff felt was the best configuration that could be achieved in working with the applicant and his engineer. The Building Official explained that originally there were 3 parcels and this subdivision would change it to 2 parcels of more than adequate size. The Council asked that all drainage easements be obtained for these parcels. The Council discussed the proposed driveway that will serve Parcel B off of Hampton Road. The Engineer stated that this has been reviewed and he and the Street Superintendent feel this will work. Smith moved and Johnson seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #92-103 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A MINOR SUBDIVISION AND V/~RIANCE FOR INADEQUATE STREET FRONTAGE FOR LOTS 6, 7v 8 & NORTH 1/2 OF VACATED HAMPTON ROAD, BLOCK 10, PEMBROKE, PID %19-117-23 33 0093, 0094 & 0095, P & Z CASE %92-041 Councilmember Jensen stated she has a problem with Subd. 5 of the proposed resolution relating to the position that the house on parcel B will be facing. The house will be facing Lot 9 instead of 156 ]57 August 11, 1992 facing Hampton. The Engineer explained that because of the grades the current position makes sense. Bob Nichols and Mr. Patterson, attorneys for Mr. Breckheimer, asked to be recognized. They questioned whether this is a legal subdivision under Mound City Code, Section 330.20, subd. 1., which requires that all lots must have frontage on an existing public road. His contention is that there is no existing public road for Parcel B. They are also questioning the hardship for this variance. The Building Official stated that according to the City Planner's report, "proposed parcel B has 23.7 feet of frontage resulting in a variance of 16.3 feet". The Planner also addressed the practical difficulty in providing access to the property and has stated that therefore the variance is justified. The City Attorney stated that there is a right-of-way there, whether it is improved or not does not make a difference. The hardship, that was explained by the Planner and the Engineer, was that they have changed the recommended division which met all the city standards and they did it because of drainage and several other factors. So actually the property owner is creating the lots and the configuration that they are because the Planner, the Engineer and the Building Official determined that it was a hardship if they had let it go the original way because of drainage and other problems that would have existed thus solving a problem rather than creating one. The following persons spoke against the proposed minor subdivision because of drainage, house being built on the Breckheimer sideyard that faces directly into his house, private driveway running along the side of the Breckheimer property or other problems: David Bye, Linda Mitchell, Brenda & Ted Breckheimer, and Tom Bullock. Mr. Patterson suggested that the 3 lots be developed into one building site. The Council discussed the 3 lots of which 2 are buildable. The Building Official pointed out that if this is subdivided as proposed Parcel B would have 9,501 square feet and Parcel A has 8,727 square feet which is substantially more than the required 6,000 square feet. The Building official reminded the Council of the ross case which was similar to this case as far of allowing a driveway on a public right-of-way. The City Attorney pointed out that the City has to allow reasonable use of the property by the property owner. Councilmember Smith and Mayor Johnson withdrew the motion for ~.57 August 11, 1992 approval of the resolution. The Building Official pointed out that the applicant could get building permits for the 2 .houses on Inverness at this point without a variance and without a subdivision. The staff spent considerable time looking at that plan and rejected it, so a new plan was developed which is the one presented tonight. The City Attorney suggested that the Council direct staff to prepare a staff report for the next meeting showing the 2 plans, the advantages and the disadvantages of the 2 plans, and the ramifications of them. If this proposed plan is to be adopted, then the Council needs to specifically address the question of hardship, these should also be in the report. The Mayor asked the staff to look at if there is precedent to issue two building permits, as it sits right now. The other thing that needs to be done is to look at the drainage if the lots were developed as they currently are (this would include looking at the size of the building envelope this would create), keeping in mind limiting to 30% hardcover. MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Ahrens to table this item and bring it back in two weeks to look at the other plan and have the staff report on the above. Paul Larson, the owner of the subject property, stated that he has already delayed his project to redesign it to meet the staff's requirements and by tabling this the Council is denying him reasonable use of his property. The house that is proposed to be built there is sold and the new owner is waiting for construction to begin. He stated he has done the engineering, had the meetings with the staff, the property works the way it is proposed. There is no reason to table at this time. This is the best use of the property. