1985-03-1241
March 12~ 1985
REGULAR MEETING
OF THE
CITY COUNCIL
The City Council of Mound. Hennepin County Minnesota. met in
regular session on March 12. 1985 at 7:30 P.M. in the Council
Chambers at 5341 Maywood Wood. in said city. Those present were;
Mayor Bob Polston. Councilmem bens Phyllis Jensen. Gary Paulsen,
Russ Peterson and Steve Smith. Also present were: City Manager
Jon Elam. City Attorney Jim Larson City Clerk Fran Clark City
Planner Mark Koegler. City Engineer John Cameron. Building
Inspector Jan Bertrand and the following interested citizens:
Oran Powell, David Davenport, John Adam s Robbing Michael Geoff
Michaels Ronald Blaschko, Orv Fenstad. Kenneth Smith. Clinton
Gables. Steve Coddon~ Gregg Eckert Duane Gilbertson. Jim
Gilbertson. Ken Brooks. Ron Adams. Ron Johnson. Dennis Dalen~
Pinky Charo n Bruce Charon. L. Lyckholm. Mark Anderson. Louis
McKee. Jim Fox. Katie Fox. Allen Shay, Hank Roelof s. Mark Schiel.
Glenn Hill. Ken Hoffmann. Cliff Schmidt, Carolyn Schmidt. Merle
Eisert. Joseph Detling~ Larry Johnson. Linda Johnson, D. Worner,
Florence Worner. Marlene Roden. Manuel Johnson. Donna Easthouse~
Doug Easthouse~ Kari Plant. John Johns. Jim Schultz. Mrs. Gary
Page. Jane McLane. Helen Ohnesorge. Paul Ohnesorge. Donna
Lugauer. Elmer Blanchard, Sylvia Blanchard. Ray Holden. Myrna
Holden, Freda Olson. Mrs. Robert Lyckholm Bill Meyer. Liz
Jensen Steve Corl, Tom & Amy Reese. Marilyn Byrnes. Bob Byrnes.
Betty Peterson, Gary~Johnson. Cindy Gilbertson. Michael Gilbert.
Doug Easthouse, Fenner Johnson. Larry Connolly. Kathleen Kinney,
Karen Holm berg. Tod Holmberg. Pat Salden~ Gerald Edberg. William
Habicht. Steve Amick Robert Matson. Bryan Clem. Billy Combs, Ron
Johnson. Duane Sink. Dick Putnam. Richard Ahmann~ Skip Johnson.
Terry Turner.
The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in
attendance.
MINUTES
The Minutes of the February 26~ 1985. Regular Council Meeting
were presented for consideration. Councilmem ben Peterson noted
that on page 37. the first paragraph should have read "60 units"
not 30 units.
Paulsen moved and Jensen seconded a motion to approve the
Minutes of the February 26. 1985. Regular Meeting. as
amended. The vote Was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A GAS STATION/CON-
VENIENCE STORE AT 53XX SHORELINE BLVD. - SUPER-
AMERICA
City Planner Mark Koegler, explained that SuperAmerica has been
42
March 12~ 1985
involved in a land exchange and purchase including the subject
parce l the old Metro 500 Station and the existing SuperAmerica
Station which has resulted in the availability of the parcel at
the. corner of Cypress and Shoreline Blvd. He then went over the
requirements and the recommendations that have been forwarded
from the Planning Commission.
1. SuperAmerica should not be required to construct a
bumper type fence between the station and the adjacent
commercial property. Such a fence seems unnecessary due
to the open nature of the site.
2. The exterior of the building shall contain a brick
veneer on all appropriate wall surfaces.
3. The Planning Commission has determined that 1~ off-
street parking spaces are adequate to serve the needs of
the SuperAmerica station/store and that the driveways
that range from 30 to 44 feet in width are necessary to
facilitate access to and from the site.
4. SuperAmerica shall submit a sign permit application for
the proposed station/store prior to issuance of a
building permit.
5. Grading and drainage plans should be submitted to the
City Engineer for review and approval prior to issuance
of the building permit.
