1992-08-25August 25, 1992
HINUTES - HOUND CITY COUNCIL - AUGUST 25, 1992
The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota,
regular session on Tuesday, August 25, 1992, in the
Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City.
met in
Council
Those present were: Mayor Skip Johnson, Councilmembers Liz Jensen,
Phyllis Jessen and Ken Smith. Councilmember Andrea Ahrens was
absent and excused. Also present were: City Manager Edward J.
Shukle, Jr., City Clerk Fran Clark, City Attorney Curt Pearson,
City Planner Mark Koegler, City Engineer John Cameron, Building
Official Jon Sutherland and the following interested citizens:
Mark Hanus, Vernon Christiansen, Tammy & Dave Bye, Brenda & Ted
Breckheimer, Keith & Linda Mitchell, Tom Bullock, Dan Sinner, Bob
& Mary Wold, Barry Ream, Dan Hessburg, Bob Commerford, Paul Larson,
Bruce Larson, Denny Flack, Mark Gronberg, and Bruce Dodds.
The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
1.0 MINUTES
MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Jessen to approve the
Minutes of the August 11, 1992, Regular Meeting and the August
18, 1992, Committee of the Whole Meeting, as submitted. The
vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.1
CASE ~92-036: WILLIAMS HIBBS, 5860 IDLEWOOD ROAD, LOT 4 & 1/2
OF LOT 5, BLOCK 1, THE HIGHLANDSt PID ~23-117-24 42 0014,
VARIANCE - REPAIR FOUNDATION, APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION OF DENIAL
OR LETTER OF WITHDRAWAL RE: VARIANCE APPLICATION
The Building Official stated that a letter of withdrawal has been
received by the City.
MOTION madg by Smith, seconded by Jensen to accept the letter
of withdrawal from the applicant in Case %92-036 and terminate
the action. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion
carried.
1.2 REPORT ON THE PROGRESS OF THE REMOVAL OF THE DECK LOCATED ON
PUBLIC LAND AT 4729 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, JON SUTHERLAND,
BUILDING OFFICIAL
The Building Official submitted an inspection notice that he
conducted today to check the progress on the removal of the deck.
No action has been taken on the deck, no work was in progress and
there was no one on site. At 4:25 this afternoon the Building
Official stated he received a phone call from Ms. Munson's
169
170
August 25, 1992
attorney, Mr. Indritz, stating he or Carole Munson had not received
any resolutions from the Council. He further stated they are
expecting additional notices; that they have not received any
notice from the last Council Meeting; and that Ms. Munson has been
out of town most of the time. The Building official stated that he
mentioned to Mr. Indritz that he was at the last Council Meeting
representing Ms. Munson and is aware of all the Council actions.
The Building official informed Mr. Indritz that he was going to
report to the Council that there was no progress on the removal of
the deck.
Councilmember Smith reported that Ms. Munson called him this
evening and stated she has just gotten back in town and that she
was due a copy of the resolutions adopted at the last meeting.
The City Clerk explained that the Minutes from the August 11, 1992,
Council Meeting were just approved tonight and the resolutions from
that meeting were just signed tonight also so nothing would be
released until tomorrow.
The City Manager pointed out that the resolutions being discussed
do not refer to the deck. That order was made on December 10,
1991, to remove the deck. She has still not complied with that
order.
The City Attorney pointed out that the resolutions go into effect
when they are adopted.
The Council discussed the continued delays in removing the deck.
The Council directed that a letter be sent to Ms. Munson and her
attorney with the resolutions stating that if the deck removal is
not substantially complete by the September 8, 1992, Council
Meeting, legal action will be taken for the removal.
The letter with the resolutions should be sent registered.
1.3
CASE #92-041: PAUL LARSON, XXXX INVERNESS LANE& XXXXHAMPTON
ROAD, LOTS 6t 7, 8t & N 1/2 OF VAC. HAMPTON~ BLOCK 10~
PEMBROKE, PID ~19-117-23 33 0093-0095, MINOR SUBDIVISION
VARIANCE
The Building Official stated that at the last meeting the Council
requested that the Staff provide additional development options for
the site. He then reviewed Alternate #1, which was Mr. Larson's
original proposal, creating a flag lot with Lot B and the proposal
did not have enough of the drainage provisions that Staff had
requested and worked out with the applicant. Staff met with Mr.
Larson to review a number of concerns, principally related to the
shape and drainage in the area. During the meeting it became
apparent that drainage was the most significant issue affecting the
170
August 25, 1992
proposed subdivision. In order to avoid the "gerrymandered" lot
arrangement and to provide more flexibility in the overall design
of a system to control stormwater runoff, Staff suggested that the
applicant consider an alternate plan. That plan became Alternate
#2 which is the one the applicant is proposing. This divided the
property into two parcels lying east and west of a common lot line.
