1992-09-08September 8, 1992
MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - SEPTEMBER 8, 1992
The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in
regular session on Tuesday, September 8, 1992, in the Council
Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City.
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, City Planner Mark Koegler, Building
Official Jon Sutherland, Park Director Jim Fackler and the
following interested citizens: Christy & Luanne Palmer, Bonny
Polley, Helen Eiss, Vera Frahm, Susan & Mike Gardner, Gretchen
Smith, Mildred Pierce, Dayton Williamson, Steven Kirshbaum, Dennis
Flack, Ron & Mary Motyka, Louise & Howard Hagedorn, Christine &
Larry Hauskins, James Walters, Margaret & Bernard Gaudette, Ron
Johnson, Michael & Moe Mueller, Dean Hanus, Mike Mason, John Gabos,
Rod Plaza, Ton Casey, Jim Walters, and Greg Knutson.
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 25, 1992, Regular Meeting, as submitted.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.1
PRESENTATION OF CERTIFICATE OF RECOGNITION TO ELDO SCHMIDT,
CHAIR, MOUND H.R.A.
The City Manager reported that this Certificate will be given at a
future meeting because Mr. Schmidt was not able to attend this
evening.
1.2 PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING CODE MODIFICATIONS
The City Planner highlighted his memo to the Council, dated
September 1, 1992, on the proposed changes for the Zoning Code. He
explained that at a recent Committee of Whole Meeting, the Council
expressed the desire to delay final action on adoption of the
modifications until the shoreland management ordinance is
completed. The shoreland management draft is due to come before
the Committee of the Whole meeting on September 29, 1992, coming
back on October agendas as needed and then the public hearing on
November 10th and 24th. He therefore, suggested that the Council
continue this hearing until November 10, 1992, when the shoreland
provisions are scheduled for a hearing.
179
180
September 8, 1992
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
MIKE MUELLER, 5910 Ridgewood Road - stated that he did not
agree with the 10,000 square foot lot requirement in areas
that have already been developed into a majority of 6,000
square foot lots. He felt in these areas, 6,000 square feet
was more conducive to the neighborhoods.
There was discussion about the following:
There has to be some differentiation between splitting
raw land and splitting and combining lots of record.
The need to put some major and minor subdivision language
into this ordinance so there is a differentiation between
the two.
Also discussed was the fact that at the present time the
minor subdivision language does not allow for
variances.
The way the ordinance is proposed the requirement is
10,000 square feet for subdivision in any case. The only
way that you can build on under 10,000 square feet is on
a lot of record. The intent is good but there is a point
that this does not take in the whole city and could cause
problems.
The Planner suggested he take these items to the Planning
Commission and check on the subdivision section (the minor versus
major) and how that can be tied into this ordinance.
Councilmember Jensen suggested that before the November 10th
hearing the Council think about the following:
Locations of sheds on lots (lakeshore or non lakeshore
lots).
bo
If the language in section 23.506.2 subd. (5) conveys
that if a variance is not used within one year only 1
extension of that variance will be allowed and then a new
variance would have to be applied for.
Councilmember Smith asked the Building Official at what height of
a retaining wall do you need a railing? The Building Official
stated that it depends on what the area around the retaining wall
is used for. If it is general landscaping of a yard and not used
for picnicking then a guard rail would not be required at all
whatever height (could be 6, 8 or 10 feet and no guard rail would
180
SeDtember 8, 1992
be required). If the area was to be used as a patio area, for
instance, at the point of 30 inches, a guard rail would be required
(anything over 30 inches, just like a deck). He commented that in
Section 23.302, subd. (106), (5), he and the City Planner plan on
changing the wording to read as follows: (5) retaining walls not
having or requiring a railing and not exceeding ~ ~ feet in
height.
The Council asked that the PIA (Planned Industrial Area) be
clarified a little better.
MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Smith to continue this
public hearing until November 10, 1992, at which time the
Council will also be discussing the shoreland management
ordinance. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.3 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 reported that he and the Park Director
inspected the site today and that no action to remove the deck has
been taken.
The City Manager reported that on August 26, 1992, a certified
letter was sent to Ms. Munson, with a copy to her attorney. In
that letter were the two resolutions that were approved at the
August 11, 1992, Council Meeting, and notice that the deck removal
should be substantially completed by today, September 8, 1992. The
letter has not been picked up at the Post Office as of this date.
The Post Office attempted to deliver this letter to Ms. Munson on
August 27, 1992, and a second notice was given on September 4.
