1985-05-1481
May 1~4, 1985
MINUTES
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
MAY 14. 1985
The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in
regular session on May 1~4, 1985, at 7:30 P.M. in the Council
Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City.
Those present were: Acting Mayor Russ Peterson, Councilmembers
Phyllis Jessen, Gary Paulsen and Steve Smith. Mayor Bob Polston
was absent and excused.
Also present were: .City Manager Jon Elam, City Attorney Curt
Pearson, City Planner Mark Koegler, City Engineer John Cameron,
City Clerk Fran Clark, Building Inspector Jan Bertrand and the
following interested citizens: Gene A. Hostetler, Curtis Berg,
Kenneth Osborne, Richard DeVinney, Reg Chambers, Jay Gorton,
Richard Clifford, Mike Colbert, John Schluter, Joe Gibson, Joanne
Gibson, Donna Smith, Alice & Glenn Rogers: Ken Perbix: Ron. Pike,
Russell F. Kolden, Don Ulrick, Vince Forystek, Neil Weber.
Acting Mayor Peterson opened the meeting and welcomed the people
in attendance.
MINUTES
MOTION was made•by Councilmember Paulsen, seconded by
Councilmember Jessen to approve the Minutes of the April 23,
1985. Regular Council Meeting as submitted. The vote was
unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING• PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING MAP F'OR
LOTS 1 & 9, BLOCK 13, THE HIGHLANDS, CASE
X85-414 , DONNA SMITH
The City Manager explained that this amendment would allow for 3
buildable lots which are currently in the R-1 district to be
rezoned to R-2 or R-3 single family. He explained that the
Planning Commission recommended approval of this amendment for
the property to be R-3 single family which would be more
consistent with the surrounding property. He further explained
that if the people owning the property wanted to have townhouses
or double bungelows on this property, they would have to apply
for a Conditional Use Permit.
Mrs. Donna Smith, the applicant, explained that when she took her
petition around for the rezoning to R-2 single family that was
all she wanted, but that the Planning Commission felt that since
the adjoining property was currently zoned R-3 single family that
this should be also to be consistent. She further explained that
82
May 1 ~+, 1 985
she needs this rezoning in order to m ake the back lot buildable.
She stated that the people who have been interested in purchasing
the. property all want single family.
The Acting Mayor opened the Public Hearing and asked for any
comments for or against the amendment to the zoning map.
RICK DE VINNEY, 2928 Westedge Blvd., stated that he lives
adjacent to the property and was not opposed to R-2 single
family zoning but is opposed to R-3.
KEN PERBIX, 2900 Dickens Lane, stated that he agrees with Mr.
DeVinney and only wants R-2 zoning.
The Acting Mayor asked how many people in attendance agreed with
Mr. DeVinney and Mr. Perbix. At least 15 people raised their
hands.
The~Acting Mayor closed the Public Hearing. He then stated that
he disagrees with the Planning Commission recommendation for R-3
in this area because R-2 would be a better transition.
The City Manager explained that the reason the Planning
Commission did not recommend R-2 was that it would be spot
zoning, being that there are only 2 lots involved in an area of
R-1 and R-3 zoning.
The City Planner explained that R-2 and R-3 single family
requires the same square footage to build, 6.000 square feet and
if the owners wanted to construct duplexes or townhouses, they
would have to come before the Planning Commission and the Council
for a Conditional Use Permit to construct these.
Councilmember Paulsen asked for a definition of spot zoning from
the City Attorney. The City Attorney stated that he would define
spot zoning as taking 3 lots aut of 40 and zoning them
differently than the surrounding lots. He further restated that
the R-2 and R-3 single family district has the same square
footage for building, 6 000 square feet.
Peterson moved and Smith second the following resolution:
RESOLUTION #85-53 RESOLUTION AMENDING THE ZONING NAP OF THE
CITY CODE MAKING LOTS 1, 2 AND 9~ BLOCK
13. THE HIGHLANDS AN R-2 ZONING DISTRICT
The vote was 2 in favor with Councilmembers Jessen and Paulsen
voting nay. Motion fails.
Councilmember Jessen stated that she does not want to set a
precedent of isolated spot zoning in a small area.
83
May 1~+, 1985
Paulsen moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION #85-53 RESOLUTION TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP OF THE
CITY CODE RAKING LOTS 1 AND 9, BLOCK 13,
TAE HIGHLANDS A R-3 ZONING DISTRICT
The vote was 3 in favor with Councilmember Smith abstaining.
