1994-05-10May 10, 1994
MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - BOARD OF REVIEW
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Board of Review convened in the Council Chambers
of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City on
May 10, 1994, at 7:00 PM.
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, Hennepin County Assessor Keith Rennerfeldt and Hennepin County Appraiser Craig
Paulson.
Mayor Johnson opened the Board of Review and explained that this meeting is to give property
owners a chance to question the value placed on their property by the County Assessor as of
January 2, 1994. He explained that each person would be heard and the Board of Review will
reconvene Tuesday, May 24, 1994, at 7:00 PM and bring back their final decision on each
property.
The following persons responded to the call to be heard either in person, by calling and asking
to have their name submitted, or by submitting their concerns in writing. They all asked to have
the value of their property rechecked because they felt it was too high.
1. PID #23-117-24 34 0096 &
PID #23-117-24 34 0097 -
2. PID #13-117-24 41 0005 -
3. PID #13-117-24 11 0117 -
4. PID//13-117-24 22 0119 -
5. PID #13-117-24 23 0038
6. PID #23-117-24 43 0020
7. PID #24-117-24 13 0001
8. PID #13-117-24 22 0267 -
9. PID #23-117-24 23 0057 -
10. PID #30-117-23 22 0008 -
11. PID #22-117-24 44 0003 -
12. PID #19-117-23 33 0057 -
PID #19-117-23 33 0058
PID #19-117-23 33 0061
VERNON SNODGRASS, 3025 LONGFELLOW
CLIFFORD LARSON, 2051 ARBOR LANE
DEWEY WHITE, 4929 - 3 PTS. BLVD.
KELLOGG OLSON, 5410 - 3 PTS. BLVD.
BARB SIDDERS, 5525 SHERWOOD DRIVE
GUS KNOT'F, 5937 RIDGEWOOD ROAD
TERRENCE WULF, 2600 RUBY LANE
THOMAS WILLIAMS, 5551 - 3 PTS. BLVD.
SHIRLEY SPRAGUER, 2785 HALSTEAD LANE
ANDREA AHRENS, 4673 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE
BOB FLOEDER, 3027 BLUFFS LANE
VINCE FORYSTEK, 3109 INVERNESS
VINCE FORYSTEK, INVERNESS (LAND ONLY)
VINCE FORYSTEK, 3137 INVERNESS
215
2i6
May l[~, 1994
13. PID #13-117-24 32 0142
MIKE BARLOW, 2072 COMMERCE BLVD.
14. PID #13-117-24 33 0006
CURT L. JOHNSON, 5545 SHORELINE DR.
15. PID #22-117-24 44 0031 - MIKE MALASKE, 6557 BARTLETT BLVD.
1.0
MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Jessen to reconvene the Local Board of
Review on Tuesday, May 24 1994 at 7:00 PM, in the City Council chambers at 5341
Maywood Road. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - MAY 10, 1994
The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday,
May 10, 1994, 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, Police Chief Len Harrell, and the following interested citizens: Richard Schieffer,
Dewey White, Larry & Christine Hauskins, Sam & Virginia Snodgrass, Quirin & Maria
Matthys, Phil & Betty Lansing, Richard & Pauline Garozzo, Bernard & Joann Boeser, Jim
Walton, Craig & Carolee Goodrich, Robert Pierce, Steve Coleman, Gus Knott, Barb Sidders,
Jim Regan, E. S. & Pat Goodfellow, Clifford & Shirley Larson, Lynne Confer, Tom & Sue
Williams, Sandy & Steve Berkey, James Ventura, Jeff Skelton, Kellogg Olson, Chuck & Pam
Auger, Brian & Sue Schebler, Patty Guttormson, Dan & Val Hessburg, Michael Tegeder, Joan
Underwood, Rhonda Eurich, Peter & Jackie Meyer, Greg Sicheneder, George Gulso, Brad
Rognrud, Deb Kramer, and Jay Petersen.
The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
1.1 MINUTES
Councilmember Jessen stated that she had one correction to the April 26, 1994, Minutes, and
it is on page 1546, Item 1.14, "An Operating taotiee Policy will be forwarded to the Council in
the future."
MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Johnson to approve the Minutes of the
April 21, 1994, Committee of the Whole Meeting, as presented and the April 26,
1994, Regular Meetings as corrected. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion
carried.
