1994-08-23# I & ,& &A & & ,I ,
MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - AUGUST 23, 1994
The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday,
August 23, 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 Planners Mark Koegler and Bruce Chamberlain,
City Engineer John Cameron, Building Official Jon Sutherland, and the following interested
citizens: Bob & Sheila Smith, Tom Casey, Frank Weiland, Gerold Esselman, Steve Koch,
LeeAnne Pederson, Michelle Olson, Karen Pedersen, Rita Pederson, Mike & Joyce Dupay, Tim
Miller, Susan Culver, Bradley Curtis, William Michel, Michael & Susan Henning, Randall
Morairty, Michael Kohler, John Blumentritt, John Boyer, Vince Forystek, Lisa Peterson and
Alan Krepman.
The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
1.0 MINUTES
MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Jensen to approve the Minutes of the August
9, 1994, Regular Meeting, as submitted. The vote was unanimously in favor.
Motion carried.
1.1
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: TO CONSIDER MODIFICATION OF
SECTION 350:76 SUBD. 4 OF THE MOUND ZONING ORDINANCE WHICH
REGULATES TRUCK PARKING IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS.
The City Planner related the background of the proposed amendment. He explained that the
Council wanted to clarify the current ordinance. The current ordinance reads as follows:
Section 350:760. Parking.
Subd. 4. Truck Parking in Residential Areas. No motor vehicle over one (1) ton
capacity bearing a commercial license and no commercially licensed trailer shall be
parked or stored in a platted residential district or a public street except when loading,
unloading, or rendering a service. Recreation vehicles and pickups are not restricted by
the terms of this provision.
403
August 23, 1994
The Council explained that this ordinance has been a law for some time but needed clarification
of commercial vehicles. The enforcement, the trucks allowed, and where they would be allowed
does not change. This amendment comes about because when the Code Enforcement Officer's
were out looking for all types of nuisance violations and commercial trucks were something they
came upon and wrote some tickets for them based on the current ordinance. The Council was
then asked to define or change the commercial vehicle definition. The complaints were from
the people receiving the tickets, thus the need for clarification.
The proposed amendment would read as follows:
Section 350:760. Parking.
Subd. 4. Truck Parking in Residential Areas. Off-street parking facilities accessory
to a residential use shall be utilized solely for the parking of licensed and operable
passenger automobiles, pickup trucks, and recreational vehicles. Additionally, no more
than one (1) commercial truck, bus, or trailer not to exceed the manufacturer's gross
vehicle weight of twelve thousand (12,000) pounds nor a height of nine (9) feet nor
length of twenty-six (26) feet shall be allowed.
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
The following persons spoke regarding the ordinance amendment:
Vince Forystek, 3131 Inverness - stated that he has walked around his
neighborhood and does not see a problem with truck parking. He expressed
concern that this type of ordinance could affect peoples income if they use the
truck for business.
The Planner explained that in the old ordinance, from a planning and legal perspective, there
was concern about the term one (1) ton capacity and what it means. In one way or another that
term needs to be tightened and the suggested language, from the prosecuting attorney, was to
refer to the manufacturer's gross vehicle weight because that is definable by the plate on the
door or on the vehicle. That was the benchmark. It depends on how you look at it whether it
is more or less restrictive.
The Council asked what trucks would this proposed ordinance allow that would not be allowed
under the present ordinance? The Planner stated that if he were interpreting the existing
ordinance, anything that has over a one (1) ton weight. The Council then discussed the weight
of a vehicle and the amount of weight that truck could carry.
Gerold Esselman, 5870 Lynwood - stated that he is against the proposed
amendment because it is less restrictive than the current ordinance.
404'
August 23, 1994
Tim Miller, Inverness - stated that he is against either of the ordinances because
he drive a semi-truck and brings his tractor home. That is his transportation to
and from picking up a trailer. He stated his stack would be 3 inches too high for
the proposed ordinance and he would be 3,000 pounds too heavy.
Robert Smith, 3232 Gladstone - stated his van truck is his store. It is licensed
for 15,000 pounds, but he does not carry that much. The vehicle is gone from
8:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M. Nobody has ever complained. He cannot park it in a
public lot because of the merchandise in it that could be stolen. It is his sole
income for his family. This ordinance would put him out of business. He has
received 2 tickets. Mr. Smith stated he has a garage to keep his vehicle in.
