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