1.2 RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING EDWARD J. SHUKLE. JR
The Mayor read a resolution recognizing Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager as the incoming
President of the Minnesota City/County Management Association.
216
May 10, 1994
Smith moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION NO. 94-64 RECOGNIZING EDWARD J. SHUKLE, JR., CITY
MANAGER AS THE INCOMING PRESIDENT OF
THE MINNESOTA CITY/COUNTY MANAGEMENT
ASSOCIATION AND COMMENDING HIM FOR THIS
ACHIEVEMENT
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.3
PUBLIC HEARING: CASE//94-21: WE~qTONKA INTERVENTION PROJECT,
INC./FINA OIL & CHEMICAL COMPANY, 1730 COMMERCE BLVD., PART
OF LOT 27, LAFAYETTE PARK, PID//13-117-24 22 0025, ZONING ORDINANCE
AMENDMENTi CONDITIONAL USE PERMITi AND MOVING BUll.DING
PERMIT
The Mayor stated that since there are a number of people who wish to speak on this item, the
Council would like to open the public heating and then continue it to allow the Council to deal
with Planning Items 4, 5, and 8.
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Jessen to continue this public hearing until
Planning Items 4, 5 and 8 are handled. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion
carried.
1.4
CASE g93-041: JIM WALTON, 1952 SHOREWOOD LANE, LOT 14, BLOCK 2,
SHADYWOOD POINT, PID//18-117-23 23 0014, VARIANCE FOR DECK
The Building Official explained that this case has been reviewed by the Planning Commission
twice. The original request was to replace a pre-existing 16' x 44' deck. The applicant has
revised the request to a 14.5' x 44' deck. This results in the following: a variance of 2.7' to
the south side of the existing building in front; a 4' variance to the ordinary high water (50 foot
required setback); a 1750 square foot lot size variance; and a 17% hardcover variance. The
Planning Commission recommended approving a reasonably sized deck of 10' x 44' which
would be conforming to the lakeshore setback of 50 feet. There was considerable discussion at
the Planning Commission. The applicant stated that the existing footings for the deck are 12 feet
from the house and he intended on using them for the replacement deck. The final action of the
Planning Commission (on a vote of 6 to 2) was a 10' x 44' deck, including a condition that 5
feet on each outer edge of the gravel driveway be altered to green space.
The applicant was present and asked to comment. Mr. Walton stated that he does not think he
needs a variance for anything. He stated that he needs to repile his rip-rap which has washed
into the lake due to wave and ice action and he will meet the 50 foot setback to the lake. He
submitted a letter from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District allowing him to do this without
a permit. He further stated that the land in Mound is less permeable to water than his red rock
driveway and the binder rock under his deck. He did not want to dig out the 5 feet on either
217
May 10, 1994
side of his driveway. He stated his home has been located where it is for 26 years and the 7.3
feet on the sideyard should not be an issue. He stated he will be tapering his deck to stay at the
7.1' on the one side of his house.
The City Attorney explained that over the years there have been changes in both city and state
legislation. One of these is the Shoreland Ordinance which the city has adopted and relates to
how much hardcover you can have. There are differences now that when you previously came
before the Council were not an issue. The purpose of the nonconforming use is to allow you
to use your property in the manner in which it is until such time as you can come into
conformance. Example, if your house burned down and you wanted to rebuild, you would have
to meet all the setback requirements, you would have to bring it into conformance with existing
ordinances. Thus, each time you come through and want to do something on your property
which changes the existing condition, you have to come back to the City Council.
Mr. Walton stated he understood and thinks it is outrageous. He stated he wants his permit and
the variance without having to dig up his driveway and shortening his deck to 10 feet wide. He
stated he does not agree with the recommendations and conditions of the Planning Commission
that are in the proposed resolution.
MOTION made by Johnson and seconded by Smith to table this request until such
time as the applicant brings back a survey that shows that he does not need a
setback variance from the lake.
The Council explained that at this point ail they have to go on is the survey that was
submitted and shows the deck to be anywhere from 2 feet to 4 feet inside the 50 foot
setback zone to the lake. The applicant reiterated his first comments on repiling his rip-
rap and the hardcover comments relating to the driveway.
The vote was 0 in favor with Ahrens, Jensen, Jessen, Johnson and Smith against.
Motion defeated.
