1995-01-24January 24, 1995
MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL- JANUARY 24, 1995
The City Council of Mctund, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday,
January 24, 1995, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City.
Those present were: May.or Bob Polston, Councilmembers Andrea Ahrens, Mark Hanus, Liz
Jensen, and Phyllis Jessen. Also present were: City Manager Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Clerk
Fran Clark, City Attorney Jim Larson, City Engineer John Cameron, City Planner Bruce
Chamberlain, Building Official .Jon Sutherland, Finance Director Gino Businaro and the
following interested citizens: Donald Anderson, Jim Brunzell, Brad Biermann, Tom Casey,
Todd Rask, K. & H. Wisdom, John Edewaard, John Bessesen, and Dave Laube.
The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
1.0 MINUTES
MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Ahrens to approve the Minutes of the
Regular Meeting, and the January 17, 1995, Committee of the Whole Meeting, as
submitted. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.1
RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL, APPROVAL OF
A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AREA BY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, LOT
AND STREET DESIGN VARIANCE, SHORELAND VARIANCES AND FINAL
PLAT APPROVAL FOR TEAL POINTE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.
City Planner Bruce Chamberlain, explained that at the last meeting there was discussion as to
whether a new EAW was needed for this project, since that meeting he has spoken to Mr. Greg
Downing of the Environmental Quality Board who informed him that a petition was filed with
the EQB by Mr. John Edewaard of Mound to request that a new EAW be performed for the
project. Mr. Downing indicated that the petition that was filed with the EQB was returned to
the petitioner because it was incomplete. To be sure that this does not become an issue in the
approval of the project, it is staff's recommendation that the City Council review the issue of
the EAW at this meeting before the final plat is addressed.
Mr. Chamberlain stated that the project has not changed substantially since it was approved in
May of 1994 or since the EAW was first completed. The components of the project, as
discussed at the last meeting, that have changed are:
1. Street width on Windsor Road.
2. The grade on Windsor Road.
40
January 24, 1995
He reported that neither of these elements have any kind of environmental impact, positive or
negative, on the project. So the .project has not changed. Staff recommends that the City
Council, acting as the RGU, determifie there is no material change to the Teal Pointe project and
the decision be passed along to the. .EQB.
The City Attorney explained that the proposed resolution was prepared by staff and lays out a
factual basis for a conclusion by the City Council that there has been no substantial change in
the proposed Teal Pointe Subdivision, which forms a basis for determining 'that a new EAW is
not required.
Ahrens moved and Jesse,n seconded the following resolution:
RESoLUTIoN #95-12
RF~OLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF MOUND DECLARING THAT NO
· SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE HAS BEEN MADE IN THE
PROPOSED TEAL POINTE SUBDIVISION AND
DETERMINING THAT A NEW EAW IS NOT
REQUIRED
Mr. Tom Casey asked to be recognized. He asked if there was another change
in the project pertaining to the retaining wall turning south onto Cobden Lane.
The City Engineer stated that this ig the same as was originally proposed.
The vote was 4 in favor with Polston voting nay. Motion carded.
The Mayor reiterated the 3 items from the last meeting that are referenced in the proposed
resolution, as follows:
Windsor Road width will be reduced from 28 feet to 24 feet..
The retaining wall will be constructed out of concrete type of material, not steel
sheeting.
Cobden Lane will remain open to the public as an access to the lake and the
Developer will 'be required to grade that so there is access to the lake.
Councilmember Jensen stated she had some questions regarding Outlot B in the Declaration of
Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions of Teal Pointe Homeowners Association. She stated that
it is her understanding that Outlot B is to be deeded to the City so reference to this Outlot B
should be deleted from this document. The City Attorney suggested that the following be added
or deleted in the document:
ADD the following Whereas between the second and third Whereas: "WHEREAS,
Outlot B has been deeded to the City of Mound; and~.
41
January 24,
2.