One parcel takes driveway access from Hampton Road and the other
has access from Inverness Lane. The access configuration is the
same as in Alternate #1, however, from a Staff perspective this
proposal has more flexibility in the placement of a home on Parcel
A and specifically added flexibility in locating detention ponds
and other stormwater control elements adjacent to Inverness. It
also creates lots with more typical shapes.
Alternate 3 has been prepared by Staff as requested by the City
Council to show that it is possible to have a minor subdivision
which meets all city criteria and does not require the issuance of
variances. Each lot can accommodate a single family structure
conforming to all setbacks and impervious cover restrictions.
The Council discussed the points brought up in a letter from
Michael D. Pederson which pointed out among other things that
Parcel B does not have frontage on an existing public road.
The Building Official stated that the City strives to do away with
the necessity to issue variances, but in this case, it was the
opinion of Staff, that Alternate #2 afforded the best means of
handling storm water runoff. In this case, topography and drainage
concerns are key issues. The hardship exists due to the topography
of the site and the necessity to manage stormwater without
adversely impacting adjacent properties.
The Council stated they were asking if the applicant could come in
and obtain two building permits, one for each lot (Lots 6 & 7).
The Building Official stated yes.
The Council discussed the difference between a minor subdivision
and a major subdivision. The Building Official explained that the
developer did not want to go through a major subdivision because of
the expense. The Building Official explained that the requirements
are more stringent for a major subdivision. The City Engineer
explained that the main difference is the platting requirement.
The City Attorney explained that the only reason for a minor
subdivision is to allow a more reasonable method of dividing
property that has already been platted and to realign boundary
lines. He then stated that, in his opinion, the questions raised
by Mr. Pederson are correct. If you were to plat this property in
the way that it is proposed with Lots A & B, B being redirected to
the back onto Hampton Road, under a platting requirement you would
171
172
August 25, 1992
require that person to bring in all the public improvements, in
accordance with City standards (which means a city street). What
the staff recommended is practical, but as pointed out by Mr.
Pederson, does not meet the ordinances.
Councilmember Jessen asked if drainage was addressed in Alternate
3. The Building Official stated that Alternate 3 was not proposed
by the applicant and is not desired by the applicant. The Building
Official then stated that Alternate 3 was put together by the Staff
to show the Council that it could be done and meet the minor
subdivision requirements so a variance would not be required.
The Council discussed using only Lot 6 for a home and Lot 7 for a
home coming off of Inverness.
The Council discussed Alternate 2 which is what the applicant is
requesting and decided there is no hardship. They discussed
granting a subdivision that would require variances and decided
that was not the way to go.
The Council then discussed Alternate 1 and variances would still be
required.
Paul Larson stated that to go with Alternate 3 would create
seriously less attractive tract housing. He is proposing to put up
homes that are more expensive than the abutting properties in the
existing neighborhood. He stated he thought there would be more
serious drainage problems with Alternate 3.
MOTION made by Johnson, seconded by Smith, to deny the minor
subdivision Alternate 2, but if the applicant comes in with
something that meets the subdivision requirements, the City
will not charge another fee.
The City Attorney suggested that since Alternate #1 & 2 are
not acceptable to the Council, maybe the applicant would
consider Alternate 3 and therefore would not have to go
through all the public hearings again but would have to go
back to the Planning Commission. The City Planner pointed out
that Alternate 3 was a hypothetical and things like topography
and drainage have not been looked at. Alternate 3 was only
looked at from physical lot dimension standards which said yes
it meets the City's codes. The City Attorney then suggested
that the Council refer this back to the City Planner, Building
Official and Planning Commission to look at Alternate 3, or
something similar, which would meet the City's standards and
the developer's standards.
Johnson withdrew his motion and Smith withdrew his second.
172
August 25, 1992
HOTION made by Johnsonv seconded by Jensen to table this and
send it back to Staff and the Planning Commission to work
toward something similar to Alternate 3. The vote was
unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.4
CASE ~92-042: VERNON CHRISTIANSEN, 5098 SHORELINE DRIVE, LOT
3 AND THE SOUTH 50' OF LOT 2t KOHMAN,S ADDITION TO MOUNDv PID
#13-117-24 43 0042-0043, VARIANCE - NEW DETACHED GARAGE
The City Planner explained the request.
recommended approval.