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. The City Attorney suggested that the people put some of their thoughts in writing and convey them to the staff. 1.7 CASE #92-045~ ERNEST & JILL WALTERS, 2348 FAIRVIEW LANE, LOT 27 & N1y 30' OF 26, BLOCK 4t L. P~ CREVIER BUBD. LOT 36 LAFAYETTE PARK, PID #13-117-24 43 0142. VARIANCE The Building Official explained the request. Commission recommended approval. The Planning Jessen moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution: 158 August 11, 1992 RESOLUTION %92-103 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE ~ VARI/~NCE RECOGNIZING EXISTING NONCONPORMING SIDE AND FRONT YARD SETBACKS TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A CONFORMING ADDITION AT 2348 FAIRVIEW LANBv LOT 27 & Nly 30' OF 26, BLOCK 4, L.P. CREVIER SUBD. LOT 36 LAFAYETTE P/~RK, PID %13-117-24 43 0142, P & Z CASE %92-045 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.8 CASE #92-047: JOSEPH & MARY FLEISCHHACKER, 5601 BARTLETT BLVD., P~RT OF GOVT. LOT 1, SECTION 25v PID %23-117-24 14 0001~ VARIANCE The Building Official explained the request and that it was heard by the Planning Commission last evening and they recommended approval. Smith moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION %92-104 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE RECOGNIZING AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING SIDE YARD SETBACK, ~ .2' SIDE YARD SETBACK, TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION AT 5601 Bi~RTLETT BLVD., P~RT OF GOVT. LOT 1, SECTION 23, PID %23-117-24 14 0001, P & Z CASE %92-047 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.9 PETITION FROM COMMERCE PL~CE/~NDITS TENANTS RE: INSTALLATION OF A CROSSWALK BETWEEN COMMERCE PLACE & TONKA CENTER WEST (MUELLER/L]~NSING/COAST TO COAST CENTER) The City Manager explained that he has received a petition and request for the City to install a crosswalk on Lynwood Blvd. between Commerce Place and the Tonka Center West. He reported that he has met with these individuals. He stated he told them that he didn't think the Council would act favorably because of past problems with the crosswalks in Mound. He stated he feels crosswalks create a false sense of security, and they don't prevent accidents and in some cases they may even cause accidents. The city Manager has discussed this with the Police Chief and he concurs. The City Manager and the Police Chief did not feel that we should create another mid-block crosswalk especially since we just eliminated the mid-block crosswalk across Commerce Blvd. by the Ben Franklin when the stop light was installed on Lynwood & Commerce. 159 160 August 11, 1992 Janet Zingsheim, Lovin Oven Bakery, presented additional petitions signed by persons in favor of the crosswalk, and a letter from the Westonka Area Chamber of Commerce supporting the crosswalk installation. She spoke in favor of the crosswalk. There were 2 other persons present in favor of the crosswalk. Mayor Johnson, Councilmembers Jensen and Jessen all felt a mid- block crosswalk creates a false sense of security and therefore were not in favor of the mid-block crosswalk for pedestrian safety reasons. They all agreed they would like to see the two centers connected but not in this way. Councilmembers Smith and Ahrens stated they are in favor because it is a natural crossing area and could be helpful getting people across Lynwood Blvd. between the two shopping centers. Another reason is to tie the two shopping centers together. The Council discussed the pros and cons of crosswalks. MOTION made by Smith, eeoonded by &hrene to approve the installation of a crosswalk mid-block on Lynwood Blvd. between Commerce Place and Tonka Center West. The vote vas 2 in favor with Jensen, Jessen and Johnson voting nay. Motion failed. The Mayor stated that the reason you have a crosswalk is to suggest to people where to cross, it is not a method of protection, but people think it is protection. 