6. Landscaping plans should be submitted to the City
Planner prior to issuance of a building permit.
7. Access permits for the driveway entrances onto Shoreline
Blvd. shall be secured from Hennepin County.
8. Grading and drainage plans shall be submitted to the
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District for review and
approval.
9. Concrete curbing shall be installed around the perimeter
of all driveway and parking areas.
10. A preliminary plat consistent with the City's
subdivision requirements shall be submitted and approved
prior to the issuance of a building permit.
11. Incorporate recommendations in City Engineer's letter
dated February 6. 1985;
A. A more complete site plan needs to be prepared which
includes all proposed improvements such as signs
underground storage tanks and piping, hard
surfacing. curbs, etc.
~3
March 12. 1985
B. Inclusion of a utility plan and its approval; plan
to show all utilities including gasp electric etc.
C. Approval of a lighting plan.
Mr. Wm. Habicht attorney for SuperAmerica was present and
showed a drawing of a prototype station. He also stated that a
new site plan was submitted today and the Council has that plan.
He assured the Council that alI concerns have been met or will be
met and that they want to cooperate with the City.
Steve Amick from SuperAmerica. was present and stated that the
building outside will be panelized with brick facing.
The Mayor opened the public hearing and asked if there were any
comments for or against the proposed Conditional Use Permit.
There were none. The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Councilmem ber Paulsen asked w hen the Metro 500 Station w ould be
removed. Mr. Habicht answered upon approval of the Conditional
Use Permit. Councilmember Smith asked if that meant that the
building and tanks would be removed from the site and the site
leveled. Mr. Habicht answered yes.
Peterson moved and Paulsen seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION #85-28' RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A MOTOR FUEL
STATION/CONVENIENCE STORE ON PID #13-117-
24 34 0061 AND 0064. AND PART OF 13-117-2.4
34 0065. (53XX SHORELINE BLVD.)
Paulsen moved and Peterson seconded a motion to amend the
above resolution so that in the conditions of approval,
number 5 and 6 read "shall" instead of "should" and that the
Council add a 12th condition that would read. "The tanks be
removed from the existing SuperAmerica site and a Deed
Restriction be put on that site that it cannot be a motor
fuel station in the future."
The vote on the amendment was unanimously in favor. Motion
carried.
The vote on the original motion including the amendment was
unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING: PELICAN POINT REZONING VARIANCES. CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT. PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW, AND A COMPRE-
HENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT. PID #19-117-23 31 0003/0087/
0088 AND 19-117-23 42 0001
The .Mayor introduced the subject and asked if the developers
would like to present their project.
~~
March 12, 1985
John Adams stated they have been to the Planning Commission
twice, once in January and once in February and the proposal
tonight is a modification of the original plan. In the plan, he
stated: they have tried to address the concerns of the Planning
Commission and the neighborhood. They have reduced the height
from 8 stories to 6 stories, density from 126 units to 96 units,
moved the buildings away from the lake, the south building will
be 180 feet away from the lake which is 80 feet more than
required by ordinance, 100 feet from South lot line t35 feet more
than required), docks on North side of island, beach on the South
side of island. The major objective was to preserve as much of
the natural beauty of the site as possible. Only 8~ of the site
is covered with buildings. They have analyzed the zoning,
density, building height: location of the docks, ,done a
sunlight/shadow analysis, traffic flow analysis, utility systems,
special assessment revenues, park dedication fees and tax base
projections.
Bob Matson gave a brief overview of the project. Project would
be done in 3 phases with phase 1 being the middle building, phase
2 being the Southerly building and phase 3 being the Northerly
building. Three, six story buildings of concrete with brick
veneer, stepping buildings back at the 6th floor approximately 10
feet and incorporating a sloped roof to the building to soften
the building masses. Very quality project with a number of
amenities-, tennis courts, putting green, ponding area, pathways,-
swimming beach, docking facilities. Targeted market is empty
nesters. Proposing 2~ to. 1 covered parking, below the buildings.
