1992-11-10Nov~:~r 10 · 199~
MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - NOVEMBER 10, 1992
The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in
regular session on Tuesday, November 10, 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 and the following interested citizens: Jim
Hupp, Howard Barrett, Jim Bedell, Bill & Dorothy Netka, Nelson
Stanley, Gene Hannigrets, John Edward, Rick Jostrom, Tom Reese, and
Mr. & Mrs. Keven Hening.
The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
1.0 MINUTES
MOTION made by Jessen, seconded by Jensen to approve the
Minutes of the October 27, 1992, Regular Meeting and the
November 4, 1992, Canvassing Board Meeting, as submitted. The
vote was unanimously in favor, with Smith abstaining. Motion
carried.
1.1 PUBLIC HEARING: PROPOSED ZONING CODE MODIFICATIONS AND
PROPOSED SHORELAND MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE
The City Planner highlighted the proposed Zoning Code modifications
as outlined in his memo dated September 1, 1992. He suggested that
the Council continue this hearing after tonight to November 24th
because there was not time at the Planning Commission Meeting last
evening to address the Council's concerns from the September 8th
public hearing. The Planning Commission will be talking about the
following Council concerns at their November 23rd meeting:
ae
the issue of lot size - Should all newly created lots
have a minimum size of 10,000 square feet or should minor
subdivisions within existing R-2 or R-3 zones use a 6,000
square foot lot minimum which may be more consistent with
surrounding existing lots?
the issue of the location of sheds, particularly for
lakeshore properties.
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
225
November 10, 1992
Jim Bedell, 2625 Wilshire Blvd., asked if these ordinance
changes would create more nonconforming properties.
The City Planner stated that every attempt was made in
looking at these to avoid nonconformities and to avoid
creating additional ones. He stated that he could not
tell Mr. Bedell that in every case it would not create
some because in some cases it might. The Planning
Commission was very sensitive to this. The intent was to
minimize this as much as possible.
Mr. Bedell then questioned Section 23.403 (3), asking if this
related to percentage of ground cover or in conjunction with
setbacks.
The City Planner stated that this section relates to
setbacks. Most of that language is in the existing code.
The areas that are highlighted are the changes and the
strikeouts are the ones that have been removed. The
intent there was that if you have a fireplace or a
central air conditioner that is not counted as a setback
from the property line.
Mr. Bedell then questioned 23.604.4 #4 which reads "One
lodging room per single-family dwelling."
The Planner stated that is not a change. That is in the
current code.
Mr. Bedell then questioned 23.705.2 which relates to minimum
number of trees, A. Commercial, Industrial and Institutional
sites. To read that requires one tree per one thousand feet
of gross building floor area, how could this implemented in
the downtown area? Would that make current property
nonconforming?
The Planner stated no this section is more for new
construction. It may not fit one isolated building,
because you may have 60 feet of frontage and it would be
tough to get 7 trees in that 60 feet of frontage.
Mr. Bedell then questioned 23.740.2 1).
The Planner stated the intent on this item was to try to
keep things within a reasonable perspective of normality
in order to protect certain values, not to build a house
that looks like a flying saucer on stilts next to a two
bedroom colonial or whatever.
Mr. Bedell then questioned 23.740.2 2) B.
226
227
November 10, 1992
The Planner stated this is attempting to vary roof pitch
of structures. This was a provision that is trying to
avoid building the identical floor plan right next to one
another. This language is used in a number of other
communities also.
Mr. Bedell then asked about 23.740.4 Pole Buildings. He asked
if this would then make existing pole building nonconforming
or was it just from this time forward?
The Planner stated that this would preclude new
construction of that type of structure. It also would
come into play if the existing buildings were damaged by
fire or something and had to be totally rebuilt or if
there was to be a substantial addition to any of those
existing buildings.
The existing buildings would have full grandfathered
rights under the code, being allowed to exist as they
are.
The Mayor then moved on to the proposed Shoreland Management
Ordinance.
The City Planner addressed the following items in his report:
1. Why is Mound adopting a Shoreland Management Ordinance?
Because we have to. The City is under mandate from the
State of Minnesota as administered by the DNR to enact a
Shoreland Management Ordinance by December 10, 1992. The
DNR is hedging on that date because they have all 14
cities around Lake Minnetonka submitting ordinances to
them and they have been inundated, thus they may go a
little beyond that time, but the directive to the City
is to have one adopted by December 10, 1992.
What areas of the community will be impacted by the
ordinance?
3. What are the major provisions of the ordinance?
What flexibility will the City seek in this ordinance
from the DNR?
