1997-05-27MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 27, 1997
MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - MAY 27, 1997
The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session
on Tuesday, May 27, 1997, at 7:30 PM, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in
said City.
Those present were: Mayor Bob Polston, Councilmembers Mark Hanus, Liz lensen and Leah
Weycker. Councilmember Andrea Ahrens was absent and excused. Also in attendance were:
City Manager Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Attorney John Dean, City Engineer John Cameron,
Building Official Jon Sutherland, and City Clerk Fran Clark and the following interested
citizens: Harry Nasset, Joe Zylman, Dawn & Phil Carlson, Randy Moriarty, and Jeanie Tuttle.
*Consent Agenda: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by
the Council and will be enacted by a roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these
items unless a Councilmember or Citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed
from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence.
OPEN MEETING - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. The Pledge of
Allegiance was recited.
APPROVE AGENDA. At this time items can be added to the Agenda that are not listed and/or
items can be removed from the Consent Agenda and voted upon after th, e Consent Agenda has
been approved.
Councilmember Jensen asked that the following Items be pulled from the Consent Agenda:
*D.
CASE 97-19: EXTENSION/MODIFICATION OF SUBDIVISION, RANDY
MORIARTY, 4536 & 4552 DENBIGH ROAD, LOTS 5, 6, 7, 9 & SWLY 1/2
OF LOT 4, BLOCK 2, AVALON, 13-117-24 14 0008 & 0048
*I.
CASE 97-20: FRONT YARD VARIANCE REQUEST AND RESOLUTION
MODIFICATION, CALIBER BUILDERS, FRED JOHNSON, 5100 DRUMMOND
ROAD, TEAL POINTE, LOT 3, BLOCK 1, PID #25-117-24 12 0233
*J.
LICENSE RENEWALS: CLUB ON-SALE; SUNDAY SALES; ON-SALE WINE; ON-
SALE BEER; AND OFF-SALE BEER
*L.
PUBLIC LAND PERMIT APPLICATION- TEMPORARY LAND ALTERATION, 4829
ISLAND VIEW DRIVE/DEVON COMMONS
286
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 27, 1997
*CONSENT AGENDA:
MOTION made by ttanus, seconded by Jensen to approve the Consent Agenda, removing Itent~
D, I, J & L, as presented. A roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
MINUTES
*1.1 APPROVE THE MINUTEg OF THE MAY 13, 1997 REGULAR MEETING.
MOTION
Hanus, Jensen, unanimously.
'1.2 APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MAY 20, 1997 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
MEETING.
MOTION
Hanus, Jensen, unanimously.
'1.3 CASE 97-18: VARIANCE FOR DETACHED GARAGE, BRUCE TUTTLE, 4920 CRESTVIEW
ROAD, LOTS 3 & 4, BLOCK 24, SHADYWOOD POINT, P1D #13-117-24 11 00087.
'1.4
RESOLUTION #97-49
MOTION
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE RECOGNIZING AN
EXISTING NONCONFORMING DWELLING TO ALLOW
CONSTRUCTION OF A CONFORMING DETACHED GARAGE
AT 4920 CRESTVIEW ROAD, LOT 3 & 4, BLOCK 24,
SHADYWOOD POINT, PID #13-117-24 11 0087,
P & Z CASE #97-18
Hanus, Jensen, unanimously.
CASE 96-24: REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF A VARIANCE, KEVIN DONAHOE, 1801
SHOREWOOD LANE, LOTS 1 & 2, BLOCK 6, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID 13-117-24 14 0005.
RESOLUTION #97-50
MOTION
RESOLUTION APPROVING AN EXTENSION OF RESOLUTION
#96-57, FOR 120 DAYS (UNTIL SEPTEMBER 28, 1997), FOR
KEVIN DONAHOE, 1801 SHOREWOOD LANE, LOTS 1 & 2,
BLOCK 6, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID 13-117-24 14 0005, P & Z
CASE #96-24
Hanus, Jensen, unanimously.
287
'1.5
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- MAY 27, 1997
SET PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, LOST
*1.6
LAKE CANAL PROJECT. SUGGESTED DATE: JUNE 10, 1997.
MOTION
Hanus, Jensen, unanimously.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT RE: MINNESOTA
TRAIL
*1.7
ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.