The Council asked the applicant if he wanted the variances granted. He stated he wants to
rebuild his deck as requested and does not want to dig up 5 feet on each side of his driveway.
Councilmember Ahrens asked what percentage was used in figuring the hardcover calculation.
The Building Official stated according to the ordinance the existing hardcover calculations are
17% (1,404 square feet) over on this property. This is more than the 30% allowable. The
Building Official explained that Mr. Walton may have lost some shoreline due to erosion and
he has written approval from the Watershed District to repair his rip-rap, but no approval to fill
below the elevation of 929.4. The Building Official's opinion was that this repair of the rip-rap
will not give him a 4 foot gain in lakeshore for the setback.
Councilmember Jensen stated that she did not vote in favor of the removal of 5 feet on each side
of his driveway because the construction will be on the other side of the house. Councilmember
Jensen stated that there was agreement at the Planning Commission that the deck should be 10
feet in width toward the lake. Councilmember Jensen reminded the Council that we grant
variances for the minimum required to alleviate the hardship. The Planning Commission felt
218
,, - i L I ,I,,J, l, I ,L,
May 10, 1994
that a 14.6 foot deck is large and a 10 foot deck is very functional and would be conforming at
this site.
MOTION made by Smith and seconded by Ahrens to table this request until such
time as the applicant brings back a survey to the Council that shows that he does not
need a setback variance from the lake. The vote was 3 in favor with Jensen and
Johnson voting nay. Motion carried.
1.5
CASE //94-18: LARRY & CHRISTINE HAUSKINS, 1749 BLUEBIRD LANE,
LOTS 13 & 14, BLOCK 9, DREAMWOOD, PID//13-117-24 24 0005, VARIANCE
FOR PORCH & DECK
The Building Official reviewed the request for a variance to recognize the existing
nonconforming dwelling and to allow the construction of a three season porch over a portion of
the existing deck area. This property received a variance in 1990 allowing the existing
conditions. The proposed porch will follow the same 9.1 foot setback to the rear lot line where
a 15 foot setback is required, resulting in a 5.1 foot variance. A portion of the existing deck will
be removed which will improve the impact to the rear by 3.1 feet. The applicant explored other
options by placing the expansion in another area without encroaching, but due to the odd shape
of the lot, the positioning of the house to gain lake views and the interior floor plan, they felt
it was not possible. The Staff recommended approval. The Planning Commission recommended
denial because they had trouble finding hardship. There was also concern that the proposed
porch would obstruct the neighbors view of the lake. Mr. Hauskins has submitted letters from
three of his neighbors stating they have no problem with the proposed porch. The Building
Official pointed out that this is a rear lot line variance the applicant is requesting and in some
ways it has the appearance of a side lot line also. The applicant was present.
Mr. Dick Schieffer, representing the Hauskins, stated that the house is on the lot diagonally to
take advantage of the view of the lake. This lot is on WIOTA Common, which gives it
additional green space.
The Council discussed the fact that where the rear lot line is could conceivably be a side yard
lot line taking into consideration the way the house is positioned on the lot and that it is bordered
on one side by Bluebird l_ane and Wiota Common and the lake on another.
MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Jessen to direct staff to prepare the
resolution of approval using the finding of facts as found tonight. The vote was
unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.6
CASE//93-049: JOE FI,E!SCHHACKER, 5601 BARTLETT BLVD,, PART OF
GOVT. LOT 1, SECTION 23, PID//23-117-24 14 0001, VARIANCE FOR DECK
The Building Official explained the request. The Planning Commission reviewed the case twice.
This request has been reviewed by both the DNR because of the Shoreland Management
Ordinance and the Indian Affairs Council because of the indian mound that is in the vicinity of
the deck. The Staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval with the conditions
listed in the letter from the Indian Affairs Council.
219
220
May 10, 1994
MOTION lnade by Ahrens, seconded by Jessen to direct staff to prepare the
resolution of approval as recommended with the conditions from the Indian Affairs
Council and the Planning Commission.
Councilmember Jessen asked that the City get information from the Indian Affairs
Council on where any known indian mounds are located in Mound.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.7
PUBLIC HEARING: CASE//94-21: WESTONKA INTERVENTION PROJECT,
INC,.,/FINA OIL & CHEMICAL COMPANY. 1730 COMMERCE BLVD,, PART
OF LOT 27, LAFAYETTE PARK, PID//13-117-24 22 0025, ZONING ORDINANCE
AMENDMENT; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT~ AND MOVING BUILDING
PERMIT
The Mayor reopened the public hearing.