1.10 REQUEST FOR STREET LIGHT AT A~HURSTLANE BETWEEN TUXEDO BLVD. AND ~ANOVER ROAD The city Manager reported that a request has been received for a street light in the area of 3201 Amhurst Lane. The request has been reviewed and the Police Dept. has recommended approval. Jessen moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #92-X05 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE INSTALLATION OF A STREET LIGHT ON THE NORTH SIDE OF AMHURST BETWEEN HANOVER ROAD AND TUXEDO BLVD. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. X.11 REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL - CHRISTINE HAHN, 2273 COTTONWOOD LANE RE: DRAINAGE OF STORM WATER TO REAR OF PROPERTY (DAKOTA RAIL) The city Manager explained that there is a report from the City Engineer dated August 6th in the packet. 160 August 11, 1992 Christine Hahn presented some pictures and maps of the areas. She explained that she has a large area of storm water drainage that is just south of her property and the puddle itself is so long that it does tail onto her property. She has contacted Public Works several times, but has gotten no solution and no relief. She stated the water drains from the wetlands into the puddle. The puddle never goes away and does not drain. She stated the City has told her that the area is designated as part of the drainage area and it cannot close off the culvert because of this. Her contention is that it is part of the City drainage system and the water is coming from City land, therefore the City should take responsibility for making sure the water does drain from that land. The culvert has a 16 foot drop. They want the water drained. Mr. Hahn stated that the culvert runs underneath Dakota Rail, there is no storm sewer in the street and it ends at the cul-de-sac. They are getting the water not only from the wetlands but from the road and the back from the culvert under Dakota Raid. They don't think it is their responsibility to divert the water from the puddle. The City Engineer presented an aerial photo of the area. He stated the photo does not show where this culvert is located. He further stated that he is assuming that this is the original culvert that was placed when the railroad tracks were put in. He assumes it was put in because of the wetlands and the railroad had to get the water from that side into Lake Langdon in order to protect their tracks and not block everything upstream. Over the years as the City developed, storm sewers were built and there is a major one that empties into that. It runs off of Lynwood south and runs in an open ditch for a little way and then under property owned by Ron Bostrom through a culvert then emptying into the wetland and that's where the major portion of the runoff gets into the wetlands. The ditch from the wetlands to the culvert under Dakota Rail is in very poor condition with steep side slopes and numerous trees growing out of it. Public Works did go out and clean the debris and some of the materials out of the ditch at the request of the Hahns. It appears, without having the survey crew go out and take elevations that there is 8 inches of water standing in the north end of that culvert and it's about 1/3 full on the south end which appears to be backup from Lake Langdon and there is no way to keep water out of that culvert unless you go to the level of Lake Langdon. There are several possible solutions to this. One would be to completely regrade the ditch which is not going to get rid of the standing water if it is backing up from Lake Langdon. The other way would be to extend the storm sewer and fill the ditch in. Extending the storm sewer would be a very expensive alternative. He further stated that the area being talked about is either railroad right-of-way or the Hahn's property. 162 August 11, 1992 The City Engineer stated that he had not been told there was a problem with drainage on Cottonwood into the ditch. The Council explained that the City cannot drain an area that is lower than Lake Langdon. The City Engineer suggested.that he have the survey crew shoot the elevations to determine if the land is lower than Lake Langdon. He stated he will also check the drainage on Cottonwood. The Engineer further stated that there is a another big storm sewer that runs down Cottonwood Lane that goes under the railroad tracks and empties into Lake Langdon and the outlet of that storm sewer is a good 1/2 foot below normal high water of Lake Langdon. 1.12 APPROVAL OF FINAL PaYMENT REOUEST, 1992, SEAL COaT PROORAMTO aLLIED BLACKTOP - $24,131.15 The City Manager stated that the City Engineer has recommended approval of the final payment request. MOTION Made by Jensen, seconded by Smith to approve the final payment request of &llied Blacktop for the 1992 Seal Coat Project, in the amount of $24,131.13. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion oarried. 