Mr. Matson then went over some of the .concerns:
1. Zoning & Density - Requesting R-1 zoning to be changed to
R-4. Site is bordered by R-1, R-2, R-3, B-3, and R-~
zoning. Showed a zoning map of the Island. Lakewinds
Condo's which abutts the property has a density of 30
units per acre. The proposed Pelican Point would be 6
units per acre or 1/5 the density of Lakewinds. The
longest building facing the lake at Lakewinds is X450 feet
long, this proposal the buildings are 224 feet long. The
proposal is 1 unit for every 7,000 square feet of the
site which is less than the 7 plus units that are
allowable in the R-2, R-3, R-4 zoning.
2. Building Height - He showed photos taken from the Fire
Dept.'s areial ladder truck in Lakewind's parking lot at
65 feet high. Photos show the heavy tree cover of the
site and helium filled balloons were raised in the tree
masses to 65 feet high. Cross-sections of the phases
were shown with trees and areas around the site.
3. Locations of the docks and beach were changed so as not
to cause problems with private neighboring docks.
~+ 5
March 12, 1985
3. Shadow and Shading. He showed the analysis that was
done.
John Adams returned and reported that they tried to analyse the
traffic flow and their engineer spoke with the Hennepin County
Traffic Engineer about the affects on Wilshire, Tuxedo and County
Road 15 and they felt the generated traffic figures would not
cause any problems. He stated that the amount of traffic would
probably be less than if a 50 unit single-family subdivision were
constructed from the studies that have been done.
He further stated that in analyzing the utility systems all but
the sewer system appear to be adequate to handle the project. He
stated that the developer would pay all costs for upgrades to the
sewer system so it can handle the flows and they would be willing
to pay all reasonable costs for upgrading any of the other
utilities if needed. There would be no casts to the City for any
upgrades needed by this project.
The project would generate revenues such as special assessment
revenues at approximately X52,000; park dedication fees of
approximately $42,000 (their architectural group would work with
the neighbors in redesigning and improving the neighborhood parks
in the area); tax base projections are $664,000 per year
(schools approximately 48.3 or $321,000, city 16.74% or
$110,000)-. The tax base figures were complied by the Hennepin
County Assessor's Office.
Mr. Adams related the following:
Objective is to maintain natural beauty of the site.
Feels the proposal has a proper relationship with the
majority of the other surrounding properties land uses.
The density is less than much of Island Park and Lakewinds is
5 times this proposal.
The buildings will be aesthetically appealing with gable tops
nestled in the beautiful tree canopy.
The project will not have a significant impact on the traffic
flow as determined by the Hennepin County Transportation
Dept.
The developer will absorb any costs to upgrade utilities
related to the porject.~
The additional revenues in the form of special assessments,
park dedication fees, and property tax base will be an asset
to all citizens of Mound.
Intention is to build a top quality, first class condo
project that the community can be proud of.
The Mayor asked if the Council had any questions they would like
to ask the developers or the staff. There were none.
The Mayor opened the public hearing and asked if there was anyone
present who wished to speak for or against the proposed project.
46
March 12, 1985
The following persons spoke against the project:
Doug Easthouse, 3042 Island View Drive
Billy Combs, 4785 Manchester Road
Bryan Clem, 4436 Manchester Road
Ron Johnson. 4416 Dorchester Road
Orv Fenstad, 4366 Wilshire Blvd.
Dennis Dalen (attorney representing Ron Johnson)
Duane Sink, 3134 Island View Drive
Mike Gilbertson. 2888 Tuxedo Blvd.
Skip Johnson, Island View Drive
Terry Turner, 4317 Wilshire Blvd.
Liz Jensen, 2684 Wilshire Blvd.
Kathy Page, 3072 Island View Drive
Steve Corl, 4225 Wilshire Blvd.
Bill Meyer, 6601 Bartlett Blvd..
Linda Decker, 1515 Lerner Rd. Wayzata
Bob Brynes, 2851 Cambridge Lane
The following reasons were given for the opposition.
1. Against the manner in which the proposal has evolved with the
City.
2. Will put too many boats on Lake Minnetonka.
3. Water and sewer system will not be able to handle.
4. 3 buildings 60 feet tall will scar shoreline.