The City Planner explained the requests. The Westonka Intervention Project is proposing to
acquire the old Fina gas station site at the comer of Three Points Blvd. and County Road 110.
The proposal involves relocating the convent building now located at Our Lady of the Lake
Church to this site and converting it to a shelter for victims of domestic abuse that would serve
Mound and the surrounding Westonka Area. The shelter will have a capacity of 15 people, a
staff of 3 to 5, depending upon need. The purpose of the shelter is to provide short term
housing. Initially it was indicated that typically victims would remain in the shelter for a
relatively short period of time (one or two days), but subsequent testimony has revealed that it
could be as long as 18 days or in some cases longer. The shelter is expected to have average
occupancy at 70% to 75% after opening, with eventually 100%. The Fina site is in the B-2
Zone which does not currently allow the proposed use. Therefore, the applicant is seeking a
zoning amendment to place with type of use as a Conditional Use; seeking a Conditional Use
Permit; and seeking a Moving Building Permit. There are 3 separate approvals needed.
ZONING AMENDMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT HEARING NOTICES: The
Planner stated that the application that was received and subsequently the public hearing notice
that was sent out called this a conditional use permit modification for a Community Residential
Facility which is allowed within the B-2 zone by CUP. Upon further investigation of this
proposed use, the City learned that these uses are not licensed like other types of group homes
so the shelter is not in the Community Residential Facility category as far as the definition goes.
Therefore, the City should consider specifically identifying Victims of Domestic Abuse Shelters
as a conditional use in the B-2 zone instead of a Community Residential Shelter which is what
was advertised for these public hearings. He pointed out that the Planning Commission public
hearings are only held on an advisory basis in order to obtain more information, but the official
hearing is at the City Council. It may be necessary to readvertise these public hearings (Zoning
Amendment and the CUP application) using Victims of Domestic Abuse Shelters.
MOVING BUILDING PERMIT: The Planner pointed out that the ordinance requires that the
building would have to be brought up to code and that there is a clause in the ordinance
specifically stating that the building has to be of the same general character and appearance of
220
May 10, 1994
other structures in the vicinity. This would be a finding that would have to be made.
In general, the shelter raises a number of issues, many of which have been discussed over the
course of 3 different Planning Commission Meetings. Some of the issues that the Commission
have taken a look at and taken into account in their decision are as follows. 1. The zoning change itself.
2. If the B-2 is modified to allow this use, it does displace property that otherwise
might be available for a commercial purpose and although the B-2 zone does
allow multi-family housing, again it is a business zone, so there is a trade off
there.
3. There are environmental concerns with this site because there was a ground
contamination problem. There was some material that was removed in 1990 and
there are monitoring wells on the site now. We did make an initial effort by
contacting the MPCA. They have not cleared the site of contaminants, but they
were very specific in stating that there was no reason that the City couldn't
approve a building permit for this use or any other use on the site providing that
they are kept informed if anything occurred during construction. If the
monitoring wells needed to be moved to another location, they would need to be
instrumental in determining where those locations would be.
4. Building compatibility is an issue that was talked about. Specifically the
appearance of the convent structure itself. This is one of the entry ways to the
community and that places more importance and prominence on making sure that
if the building is placed here it is a very attractive structure and it fits with the
surroundings.
5. Site plan information that is required as part of a conditional use permit was in
more of a sketch or concept form than what the City would ultimately need. So
that would need to be submitted as part of the final conditional use permit
application that would need to be reviewed.
6. Land compatibility was looked at from the perspective of a shelter at this location
has some different issues than a multi-family residence, ie. security, etc.
There was information collected from the Minnetonka Police Dept. on a similar
facility that is operating there. This information has been supplemented with
information on just about every facility of this kind operating within 20 miles.
Some of this information was supplied by the residents of the 3 Points area. The
Police Chief is present to answer any questions that might arise.
The Planning Commission and the Council are faced with the 3 different issues that have been
linked together, as far as the Planning Commission was concerned it was hard to separate one
from the other. Moving the building will require permits and will require an architect to be
involved.