RESOLUTION//97-51
MOTION
Hanus, Jensen, unanimously.
PAYMENT OF BILLS.
MOTION
RESOLUTION APPROVING SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT RE:
MINNESOTA TRAIL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
*1.8
Hanus, Jensen, unanimously.
SET BID OPENING FOR SHERWOOD DRIVE IMPROVEMENTS.
SUGGESTED DATE:
1.9
JUNE 18, 1997, 11 A.M.
MOTION
Hanus, Jensen, unanimously.
CASE 97-19: EXTENSION/MODIFICATION OF SUBDIVISION, RANDY MORIARTY, 4536
& 4552 DENBIGH ROAD, LOTS 5, 6, 7, 9 & SWLY % OF LOT 4, BLOCK 2, AVALON, 13
117-24 14 0008 & 0048.
Councilmember Jensen stated that since she voted against this subdivision originally, she will again have to
vote no.
The Building Official explained that in the original approval resolution, item number 1.f. conflicts with the
time that we would be extending the applicants request. The request for an extension is for one year and the
resolution states 180 days.
The City Attorney suggested the following language be added to the proposed extension resolution after the
Now, Therefore, Be it Resolved, add
"3. Said 12 month extension is in lieu of any other time period provided for, in the City's
Subdivision Ordinance."
MOTION by Polston, seconded by Hanus to add the language suggested by the City Attorney to
the proposed extension resolution. The vote was 3 in favor with Jensen voting nay. Motion
carried.
Polston moved and Hanus seconded the following resolution:
288
I II I i I1, 1, i ,~ , i
RESOLUTION//97-52
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 27, 1997
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A ONE (1) YEAR EXTENSION AND
MODIFICATION TO RESOLUTION//96-116, RELATING TO THE
MINOR SUBDIVISION AND VARIANCES OF 4536 & 4552
DENBIGH ROAD, PID #'S 13-117-24 14 0008 & 0048, P & Z CASE
//97-19 - RANDY MORIARTY
The vote was 3 in favor with Jensen voting nay.
Motion carried.
1.10
CASE 97-20: FRONT YARD VARIANCE REQUEST AND RESOLUTION MODIFICATION,
CALIBER BUILDERS, FRED JOHNSON, 5100 DRUMMOND ROAD, TEAL POINTE, LOT
3, BLOCK 1, PID//25-117-24 12 0233.
Councilmember Jensen stated that as she remembered this at the preliminary plat approval it was pointed out
that there were some problems with the streets still showing that they were vacated and they were not. She
asked why we are still showing these streets as vacated on an approved plat.
The Building Official explained that the original applicant proposed to vacate both Cobden and Drummond,
but neither were vacated. At that point, the Staff recommendation would have been for a variance to the
setbacks and we would have included that in the listing of variances, but it was omitted. Then the applicant
did not follow-up with revising their preliminary plat. The Building Official stated that the final plat does
not show proposed setbacks. The preliminary plat does and the final plat resolution references the preliminary
plat. The final plat does not show the streets as vacated. Essentially, they're unbuildable because of slope.
The Building Official stated that the final plat is not incorrect, but it is the variance item in the resolution.
In review by the Attorney and Staff it was decided that the applicant really needed to come in and get the
Council's approval on the issue, so that there are no title or mortgage problems in the future. He stated the
the Staff and Planning Commission recommend approval.
The Building Official explained that the original developer proposed cantilever and caisson type homes for
Lots 1, 2 & 3. From a Staff, engineering, landscape architect, planner and applicant's perspective, it is felt
that traditional houses can be put in there that will have no greater impact than those originally planned. He
reported that there are other houses in the City that are built into slopes like this and are not sustaining any
damage or erosion to the slope. The Council discussed the original proposal and the current applicant's ideas
and was concerned about changing something that was previously approved, without going through due
process (notifying the public, holding a public hearing, having the Planning Commission hear the changes and
giving the Council their recommendations prior to Council action).
MOTION made by Polston, seconded by Jensen to send this application for a resolution
modification and variance through the Planning Conmfission and City Council notifying
properties pursuant to city rules and regulations. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion
carried. The Council asked that people within 350 feet of Lots 1, 2, &3 be notified of this
hearing.