5. Will set precedent for other lake communities.
6. This type of development can destroy our heritage if not
controlled. '
7. N-ot enough notice was given residents for the Planning
Commission's Meetings.
8. Not the best land and lakeshore use.
9. Do not want to live next door to the project.
10. Do not want R-4 zoning.
11. Would rather see the 26 home sites on this property that was
approved several years ago.
12. Too much automobile traffic will be generated.
13. Developers don't care what they put in Mound.
14. The City will not get anymore taxes.
15. Does not meet the criteria for rezoning or variances.
16. City does not have a Shoreland Management Ordinance.
17. In comparison to Winston Estate, over priced per acre.
18. Too much density.
19. Single family dwellings would serve businesses better than
empty nesters.
20. Noise of traffic.
21. Amenities do not benefit the community.
22. There are alternatives.
23. Trees will be destroyed.
24. Swimming beach would require removal of lily pads.
The following persons spoke in favor of the project:
1. Dick Putnam, 2765 Casco Point Road
47
March 12, 1985
2. Richard Ahmann, 2017 Arbor Lane
3. Clint Gables, 4+31 Dorchester Road
4. Geoff Michael, 1713 Avocet Lane
5. Ken Smith. 2927 Cambridge Lane
Reasons given for being in favor of the project were as follows:
1. Good tax base for the City and the school district.
2. It is not spot zoning because it is next to an R-4 district.
3. Will help support businesses.
4. Will bring in a higher class of people with political clout.
5. If site were developed into R-1, R-2 or R-3, trees would
really be gone (lesser of two evils).
6. Good project for a prime piece of land (one of the last) in
Mound.
7. Would rather see this project than have the property
subdivided into small single family lots.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
The Mayor stated he did not believe there were 4 votes on the
Council for the rezoning. For that reason he would like to table
any action on the rezoning request and refer the matter back to
the Planning Commission and Staff to look for another type of
zoning. The reason for tabling this, if the tabling is voted
for. making a second motion because he personally believes we
need to look at a new zone that deals with areas like this that
are lake and environmentally sensitive areas where the Council
has no control over the R-~4 once the zoning is passed and trying
to place conditions on the zoning prior to rezoning would result
in a conditional zoning. In proposing this second motion for a
new zoning district. it will give the neighbors in
environmentally sensitive areas a means of being protected and
will address alot of concerns that arise when development is
proposed in an area.
The Mayor further stated that as appealing as this project may
seem, he felt it must be redesigned if the developer wishes to
proceed in the City of Mound. The Council has listened to the
concerns of the people present and has considered them, but by
the same token. at some point in time, that property must be
developed. The people who own it have a right to develop it and
if they come to the City Council with a project that meets the
zoning criteria, they too must be protected equally under the law
just as the rest of the people who live in the area are.
Polston moved and Peterson seconded a motion to table the
rezoning request. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion
carried.
Polston moved and Peterson seconded a motion to refer the
matter back to the Planning Commission to see if there is a
need to develop a new R-5 Zoning District to handle
development of environmentally sensitive areas such as this
48
March 12. 1985
16 acres. the Lost Lake area. and any other areas in Mound
which might be considered environmentally sensitive. This
matter to be handled as expeditiously as possible by the
Planning Commission with public hearings and public input
from citizens who would wish to participate in the process.
The Mayor asked if any of the Council wishes to speak.
Councilmember Smith stated the following: "that I am also the
Council Representative to the Planning Commission and it was
not easy to vote no on some aspects of this project at the
Planning Commission but I did vote no twice at that level and
was prepared to vote no again tonight. When I campaigned
last Fall for the Councilseat. I favored private development.
private money developing private land in this City- and I was
worried about how this would look- but it did not make any
difference at all. Another concern during the campaign was
the issue of disclosure to the people (how this Council
interacts with the people of this City) and I have a problem
with tabling this and only hope that we can develop a rapport
with the people of this City by televising the Council
Meetings and thus getting information to the people. I resent
anyone coming to the Council and telling us that we have to
pass a Shoreland Management Ordinance to facilitate the
development of any private land in this City. If it is a
good ordinance. the Council will look at it and will pass it
when they are ready. I support this motion to table this
tonight with one reservation. I fully support having public
hearings to develop how the citizens want to look at this
property being single family dwellings or multiple dwellings
or creating a new zone but I would also like to submit this
to a referendum vote when the public hearings are over so we
have a consensus from all the citizens."