The Planning Commission could have found that the land use was inappropriate and could have
recommended denial of the zoning code amendment in which case there would have been no way
a CUP application to be considered. The other alternative would be to take a look at modifying
the ordinance which is what the Planning Commission did. They approved a recommendation
unanimously last night that the zoning ordinance be modified to accommodate this use as a
conditional use and further recommended directing staff to begin drafting a conditional use
221
222
May 10, 1994
permit that they could go through and review and make sure that it met all the criteria and all
the concerns that they had noted and registered. At the second Planning Commission Meeting,
a motion was approved and a recommendation sent to the City Council to allow the convent
building to be moved from its present location, if need be, to the parking lot at Our Lady of the
Lake Church. The Planner emphasized that the relocation of the building is not to the proposed
site, but is a storage issue for the church so that they can begin construction of their addition.
The reason it needs a permit is that the building has to go out onto a public street and then back
onto the church property. The .Planning Commission recommended a 6 month time limit for
storage of the building at 2385 Commerce Blvd. The public hearing notice for this was also sent
to the people 350 feet from the church property. There are other conditions in section 300:25
of the Code for moving a building that would have to be met.
The Planner stated that more information was submitted by both the residents and the applicant
at the Planning Commission Meeting May 9th. This has been copied and given to the Council
this evening.
The City Attorney stated that it is his understanding that the publication is inconsistent with what
is being recommended. The Planner answered that this is true because after the notice was
published, he learned through more investigation that these facilities are not licensed. The
Planner stated he verified this with another city attorney that state statute does recognize licensed
facilities and licensing is a key ingredient to be a Community Residential Facility. Thus this did
not fit that mold and we had to look at where it would be classified and where it would
potentially be classified as a Domestic Abuse Shelter.
The City Attorney also pointed out that since the Planning Commission did not act on the CUP,
there is no recommendation to present to the City Council. The Council therefore has only one
issue to consider tonight, the zoning amendment and then the question becomes, does that
accurately reflect what was published in the official notice. He recommended that the Council
republish the zoning ordinance amendment public hearing notice using the correct language of
"Victims of Domestic Abuse Shelter" and set another date for this hearing.
The Council discussed the options and decided to take testimony on the issue of the zoning
amendment only. The Planner pointed out that this amendment would affect 3 areas in the city
that are zoned B-2 (General Business Zone). The Council decided the City will have to
republish the Zoning amendment and Conditional Use Permit public hearings with the proper
language.
Several of the persons attending asked if the other B-2 zones were notified of the proposed
change. The City Attorney and the City Planner answered no, because if you are amending the
text of the ordinance, it is a generalized amendment and it is published in the legal periodical,
that is proper notice. If in contrast, your were changing a specific site's zoning (ie. B-2 to R-
3), then you would need to notify people within 350 feet of the site. This is a text amendment.
The following people spoke against the zoning amendment:
Richard Garozzo, 1772 Lafayette Lane
Lyle Fuller, 1762 Commerce Blvd.
222
Jeff Skelt0n, 1770 Lafayette Lane
Craig & Carolee Goodrich, 1776 Lafayette Lane
Steve & Sandy Berkey, 1768 Lafayette Lane
Chuck Auger, 1769 Lafayette Lane
James Ventura, Attorney representing Driftwood Shores Association
JoAnn Boeser, 1735 Lafayette Lane
Sue Schebler, 1735 Lafayette Lane
Quirin & Maria Matthys, 5525 Three Points Blvd.
George Gulso, 1635 County Road 110 N., Minnetrista
Steve Coleman, 5545 Three Points Blvd.
The following were reasons given for not supporting the zoning amendment:
May 10, 1994
o
e
Does not meet the criteria for granting a zoning amendment (Section 350:520, SUBD.
1 of the Zoning Code which reads in part," ..... amendments shall not be issued
indiscriminately, but shall only be used as a means to reflect changes in the goals and
policies of the community as reflected in the Plan or changes in conditions in the City."
7.
8.
9.
10.
Do not agree that there is sufficient domestic abuse in Mound to justify this type of
facility.
11.
12.
13.
Felt the application for this amendment should have come from the property owner, not
Westonka Intervention.
Need to be notified with the correct language of what is being proposed to be added to
the B-2 Zone - "Victims of Domestic Abuse Shelter" vs "Community Residential
Facility".
Shelter would generate excess traffic and there are security and safety issues for the
surrounding residential area.