Presently even housing the truck in a garage is not legal. If the truck does not fall within the
limits of either the existing or proposed ordinance, it is illegal.
The Council discussed the pictures in the packet which were provided to show what is being
parked in residential areas currently. The Planner stated the pictures were for information only.
Brad Curtis, 5967 Idlewood - stated he would like to see one (1) ton, not gross
vehicle weight.
Lisa Peterson, Vice President of Government Relations for the Minnesota
Trucking Association - stated she misunderstood what the issue was tonight, but
would like to clarify the gross vehicle weight issue. Safety laws are written
around the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) which is a plate applied inside
the door by either the manufacturer of the truck or the rebuilder of the truck.
People can overload or underload a vehicle. The plate does not change. There
is also the combination vehicle weight rating which will tell you not only how
much the truck is allowed to carry but how much you could carry in a trailer as
a combination vehicle with truck and trailer. The GVWR is a very standardized
method of measuring what size a truck is and it is available to enforcement
officers without having to weigh the truck by just looking inside the door at the
plate.
The Council asked how GVWR compares to capacity? Ms. Peterson stated that
capacity is whatever someone can put into a truck and still make it move. The
GVWR is what the manufacturer says you should be able to put into a truck and
make it move. In order to obtain capacity you would have to subtract the weight
of the vehicle.
The Council asked about registered gross vehicle weight (RGVW). Ms. Peterson
explained that registered gross vehicle weight is the taxing weight that you would
choose to be taxed at. She stated a lot of people register with a lesser gross
vehicle weight to pay less tax.
405
August 23, 1994
The Council discussed "one (1) ton" as being ambiguous, and a totally subjective definition.
Suggestions made were to use GVWR (gross vehicle weight rating). Also the proposed
amendment should refer to on or off street regulation.
The City Attorney stated that the whole reason for either of these ordinances is to preserve
residential districts as residential, not commercial.
Councilmember Jensen stated that as she recalled when the Planning Commission was discussing
this proposed ordinance there was talk about more requests for housing of these types of vehicles
and also that people would leave more stuff outside so that the truck could be housed inside.
Mr. Miller asked if there is a grandfathered situation for trucks that have been there since before
the current ordinance was adopted. The City Attorney stated that there is no grandfathering.
Grandfathering is just another way of talking about a nonconforming use and this is a storage
regulation, thus the truck storage would still be illegal.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
The Council stated that the ordinance needs to refer to on-street as well as off-street parking and
storage. They also discussed allowing commercial vehicles that are housed in a garage. The
Council was split on that.
The Council stated they are trying to visually clean up the town.
MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Jessen to deny the ordinance amending
Section 350:760, Subd. 4., relating to truck parking in residential areas.
The Council discussed whether the proposed ordinance is clear on what vehicles would
be kept out of residential areas. There needs to be more clarification.
The City Attorney pointed out two things:
He stated that if the ordinance were going to be voted upon it would take
4/5 to adopt it because it is part of the zoning ordinance.
If the motion that is on the floor is not to adopt the ordinance as
proposed, he offered the following language:
"No motor vehicle shall be parked or stored in a platted residential district
or public street which exceeds the manufacturer's gross vehicle weight
rating of twelve thousand (12,000) pounds, nor a height of nine (9) feet,
nor a length of twenty-six feet, except when loading, unloading, or
rendering a service. Recreational vehicles and pickups are not restricted
by the terms of this provision."
406
August 23, 1994
The Council again discussed how the (3VVq is determined.
A vote on the motion was unanimously in favor. Motion approved.
The Council consensus was that this ordinance does need clarification. The Council decided to
discuss this further at a Committee of the Whole Meeting to give the Planning Commission more
direction before referring it back to the Planning Commission.
1.2 PUBLIC HEARING: TO CONSIDER MODIFICATION TO THE SHOREI.AND
MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE SECTION 350:1200 OF THE MOUND CITY
CODE.