The framework that the City has had to work with are the State
Shoreland Rules and they have been enacted and there are certain
provisions of those rules that we are mandated to have within our
code. Eleven of the 14 cities around Lake Minnetonka have been
working cooperatively with representatives of the DNR in a group
227
November 10, 1992
known as the Technical Review Committee to iron out major problems
that the cities have in complying with the State Rules and try to
lend some uniformity to some of the provisions that would be
adopted around the Lake. This is being done so that you can go
from one community to another and not have radical discrepancies.
There has been an attempt to tailor these rules to fit the City of
Mound.
What is being proposed is that shoreland changes will not be a
separate zoning overlay district, they will be incorporated into
the City of Mound's Zoning Ordinance. The reason is that the vast
majority of Mound is within 1,000 feet of the Ordinary High Water
level (OHW) of some water body and hence is subject to the State
Shoreland Rules.
The Planner reviewed the major provisions of the Shoreland
Management Ordinance.
The Planner stated that every community around the Lake is seeking
some type of flexibility issue from the State Shoreland Rules.
Mound will be seeking flexibility in lot size to be able to use the
lot sizes that have been used in Mound versus the larger size lots
required by the State Shoreland Rules. That has been generally
accepted by the DNR.
The State Rules on impervious cover are 25%, Mound is seeking 30%.
That is another item that we need concurrence from the DNR that
they will accept this as a flexibility provision.
The only other item is in the land uses in the chart shown. There
are a few of those that may be required to be conditional by the
DNR. We may list them as permitted and again Mound will be seeking
flexibility to allow our existing zoning code to function as it
does right now as much as possible.
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
Jim Bedell, 2625 Wilshire Blvd. question (98A) in the
definitions. Shore Impact Zone.
The Planner responded that this relates to provisions that
require nothing to happen in the Shore Impact Zone, which in
Mound's case is the first 25 feet. Exceptions to that would
be the water and accessory structures that are allowed to be
within 10 feet of the OHL.
Mr. Bedell asked if any of the information from the LMCD
study, done by Arndorfer & Associates, was included in this.
228
November 10, 1992
The Mayor stated that he spent more that a year working with
other Mayors around the Lake trying to get a consensus on what
the long range plan would be. Appendix C that was received
from Arndorfer & Associates, which had a shoreland management
plan that would have basically worked for any community around
the Lake. The Mayors could never come to a consensus until
that Appendix C was removed. Mayor Johnson stated he was not
in favor of doing that because he thought it worked quite
well. The DNR had given a tacit approval to what was in
Appendix C.
The Planner then stated that if that process had been
followed, you would not have 14 cities now dealing
individually with the DNR, you would have a mass of 14
communities dealing with the DNR.
Councilmember Ahrens asked about the City granting variances
to the Shore Impact Zone. The Planner stated that the way the
ordinances are structured, is that notifications have to be
sent to the DNR now for any shoreland properties when there
are variances, conditional use permits, or subdivision
approvals so that they will get a request and nine times out
of ten, they will not act on them because they don't have any
interest in them. He stated that he thinks they may have an
interest if we have to grant a variance to be any closer than
50 feet to the OHWM, if we got closer than 25 feet, it may be
of interest to the DNR. That is not to say the City could not
do it, the City still has the ability to do that but we may
get a comment from the DNR that they don't think it is a good
idea.
The Planner stated the rules that we're working within are designed
to cover every lake in the State of Minnesota, which makes it
difficult to compare a lake in the northern part of the state to
Lake Minnetonka and that's why flexibility occurs and that's why
some of these things fit reasonably well but maybe not exactly
because there is a lot of intent that the State is trying to
accomplish.
The City Attorney asked that a summary of these ordinances be
prepared for publishing, to be presented at the November 24th
Meeting. The Council agreed.
The Planner stated that the Planning Commission will be looking at
lot size and storage shed placement, which is part of the zoning
code changes, at their next meeting, November 23. Also to be
looked at are certain provisions in the fence code.
229
230
November 10, 1992
MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Ahrens to continue the
public hearings to November 24, 1992. The vote was
unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.2
CASE #92-371: APPLICATION FOR AN OPERATIONS PERMIT FOR DROP
SHIP EXPRESS, AT 5308 SHORELINE DRIVE
The Planner explained that Drop Ship Express is requesting an
Operations Permit. The proposed business occupies approximately
70,000 square feet. The peak season for the business occurs from
November to January. The business will have three loading docks on
the north side of the building. Additionally, they are proposing
to have six trailers stored on the site adjacent to the recently
approve Toro heater testing building. The Staff and the Planning
Commission recommended approval under the following conditions:
Prior to December 1, 1992, Drop Ship Express shall prepare and
submit to the City of Mound, a site plan at a suitable scale
showing the parking area for six trailers including a concrete
pad for trailer dollies and a wooden fence adjacent to the
parking lot along Lynwood Blvd. to match the existing fence at
the west end of the site. The fence and concrete pads shall
be installed by June 1, 1993.