1.13 REOUEST FROM PaT & PAUL MEISEL TO BE REMOVED FROM THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT (CBD) P&RKING PROGRAM The City Manager reviewed his memo in the packet regarding the request, the meeting with some of the CBD owners and tenants, the future of the program, and the impact that this request, if granted, would have on the future of the program. He reported that he feels the owners realized why the Meisels wanted to get out of the parking program. In talking about the rest of the program, the owners felt that it should not be abandoned, but should be looked at and analyzed. They formed a committee and will be meeting soon to look at the possibility of revamping the program, trying to keep it in tact. Mr. & Mrs. Meisel were present still asking to be removed from the program. The City Manager presented a letter from Mr. & Mrs. Netka against removing Meisels from the program. A letter was also received from C. L. Johnson stating that when he bought his property 12 years ago, the parking program was voluntary. The City Manager wrote to Mr. Johnson stating that if he wishes to be heard by the Council he could bring his request to be removed from the CBD parking program back to the Council on August 25th. MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Jensen to approve a request from Pat & Paul Meisel for them to withdraw from the CBD 162 August 11, 1992 Parking Program. The Council discussed the fact that this is not the first property owner allowed to withdraw from the CBD Parking Program. Commerce Place had sufficient parking and was able to demonstrate that they did not benefit from the Program, therefore they were allowed to withdraw. The Meisel situation is very much the same. The Council also discussed the fact that there is no legal means to force Meisels to stay in the program. The Council then discussed problems this may cause to some businesses who do not have adequate parking , i.e. impact on conditional use permits; availability of parking in some areas; paying for costs to maintain the remaining lots. The Mayor alsO stated that there was a letter in their packet from Jerry Longpre asking if the Meisels would agree to a date of November 1st (90 days) to see if the committee could restructure the CBD Parking Program. The Meisels stated that that would not be acceptable. The Council agreed that there needs to be a parking program for the businesses who do not have enough parking, but the city is making attempts to secure parking for downtown. How that is apportioned and what the City does with it needs to be part of the discussion. They determined that they cannot force this particular program on people. There needs to be a cooperative program to allow all businesses to have parking. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Orv Fenstad stated that when this program was set up it was a gentlemen's agreement between the Council and the businessmen and there is nothing binding. The Council pointed out that the program has changed over the years. The City Attorney stated that most of the parking properties were under lease to the City for parking. Mr. Fenstad stated that the Mound Masonic Lodge would also like to withdraw from the CBD Parking Program. He stated they do not benefit from the CBD Parking Program. The Council asked that the Lodge be informed of the next meeting of the committee. The City Attorney pointed out that different situation than the Lodge. parking for their business. the Meisels have a Meisels have adequate 163 164 August 11, 1992 The Council asked that everyone be kept informed as to what the Committee is considering. 1.14 APPLICATION FOR PORT~L~ SIGN AT 2121 COMMERCE BLVD. FOR POND SPORTS CENTER The City Manager explained that they are applying for a sign to advertise hockey sign-ups. MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Jensen to approve a portable sign permit application for the Pond Sports Center, 2121 Commerce Blvd., from 9-8-92 to 9-20-92 to advertise hockey registration dates. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.15 RESOLUTION TO REAPPOINT KEN SMITH TO THE MOUND HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITy FOR A FIVE YEAR TERM - TERM EXPIRES 8/29/97 Jessen moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION %92-106 RESOLUTION TO REAPPOINT KEN SMITH TO THE MOUND HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY FOR A FIVE YEAR TERM - TERM EXPIRES 8/29/97 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.16 DISCUSSION: VACANCy ON HRADUE TO ELDO $CHMIDT'S RESIGNATION The City Manager reported that Mr. Schmidt has resigned and the Council needs to make an appointment. Mr. Schmidt's term does not expire until August 29, 1994. The Council stated they would try to come up with some names of possible candidates for the next meeting. 