The City Attorney stated that he noticed the for sale sign on the
pictures that the Building Official submitted. He asked that Staff
find out how this property is being advertised with regard to the
lakeshore and the current encroachments. The Building Official
stated he would check this out.
MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Jensen to direct the City
Attorney to proceed with all necessary legal action, criminal
and/or clvil, for the removal of the deck. The vote was 4 in
favor with Ahrens voting nay. Motion carried.
1.4 REQUEST FROM CURT JOHNSON, WEST LAKE STENO SERVICE, TO BR
REMOVED FROM THE CBD PARKING PROGRAM
The City Manager reported that Mr. Johnson was not able to attend
this evening but submitted a letter (dated September 8, 1992)
181
September 8, 1992
regarding the concerns the Council had at the last meeting on
adequate parking and snow removal for his property.
The Council discussed the difference between retail and office uses
and that if the building use changed to retail, Mr. Johnson would
need to again be included in the CBD Parking Program because he
would not have enough parking spaces.
The City Attorney stated that since Mr. Johnson has the required
parking spaces and the City has no agreement/lease on the property,
Mr. Johnson is making a valid request to withdraw from the CBD
District Parking Program.
MOTION made by Jessen, seconded by Ahrens to remove property
owned by Mr. Curtis Johnson, at 5545 Shoreline Drive, from the
CBD Parking Program, effective July 1, 1992.
The Council discussed the fact that Mr. Johnson will be
charged for July 1, 1991 through June 30, 1992.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.5 DISCUSSION: COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH PUBLIC LANDS LITIGATION AND
SOURCES OF FUNDS TO PAY THESE COSTS
The City Manager stated that this is on the agenda because there is
a difference of opinion on where the legal costs associated with
public lands litigation should be charged. He stated that when
this question came up the costs were being charged to the Commons
Dock Program.
The Council discussed this item.
MOTION made by Smith, seconded by. Johnson to direct Staff to
make the appropriate adjustments and take the costs associated
with public lands litigation out of the Legal Budget instead
of the Commons Dock Fund. The vote was unanimously in favor.
Motion carried.
1.6 COMMONS MARKINGS.
The City Manager reviewed the background. He explained that the
Park Director has reviewed all the sites that were proposed for
marking and has listed those sites out by areas, telling where each
common area is in the community and whether it is a dedicated or
nondedicated commons. The Park Director then looked at each plat
and took the language off the plat for each area. The Mayor read,
from the Park Director's memo dated September 2, 1992, all the
subdivisions and the language on each plat.
182
SeDtember 8, 1992
of the seventeen areas under consideration for markings, 4 are what
is considered dedicated commons to those particular subdivisions.
The Park Director stated he would have to check on Wychwood which
was not included in this report.
The Council discussed the difference between commons and the ends
of unimproved streets that are listed.
The city Attorney stated that the original idea for marking the
commons came about because people abutting commons have said that
their property was being trespassed upon because people do not know
where the commons areas start.
The following persons commented against the commons markings:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
17.
Helen Eise, 1563 Eagle Lane
Larry Hauskins, 1749 Bluebird Lane
Mike Mueller, 5910 Ridgewood Road
Vera Frahm, 1555 Dove Lane
Ron Motyka, 1545 Bluebird Lane
Steve Kirshbaum, 4590 Denbigh Road
John Gabos, 4687 Island View Drive
Jim Walters, 1601 Bluebird Lane
Ron Johnson, 4416 Dorchester Road
Rod Plaza, 4539 Island View Road
Moe Mueller, 5910 Ridgewood Road
Greg Knutson, 4701 Island View Road
Dayton Williamson, 2021 Villa Lane
Denny Flack, 1609 Bluebird Lane
Mike Garner, 1599 Bluebird Lane
Bonny Polley, 1554 Eagle Lane
Comments made were:
The markings would be infringing on the homeowners who
abut the commons.
A well prepared brochure, handout, or map would serve the
same purpose of letting residents know where accesses are
and which ones are for all to use and which ones are only
for specific subdivisions.
These markings are too expensive.
The Park Commission did not recommend markers.
Some of the areas proposed for marking are not
necessarily safe for people to use.
Objections to the costs that could be involved in placing
the markings to be sure they are not on private property.
Should have containers around the commons area for people
who have docks to deposit their garbage.
Everyone knows where the commons are.
183
September 8, 1992
The markers would not provide enough information on the
particular type of commons they are identifying.