1995
Under Article I, Definitions, .B, be amended to readas follows:
B. "Property" shal! mem_. Lots ] through 9 and Ouflot A, Block 1, Tea] Pointe,
Hennepin County, Minnesota, and such additions thereto as may hereinafter be
annexed by amendment to this Declaration;"
The description Under Article II, Property. Subject to this Declaration, should read as
follows:" .... Lots 1 through 9, Block 1 'and Outlot A Teal Pointe, Hennepin County,
Minnesota."
The Developer agreed wiih the changes, Suggested above, to the Declaration of Covenants
Conditions and Restriction's of Teal. Pointe Homeowners Association.
Councilmember Hanes questioned COndition 10 in the proposed resolution referring to filing the
plat within 180 days of City Council approval being in conflict with the code which states 60
days. The City Planner stated' that the code does say 60 days but because there is some
confusion about what the code actually says, the resolution includes a 180 day time period which
is more a standard with most cities in the metropolitan area.
1.2 Jensen moved and Ahrens 'seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION//95-13
RESOLUTION 'OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CiTY OF MOUND GRANTING PRELIMINARY PLAT
APPROVAL, APPROVAL OF. A PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT AREA BY CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT, LOT AND STREET DESIGN VARIANCES,
SHORELAND VARIANCES, AND FINAL PLAT
APPROVAL FOR TEAL POINTE RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT
The vote was 4 in favor with Polston voting nay. Motion carried.
1.3
CASE #95-0h DAVID AND LYNNE LAUBE, 2391 FAIRVIEW LANE,
CREV1ER,S LAFAYETTE PARK, BLOCK 3, LOTS 16 & 17, PID # 13-117-24 43
0089. VARIANCE FOR GARAGE ADDITION.
The Building Official explained the request. The Planning Commission recommended approval.
Ahrens moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution:
42
RESOLUTION//95-14
The vote was unanimously in favor.
January 24, 1995
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SETBACK
VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A
GARAGE ADDITION AT 2391 FAIRVIEW LANE,
L.P. CREVIER'S SUBDIVISION OF PART OF LOT
36, LAFAYETTE PARK, BLOCK 3, LOTS 16 & 17,
PID #13-117-24 43 0089, P & Z CASE 95-01
Motion carried.'
1.4
CASE g95-02: DONALD B; ANDERSON, SR., 3106 PRIEST LANE, LOT 1,
BLOCK 2, HIGHLAND SHORES, PID #23-117-24 34 0075, VARIANCE FOR
ADDITION.
The Building Official explained 'the request.
There was concern about this addition above the garage creating another dwelling unit. The
Building Official stated the applicant has been notified that the Zoning Code prohibits 2 dwelling
units on the property. He further stated that the addition above the garage will be used for an
office for some time and then it will be con,certed int6 a master bedroom and there are no
kitchen facilities. The Planning Commission. recommended approval.
The City Attorney stated that he Would'like'to see a. and b. under number 1 deleted because
they do not add anything to the resolution. He stated that it is clear in the proposed resolution
that this is not allowing another dwelling unit on the property and the home occupation section
of the Zoning Code would apply.
The Council asked the applicant if there are plans in the future to have a door from this addition
directly into the primary dwelling unit. The applicant explained that the plans are to eventually
incorporate this addition into the main dwelling unit as a master suite. The Building Official
stated that the applicant has provided additional plans showing the connection. He further stated
that the opening will be roughed in during, construction.
The Council agreed to delete a. and b. under item #1.
Hanus moved andJensen seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION g95-15
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO
RECOGNIZE EXISTING NONCONFORMING
SETI~ACICq TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A
SECOND STORY ADDITION AND A CONFORMING
DECK AT 3106 PRIEST LANE, LOT 1, BLOCK 2,
HIGHLAND SHORES, PID/f23-117-24 34 0075, P & Z
CASE//95-02
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
43
January 24, 1995 ~
coMMENTS AND sUGGESTIONS .FROM CITIZENS PRESENT.