Other areas should be looked at for this type of facility.
Against this location for the facility. Should be located closer to the Police Department.
This type of use is not similar in character to the rest of the neighborhood.
Lack of information from Westonka Intervention on their plans.
Concerns about liability of the Driftwood Shores Association for their Outlot on I_ake
Minnetonka, i.e. docks, lake access, boats, etc.
Fear of violence and the potential for it.
Other shelters have numerous police calls.
This type of shelter should not be in such a public area.
223
224
May 10, 1994
14. This type of shelter would be allowed in an R-3 zone, therefore a zoning amendment
would not be necessary.
15. In the next 5 years there will probably be development of the acreage across the road and
this type of facility would not be appropriate.
16. Pictures were submitted of the shelter in Minnetonka which is run down after 5 years.
17. Pictures were also submitted by the Driftwood Shores Homeowners Association of their
outlot and the surrounding area.
18. Opening up all three B-2 areas to this type of use.
19. This property would be removed from the tax rolls.
The following persons spoke in favor of the zoning amendment:
Dan Hessburg, 3490 Lythrum Way, Minnetrista (representing Westonka Intervention)
Father Mike Tegeder, Our Lady of the Lake Catholic Church
Jaclde Meyer, 5748 Sunset Road, Mound
Jay Petersen, 2667 Halstead Lane, Mound
The following are reasons given for supporting the zoning amendment:
1. Trying to solve some problems, not create them for the community. This is an
opportunity to use the convent from the Church for a worthwhile purpose. Don't feel
this use will be a problem in the B-2 zoning district.
2. Don't feel the change in zoning will affect other properties around the area.
3. There is a need for this type of facility in the community.
4. The shelter needs to be in a public area.
5. Information from other shelters does not substantiate that there are problems in the
neighborhoods where these shelters are located. The MN. Dept of Corrections, MN.
Coalition for Battered Women, Women Kind, Domestic Abuse Project, and other shelters
do not feel a shelter is a dangerous thing to the residents or staff in a residential area.
6. No matter where this shelter would be located, the neighbors will be against it.
7. The location is good from the standpoint of it not being in the middle of a residential
area. It has good access to public transportation. It is an ideal site.
8. The B-2 zoning does lend itself to this type of use.
9. This shelter would help the entire Westonka community.
224
May 10, 1994
The Council thanked the people for all their input.
The City Attorney advised the Council that they will have to readvertise the public hearings for
the Zoning Amendment and the Conditional Use Permit with the proper description "Victims
of Domestic Abuse Shelter".
The Mayor closed this public hearing.
MOTION made by Smith seconded by Jessen to refer the matter back to the City
Planner to redraft the proposed amendment, correcting the title and the section
numbers for the Zoning Ordinance Amendment and def'ming "Victims of Domestic
Abuse Shelters; and the Conditional Use Permit. The public hearing on the Zoning
Amendment and definition to be scheduled for June 14th. The public hearing on
Conditional Use Permit for June 28th, if the zoning amendment is adopted.
The Planner explained that the new hearing notices would have 3 components:
1. Establish a definition for "Victims of Domestic Abuse Shelters";
2. Look at amending the listing of conditional uses in the B-2 Zone to
accommodate that specific item; and
3. The actual conditional use permit itself for the facility.
This would be 2 items, 1 and 2 together and 3 alone, on two separate dates.
The Council discussed whether any of these items should go back to the Planning
Commission.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.8 PUBLIC HEARING: MOVING BUII.I~ING PERMIT
The Mayor stated that this public hearing is specifically to allow Our Lady of the Lake Church
to move the convent building on their property at 2385 Commerce Blvd. off their property, into
the street, and back onto their property at 2385 Commerce Blvd.
The Mayor opened the public heating.
Father Mike Tegeder, Our Lady of the Lake Church, stated they would like the building
moved so that they can start construction of their new building addition. This is
scheduled to begin around June 1 st. He suggested that the church can store the building
on their property at 2385 Commerce Blvd. until a decision is reached. It will be
necessary to move the building into the street and back onto the property.
Sue Schebler, 1759 Lafayette Lane, asked about the requirements in the code relating to
the 90 days from the date of the move that the building be brought up to code. The
Council related that they are looking at this as being after the building in permanently
set on a foundation.