Motion fails.
Councilmember Smith stated he would rather see this item tabled
until the next meeting so there would be a full Council to vote
on this issue.
MOTION Was made by Councilmember Peterson, seconded by
Councilmember Paulsen to table this item until the Hay 21 ,
1985, Regular Meeting. The vote Was unanimously in favor.
Motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING: PROPOSED VACATION OF A PORTION OF GOBDEN,
DRUMMOND, AND TeTINDSOR ROADS, NEIL WEBER
The City Manager explained that by vacating these unimproved
streets and if the County allows the City to purchase some tax
forfeit property to resell to Mr. Weber 'he will be able to
develop Bloeks 15 and 16. Whipple, which are at this time land
locked. The Planning Commission has recommended approval on~the
contingent that we are able to get the tax forfeit land to sell
to Mr. Weber.
Acting Mayor Peterson opened the Public Hearing and asked for any
comments for or against. the proposed vacation.
MR. GLEAN ROGERS, asked what Mr. Weber plans to do with the
property.
Mr. Weber stated he wants to replat the property and build
several single family homes on the property. one of which
will be his. He stated he does not want to strip the
property of the trees, but needs to clear out dead elms. He
stated he has no intention of building duplexes or apartments
on the property, only single family dwellings.
The Public Hearing was closed.
Paulsen moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION #85-53 RESOLUTION VACATING CERTAIN STREET
EASEMENT AND RETAINING FOR THE CITY A
UTILITY EASEMENT OVER THE WEST 80.0 FEET
OF THE NORTH 15 FEET OF 1~TINDSOR ROAD
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
84
May 14, 1985
CASE #$5-424: JOHN SCHLUTER~ 4339 i~TILSHIRE BLVD.. LOT SPLIT.
SUBDIVISION
The City Manager explained that the Planning Commission has
recommended approval. The lot split meets all requirements of
the City. The three things that are waived are the public
hearing, the park dedication and the replatting of the parcel.
Peterson moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION#85-54 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH-THE PLANNING
CONNISSION RECOMMENDATION AND APPROVE THE
LOT SPLIT/SUBDIVISION FOR PID #19-117-23
13 0006
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
The City Attorney stated that Mr. Schluter's attorney called him
today and stated that the Planning Commission did not waive the
park dedication fee and he asked on what basis the Staff was
recommending waiving the fee which is in conflict with the
ordinance.
Gouncilmem ber Paulsen stated that he understood that the Planning
Commission did not waive the park dedication fee.
The City. Manager stated that he was at the meeting and the
Planning Commission did waive the park dedication fee. In the
four years he has been here the City has never charged a park
dedication fee on a small residential lot split/subdivision.
This has only been charged on commercial or multi-family lots.
The City Planner stated that it was his recollection, and he has
not seen the Planning Commission Minutes, that the park
dedication fee was waived after significant discussion. He also
had concerns about not following the letter of the law, but he
has been told that past practices on lot splits/subdivisions in
residential areas has been not to charge the park dedication fee.
He further stated that the Planning Commission over the past few
months has been working on a new subdivision ordinance, which the
Council has nvt yet seen, and this ordinance defines a major and
a minor lot splitlsubdivision. A minor would be 3 lots or less
and there has been discussion, although no definitive action has
been taken, about waiving park dedication requirements in those
minor subidivisions. The problem seems to be~ that the ordinance
requires 10~ across the board which is fine if you are dealing
with a large subdivision of residential property or a commercial
property, but when you get down to the scale of an individual lot
it becomes a burden to the homeowner, because if broken down on a
percentage basis you are looking at a $2,500.00 park assessment
charge. In his experience with other communities that charge
would be close to 10 times over what the norm would be. The norm
being in the X250 to $400 range for a single lot split in a
85
May 1~~ 1985
residential type of situation. It becomes a question of does one
unit actually put $2500 worth of pressure on the park system and
is that justified. The recommendation and discussion by the
Planning Commission focused around past practices that ocurred
with previous situations as well as throwing in what the
Commission is looking at for the revised subdivision ordinance.