Councilmember Peterson stated that he has spent many hours on
this project walking on Spring Park Bay taking pictures from
Casco Point to Ron Johnson's property and walking the Pelican
Point property. He has met with Ron Johnson several times
regarding this project and with the complexity of this
project would like to share his thoughts on it.
"Pelican Point is a beautiful piece of lakeshore. The
environmental affects and the aesthetics of the development
of this land is extremely important not only to Mound but to
all people who love the lake." He had several transparencies
to present.
"It has, perhaps the most majestic woodlands of any property
on the lake. Using unsophisticated methods. I estimate that
the tree line rises 130' above the lake 60' higher than the.
adjacent Lakewind's roof line. approximately the same height
as the 8 story Tonka Tower in Spring Park."
49
March 12, 1985
"The highest part of the tree line is made up of a variety of
75' trees located on high ground near Tuxedo Blvd.
Surprisingly, a number of these are pine trees."
"Someone correct me , if I am wrong, but the first floor of
this plan would begin 40 to 45' above the lake. At 6
stories, the roof lines would be 65' above that or 105' to
110' above the lake. The tree line is 130' above the lake,
20' higher than the roof. Trees between the building and the
lake would be from 10' shorter to 10' taller than the roof.
I believe that screening of the buildings and the building
silhouettes from the lake by trees will be far and away
better than any current ~, 5 or 8 story building on the
lake."
"I support 5 stories, a 55' height on the buildings. The
natural terrain lowers 20' at the South end of the South
building. I suggest that the design of the building on that
end be changed to reduce the height visible."
"In a letter from Kent Lokkesm oe, Regional Hydrologist of the
DNR, dated January 4, 1985, he relates that their preliminary
analysis indicates an allowable density of approximately 80
units. At 5 stores, there would be about 78 units. Density
would be about 8400 square feet per unit."
"I believe, with some revisions, this high quality
development i~s a.n appropriate use of the land and that it
would preserve the natural trees, vegetation, rolling land
and shoreline better than 50 single family homes. The
buildings would be from 100' to 200' back from the lake o.n
the flattest land. It would provide an appropriate
transition between the 1500 square foot per unit Lakewinds
and the 6000 and 10,000 square foot R-2 and R-1 zones to the
South and Southwest."
"However, I do not support rezoning the entire property R-4.
If this project did not go forward, another developer could
make it a 3000 square foot per unit density."
"I favor developing a new multiple dwelling zone
classification for environmentally sensitive areas such as
this w hick would have m ore restrictive density than our
present R-4. This zone could also apply to the Lost Lake
area."
Councilmember Peterson pointed out that the owners of the
Winston Estate wanted their property developed in R-1 because
that is what is all around it. In the case of Pelican Point,
there is R-4 zoning abutting the property. I believe the
traffic problem is a legitimate one and have asked the City
Planner if he agrees with the developer on his assessment of
the traffic projections and he does.
50
March 12, 1985
Councilmember Paulsen read the following statement. "I would
like to commend the developers for the manner in w hich they
have conducted their business in our community. They have
been honest and up-front in addressing all the issues
regarding their development. They have been in constant
communication with the City Staff and members of the Council,
answering all questions asked of them in a forthright manner.
There have been many issues that have been dealt with and
some ongoing problems that are currently being addressed.
However, the most dominant issue is the building height.
This issue has been addressed by many citizens very candidly
in meetings and letters to the editor and in person to
members of the Council. All of the opinions concerning the
building height, at least those expressed to me, were very
subjective. This Council, however, when voting on an issue
must use objective criteria. For example: 1) Will the
building interfer with the property rights of the neighbors
sightlines, shadowing, etc.? 2) Will the health, safety and
welfare of the neighbors and the inhabitants of the buildings
be put in jeopardy? I believe these questions have been
answered satisfactorily. I support the project as it has
been presented."