225
226
May 10, 1994
Dan Hessburg, 3490 Lythrum Way, Minnetrista, stated that they (Westonka Intervention)
have been contacted by the Driftwood Shores Association about helping to find an
alternate site for this shelter. He is looking forward to working with them in order to
save this beautiful building from destruction.
Lyle Fuller, 1762 Commerce Blvd., asked what kind of conditions will be put on this
move and the storage of this building, i.e. time-line, etc. The Council stated that this
was mentioned by the Planner in his initial comments. The Conditions are spelled out
in the ordinance, i.e. permits, utilities, insurance, bond, fence or security so it is not an
attractive nuisance, and length of time.
Jim Ventura, representing Driftwood Shores Association, stated that Section 300:25 of
the City Code requires that improvements must be made within 90 days even if the
building is just moved onto the parking lot at Our Lady of the Lake Church. He asked
if the Planning Commission has recommended approval of this Moving Building Permit.
The Council stated yes.
The City Attorney stated that he does not feel that the 90 days starts until the building is
permanently located.
Craig Goodrich, 1776 Lafayette Lane, asked for clarification on the following:
1. If there is a delay in the proposed use of the other land, and they come back and
say they need to move it down the road for awhile, and there is a 90 days length
of time, can they move this thing every couple of months until a final spot is
found? The Council stated they have not even discussed a time-line, but the
Planning Commission recommended 6 months. Mr. Goodrich stated that his
concern is, what happens after 6 months and then if it is moved again, is it
another 6 months?
2. Will the City be responsible of any of the costs of this move? The Council
answered no.
Richard Garozzo, 1772 Lafayette Lane, questioned the applications that have been
applied for, i.e. moving building permit application. The Planner stated that originally
the application for moving the building was for a move to 1730 Commerce Blvd. but the
hearing notice was subsequently revised to allow a move within the property at 2385
Commerce Blvd. (Our Lady of the Lake property). He advised that hearing notices were
sent to all people within 350 feet of that property also. The notice was amended so that
there was a backup plan for the building and it would not have to be destroyed. Mr.
Garozzo asked if a fee was paid for the moving building permit application. The City
Clerk stated that the fee was paid.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Jensen directing the Building Department
to prepare a permit for the moving of the convent building from 2385 Commerce
Blvd. to a site on 2385 Commerce Blvd. in conformance with Section 300:25 of the
City Code, i.e. insurance requirements, bonding requirements, etc., establishing
226
May 10, 1994
conditions of where on Our Lady of the Lake property the building will be placed
temporarily, how long it can stay there and what their alternatives are.
The Planner stated that some of the conditions should be as follows:
notification and approval from Hennepin County Public Works Department;
notification and approval of all applicable utility companies, including the City
of Mound;
applicable permits to be obtained for disconnection of utilities;
installation of a fence and/or other safety precautions as required by the Building
Official, Fire Marshal, Police Chief and City Engineer;
code compliance with applicable sections of the City Code, Section 300:25,
Moving of Buildings, as required by the Building Official; and
submission of a site plant identifying the building location for temporary storage
to be approved by the City Planner.
The Council agreed.
The Council discussed how long this building should be allowed to remain at the Our
Lady of the Lake site. Father Tegeder stated he would like to see at least 6 months.
The Council asked what would happen if the building is not moved in 6 months. The
City Attorney stated that the people could come in and ask for an extension. There
should be something in the permit which would be some form of penalty or some kind
of surety or performance bond to see that the building is moved or disposed of. The
Council discussed the timing and felt they will have to continue this meeting tonight to
next Tuesday evening to allow time to prepare the permit and present it to the Council.
The Council agreed on the 6 month time limit
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT
There were none.
1.9 RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT - TEAL POINTE
The Planner reported that the proposed resolution is in conformance with the conditions that
have been established to date and it has been reviewed by the City Attorney's office.