Tom Casey, 2854 Cambridge Lane, Park Commissioner, spoke in favor
of the markings for the commons.
Councilmember Smith stated he would be willing to work on a
committee of both abutting commons people and nonabutting commons
people to try to come up with something that is agreeable with
everyone and that would promote the city. This could be done over
the winter.
The Council agreed that setting up a committee would be a good
starting point. They could use the information that has already
been provided by the Staff with regard to commons.
MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Ahrens, to form a committee
of citizens, both abutting commons people and nonabutting
commons people to work on a program of identifying the commons
(by making it more identifiable and getting information out to
citizens on where the cocoons are); look at the commons issues
and come back to the City Council before spring.
A suggestion was made to spend some time at the next committee
of the whole meeting on the following:
A. how to structure this committee, i.e. number of meetings
per month, decide a date to have this project completed;
B. how many people on the committee should be abutting
commons users;
C. how many people on the committee should be nonabutting
commons users;
D. how many people on the committee should be just citizens
of Mound, not commons users at all;
E. deciding on a Council Liaison.
The Council agreed.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
The Council asked that anyone interested in serving on this
committee, write a letter expressing their interest to the City
Manager or Mayor at City Hall.
1.7 COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT
Denny Flack, 1609 Bluebird Lane, stated he works hard to keep his
commons area cleaned-up and would like to have other areas kept
clean. He stated that he was under the impression from speaking to
Hennepin County that in the past people have gotten control of
certain public land.
184
SeDtember 8, 1992
The City Attorney stated that some people used to torrens off parts
of the public land. This was prior to when he became city Attorney
and the City did not appear at the hearings to protect their
interest. But in the last 27 years there have been no transfers of
public rights to private people.
Ben Gaudette, 1605 Bluebird Lane, an abutting commons owner. Mr.
Gaudette asked about the Park Commission's recommendation on the
markings. The City Manager explained that the Park Commission had
a divided opinion and did not make a recommendation on the
markings.
1.8
PRESENTATION OF 1993 PROPOSED BUDGET; RESOLUTION APPROVING THE
PRELIMINARY 1993 TAX LEVYt PRELIMINARY 1993 BUDGETt APPROVING
THE PRELIMINARY OVERALL BUDGET FOR 1993, AND SETTING PUBLIC
HEARING DATES
The city Manager explained that this is the first step as required
by the Truth in Taxation Laws. The Preliminary Budget and
Preliminary Tax Levy is required to be at Hennepin County prior to
September 15, so that they can send out the notices, of the
upcoming public hearings, to all taxpayers. The Budget will be
presented in greater detail and all department heads will be
present at the public hearing which is suggested to be Wednesday,
December 9, 1992, and Wednesday, December 16, 1992, for the
Reconvened Public Hearing, if necessary.
The City Manager then explained that due to a shifting of the tax
rate tiers by the Legislature, the HACA credit aid has increased.
It is up about 11% from 1992. The actual levy is an increase of
2.32%, but the net levy is 1.23% decrease, due to the change in
HACA. The expenditures proposed for 1993 are $9,710 less than the
total revenues.
The City Manager further explained that sales tax is now applied to
most purchases made by the City, as of June 1, 1992. The level of
spending for 1993 is about the same as 1992 except that with sales
tax added on, this accounts for the increase.
Smith moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION %92-114
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE 1993 PRELIMINARY
GENERAL FUND BUDGET IN THE AMOUNT OF
$2,325,780: SETTING THE PRELIMINARY LEVY
AT $1t734tS01; APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY
OVERALL BUDGET FOR 1993; AND SETTING
PUBLIC HEARING DATES
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
185
September 8, 1992
1.9
RESOLUTION APPROVING A LEVY NOT TO EXCEED $24,000 FOR THE
PURPOSE OF DEFRAYING THE COST OF OPERATION, PURSUANT TO THE
PROVISIONS OF MSA 469, OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF MOUND FOR THE YEAR 1993
The City Manager explained that the HRA has requested this levy to
defray operating costs at 2020 Commerce Blvd. (Indian Knoll Manor).
smith moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION #92-115
RESOLUTION APPROVING A LEVY NOT TO EXCEED
$24,000 FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEFRAYING THE
COST OF OPERATION, PURSUANT TO THE
PROVISIONS OF MSA 469, OF THE HOUSING AND
REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF
MOUND FOR THE YEAR 1993
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.10 APPOINTMENT TO THE HRA
The City Manager reported that Leonard Kopp has agreed to fill the
unexpired term of Eldo Schmidt on the Mound HRA.