Trailers and trucks within the identified parking area shall
be directly involved with the business activities of Drop Ship
Express.
No trailers shall be allowed to remain parked on the site for
longer than 30 days.
Trailers shall be parked in the areas shown on the approved
site plan or at the loading docks involved in Drop Ship
Express business operations.
5. No outside storage is permitted except by operations permit.
Smith moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION %92-145
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE AN OPERATIONS
PERMIT FOR DROP SHIP EXPRESS, AT 5308
SHORELINE BLVD. AS PROPOSED
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.3 CASE ~92-057: REVIEW OF LANDSCAPING PLAN FOR TORO
MANUFACTURING
The Planner stated that since there has been a building location
change, the landscaping plan that was submitted by Toro is no
230
231
November 10, 1992
longer valid. They will be resubmitting a new landscaping plan.
He suggested this item be deferred until that time. The Council
agreed.
1.4
CASE ~92-065: TOM REESE, 5641 BARTLETT BLVD., LOT 1, BLOCK
23t SECTION 23t PID #23-117-24 14 0003~ VARIANCE TO RECOGNIZE
AN EXISTING NON-CONFORMING SETBACK TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A
CONFORMING DECK
The Building official explained the request.
Commission recommended approval.
The Planning
Smith moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION %92-146
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO
RECOGNIZE AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING
DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO ALLOW
CONSTRUCTION OF A CONFORMING DECK AT 5641
BARTLETT BLVD., PART OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1,
SECTION 23, PID %23-117-24 14 0003, P & Z
CASE %92-065
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT
There were none.
1.5
REQUEST TO BE REMOVED FROM THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT (CBD)
PARKING PROGRAMt THOMAS B. CARL, MOUND POST OFFICE
PROPERTY
The City Manager reported that he contacted the Postmaster and they
have done surveys to determine how many persons utilize the Post
office on a daily basis. This was done to determine the principal
use of the property. The last survey was done in April and May of
1990 on aMonday thru Friday basis. The average number of persons
per day was 375. They then calculated the number of box customers
at 150 per day. This is a total of 525 persons per day. These
figures reflect more of a retail space situation than an office
space. Thus, to meet the requirement for parking, the facility
would have to have one space per 150 square feet of retail space.
Since the building is 4534 square feet, dividing that by 150,
equals 30.2 parking spaces. Hence, the Post Office property does
not meet the zoning requirements and he recommends denial of the
request to be removed from the CBD Parking Maintenance Program.
231
232
November 10, 1992
MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Jensen to deny a request by
Thomas B. Carl to have the Post office property removed from
the CBD Parking Program, based on the present use as retail
space, and not providing the required parking spaces. The
vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.6
RESOLUTION SETTLING DISTRICT COURT CASE ~MC91-001353 RELATING
TO CBD PARKING ACQUISITION ASSESSMENT AND PROVIDING FOR THE
DISMISSAL OF AN ASSESSMENT APPEAL
The City Manager explained the Mr. Johnson had objected to the
assessment for the CBD Parking Lot Acquisition. Between Mr.
Johnson's attorney and the City Prosecuting Attorney, Jim Larson,
they have resolved the problem by adjusting the employee parking
space requirement from 7.5 to 4. This reduces Mr. Johnson
assessment $729.36. A resolution settling this dispute was
presented for consideration.
Jessen moved and Smith seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION #92-147
RESOLUTION SETTLING DISTRICT COURT CASE
#MC 91-001353 RELATING TO CBD PARKING
ASSESSMENTS AND PROVIDING FOR THE
DISMISSAL OF AN ASSESSMENT APPEAL
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.7 REQUEST FROM RESIDENTS ON BEACHWOOD ROAD FOR A STREET LIGHT
The City Manager stated that the Police Department has reviewed
this request and recommended approval.
Smith moved and Johnson seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION #94-148 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A STREET LIGHT
REQUEST TO BE LOCATED ON THE POWER POLE
NEAR 5891 BEACHWOOD ROAD
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.8 APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 437:00 OF THE CITY
CODE BY ADDING SUBD. 5 AND AMENDING SECTION 437:05~ SUBD. 2 BY
ADDING SUBSECTION f RELATING TO REMOVAL OF LICENSED DOCKS
The City Manager stated that the Dock Inspector has recommended
that this amendment be approved. It relates to removal of docks at
the expiration of a dock license. The Park & Open Space Commission
has recommended approval.