Jessen moved and Johnson seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION//94-65
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF MOUND GRANTING FINAL PLAT
APPROVAL FOR TEAL POINTE RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
227
228
May 10, 1994
1.10 SET PUBLIC HEARINGS
MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Smith to set July 12, 1994, for a public
hearing to consider the modification of Section 350:760, Subd. 4 of the Mound
Zoning Ordinance which regulates truck parking in residential areas. The vote was
unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.11
MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Smith to set July 12, 1994, for a public
hearing to consider the modification of Section 300:10 of the Mound City Code to
add provisions requiring the completion of structures within a one year period of
time. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.12 RF~OLUTION REAFFIRMING AUTHORIZING CITY SPONSORSHIP OF THE
STATE GRANT-IN-AID SNOWMOBILE TRAIL FUNDS
Jessen moved and Smith seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION 094-66
RESOLUTION REAFFIRMING AUTHORIZING CITY
SPONSORSHIP OF STATE GRANT-IN-AID
SNOWMOBILE TRAIL FUNDS
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.13 LICENSE RENEWALS/PERMITS
MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Johnson to authorize the issuance of the
following licenses contingent upon all insurance and other forms being executed and
turned in:
Mound Volunteer Fire Dept. -
June 11, 1994
Public Dance Permit (fee waived)
Set-Up Permit (fee waived)
Temporary On-Sale Nonintoxicating Malt Liquor
Permit
Mound City Days -
June 17, 18, 19, 1994
Carnival (fee waived)
Concessions (fee waived)
Craft Shows (fee waived)
Entertainment (fee waived)
Fireworks (fee waived)
Merchant Sales (fee waived)
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
228
1AS
May 10, 1994
DISCUSSION: ALLOCATION OF EXPF.3/SF RELATING TO FLACK v. CITY
OF MOUND
MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Jessen to table discussion on this item at
this time. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
PAYMENT OF BILLS
MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Jessen to authorize the payment of bills as
presented on the pre-list in the amount of $85,238.20, when funds are available. A
roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS:
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
Department Head Monthly Reports for April 1994.
L.M.C.D. Representative's Monthly Report for April 1994.
L.M.C.D. Mailings.
Planning Commission Minutes of April 25, 1994.
Association of Metropolitan Municipalities (AMM) Elected Officials Survey.
League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) Mailings:
- Solicitation of volunteers to serve on LMC Intergovernmental Relations Policy
Committees.
Solicitation of suggestions for topics to be studied by LMC's Intergovernmental
Relations Committees.
Announcement of a special program preceding LMC Annual Conference entitled
"Making Policy in a Fishbowl", Tuesday, June 7, 1994, Noon - 3:00 P.M.,
Radisson Hotel, St. Paul. Please advise Fran ASAP, if you wish to attend.
LMC Annual Conference materials. LMC Conference begins Tuesday, June 7
and ends Friday, June 10, St. Paul Civic Center. Theme of the Conference is
"Governing Your City: It's a Whole New Ballgame". Please let Fran know
ASAP, if you wish to attend.
Management letter on the 1993 Financial Audit which accompanies the Audit discussed
at the April 26, 1994, Meeting.
Invitation from Boyer Building Corporation RE: Meeting to discuss proposed project at
Pelican Point. Meeting is scheduled for Thursday, May 12, 1994, 7:00 P.M. - 9:00
P.M., at Lakewinds in the Party Room. A reminder to the Council that only two people
229
May 10, 1994
can attend this meeting because of the open meeting law. Councilmember Ahrens and
Jessen stated they would attend and report back to the Council.
Announcement from AMM RE: Annual Meeting scheduled for Wednesday, May 25,
1994, Edinburgh USA Golf Course, Brooklyn Park. Please let Fran know ASAP, if you
wish to attend.
Jo
Report on Spring 1994 Recycling Days Project Tonnage, prepared by Joyce Nelson,
Recycling Coordinator.
REMINDER: Committee of the Whole Meeting, Tuesday, May 17, 1994, 7:30
P.M.
The City Manager stated the Westonka Senior Center won first place in the Senior Center
Achievement Award for the State of Minnesota and came in second place in the
nationals. They received their national award in April and will be receiving their state
award on Friday, May 20th at the Minnesota Board on Aging meeting in St. Paul. They
will be having a brief ceremony at 7:00 P.M. on Monday, May 23rd at the Westonka
Senior Center. The Council is invited.
MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Jessen to adjourn at 12:15 P.M. The vote
was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
MOTION made by Johnson, seconded by Ahrens to reconsider the last motion on
adjournment. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Smith to continue this meeting to Tuesday,
May 17, 1994, at 7:00 P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
Attest: City Clerk
230
231
BILLS .May 10, 1994
BATCH 4044 $85,238.20
TOTAL BILLS $85,238.20