The Planning Commission
Smith moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION %92-108
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE FOR LOT
3 AND THE SOUTH 50' OF LOT 2, KOHMAN'S
ADDITION TO MOUNDt PID %13-117-24 43 0042
& 0043, 5096 & 5098 SHORELINE DRIVE, P &
Z CASE %92-042
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.5
CASE ~92-043~ DAN SINNER, 5053 WREN ROAD, LOT 8, BLOCK 1,
LINDEN HEIGHTS, PID ~13-117 24 13 0037, VARIANCE FOR GARAGR
ADDITION
The City Planner explained the request. The Planning Commission
recommended approval. The City Clerk explained that if a portion
of the City property next to this property can be subdivided off
and sold to the applicant, his lot would then be conforming. This
is being researched and could happen sometime in the future.
Johnson moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION %92-109
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE
RECOGNIZING AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING
SETBACK TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A
CONFORMING ADDITION AT LOT 8, BLOCK 1,
LINDEN HEIGHTS, PID %13-117-24 13 0037,
5053 WREN ROAD, P & Z CASE %92-043
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.6
CASE ~92-044: JEFFREY RITENOUR~ 5656 BARTLETT BLVD., LOTS ll
& 16~ BLOCK 9~ MOUND BAY PARK~ PID ~23-117-24 14 0027,
VARIANCE FOR DECK
The City Planner explained the request.
recommended approval.
The Planning Commission
173
August 25, 1992
Smith moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION %92-110 RESOLUTXON TO APPROVE & VARIANCE TO
RECOGNIZE ~ EXISTING NONCONFOI~ING
STRUCTURE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A
CONFORMING DECK AT LOTS 11 TO 16t BLOCK
9, MOUND BAY PARK, 5656 BARTLETT BLVD., P
& Z CASE %92-044
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.7 CASE ~92-046= ROBERT WOLD, 1580 HERON LB_NE, LOT 3 AND PART OF
LOT 4, BLOCK 22t SHADYWOOD pOINTm PID ~15-117-24 11 0130,
VARIANCE - NEW CONSTRUCTION
The Building Official explained the request. The Planning
Commission recommended approval. The Council discussed the
minimum variance and decided to have the proposed house moved 1
foot west which would make the house setback conforming on the
east. They also discussed adding the following:
7. The surface under the deck shall be a permeable material.
Jensen moved and Johnson seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION %92-111 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE SETBACK VARIANCES
TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW DWELLING
AT LOT 3 AND THE NORTHERLY 5.2 FEET OF
THE WESTERLY 53 FEET OF LOT 4~ BLOCK 22,
SHADYWOOD POINT~ PID %13-117-24 11 0130~
1580 HURON LANE, P & Z CASE %92-046
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.8 CASE ~92-050~ WES OLSEN (OWNER) DON BONNICKSEN (APPLICANT}
2539 EMERALD DRIVE, LOTS $ & 7m BLOCK 6~ SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT B,
PID %24-117-24 12 0066, VARIANCE
The City Manager explained that this item has been withdrawn.
1.9 REQUEST FROM CURT JOHNSON TO BE REMOVED FROM THE CBD PARKING
PROGRAM
The City Manager explained he has received a letter from Mr.
Johnson asking that his property be removed from the CBD Parking
Program because he feels he does not benefit and has adequate
parking.
The city Manager reported that at the CBD Committee meeting last
week Mr. Johnson's request was discussed. The Committee had 3
concerns:
174
175
August 25, 1992
The question of zoning and does Mr. Johnson have
sufficient parking spaces.
Snow removal - The snow would have to be hauled away and
not pushed into Auditor's Road, Shoreline Drive or the
unimproved parking lot behind his building.
Should people only be allowed to petition out of the CBD
Parking Program at the end of the fiscal year, June 30.
The City Planner stated that Mr. Johnson is required to have 6 1/2
parking spaces (1 space per 400 square feet of building) and has 9
with the use of the building as an office. The Council asked what
would happen if this were retail space. The City Planner stated he
would be required to have 1 space for every 150 square feet if it
were retail. If he were to use the space as retail he would have
to enter the CBD Parking Program again.
The Council asked the City Manager to write Mr. Johnson a letter
explaining the snow removal requirement and the requirement if he
were to change the use of the building from office to retail· The
COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT.
There were none.
1.10 DISCUSSION: HRA VACANCY
The City Manager reported that it has been suggested that maybe
Leonard Kopp would be interested in serving on the HRA. The City
Manager will contact him and ask and if he is interested, it will
be on the agenda September 8, 1992.
1.11 APPROVAL OF PAYMENT REQUEST TO GRIDOR CONSTRUCTION FOR THE
1992 LIFT STATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT - $92t695.48
The City Engineer recommended approval.
MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Jessen to approve payment
request #2, to Gridor Construction, in the amount of
$92,596.48, for the 1992 Lift Station Improvement. The vote
was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.12 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE 1992 MUNICIPAL RECYCLING GRANT
AGREEMENT BETWEEN HENNEPIN COUNTY & THE CITY OF MOUND AND
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR & CITY MANAGER TO SIGN & SUBMIT THE
AGREEMENT
The City Manager recommended approval to avoid delay in receiving
the mid-year payment from Hennepin County. He stated that in 1993
the City will only be receiving $1.75 per household. The payment
will no longer be based upon the tonnage of recycling done by the
residents of the city. The Council expressed concern about what
175
176
August 25, 1992
this will do to the costs the City has in providing and
administering the recycling program.
The Council asked for a recap of the Recycling Budget in the next
packet.
Smith moved and Johnson seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION #92-112 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THEM AYORANDCITY
MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE 1992 MUNICIPAL
RECYCLING GRANT AGREEMENT
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.13 DISCUSSION: COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH pUBLIC LANDS LITIGATION AND
SOURCES OF FUND TO PAY THESE COSTS
This item was rescheduled to the next meeting because Councilmember
Ahrens is not present to discuss this item.
1.14 RESOLUTION DIRECTING THAT A PLAN BE PREPARED BY CITY PLANNER
RE: NATURE CONSERVATION AREAS
The city Manager explained the Park & Open Space Commission has
requested professional assistance in working on the Nature
Conservation Area Study. The city Planner has submitted a proposal
to assist the Commission in developing a plan not to exceed $2500
in cost.
Jensen moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION #92-113
RESOLUTION DIRECTING THAT A PLaN BE
PREPARED ON NATURE CONSERVATION AREAS BY
THE CITY PL~qNER AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED
$2,500
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.15 COM14ONS MARKINGS
This item was rescheduled to the next meeting because Councilmember
Ahrens is not present to discuss this item.
The Council asked that information be included in their packets
regarding dedicated and non-dedicated commons on the list of
proposed sites for the markings.
1.16 PAYMENT OF BILLS
176
177
August 25, 1992
MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Jensen to authorize the
payment of bills as presented on the pre-llst in the -mount of
$100,228.98, when funds are available. A roll call vote was
unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
ADD-ONS
1.17 SET DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING
MOTION made by Jessen, seconded by Jensen to set September 22,
1992, for a public hearing to consider the vacation of a
street easement located at 2615 Halstead Lane, Lot 1, Block 1,
Woodcrest of Mound, PID %23-117-24 23 0022. The vote was
unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.18 APPROVAL OF LICENSE
MOTION made by Johnson, seconded by Jensen to authorize the
issuance of a Tree Removal License to The Tree-Stump Company,
13677 Dan Patch Drive, Savage, MN. 55378. License expires
April 1, 1993. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion
carried.
INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS
A. Financial Report for July 1992 prepared by John Norman,
Finance Director.
B. Planning Commission Minutes of August 10, 1992.
Information on Canadian Geese is a follow-up to geese
complaints from earlier this Summer.
Do
Information from the MTC on upcoming changes to MTC bus
service in Mound effective September 26, 1992.
REMINDER: Reception for Officer Ron Bostrom, Monday, August
31, 1992, at 3 P.M. in the City Council Chambers.
NLC (National League of Cities) 69thAnnual Congress of Cities
Conference will be held November 28 - December 2, 1992, in New
Orleans, Louisiana. The theme of this year's conference is
"Avenues and Bridges - Great Ideas for Community Leadership".
Please let Fran know before September 1st if you are
interested in attending.
Go
REMINDER: Committee of the Whole (COW) Meeting is rescheduled
for September due to the Primary Election. It has been
rescheduled to Tuesday, September 29, 1992, 7:30 P.M. The
main agenda item will be a detailed discussion on the
177
178
He
August 25, 1992
Shoreland Management Ordinance.
will be discussed.
If time allows, other items
REMINDER: Household Hazardous Waste Collection Days will be
held on Friday, September 25 and Saturday, September 26, at
the Hennepin County Public Works site in Spring Park.
Je
REMINDER: Emergency Preparedness Meeting, Tuesday, September
29, 1992, 3:00 P.M., Mound City Hall. Plan to attend, if you
can.
The City Council requested information on the 1992 Recycling
Budget. Information will be provided in the next packet. The
City Council wants to offer Recycling/Clean-Up Days later this
Fall. This will be confirmed later.
MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Johnson to adjourn at 9:45
P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion oarried.
~dwar~ ~.~ Shukle, Jr., city Manager
Attest: City Clerk
178
BILLS ......
'August 25, 1992
BATCH
2082
TOTAL BILLS
$100,228.98
$100,228.98