1.11 LICENSE RENEWALS: CLUB ON-SALE; SUNDAY SALES; ON-SALE WINE; ON-SALE
BEER; AND OFF-SALE BEER.
The City Clerk advised the Council that the following licenses are up for renewal:
The license period is July 1, 1997 through June 30, 1998. Approval is contingent upon all required forms,
insurance, etc. being submitted.
289
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 27, 1997
CLUB ON-SALE
American Legion Post//398
VFW Post//5113
SUNDAY ON-SALE
American Legion Post//398
VFW Post #5113
ON-SALE WINE
A1 & Alma's Supper Club
House of Moy
ON-SALE BEER
Mound Lanes
OFF-SALE BEER
By the Way Snack Shop (Steve Bedell)
Mainstreet Market
PDQ Food Store
SuperAmerica
The City Clerk recommended approval of the following new Restaurant License for
Uncharted Grounds, 2251 Commerce Blvd. License period would be June 1, 1997 to April 30, 1998.
Councilmember Jensen stated that she does not support an Off-Sale Beer License for By the Way Snack Shop
and that is why she asked to have this item pulled from the Consent Agenda.
MOTION made by Polston, seconded by Hanus to authorize issuance of an Off-Sale Beer License
to By the Way Snack Shop (Steve Bedell). The vote was 3 in favor with Jensen voting nay.
Motion carried.
MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Weycker to authorize issuance of all the other licenses
listed above, including a Restaurant License for Uncharted Grounds. The vote was unanimously
in favor. Motion carried.
1.12 PUBLIC LAND PERMIT APPLICATION- TEMPORARY LAND ALTERATION, 4829 ISLAND
VIEW DRIVE/DEVON COMMONS.
Councilmember Jensen expressed concern about how the City can guarantee that the Arborvitae bushes that
will temporary be put on Devon Commons will be removed. The Building Official stated that they were
moved from the side of the house that was being demolished and will be moved back to private property when
the new structure is completed. He suggested that he could tie the relocation of the bushes to the Certificate
of Occupancy or the Dock Permit.
290
II Jl I I I ii, 1, B ,~ ,
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 27, 1997
The Building Official stated that the estimated cost of removing the bushes is $500.00. The City Attorney
suggested that the Council could have the person put up some form of security (cash or a letter of credit) to
cover the removal, lie suggested the following language be added to the proposed resolution:
"C.
Security for applicant's performance hereunder. Applicant shall post with the City of Mound,
a letter of credit or other form of security sufficient to cover any cost which the City of Mound
may incur if the applicant does not meet their obligations under paragraph b."
The Council discussed the added language and decided not to require security.
Jensen moved and Hanus seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION//97-53
The vote was unanimously in favor.
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A TEMPORARY LAND
ALTERATION/PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR THE
TEMPORARY PLACEMENT OF ARBORVITAE BUSHES ON
DEVON COMMONS, DOCK SITE//43180
Motion carried.
1.13 CASE 96-64: RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL RE: REVISED PRELIMINARY
PLAT/PDA/VARIANCES FOR SETON BLUFF, FINE LINE DESIGN GROUP, INC., LOTS
15-32, BLOCK 11, SETON, 19-117-23 22 0036-41 & 54.
The Council discussed #15 in the proposed resolution relating to park dedication fees. The Park Commission
recommended a higher fee than is proposed. It was pointed out that the City Code is specific on Park
Dedication Fees and the process for determining these fees was studied several years ago. Councilmember
Weycker questioned the value put on the land to determine the Park Dedication Fees for Seton Bluff. The
Mayor suggested that the Council could discuss the history and the background of the Park Dedication Fees
at a future Committee of the Whole Meeting.
The first Whereas on page 3 of the proposed resolution was discussed and amended to read as follows:
"WHEREAS, the variances requested are the minimum variances necessary to alleviate the practical
difficulty created by the topography of the site and to facilitate the preservation of existing vegetation, and
the granting of variances will would not be detrimental to the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance or to property
in the same zone; and" The Council agreed.
Jensen moved and Weycker seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION//97-54
RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL
FOR A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AREA BY CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT, LOT AND STREET DESIGN VARIANCES, AND
SHORELAND VARIANCES FOR SETON BLUFF RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT, FINE LINE DESIGN GROUP, INC., LOTS 15-
32, BLOCK 11, SETON, 19-117-23 22 0036-41 & 54, P & Z CASE
//96-64
291
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 27, 1997
The Council discussed "lots of record" status and setbacks.