Councilmember Jessen stated. "It seems that we have to
choose sides on the issue of the best use of this remaining
undeveloped lake area in our community. This is a very
difficult decision for the Council to make. It boils down to
pitting concerns for the lake area against concerns for the
city. I like the idea of this multiple housing concept for
Pelican Point. Since it is extending an already existing R-4
and is surrounded by B-3, R-3, R-1 and R-2, it could be done
here. It is not spot zoning. It is an extension of R-~#. It
is the only place in the City that we can do that. Many
issues come forward here so lets look at those:
- the escalated values on lakeshore
- increased revenue for our City
- increased business for our community
- a feeling of progress for our community
- a certain prestige for our community's image (this
development especially is offering us that)
but, mostly what it does is make available an alternative type of
housing on the lake to meet today's needs. We already, in the
City of Mound, offer more single family housing than any other
community on. this lake and I am as proud of that as are you.
But, there is a need for a different type of housing now. Our
population is changing. We refer to our schools dropping
enrollment, our schools are closing because the children are not
there. The average family t~! family members) is not the
majority, it is the minority. Empty nesters also want to live on
the lake and not have to take care of a big home. They need
alternative housing like condos. We should address this with our
zoning and w e-are talking about possibly a different zoning and I
would support that as well as the Shoreland Management Ordinance
51
March 12. 1985
which I would like to see in place."
The Mayor then thanked the developers for their cooperation and
their professional presentation.
Mr. Powell thanked the City for their cooperation and
consideration.
The Mayor restated the original motion.
Smith moved to amend Mayor Polston's original motion as
presented above. setting specific dates be set for additional
public hearings to extend not more than 60 days and followed
by submission to the public on a referendum vote. Motion
died for lack of second.
The vote in the original motion was unanimously in favor.
Motion carried.
Several people objected to the Council not denying the project
outright. The Mayor explained that because of the concerns
expressed here tonight on the environmental sensitivity of the
area it could be felt by some that the R-b or R-1 zoning is not
restrictive enough in order to protect the area. It could be
felt by. some that there should be other amendments in the zoning
that should be looked at for these environmentally sensitive
areas. The Council could have denied the zoning but a motion was
not made to do that.
The Mayor further stated that the reason he knew there were not
enought votes for the rezoning was because he too was opposed to
the rezoning from R-1 to R-4. His reason because any developer
could build a building for each 3 000 square feet of land area in
the R-4 zone. He stated he felt that was not restrictive enough
in R-~ or multi-family within that zone especially in an
environmentally sensitive area.
Councilmember Smith stated that it is his understanding the it
takes 4/5 vote for a rezoning and he suggested that any project
that comes back better take a look at single family dwellings on
this property or his vote would be lacking.
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING ON NEW SIGN ORDINANCE
The City Manager explained that this item was continued from the
January 8. 1985. Meeting because some revisions were requested.
Those revisions included:
1. Permits will not be required for existing signs. Staff
will compile a photographic record of all signage upon
adoption of the ordinance. The photographic record will
serve as a base in establishing "grandfather" situations.
52
March 12, 1985
2. Sign identification tags will not be placed on signs.
3. Maximum window area signage has been increased from 25
percent to 50 percent.
~. The area of jurisdiction on window wisngs has been
reduced from 15 feet to 7 feet.
5. Temporary banners for grand openings and special
occasions will be allowed for up to 30 days instead of 1~4
days.
6. Campaign signs have been removed from the sign ordinance
and will be regulated under. a separate ordinance.
The Mayor reopened the public hearing and asked if there was
anyone present who wished to speak for or against the proposed
sign ordinance. No one responded. The Mayor closed the public
hearing.
The City Manager presented a letter from Don Ulrick, Director of
Community Services, School District 4277, requesting that an item
(g) be added to section 3.10 to read as follows: "In the
instance of a multi-use facility, only one seasional sign man be
placed (displayed) on the. premises at any one time". The Council-
agreed this was a good point.