The City Planner reported that Mound adopted its Shoreland Management Ordinance and it was
submitted to the DNR for their approval. There was a threshold issue that was presented by the
Pelican Point project and as a result the DNR has moved the Mound ordinance to the "top of
the pile". During the past couple of months staff has been working with representatives of the
DNR to address questions and issues that have been raised pertaining to the ordinance. The
Planning Commission has reviewed the proposed amendments and recommended approval of the
following amendments:
Section 350:310, Definitions of the Mound City Code of Ordinances are amended to read as
follows:
Subd. 65. Impervious Cover. Any surface impervious or resistant to the free flow
of water or surface moisture. Impervious cover shall include but not be limited to all
driveways and parking areas whether paved or not, tennis courts, sidewalks, patios, and
swimming pools. Open decks (1/4" minimum opening between boards) shall not be
counted in impervious cover calculations.
Subd. 96. Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL). A level delineating the highest
water level which has been maintained for a sufficient period of time to leave evidence
upon the landscape. The ordinary high water level is commonly that point where the
natural vegetation changes from predominantly aquatic to predominantly terrestrial. In
areas where the ordinary high water level is not evident, setbacks shall be measured from
the stream bank of the following water bodies that have permanent flow or open water:
the main channel, adjoining side channels, backwaters and sloughs. The ordinary high
water level for the lakes located in the City of Mound are as follows: Lake Minnetonka
= 929.4, Langdon Lake = 932.1, and Dutch Lake = 939.2.
Subd. 106. Public Waters. Waters defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 103G.005,
Subdivision 15, as amended. Lakes, ponds or flowage of less than 10 acres shall not be
considered public waters.
407
August 23, 1994
Subd. 147. Wetland. Land which is annually subjected to periodic or continual
inundation by water and commonly referred to as a bog, swamp, or marsh. The
delineation of wetlands shall be in compliance with the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service, Circular 39.
Section 350:310 of the Mound City Code of Ordinances is amended by adding Subd. l18B,
which shall read as follows:
Subd. l18B. Semi-Public Use. The principal use of land or buildings involving the
assembly or congregation of the general public in facilities that are owned either privately
or by institutions. Such uses include churches, fraternal organizations, museums, etc.
Section 350:1220, Subd. 2 of the Mound City Code of Ordinances is amended to read as
follows:
Subd. 2. Land Use District Descriptions. Within the shoreland area, land use
descriptions and allowable land uses therein shall be as identified in Sections 350:640 and
350:670. Public, semi-public, commercial and industrial uses without water-oriented
needs must be located on lots or parcels without public waters frontage, or, if located on
lots or parcels with public waters frontage, must either be set back double the normal
OHWL setback or be substantially screened from view from the water by vegetation or
topography, assuming summer leaf-on conditions.
Section 350:1225, Subd. 3 (A) 2. of the Mound City Code of Ordinances is amended as follows:
Additional Structure Setbacks. The following additional structure setbacks
apply, regardless of the classification of the waterbody:
Setback From Setback
Unplatted Cemetery .......................... 50 feet
Right-of-way line on federal,
state or county highway, or
local street ................................ 20 feet
Top of Bluff:
Existing lots of record or lots created through
Minor Subdivisions (3 lots or less)
consistent with Section 330:20,
Subd. 1 of the City Code ................... 10 feet
Major Subdivisions consistent with
Section 330:20, Subd. 2 of the City Code ......... 30 feet
408
August 23, 1994
Section 350:1225, Subd. 6 (B) 1 is amended to read as follows:
Impervious surface coverage of lots in residential zones shall not exceed
30 percent of the lot area. On existing lots of record, impervious
coverage may be permitted by a maximum of 40 percent providing that
the following techniques are utilized as applicable.
Impervious areas should be drained to vegetated areas or grass
filter strips through the use of crowns on driveways, direction
downspouts on gutters collecting water from roof areas, etc.
Dividing or separating impervious areas into smaller areas through
the use of grass or vegetated filter strips such as the use of paving
blocks separated by grass or sand allowing inf'fltration.
Use grading and construction techniques which encourage rapid
infiltration such as the installation of sand or gravel "sump" areas
to collect and percolate stormwater.
Install berms to temporarily detain stormwater thereby increasing
soil absorption.
The Mayor opened the public hearing. There were no comments. The Mayor closed the public
hearing.
Smith moved and Ahrens seconded the following:
ORDINANCE NO. 69-1994
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING PORTIONS OF
SECTION 350:310; SECTION 350:1220; AND
SECTION 350:1225 OF THE MOUND CITY
CODE RELATING TO SHORELAND
MANAGEMENT
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.3
PELICAN POINT FINAL APPROVAL:
A_~. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESS WORKSHEET (EAW) APPROVAl,
B__~. PROPOSED RESOLUTION GRANTING FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR
PELICAN POINT MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.