Councilmember Hanus questioned the square footages on the reduced copy of the preliminary plat
and whether this is the drawing that is being approved. The Building Official presented the full size
copy of the preliminary plat which was the same as the reduced copy. The City Engineer stated that
we would be approving this under the condition that all the lots are over the minimum square footage
required.
The vote was 3 in favor with Polston voting nay. Motion carried.
1.14 DISCUSSION: PROPOSED COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
MOUND AND THE MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT (MCWD) RE:
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT - TO BE HANDED OUT TUESDAY EVENING.
The City Manager reported that sometime ago the Council, at a Committee of the Whole Meeting, looked
at a draft of a cooperative agreement between the City of Mound and the Watershed District, relating to storm
water management as it specifically relates to regional ponding. With the downtown redevelopment project
and other projects that have been submitted, that require ponds and if they cannot facilitate a pond on the
property, they can apply to the Watershed District by paying a fee and it will be considered as part of the
regional ponding issue, assuming that the City of Mound has an agreement with the Watershed District. We
do not, at the present time, have one. He explained that the proposed agreement was given to us in January
1997 and has undergone some proposed amendments and changes and attached to it is the latest of the
amendments. This has been reviewed by our legal counsel and the Watershed District's legal counsel. The
reason it is here tonight is that we need to have an agreement and the next item on the agenda is being held
up at the Watershed District level because we do not have this cooperative agreement. He explained that we
are trying to protect the City's interests, with the changes that have been submitted.
The City Attorney reviewed the changes and explained his letter dated May 23, 1997. The following is
proposed to be added:
I. 2.1.1 - "MCWD acknowledges and understands that, once the City has acquired the necessary land
interests for the pond(s), MCWD shall be obligated either to: i) construct the ponds to completion, and, if
necessary extend this agreement a sufficient time for such purpose,; or ii) pay to the City, an amount of
money equal to the fees and charges collected from the intended users of the pond(s)."
The purpose of this provision was to require that either they extend the agreement beyond 2001
and give sufficient time to finish construction of the pond(s) or give us the money they collect
so we can do it. The MWCD agreed to this today.
The City Attorney proposed additional language as follows:
II. 2.2.1 - "The City shall not be responsible for the expenditure of funds necessary for acquisition of
ponding areas which are required because the pond(s) is(are) receiving water from areas not within the City
and the vicinity of downtown Mound." The concern here was that we do not want to be responsible for
paying the cost for land to be acquired to handle ponding from areas outside the City of Mound. The
language that is contained in this document with one small exception is acceptable to the MWCD. They
would like to strike the last clause "and the vicinity of downtown Mound".
In other words, they are willing to limit our required expenditure for acquisition sites for ponds
necessary to receive water from the City of Mound and from no other cities or locations.
292
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 27, 1997
There is also an additional engineering concern. The City Engineer stated that his only
concern is that these ponds are going to be sized to handle a specific drainage area and the
practice in the past for the Watershed District has been to take money in lieu of somebody
building a pond (for example, in Orono and credit them for Mound's pond. He did not want
the City to be in the position that they do that for projects outside the City and when we get
ready to use our pond, they say we have already used up, on paper, the size of the pond and
you can't add anything in the City to go into it. The Council expressed concern about this
also.
The City Attorney stated that he will need to clean-up the language that has been proposed.
The way he plans to do that is to suggest to the MWCD, that if we have a pond designed to
hold 1,000 cubic feet of water, that the City of Mound be entitled to actually fill it up with
1,000 cubic feet of water.
The Mayor stated that the whole idea of regional ponding is to divert water from different
areas as developments occur.
The Council expressed concern that Mound's development could be held up in lieu of waiting
for a pond to be acquired. There is no guarantee that there will be ponding facilities there if
and when we need them. The City Engineer stated that is what the City Attorney is trying to
work out so that Mound is not held captive because of what goes on in some other city. The
City Attorney stated he will make this clear to the MWCD attorney.
The City Attorney stated that the following is the final item of modification to the agreement, III. 2.2.4.