Councilmember Smith stated that there is some confusion here
tonight because what is in the Council Packet is the sam e
material that was submitted to the Planning Commission for
review. not as he remembers what was the result of the Planning
Commission Meeting. Therefore he feels the vote was a result of
confusion. He requested a copy of the Planning Commission
Minutes to confirm what they actually did recommend.
The City Manager asked the Building Inspector if the Minutes from
the May 6th Planning Commission Meeting were done. She answered
that she has not seen them yet.
Acting Mayor Peterson stated that if the Planning Commission did
not recommend waiving the Park Dedication Fee he would want to do
so. Therefore he would support a motion to reconsider the
Resolution X85-5~.
NOTION made by Councilmember Smitt~~ seconded by Councilmember
Peterson to reconsider resolution X85-5~1 for clarification on
the Park Dedication Fee.
The City attorney read Chapter 22.38. subdivision 2 relating to
Park Dedication Fees. He then stated that neither the Planning
Commission or the Council could waive this fee as the ordinance
reads now. The applicant would either have to contribute 10% of
the land being subdivided or in lieu of property would have to
pay 10~ of the fair market value of the property being
subdivided.
Councilmember Jessen asked the City Attorney how long the Park
Dedication Fee section has been in effect. He stated since 1978.
The City Planner stated that in the early sessions on the
subdivision ordinance the Planning Commission discussed park
dedication fees and at that time he related to the Commission
what the City Attorney stated when he quoted the ordinance that
the park dedication is required regardless of waiver. The
Commission w as surprised to hear that and were unaware that that
provision applied in all cases and perhaps that is somewhat of an
indicator of past practice. That coupled with the fact that the
Commission is looking for a change in the subdivision ordinance
in the near future. they felt it would be unreasonable to charge
this individual 10~ for park dedication.
Councilmember Jessen stated that she feels 10~ is an undue
hardship and that a smaller amount of say $300.00 would be a good
maximum for lot splits/subdivisions of this kind.
86
May 1~. 1985
Councilmember Smith asked that the question be called on his
motion to reconsider Resolution X85-5~.
The vote on the motion was unanimously in favor. Notion
carried.
MOTION made by Councilmember Peterson. seconded by
Councilmember Paulsen to renew Resolution #85-54 with the
following conditions: waiving the platting and public
hearing; having no Park Dedication Fee required; approving
the driveway relocation; and the boat house encroachment.
Councilmember Smith stated that he cannot vote for this motion
because we should not be waiving Park Dedication Fees for one
person and not another. but if the Council wanted to amend the
ordinance he probably would be in favor of that. Councilmember
Jessen agreed.
The vote on the motion was 2 in favor with Councilmembers
Jessen and Smith voting nay. Notion fails. _
The City Attorney stated that if the Council feels the Park
Dedication Ordinance. as it stands is not fair for a person
subdividing a small parcel. then they should amend it to lower
the fee. _
NOTION made by Councilmember Jessen to amend Section 22.37.
Subdivision 2 of the City Code relating to Park Dedication
Fees lowering the fee to #600.00 for small subdivisions of
one lot to two.
NOTION made by Councilmember Smith. seconded by Councilmember
Peterson to table this item until the May 21st Meeting so
that the full Council is present to vote on this. The vote
was unanimously in favor. Notion carried.
COMMENTS ~ SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT
The Acting Mayor asked if there were any comments or suggestions
from the citizens present.
A person asked if the street sweeper is broken down. The
City Manager stated no that Public Works is sweeping and will
get to his area soon.
APPLICATION FOR TMTENPORARYTM SIGN PERMIT AT 5600 LYNWOOD BLVD.
The City Manager explained that Community Services has submitted
three applications for temporary sign permits for three groups.
Comm unity Services the Senior Citizens and the Indianhead
Players. Each of these permits would allow the organizations to
use the temporary sign for a maximum of 40 days or a total of 120
days per year.
87
May 1~, 1985
Mr. Ulrick, of Community Services, was present and explained that
the School District has now purchased this sign and that they
want to be in conformance with the ordinances. This is why they
have applied for the permits.
The Council discussed the use~of this temporary sign versus a
permanent sign where the messages could be changed.