The City Planner stated that there was a typographical error in
Section 4.15, (2), it should have read "twenty-five feet in
height", not "fifteen feet in height". _
Peterson moved and Paulsen seconded the ordinance:
ORDINANCE #x+73 AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING SECTION 55.38 RELATING
TO SIGNS
Councilmember Smith asked if the Penalty Section, 1.09,
containing the fine amount of $500.00 was enough. The City
Attorney stated that by Statute a misdemeanor now carries a
fine of X700.00. He also suggested that the Council repeal
the old Section 55.38.
Jessen moved and Paulsen seconded a motion to amend the
original motion including the new fine of #700.00 in Section
1.09 and repealing the old Section 55.38. The vote was
unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
The vote on the original motion including the amendment was
unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
Councilmember Smith questioned Section 3.01 which reads: "No
sign other than governmental unit signs shall be erected or
placed upon any public way or upon public easements", in relation
53
March 12. 1985
to campaign signs. The City Manager pointed out that this
ordinance is dealing with commercial signs only and the the
campaign sign ordinance will be addressed separately at the
meeting in April.
COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT
The Mayor asked if there was anyone present with a comment or
suggestion for the Council. There were none.
PROCLAMATION OF BUILDING SAFETY WEEK
Paulsen moved and Peterson seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION #85-29 RESOLUTION PROCLAIMING APRIL 14 THROUGH
APRIL 20 "BUILDING SAFETY WEEK"
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
SET DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AT 5241
SHORELINE BLVD - CAPTAIN BILLY'S RESTAURANT
Peterson moved and Paulsen seconded a motion to set April 9.
1985. at 7:30 P.M. for a public hearing on a Conditional Use
Permit for a Class 3.Restaurant at 5241 Shoreline Blvd. The
vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
ADDITIONAL STREET LIGHTS ON AUDITOR'S ROAD
The City Manager reported that he has had requests for additional
street lights on Auditor's Road. Officer Ewald has done research
on this request and is recommending that the City authorize NSP
to install 3 additional street lights at the locations marked on
his map of the area.
Jessen moved and Smith seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION #85-30 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING NSP TO INSTALL 3
STREET LIGHTS ON AUDITOR'S ROAD PER THE
LOCATIONS MARKED ON EXHIBIT 'A'
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL STREET LIGHTS ON THREE POINTS BLVD.
The City Manager reported that a request has been received by the
City for additional street lighting on Three Points Blvd.~and
after having Officer Ewald research the request he is
recommending the installation of 2 additional street lights.
Peterson moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution:
5~
March 12 ~ 1 985
RESOLUTION X85-31 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING NSP TO INSTALL 2
ADDITIONAL STREET LIGHTS ON THREE POINTS
BLVD. AS PER ATTACHED EXHIBIT 'A'
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
EXTENSION OF GAMBLING LICENSES
The City Manager explained that the Legislature has now asked
cities to extend their current Gambling Licenses until June 1.
19$5 to enable them more time to get their licensing efforts
organized.
Paulsen moved and Peterson seconded a motion to extend the
current Gambling Licenses of the American Legion, VFW, Our
Lady of the Lake Catholic Church, and the Westonka Seniors
until June 1 , 1985, at no charge. The vote was unanimously
in favor. Motion carried.
OILER QUOTATIONS
The City Manager explained that the Street Department needs an
oiler to fill the cracks in the City streets before they are seal
coated. They have in the past borrowed one but it is always
needed at_the same time the City who owns it needs it. Geno has
obtained 2 quotations. This is a machine that could easily last
20 to 25 years because .it won't be used that much. He had this
budgeted last year and figured the Liquor Fund which pays for the
seal coating of the streets could fund this item. The quotes
were are follows:
1. Ruffridge-Johnson Equipment Co.~ Inc. $15885.00
2. Borchert-Ingersoll. Inc. $10690.00
Peterson moved and Jessen seconded a motion to authorize the
purchase of the Etnyre, 400 gallon, trailer mounted oiler
from Borchert-Ingersoll, Inc. for X10,690.00. The vote was
unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
BILLS
The bills were presented for consideration.