The Mayor stated there is an issue that has come up today regarding the ownership of the
Pelican Point island. Thus, the Council will only be dealing with the EAW tonight and not the
final plat approval.
409
August 23, 1994
City Planner, Bruce Chamberlain, reported to the Council on the EAW. The staff recommends
that based on comments to the EAW, further study of project impacts is not warranted and an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not needed for this project. Based on public comments
received, the City Council may want to consider adding any or all of the following conditions
to the approval of the final plat.
Revegetation of the storm drainage ditch at the north end of the site shall be
accomplished using primarily native species conducive to growth in this location.
Instructions to this effect shall be included in the construction documents
submitted to the City Engineer.
Construction and maintenance of the site shall adhere to MPCA Best Management
Practices. Construction documents submitted to the City Engineer shall reflect
said BMPs.
The Developer shall modify Section 9.5 of the Declaration of Covenants to
eliminate the provision allowing improvements to the island to accommodate
picnicking.
The Developer shall prepare and submit to the City Attorney a conservation
easement which establishes the island in Outlot C as permanently protected from
any alteration or improvement.
The Developer shall submit to the City Engineer, along with construction
documents a tree protection plan prepared by an urban forester or arborist. In
addition, an urban forester or arborist shall supervise construction to insure the
proper protection of vegetation.
The Developer shall prepare and submit to the City Attorney a conservation
easement which establishes bluff areas as defined by the shoreland management
ordinance as permanently protected from any alteration or improvement except
the removal of deal or diseased vegetation.
He reported that the DNR has a concern about a possible wetland on the interior of the site.
The Developer is at this time having a professional wetland delinerator go to the site to
determine if it actually is a wetland. If it is a wetland, there will be alterations to the plat that
will have to be taken into account. He will keep the Council up-to-date on this item.
There were comments to the effect that under the DNR shoreland management rules this project
would qualify for an EIS, that the Council should require a mandatory EIS. Because of the
action of the Council tonight on Mound's Shoreland Management Ordinance, if this falls under
the jurisdiction of the local ordinance, it would not fall under the mandatory category for an
EIS.
The Council discussed the proposed additional conditions a-f.
410
August 23, 1994
The Planner suggested that since the final plax will not be approved tonight the above conditions
can be decided at a future meeting. The real important issues that need to be dealt with this
evening is whether or not an EIS is warranted and whether further study is warranted. The
Council could approve the EAW with potential conditions to be reviewed at the time of final
plat.
The Council all agreed that an EIS is not warranted. The Council also agreed that further study
is not needed. The Council asked that item E be deleted from the final plat approval.
John Boyer of Boyer Building stated he is not in favor of Item F of the conditions because they
would like to have this expanded to allow trimming for a view of the lake. The Planner stated
this can be handled with language in the Shorel~d Management Ordinance. Alan Krepman,
RLK Associates, a registered landscape architect, who has been working on the project, stated
that he would like to see a statement such as, "must comply with the standards established in the
Shoreland Management Ordinance," and leave it at that instead of making it more specific. Mr.
Krepman asked that item e. refer to a registered landscape architect instead of an urban forester
or arborist. The Planner stated they will take all of this into consideration when the final plat
resolution is prepared.
MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Jensen regarding the Environmental
Assessment Worksheet prepared for the Pelican Point multi-family residential
development, the City Council f'mds that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
is not warranted and that no further study is required to make said determination.
Information generated from the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) will
be considered as part of the review of the f'mal plat for Pelican Point. Therefore,
the City Council directs staff to prepare a corresponding resolution for consideration
at the next meeting. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.4
CASE g94-54: WILLIAM AND DIANE MICHEL, 5865 GRANDVIEW BLVD.,
PART OF 'LOTS 85 AND 86, MOUND SHORES, PID#14-117-24 42 0107,
VARIANCE - SCREEN PORCH
The Building Official explained the request. The Planning Commission recommended approval
subject to some existing impervious Surface to be returned to green space. Staff and the
applicant have worked together to come up with something close to the 132 square feet
recommended by the Planning Commission. The' Council agreed 1. in the resolution is to be
modified to read:
"1. The City does hereby recognize'a 7 foot front yard variance and a variance to
impervious surface coverage-of 34 percent (total 64 percent, or 4,787.5 square
feet of coverage), to allow constructiOn of an 11' x 12' screen porch over an
existing deck, subject to: approximately an equal amount (132 square feet) of
existing impervious surface be returned to green space."