Smith moved and Peterson seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION #85-5~ RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE USE OF THE
TEMPORARY SIGN FOR THE THREE GROUPS
APPLYING .FOR ONE YEAR WITH COMMUNITY
SERVICES TO KEEP A LOG OF THE TIMES USED
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
REALIGNMENT OF LYNWOOD BLVD. PROJECT: NO PARKING RESOLUTION
FOR LYNWOOD BLVD. BETWEEN COMMERCE BLVD. AND BELMONT LANE
The City Manager explained that a "No Parking" Agreement for
Lynwood Blvd. must be passed by the City Council before the
Minnesota Dept. of Transportation will give final approval on the
Lynwood Blvd. Project. It is necessary because of the width of
the proposed street does not meet the minimum requirements
necessary to allow parking.
Jessen moved and Peterson seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION #85-55 RESOLUTION ADOPTING AN AGREEMENT RELATING
'TO PARKING RESTRICTIONS ON LYNWOOD BLVD.
BETWEEN COUNTY ROAD 110 AND BELMONT LANE
Couneilmem ber Smith asked how many parking spaces this would
delete. The City Manager stated that about 20 to 25 would
be eliminated. The City Engineer stated that in order to
have parking on both sides a ~44' streetwould be required.
For parking on one side of the street a 3b~ street would be
required. The City Manager explained that in order to get
the MSA money to do this project we have to pass this
resolution.
A vote on Resolution #85-55 was unanimously in favor. Motion
carried.
STATUS REPORT: PAISLEY ROAD IMPROVEMENT OPTIONS
The City Manager went over the options outlined in the City
Engineer's letter dated May 6, 1985, with the Council.
Mr. Forystek stated that he would go along with paying for
everything listed except the drainage revamping cost of 53,700
which he feels is not his problem. That problem exists and has
88
May 1~, 1985
existed thus he should not be responsible for these costs.
The City attorney reminded Mr. Forystek that he would need to be
the fee owner of the property before he can submit a petition for
the road improvements.
The City Manager explained that what Mr. Forystek is asking for
with this project is that the City of Mound pay all the upfront
costs for upgrading the street and utilities and then assessing
it back to him.
The City Engineer stated that in his figures he has not
calculated any costs for engineering, legal or administration.
That would be extra.
No action was taken on this item because Mr. Forystek is not yet
the fee owner of the property.
TUXEDO BLVD. SAFETY IMPROVEMENT AT MANCHESTER ROAD
The City Engineer explained that he is submitting the plans and
a preliminary cost estimate for this project. Cost 511,805.00.
He is asking that the Council pass a resolution requesting
variance approval from the Minnesota Sept. of Transportation.
This variance is necessary because the geometric design of the
existing street does not meet the minimum standards as set by the
state aid regulations, At the time Tuxedo Blvd. was originally
constructed, these variances were granted by the state aid
office, but recently a policy change now requires that an
advisory committee approve such requests. The state aid office
has given preliminary approval so he feels the advisory committee
will grant the variance.
Paulsen moved and Smith seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION #85-56 RESOLUTION RELATING TO A DESIGN VARIANCE
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
BARTLETT BLVD. IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
The City Manager explained that during the Spring this part of
Bartlett Blvd. by the Shirley Hills ballfield had many frost
boils. This part of the road has too much blue clay and if that
would have been removed the road would have sunk away if when we
put gravel in it in the middle of Spring. Last week Public Works
took a day off sweeping streets and dug out the boils getting the
road in a safer condition. He further explained that before we
spend slot of money patching the road and getting the gravel base
back in he thought it appropriate that John Cameron reactivate a
letter he sent to the Council in 1983 talking about the situation
in this spot of Bartlett Blvd. and what needs to be done to avoid
this problem ocurring again in the future. This letter stated
89
May 1~4~ 1985
that underground drainage needs to be put in and tied to the
storm sewer pipe that cuts in right across from Glendale. This
the Staff feels makes more sense to do now that the road is all
dug up rather than patching and having the same thing happen next
year. The estimated cost of doing the project is $2~~600. but
only $3.200 of that is for the tile. In order to get state aid
funds for this project we would have to bring the road up to 9
ton status. The City Engineer stated that he has looked at the
the again and thinks with the proper design. the cost of that
could be cut to about $ 1 .600. The City Manager stated that the
City crew could do ali the work except the drain the which would
cut the cost of the project. The state aid office would allow
the City to do the work.
Councilmember Paulsen asked if the Dept. of Transportation was
going to make us pass a resolution precluding parking on this
street. He asked the City Engineer if the road was the proper
width to allow for parking so it would not have to be given up.