Jessen moved and Jensen seconded the following:
232
ORDIN~CE #~0-1992
November 10, 1992
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 437:00 OF
THE CITY CODE BY ADDING SUBD. 5 AND
AMENDING SECTION 437:05, SUBD. 2 BY
ADDING SUBSECTION f. RELATING TO REMOVAL
OF LICENSED DOCKS
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.9 APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE CITY OF MOUND'S
ADMINISTRATIVE CODE TO REFLECT CHANGES IN ADMINISTRATIVE
POLICY
The City Manager summarized the amendments that are proposed for
the City's Administrative Code. Councilmember Jensen stated that
she does not agree that employees should be guaranteed a pay
increase, because of pay equity, even if the employee is not
performing satisfactorily. She stated she would like to see a
merit pay plan.
The Council discussed this and stated they would like to get the
pay equity plan back out and review it for discussion at a future
date.
Ahrens moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION %92-149
RESOLUTION TO AMEND THE CITY'S
ADMINISTRATIVE CODE ADOPTED JUNE 10,
1984, WITH AMENDMENTS DATED 12-11-84, 7-
9-85, 5-21-87 AND 4-5-88 AS RECOMMENDED
AND SHOWN BELOW EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 1993
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.10 RESOLUTION CONCERNING A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO CREATE
NEW PROPERTY TAXPAYER'S TRUST FUND IN MINNESOTA
The City Manager presented a resolution calling for the Legislature
to support a constitutional amendment dedicating the funding for
the Local Government Trust Fund and requesting the League of
Minnesota Cities to make such an amendment one of their priorities
for 1993.
Smith moved and Johnson seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION %92-150
RESOLUTION CONCERNING THE CONSTITUTIONAL
AMENDMENT TO CREATE A NEW PROPERTY
TAXPAYERS' TRUST FUND IN MINNESOTA
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
233
234
November 10, 1992
1.11 PAYMENT OF BILLS
MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Jessen to authorize the
payment of bills as presented on the pre-list in the-mount of
$355,449.66, when funds are available. A roll call vote was
unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
ADD-ONS
1.12 ELECTION RECOUNT - MAYOR'S RACE
The City Clerk explained that she has received a request from
candidate Bob Polston who ran for Mayor in the November 3rd General
Election for a recount. Mr. Polston lost to Mr. Johnson by 19
votes. The recount will be Monday, November 16, 1992, at 1:30 P.M.
in the Council Chambers. The City Clerk asked the Council to
appoint her Recount Official and to authorize the City Attorney to
attend the recount in case legal advice is needed.
MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Jensen to appoint Francene
C. Clark as the Recount Official for the recount of the
Mayor's race to be held Monday, November 16, 1992, at 1:30
P.M. in the Council Chambers. The City Attorney is also
authorized to attend the recount. The vote was unanimously in
favor with Mayor Johnson abstaining. Motion carried.
The City Clerk also explained that she has just been served with a
Notice of Election Contest by attorney's from Mr. Polston. The
City Attorney stated that this is basically between Mr. Polston and
Mr. Johnson. The City will have to defend the election process.
1.13 APPROVAL OF NEW POOL TABLE LICENSE
MOTION by Johnson, seconded by Smith to approval a license for
2 pool tables for Independent School Dist. %277, 5600 Lynwood
Blvd. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.14 MUNSON CASE
The City Manager updated the Council on the Munson Case. Ms.
Munson was granted a maintenance permit in August to upgrade a
boathouse at 4729 Island View Drive. The Permit was given with the
intent that the repairs be made on or before November 1, 1992. Ms.
Munson and her attorney were sent copies of the resolution on
August 26, 1992. Among the items required in the resolution was
that Ms. Munson was to provide a Certificate of Insurance in an
amount of not less than $600,000. To date the Building official
has not received a certificate and the building permit application
that she has made is incomplete so a building permit cannot be
issued. The Building Official advised the City Manager of this
234
November 10, 1992
last week and a letter was sent to Ms. Munson indicating that he
was advising the City Manager and the City Attorney and that the
City Manager would be advising the Council and recommending that
action be taken. The City Manager explained that it is his intent
to tack this item on to the lawsuit with Ms. Munson per the
Council's earlier direction by ordering demolition.
The Building Official reported that Ms. Munson has indicated to him
that she can only provide a $300,000 Certificate of Insurance.
Also the Building Official has not been able to complete the plan
review of the plans for the minimal repair to the boathouse. He
stated he spoke with the Ms. Munson's engineer and he was hesitant
at this point to approve the plans that had been provided thus far.