Ahrens moved and Smith seconded the following resolution:'
411
August 23, 1994
RESOLUTION #94.112
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO
RECOGNIZE EXISTING NONCONFORMING
SETBACKS AND HARDCOVER TO ALLOW
CONSTRUCTION OF A PORCH AT 5865
GRANDVIEW BLVD., THAT PART OF LOTS 85
AND 86, MOUND SHORES, PID #14.117-24 42 0107,
P&Z CASE//94-54
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.5
CASE//94-55: BRADLEY CURTIS, 5967 IDLEWOOD ROAD. LOT 8. BLOCK
10, Pm 23-227-24 31 0011, VARIANCE - DECK AND DETACHED GARAGE
The Building Official explained the request. The Planning Commission recommended approval.
Smith moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution:
RESoLuTION//94-113
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A HARDCOVER
VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A
DECK AND GARAGE AT 5967 IDLEWOOD ROAD,
LOT 8, BLOCK 10, THE HIGHLANDS, PID g23-117-
24 31 0011, P&Z CASE//94-55
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.6
CASE g94-,~6: SUSAN CULVER, 4701 SUFFOLK ROAD. LOTS 1.2. 3. BLOCK
14, WYCHWOOD, PID#19-117-23 32 0148, VARIANCE - DETACHED
GARAGE
The Building Official explained the request. The Planning Commission recommended approval.
Smith moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION ~4-114
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE SETBACK
VARIANCES TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A
DETACHED GARAGE AT 4701 SUFFOLK ROAD,
LOTS 1, 2, & 3, BLOCK 14, WYCHWOOD, PID #19-
117-23 32 0148, P&Z CASE//94.56
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.7
CASE/f94-59: MICHAEL AND SUSAN HENNING. 5953 SUNSET ROAD. LOTS
22 & 23, MOUND SHORES, PID #14-117-24 42 O0~8, VARIANCE - GARAGE
ADDITION
412
I ,Ii I I, & i,~, & Ii ,I,
August 23, 1994
The Building Official explained the request. The Planning Commission recommended approval.
Ahrens moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION//94-115
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO
RECOGNIZE EXISTING NONCONFORMING DECKS
TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A CONFORMING
GARAGE ADDITION AT 5952 SUNSET ROAD, LOTS
22 & 23, MOUND SHORES, PID//14-117-24 42 0058,
P&Z CASE ~94.59
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carded.
1.8
CASE//94-60: RANDALL MORAIRTY, 4536 DENBIGH ROAD, LOTS 5, 6, AND
SO. 1/2 OF 4, BLOCK 2, AVALON, PID//19-227-23 24 008, VARIANCE - FRONT
YARD SETBACK
The Building Official explained the request. The Planning Commission recommended approval.
Smith moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION//94-116
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO
ALLOW RECONSTRUCTION OF A PORTION OF
THE DWELLING AND A DECK AT 4536 DENBIGH
ROAD, LOTS 5, 6, AND NORTHEASTERLY 1/2 OF
LOT 4, BLOCK 2, AVALON, PID//19-117-23 24 0008,
P & Z CASE//94-60
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.9 CASE//94-61: MICHAEL M. KOHl.ER, 1744 AVOCET LANE, LOTS 15, 16,
17. BLOCK 9, DREAMWOOD, PID //13-117-24 24 0007, VARIANCE
SETBACKS
The Building Official explained the request. The Planning Commission recommended approval.
Ahrens moved and Smith seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION g94-117
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO
RECOGNIZE EXISTING NONCONFORMING
SETBACKS TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A
DECK AT 1744 AVOCET LANE, LOTS 15, 16 & 17,
BLOCK 9, DREAMWOOD, PID//13-117-24 24 0007, P
P & Z CASE//94-61
413
August 23, 1994
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT.
There were none.
1.10 RECOMMENDATION FROM PARKS AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION RE:
DOCK LICENSE FEES FOR 1995.
The City Manager explained that the POSC held a public hearing regarding the dock license fees
for 1995. There was no one present at the public heating. The POSC recommended that the
dock license fees remain the same for 1995 as they were in ~994 except that the LMCD fees
have been reduced.
MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Jessen to concur with the Park & Open
Space Commission recommendation that the Dock License fees for 1995 remain the
same as in 1994, with the exception that the LMCD fees have been reduced. The
vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.11
RECOMMENDATION FROM PARKS AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION RE:
WINTER DOCK STORAGE/REMOVAL; REVIEW OF "NOTICE" - APPROVAL
OF NOTICE.
The City Manager explained that this was discussed at the POSC meeting. The Park Director
suggested that this notice could be utilized to enforce the existing ordinance, and if a problem
was found to exist this winter when the Dock Inspector does his rounds, the violator can then
be given a second notice and then a third, and if compliance is not accomplished, their dock
license can be revoked.
Councilmember Ahrens stated that her concern is with the docks left in during the winter that
receive damage from the ice and wind. Some of these float out in the spring or sink to the
bottom and can be hazardous to all persons using the lake and the environment. She stated the
Dock Inspector has prepared a list of where docks should and should not be allowed to be stored
in the winter. She stated she feels the city should regulate where docks should be removed
because they are polluting the lake.
The City Manager stated that the POSC agreed to work with the notice they have on page 3472
which would be sent out this year and then monitor the number of problems they have this
winter. That was their recommendation.
Rita Peterson, Halstead Lane - representing several residents who live right across the street
(level with) from Commons voiced concern about how they have to look through the docks and
boat lifts that are stored in the Commons. The Council explained that according to the ordinance
there is winter storage on most of the Commons.
414
August 23, 1994
Mike Dupay, 5420 Breezy Road, stated that someone has a roll out dock and boat lift in front
of his house.
Mike Kohler, 1744 Avocet Lane, stated that he feels that the Commons has been there a lot
longer than some of the people who chose to live in that area and people should be allowed to
store their docks and boat lifts on Commons.
The Council discussed how times have changed on the Commons i.e. bigger boats, boat lifts,
etc. The Council asked the POSC to look at the winter storage section (Section 437:10, Subd.
10, a.4.) of the ordinance at their meeting in September and maybe have a hearing on this so
that something can be done this winter. They also asked the Park Director and the Dock
Inspector to see if the storage of dock, boat lifts, etc. can be done to the side of an area so that
abutting properties do not have to look at it all winter. This may have to be done on a case by
case basis.
1.12
RECOMMENDATION FROM PARKS AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION RE:
AMENDMENT TO THE PUBLIC LANDS PROCEDURE MANUAL ADDING
EXHIBIT "Q" - GUIDELINES FOR ALLOWING PLANTINGS ON
COMMONS/PUBLIC LANDS.
The City Manager explained that the POSC has made some recommendations to amend the
procedures manual to allow plantings on Commons or public lands. Basically the goal is to
maintain and restore the natural look of the Commons by the use of more native vegetation.
There is a listing of the types of species that would be acceptable. Refer to page 3486 and 3487
for the proposed resolution with the guidelines. The POSC is asking for consideration and
approval.
The Council asked about grass because there are areas that are like lawn. The Council
questioned whether it is a goal to turn the Commons into a wild area or natural commons. They
could understand the bluff areas being kept natural.
The Council asked if these guidelines would be binding. The City Attorney stated that the
guidelines all start with "shall not" which seems very mandating or directive. It is not law in
the sense that we could prosecute anyone. The Council discussed changing the language to read
"should or should not", to make it softer. This language was pointed out by City Planner Bob
Day in his memo of August 3, 1994., but it was not reflected in the guidelines that are
proposed.
Councilmember Ahrens stated that the reason this has come about is that when the inventory was
done, there were a variety of plantings found on the Commons. Therefore, a guideline was put
together so that people would know what they could or could not plant on the Commons.
415
August 23, 1994
The Council also discussed how people would be notified of these guidelines. They also
discussed the goal. The Council felt that Mr. Day's goal on page 3491 which reads as follows
was a better goal:" ..... the creation of an overall aesthetic appeal throughout the commons
which will still have the flexibility to absorb modifications in the future." The Council felt the
POSC needs to recognize that certain types of commons have the look or appearance of lawn
or park and they are going to be mowed. This does not seem to be reflected in the proposed
guidelines.
The Council asked that this be discussed at the next Committee of the Whole Meeting and then
it will be sent back to the POSC for further consideration.