Jessen moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION #92-116
RESOLUTION APPOINTING LEONARD KOPP TO
FILL THE UNEXPIRED TERM OF ELDO SCHMIDT
· OF THE MOUND HRA
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.11 DISCUSSION: RECYCLING BUDGET RECAP/FALL RECYCLING DAYS
The City Council decided to have another special recycling clean-up
day like the one that was held in the Spring of this year. They
also discussed including brush and scrap wood. The City Manager
reviewed the report on brush and scrap wood submitted by the
Recycling Coordinator. The Council also discussed having another
leaf pick-up around the first part of November.
MOTION made by Johnson, seconded by Jessen to hold another
special recycllng clean-up day around the end of October,
including brush and scrap wood, also to advertise for bids for
a Fall leaf pick-up to be held around the first part of
November. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
186
187
SeDtember 8, 1992
1.12 /%PPOINTMENT OF /%DDITION/%L ELECTION JUDGES
Smith moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION #92-117
RESOLUTION APPOINTING ADDITIONAL ELECTION
JUDGES AS RECOMMENDED FOR THE PRIMARY AND
GENERAL ELECTIONS SEPTEMBER 15, 1992 &
NOVEMBER 3, 1992
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.13 PAYMENT OF BILLS
MOTION made by Johnson, seconded by Smith to authorize the
payment of bills as presented on the pre-list in the amount of
$226,595.29 when funds are available. A roll call vote was
unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
ADD-ON ITEMS
1.14 SET DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING - ASSESSMENTS
MOTION made by Johnson, seconded by Ahrens to set the date for
a public hearing on special assessments (delinquent utility,
unpaid tree removal, unpaid mowing, etc., and CBD parking
maintenance program) for October 27, 1992, at 7:30 P.M. The
vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.15 ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO SECTIONS 600:85, 610:70, 370:15 &
540:00 - CERTIFICATION FEE
The City Clerk explained that these sections need to be amended to
allow a $25.00 certification fee to be charged when special
assessments are certified to Hennepin County. This charge will
help defray administrative costs.
Smith moved and Ahrens seconded the following:
ORDINANCE #59-1992
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 370:15,
450:00, 600:85 AND 610:70 RELATING TO
CERTIFICATION FEES
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.16 DAKOTA RAIL UPDATE
The City Manager explained that the City Attorney has presented a
determination by the Fourth Judicial District Court Administrator
of Hennepin County, Jack Provo. This determination relates to
187
September 8, 1992
combining the two Dakota Rail cases into one. The determination
said that it will not consolidate the two cases (the fraud and
misrepresentation case and the condemnation appeal), but rather
would move them before one judge. The city will now ask Judge
Fitzgerald to combine these two cases.
INFORMATION/MISCEL~EOUS
A. Department Head Monthly Reports for August 1992.
B. L.M.C.D. Representative's Monthly Report for August 1992.
C. LMCD Mailings.
De
Mailings from Hennepin County on Household Hazardous Waste
Collection Days scheduled for Friday, September 25 and
Saturday, September 26, at the Hennepin County Public Works
Garage, Spring Park.
Letter from Hennepin County Community Service Department re:
assistance.provided by Officer Steve Grand.
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
Shoreland Management Ordinance. If time allows, other items
will be discussed·
REMINDER: Emergency Preparedness Meeting, Tuesday, September
29, 1992, 3:00 P.M., Mound City Hall. Plan to attend, if you
can.
H. Information on yard waste.
Hennepin County Residential Recycling Funding Policy for the
period January 1, 1993 through December 31, 1997. This policy
references the elimination of the 80% reimbursement policy by
changing to $1.75 per household per month. It also requires
cities to recycle 18% of their residential waste stream or the
percentage achieved in 1992, whichever is greater.
Invitation from Metropolitan Council Chair Mary E. Anderson to
attend the annual Regional Breakfast Meeting to be held
Tuesday, September 29, 1992, at 7:30 A.M., at Boston
Subway, 1019 Main St., Hopkins. Please let Fran know by
September 24, 1992, if you plan to attend. The cost is
$6.o0.
188
189
SeDtember 8, 1992
MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Jessen to adjourn at 12:15
A.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
e/"~"~d ~ ~'shu 'J~. ,-~ity Manager
Attest: - City ~lerk
189
BILLS September 08, 1992
BATCH 2083
BATCH 2084
TOTAL BILLS
$147,162.24
79,433.05
$226,595.29