The engineer wanted to elaborate on those to insure that any
repairs that he would be responsible for would stand. The engineer
wanted to give direction and possibly even that he would have to
visit the site again. In other words, the Building Official stated
he has not received an acceptable set of plans. The Building
official also stated that the engineer told him on the phone that
if the Building Official proceeded on the basis of what he has, it
would be the Building Official's responsibility, the engineer would
not accept any responsibility.
The City Manager recommended that an order for demolition of the
boathouse be added to the current lawsuit with Ms. Munson on the
deck removal. The City Council did not take any action to the
contrary. Thus, the City Manager will proceed in directing the
City Attorney to add this item to the current lawsuit.
The City Attorney reported that in the criminal lawsuit, they are
undergoing some discovery. On the civil lawsuit, the complaint was
served and they have served an answer and a counterclaim against
the City. The City will now respond to the counterclaim, based on
the direction that the City Manager and the Building Official gave
them today and which has been reported to you tonight. The
document will be amended to include the problems with the
boathouse. This will expand the civil lawsuit to some extent.
INFORMATION/MISCELLkNEOUS
A. Department Head Monthly Reports for October 1992.
B. LMCD Representative's Monthly Report for October 1992.
Ce
LMCD Lake Minnetonka Public Access Task Force Meeting
Report.
Do
Letter from Gene Strommen, LMCD, to Tom Reese thanking him for
his service as Vice Chair in 1992.
235
236
November 10, 1992
Ee
The annual League of Minnesota cities (LMC) Policy Adoption
Conference will be held Thursday, November 19, 1992, at the
Decathlon Club, 7800 Cedar Ave. South, Bloomington from 9:30
A.M. to 3:00 P.M. Enclosed is an Agenda and the proposed
policies as recommended by LMC Committees. If you are
interested in attending, please let Fran know by Friday,
November 13, 1992.
Fe
I contacted the LMCD following the last City Council Meeting
regarding the multiple dock license issue. I indicated to
Gene Strommen, your concerns about paying a fee to LMCD (dock
holder actually pays fee) for work that we do through our dock
inspection program. I expressed the concern that multiple
docks (city owned/operated) should be treated differently. He
took concerns to the LMCD Board and the Board took them under
advisement. The Board established a committee for joint
review of the program which will have membership on it from
multiple dock license holders. Fees will be studied, cost
accounting system will be implemented to track costs. In
addition, the Board "rolled back" the fee from the proposed
$15 per Water Storage Unit (WSU) to $10 per WSU. This will
cause some budgetary problems because the additional monies
necessary to cover costs will not be available from fees.
Thus, approximately $40,000 will come from budget reserves to
make up the difference. Multiple dock license fees for
1993, at the $10 rate, will be partially (20%) due on 12/1/92
and the remaining 80% will be due on 4/1/93. Enclosed is a
letter from the LMCD explaining this further.
G. REMINDER: No COW meeting on November 17, 1992.
He
REMINDER: City Hall will be closed Wednesday, November 11,
1992, in observance of Veteran,s Day.
REMINDER: Thanksgiving holiday, Thursday, November 26 and
Friday, November 27, City Hall will be closed.
R~MINDER: 1993 Budget Hearings are scheduled for Wednesday,
December 9, 1992, and Wednesday, December 16, 1992, at 7:30
P.M., Mound City Hall.
REMINDER: Annual city of Mound Christmas Party is scheduled
for Friday, December 18, 1992, Mound American Legion.
ne
I have completed the recruitment process for filling the
Finance Director position. We had 70+ applications and I
narrowed the list to 9 for interviews. I then narrowed the
list to two and selected Gino Businaro, currently employed at
Minneapolis Public Schools, Special Education Department as
Finance Manager. Previous to this position, Gino was Chief
236
Mo
November 10, 1992
Accountant for Carver County. He also has worked for the
State Auditor's office as a Principal Auditor/Analyst
Supervisor. Gino is married with two children. He and his
family live in Chaska. He also serves on the Chaska School
Board. Gino will begin work with the City of Mound on
November 23. I will have him come to the City Council Meeting
after he begins work so you can meet him. Or, if you're in
City Hall around his start date, I will introduce you to
him. I believe he will be a fine addition to our staff.
LMCD meeting schedule for November and December 1992.
Notice of Public Hearings for Minnegasco rate increase.
MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Jessen to adjourn at 9:35
P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
, Jr., City Manager
Attest: City Clerk
237
BILLS November 10, 1992
BATCH 2103 $210,086.84
BATCH 2104 145,362.82
TOTAL BILLS $355,449.66