The City Engineer stated he would have to go out and see where
the indentation was for the parking by the ballfield to be sure
it extends far enough northeast or the Dept. of Transportation
would not approve this request because the street is not wide
enough.
MOTION was made by Councilmember Paulsen. seconded. by
Councilmember Jessen authorizing the City Engi-Weer to explore
using State. Aid funds for the repair project on Bartlett
Blvd. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
SET DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE
A MINOR AUTO/BOAT REPAIR BUSINESS AT 5542 LYNWOOD BLVD.
NOTION as made by Councilmember Jessen~ seconded by
Councilmember Paulsen to set June 1i. 1985. for a Public
Hearing to consider an application for a Conditional Use
Permit to operate of minor auto/boat repair business at 5542
Lynwood Blvd. (Blue Lagoon Marfna). The vote was unanimously
in favor. Motion carried.
CONTRACTS FOR EMPLOYMENT - BOB JOHNSON ~ JOHN TAFFE
The City Manager explained that both of these expenses were in
the Park Budget as well as doing restoration of damage caused by
snow plowing in the winter. waterm ain break damage. and w orking
of some walls.
MOTION was made by Councilmember Paulse n seconded by
Councilmember Jessen to approve the contracts of employment
for Bob Johnson and John Taffe.
Councilmember Smith stated that since we are striving to make
these individuals independent contractors that the following
phrase be deleted from the contracts. "and also serve as an
90
May 1 ~1. 1985
agent of the City of Mound".
The maker of the motion agreed and so did the seconder. The
vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
PAYMENT OF BILLS
The bills were presented for consideration.
MOTION was made by Councilmember Jessen, seconded by
Councilmember Peterson. to authorize the payment of .bills, as
presented on the pre-list, in the amount of #150.061.89, when
funds are available. A roll call vote was unanimously in
favor. Motion carried.
SET DATES FOR MISCELLANEOUS PUBLIC HEARINGS
MOTION was made by Councilmember Paulsen, seconded by
Councilmember Peterson to set Hay 21. 1985, for a public
hearing to consider a Conditional Use Fermit for a Class 2
restaurant (change from Class 1) at 5560 Three Points Blvd.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
MOTION was made by Councilmember Paulsen. seconded by
Councilmember Jessen to set June 11, 1985, for a public
hearing to consider the issuance of an °Off Sale Beer
LicenseR to Christine Malik Brickley and William Scott
Brickley, DBA Hound Superette, 2222 Commerce Blvd. The vote
was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
REPAIR OF VARIOUS WALLS
The City Manager explained that he now has the quotes from the
two companies who responded on repairing a number of walls that
have either fallen down or are about to fall down due to the
rain. The following were the quotes:
Bjork Country Stone. Inc. $18,106.25
Lyckholm Construction $25.189.00
Paulsen moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION #85-58 RESOLUTION DECLARING AN EMERGENCY
SITUATION, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO
PROCEED ON THE BASIS THAT IT IS IN THE
BEST INTEREST OF THE CITY AND TO PROTECT
THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND GENERAL WELFARE OF
THE PUBLIC TO REPAIR THE WALLS THAT ARE
FALLING DOWN OR HAYS FALLEN DOWN
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
SET DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING
90
The City Manager explained that he is proposing to reallocate
May 1 ~+, 1985
some HUD money so that it is not lost at the end of June. He is
proposing to reallocate #10,000.00 from the Tonka Plant Reuse
(project ~75~+) to a new proposed project Downtow n Beautification.
This would be used to plant trees: etc. in the Downtown area.
MOTION made by Councilmember Peterson. seconded by
Councilmember Jessen to set June 11, 1985, for a public
hearing on the reallocation of #10.000.00 in HUD funds. The
vote Was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
MOTION made by Councilmember Paulsen, seconded by
Councilmember Jessen to adjourn at 10:00 P.H. The vote was
unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
~~~
J n Elam: City Manager
~/1~~,
Fran Clark, City Clerk
BILLS---------MAY 14, 1985
Computer run dated 5/3/85 Batch 854044
Computer run dated 5/8/85 Batch 854045
Computer run dated 5/10/85 Batch 854051
24,518.58
88,248.30
36,2g4.ot
Total Bills 150,061.88
~, ~> %~ ,~
~~-~~