Their redraft of the document provided that they wouldn't have to pay any permit fees or costs connected
with the application process for sites in Mound. We deleted the language that they wouldn't be. The
Watershed District Attorney told the City Attorney that there is a State Statute which exempts watershed
districts from having to pay permit fees and costs. The City Attorney will research this and report back to
the Council.
The Council asked if this agreement is to provide ponding for the downtown Mound area only or is this
agreement for regional storm water ponding collectively? The City Attorney stated he did not think the latter
was their intention or ours. The intention is to provide ponding for the downtown Mound area only.
The Council asked how this agreement is tied to the next case? The City Engineer stated that the MWCD
statement is in their Rule B. It is that we have a cooperative agreement in place which is what is before the
Council tonight, they will let them pay money in lieu of building the ponds. The City Engineer stated that
this is what the watershed district has done everywhere. The Mayor expressed concern about this Rule B and
the MWCD regulating land planning in the City through regional ponding. Councilmember Hanus agreed.
Councilmember Hanus asked if the presumption is that the entire City of Mound will be covered by the
downtown pond(s). The City Engineer stated that is correct. The Council agreed that these downtown ponds
cannot handle the storm water from the entire City. Mayor Polston stated that is what he sees as wrong with
Rule B. One size does not fit all. The City Engineer commented that MWCD has made the option in Rule
B to pay the money, but they want the City to start looking at doing ponding and through this cooperative
agreement the City will start building this pond.
Councilmember Hanus asked if the MWCD would be willing to sign a document agreeing the that the two
small ponds we have on our drawings for downtown Mound would be sufficient for their purposes for the
entire City of Mound? The City Engineer did not think they would sign such an agreement.
293
The City Engineer advised that within 2 years after theirs is adopted, the City will have to do their own storm
water management plan. Then we will have same problem as the watershed district does right now because
our plan will require the same thing that theirs does.
The City Attorney stated that it does appear that for the purpose of the downtown development, the watershed
district is willing to limit the scope of this agreement to that particular area, so we could go forward with the
downtown development.
The City Attorney suggested that we clearly define, in this agreement, what the downtown area is and that
the area from which the drainage will be coming is the downtown area only and it will be stored on a pond
within the downtown area and drainage will not come from any other area.
The City Engineer asked if the following could be worked into this agreement: - eliminating the MWCD giving other cities credit for our ponds
- something that doesn't take away our ability to use those ponds for our development in
downtown Mound, but if the MWCD wants to credit someone else in the City of Mound
toward those ponds, that would be their prerogative. He stated that on paper they can put
more in the ponds than they can handle, if that's what the MWCD wants to do.
MOTION by Polston, seconded by Hanus to refer this cooperative agreement with the MWCD
back to the Staff for more definitive clarification of this agreement taking into consideration all
the concerns addressed tonight.
The Council asked the following questions of Staff:
How does this agreement with the City of Mound and Mound's redevelopment of downtown,
affect other developments, i.e. Maple Manors, Seton Bluff?.
°
Why and how have watershed districts been given the authority to do land planning and dictate
to cities what kind of development they can have?
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.15 REQUEST FOR FINAL PLAT APPROVAL, JOE ZYLMAN, MAPLE MANORS.
Mr. Zylman was present and asked that the final plat approval for Maple Manors be tabled, until a decision
can be reached on the watershed district agreement, because without the agreement, he will have to redesign
Manor Manors.
MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Weycker to table this item. The vote was unanimously
in favor. Motion carried.
COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT.
There were none.
294
INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS:
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 27, 1997
mo
B.
C.
D.
E.
Financial Report for April 1997 as prepared by Gino Businaro, Finance Director.
Economic Development Commission Minutes of May 15, 1997.
Minutes Planning Commission May 12th & 19th, 1997.
REMINDER: City Offices will be closed Monday, May 26,1997 in observance of Memorial Day.
Joint Committee of School District, City of Minnetrista and City of Mound will be meeting at 7:00
P.M., Wednesday, May 28, 1997 at Minnetrista City Hall.
MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Weycker to adjourn at 8:55 P.M. The vote was
unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
Attest: City Cler~
295
BILLS .May 27, 1997
BATCH 7052 $196,489.20
Total Bills $196,489.20