Jessen moved and Peterson second a motion to authorize the
payment of the bills as presented on the pre-list in the
amount of 537,139.37, when funds are available. A roll call
vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
SET DATE FOR BID OPENING: RECYCLABLE MATERIALS
The City Manager reported that the bid specifications for the
pilot program are now ready to be sent out.
- 55
March 12, 1985
Peterson moved and Jessen seconded a motion to open bids on
the Collection of Recyclable-Solid Waste Materials on .March
27. 1985, at 10:00 A.M. The vote was unanimously in favor.
Motion carried.
SET DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING• CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ZERO LOT
LINE TWINHOMES (THREE) IN 4700 BLOCK OF MANCHESTER
Jessen moved and Paulsen seconded a motion to set April 9,
1985, at 7:30 P.M. as the date for a public hearing on a
Conditional Use Permit for zero lot line tWinhomes (three) in
the 4700 block of Manchester Road. The vote was unanimously
in favor. Motion carried.
RESOLUTION ORDERING ABATEMENT OF 1721 DOVE LANE
The City Manager explained that this resolution w as prepared by
the City Attorney pursuant to the Council1s request. Mr. Coddon
was present and asked that this resolution be tabled until June
1 , 1985, when he would have the normal maintenance on the house
completed. He would not do anything structural until after that
date. He went over items from an earlier dated memo from Jan
that he would be willing to fix as normal maintenance. He stated
that he has been cooperative and felt that certain sections of
the Zoning Ordinance w ould allow him to do the following normal
maintenance on this property.
1. He would have a plumber come in with all new plumbing
connections.
2. He would have a licensed electrical contractor rewire
with 100 amp service.
3. He would have a plumber install all new fixtures and
replace the bathroom floor.
4. He would have the gas company remove and replace the gas
valves and anchors, and replace those fixtures.
5. He would replace the roof and ceiling.
6. He would replace ceiling .tiles as needed.
This would all be completed by June 1, 1985.
Councilmember Paulsen asked if all the things Mr. Coddon
mentioned were normal maintenance. The Building Inspector stated
that the way Mr. Coddon is proposing to do this is not the normal
way to repair a building. She further stated that generally the
structural problems are dealt with first and then the
maintenance, but that it appears Mr. Coddon is trying to get the
value up so that he can get approval to do the structural repairs
after doing what he .has stated above.
The Mayor asked the City .Attorney is what Mr. Coddon purposes is
legal under the ordinance. The City Attorney stated it sounds
like the value of the repairs will be more than 1/2 of the value
of the building. The Mayor asked the Building Inspector w hat the
house is valued at. She stated, according to the Tax Books
$100.00.
56
March 12, 1985
Peterson moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION #85-32 A RESOLUTION ORDERING THE ABATEMENT OF
UNSANITARY, UNSAFE, AND HAZARDOUS
CONDTIONS EXISTING AT 1721 DOVE LANE IN
THE CITY OF MOUND AND AUTHORIZING AND
DIRECTING THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO
ENTER AN ORDER WITH RESPECT TO THIS
HAZARDOUS AND DANGEROUS BUILDING
The vote was four in favor with Councilmember Smith abstaining.
Motion carried.
INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS
A. Zoning Ordinance Amendment Scheduled for the March 19 Council
Meeting.
B. Letter and Contribution to the Mound Police Dept. from Norman
& Del ores Maas.
C. News Clipping on HEI, Inc.
D. News Clipping on the Tonka Building.
E. Letter from LMCD on Liquor Licenses.
F. Met Council Review - February 15, 1985.
Jessen moved and Smith seconded a motion to adjourn at 11:20
P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
c~~
J.on Elam, City Manager
t
Fra Clark, City Clerk
BILLS----------MARCH 12, 1985
Computer run - check register 3/7/85 Page 5 21,892.92
Computer run - check register 3/8/85 page 2 15,246.45
Total Bills 37,139.37
~..~~~ .