1.17 DISCUSSION: FIRE RELIEF ASSOCIATION PENSION PROGRAM The City Manager reported that since the Council met with the Relief Association concerning their request to have a benefit increase to the pension program of $25 per month, per year for the next 7-8 years, they have had an actuarial done. The numbers for this contribution increase would be about $13,000 per year for the next 7-8 years, therefore, the City Manager's recommendation would be a 4% increase for 1993 which is at the same level as the past 2- 3 years. In addition, they would receive the 2% contribution from the state for insurance premiums. The reason for the urgency is that the fire budget has to be submitted to the contracting cities within the next week. 164 August 11, 1992 The Fire Chief stated they need a good pension program to keep good people on the Fire Department. He further stated that there are more people receiving a pension and living longer at this point. The Council discussed the actuarial study. They discussed looking at some number in between 4% and 10% and the look at the performance of the assets, looking back a year, rather than trying to generate a lot of money and then seeing what can be done with it. The Council decided to do the following and then look back and see how the assets perform. MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Ahrens to increase the contribution to the Fire Relief Association by 7% effective January 1, 1993, for one year and then look back at the assets and see how they perform at the end of 1993. They will also look at the 2% money. The Council discussed putting the 7% in, then next year working on the percentage and then every two years when the actuarial report is received, the Council can review the pension benefit. The Fire Chief agreed. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.18 PAYMENT OF BILLS MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Jessen to authorize the payment of bills as presented on the pre-list in the amount of $264,924.05, when funds are available. The Council asked that the bill relating to litigation on Hanus and Munson be discussed at a future meeting. A roll call vote was 4 in favor, with Ahrens voting nay. carried. Motion 1.20 ADD-ON - DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - LANGDON VIEW SUBDIVISION The Building official explained that Landstar, Inc. seeks to transfer ownership and all responsibilities to Mr. Steve Martin and this needs to be approved by the Council. The contract was prepared by Landstar in conjunction with himself, the City Engineer, and the City Attorney. The development is substantially complete and the Building official is confident Mr. Martin can and will fulfill the obligations of the new contract. Johnson moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution: 165 August 11, 1992 RESOLUTION #92-107 RESOLUTION TO CONTRACT FOR MARTIN APPROVE THE DEVELOPMENT L]tNGDON VIEW WITH STEVE The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.20 INFOIt~ATION/MISCELLANEOUS A. Department Head Monthly Reports for July 1992. B. L.M.C.D. Representative's Monthly Report for July 1992. C. LMCD mailings. D. Planning Commission Minutes of July 27, 1992. Ee REMINDER: City softball game, Saturday, August 15, 1992, Philbrook Park, 2 P.M. Fe REMINDER: Reception for Officer Ron Bostrom, Monday, August 31, 1992, at 3 P.M. in the City Council Chambers. Ge NLC (National League of Cities) 69th Annual Congress of Cities Conference will be held November 28 - December 2, 1992, in New Orleans, Louisiana. The theme of this years conference is , "Avenues and Bridges - Great Ideas for Community Leadership". Please let Fran know before September 1st if you are interested in attending. He REMINDER: C.O.W. Meeting, Tuesday, August 18, 1992, 7:30 P.M., city Hall. Letter from Traci Huntemann Piatt, Mound resident re: Rental Housing Ordinance. Je Information from the LMCD on fees as requested at the last meeting. Ke Invitation to attend the League of Minnesota Cities Regional Meeting at the City of Hanover, Thursday, September 4, 1992, at 2:30 P.M. Please let Fran know if you would like to attend. Information from the West Hennepin Recycling Commission re: Household Hazardous Waste Collection Days which will be held on Friday, September 25 and Saturday, September 26, at the Hennepin County Public Works site in Spring Park. 166 August 11, 1992 MOTION made by Smith, seoonded by Jessen to adjourn at 1:00 A.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion oarrled. E ward J. , C~ty Manager Attest: City- Clerk 167 BILLS AUGUST 11, 1992 BATCH 2073 $149,431.87 BATCH 2074 115,492.18 TOTAL BILLS $264,924.05