1.13 APPROVAL OF SALARY INCREASES FOR MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL.
The City Manager explained that the salaries of the Mayor and City Council have not been
increased since 1979. Mound's Mayor and Council ranks as one of the lowest paid in their
population category. The proposal is for the Mayor to go from $1800/year ($150 month) to
$4500/year ($375/month) and the Council from $1200/year ($100/month) to $3000/year
($250/month). These salaries would not go into effect until January 2, 1995. The Council
pointed out that there is no per diem, and there are a lot of extra hours for preparation,
litigation, etc, for which they are not paid.
Smith moved and Ahrens seconded the following:
ORDINANCE/f70-1994
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 155:35 OF
THE CITY CODE RELATING TO SALARIES OF
MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.14 DISCUSSION: CITY'S FINANCIAL SUPPORT TO MOUND CITY DAYS.
The City Manager stated that at a previous meeting the Council asked that this be on the agenda
tonight for discussion.
Councilmember Smith stated that he feels Mound City Days is a very important event for
Mound. The fireworks has become one of the biggest events on the lake. The cost of the
fireworks is $10,000. It is becoming a problem for the Lions to continue to fund the fireworks
because of the State's taxing structure on charitable gambling. He stated he does not feel the
City should fund the entire fireworks, but a portion thereof.
The City Attorney stated there are state statutes that govern what the City can or cannot do with
community events. He stated he will look into this and find the appropriate statutes for the staff.
The Council commended the Lions for all their volunteer hours and work in putting on Mound
City Days.
416
Augus% 23, 1994
The Council directed that $4,000 be put in the budget for fireworks, if it is legal to contribute
to this community event.
1.15 DISCUSSION: "CITIES WEEK".
The City Manager explained the League of Minnesota Cities "Cities Week". The Council
reviewed the events and noted that a lot of the items are already being done in Mound.
The Council thought the poster and essay contest would be a good item for the schools to
participate in. The City Manager will follow-up on encouraging the school to participate in
these contests. A proclamation for "Cities Week" will be prepared for approval at the next
meeting.
1.16 APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL OF NON-INTOXICATING MALT LIQUOR
LICENSE - MOUND LANES.
This item was acted upon at the June 18, 1994 meeting. No action was taken.
1.17 DISCUSSION: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO NATIONAL MUNICIPAl.
POLICIES AND SEPARATE RESOLUTION NLC CONFERENCE
MINNEAPOLIS- DEC, 1-4, 1994.
The City Manager stated that cities are invited to submit policy proposals and resolutions for
consideration at the NLC's Congress of Cities in Minneapolis, December 1-4, 1994. The
Council did not have any policy proposals.
1.18 APPROVAL OF FINAL PAYMENT REQUEST - 1994 SEALCOAT PROGRAM
ALLIED BLACKTOP- $25,810.15.
MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Smith to approve the final payment request
of Allied Blacktop for the 1994 Seal Coat Program, in the amount of $25,810.15.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.19 PAYMENT OF BILLS
MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Jensen to authorize the payment of bills as
presented on the pre-list in the amount of $342,207.66, when funds are available.
A roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS:
A. July 1994 financial report as prepared by Gino Businaro, Finance Director.
417
August 23,
B.
E.
F.
G.
1994
Information on National League of Cities Conference to be held December 4, 1994, in
Minneapolis. Early registration is due in September 19, 1994. If you are interested let
Fran know ASAP. Mayor Johnson, Councilmembers Jensen and Jessen, and the City
Manager asked to have their registrations submitted.
Letter of resignation from Pat Meisel re: HRA. The Council decided to hold off on an
appointment until after the first of January.
Information from Rep. Steve Smith re: Your questions on the state lottery proceeds.
Planning Commission Minutes of August 8, 1994.
Parks and Open Space Commission Minutes of August 11, 1994.
REMINDER: Next regular Council Meeting is Wednesday September 14, 1994 rather
than Tuesday, September 13, 1994 due to Primary Election.
MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Jensen to adjourn at 11:20 P.M. The vote
was unanimously in favor.
Motion carried.
Edward J.
;hukle, Jr., City Manager
Attest: City Clerk
418
BILLS
August
23, 1994
BATCH 4073
BATCH 4082
TOTAL BILLS
$128,332.43
213,875.23
$342,207.66