Jim Brunzell, 5111 Windsor Road, commented With. regard to Teal Pointe, "That none of my
neighbors stayed, and the reason is: that none of them believe that city government works
anymore. That none Of you represent, us. We believe that You represent... I understand your
fear of being sued by a develol~r, but you don't 'have to live next to any project that you
approve, we have to. We work Very hard, we pay our taxes, care about our community, send
our kids to your schools, and we want to make it work. I'm not very comfortable with this.
This is very very uncomfortable. Look around they are all gone. Why? They don't believe
in you. They don't think you care. There is something wrong with a city government when the
citizens don't think you care about what happens to us. You care more about what a developer
thinks, what they want to happen in that community and its very, very wrong. We don't think
you listen to us.. I think in a small' community that is what matters, that you would listen to us
and that we can make a difference. I don't think any of us feel that we make a difference
anymore. So you vote it away, you're going to d6 what you do and you don't have to live in
that community. You don't have to look at this development, but we do. We're going to pay
taxes on this and we're going to live everyday with this and you can'just do what you want to
do and that's fine, but we have to live with it. So if you want to give us the idea that we don't
matter, we don't count, you've done that. We tried to work with the system. We haven't
always been good all the time. We haven't always been great, but that's democracy. So next
time it happens maybe think about that. Think if that was in your backyard. Think about that
you work with us, you work for us, not a developer and let's see what happens."
Councilmember Jensen responded. "I listen to a lot of people in the community, a lot people
who said, I do not want my tax dollars wasted. I don't want to see unnecessary lawsuits so it's
what is in the best interest of the entire community, and again I listened to a lot of people who
said don't waste my tax money. I also listened to the people who were here who said, I don't
want a corrugated metal 'wall in front of my home and therefore we required the road be
narrowed, the grade be increased, so that the wall would not be as high and we required that
it be constructed of materials other than corrugated metal. We also required that they provide
public access and continue to allow the use of Cobden Lane. That was listening to the
comments of the people, who were here, talking to us. I have to live with myself everyday with
the decisions I make for the citizens of this community and it was my decision that the best use
of the dollars that we have in this community were not in an unnecessary lawsuit. So I think
we reached a reasonable compromise. The land is owned by someone who has a right to
develop it and I believe Sis Council did.its best to make sure that the development that occurred
there was a quality development."
Councilmember Jessen asked that the following be added to Councilmember Jensen response.
"I don't think to say that we are not concerned about the citizens is quite accurate. We certainly
try to be and if we don't always vote for what some would like to have us vote for, we do have
to take the interests of the whole when making any kind of vote. I was also hearing from many
people and I even heard from some neighbors who were in favor of the development. They may
not have been here, but there were some. There were also many people who felt they wanted
to see a development of this type go ahead, that it would be an asset, for the community."
44
January 24, 1995
Councilmember Ahrens stated, "I would alSO like to eCho what has already been said and just
add one thing. That for me personally, every time I' have a variance before me, one of the
questions I always ask myself is, "Whether or not I could live with that if it'.was right next door
to me?" So one of the things that you pointed'out was that you have to live with it and the rest
of you don't. Maybe physically you have to live with it, but in. my mind, I always ask whether
or not I could live with that? Could I' live with that person having a three story garage next to
me or a cement truck in their driveway or 'whatever it is that'we are giving a variance for."
Councilmember Hanus stated he would like to add one.thing to the previous Council comments.
"The issue of listening. I haven't been on the Council this whole time but I've been on the
Planning Commission when things come before that group too and these discussions have been
taking place now for two plus years and you 'can't say' that in· all of these discussions, there
hasn't· been any listening going on..There's been a lot of back and forth' trying to work out
details and work out problems and I just don't think'that you can look at two years of
discussions and say that there hasn't been any listening going on."
1.5 RESOLUTION DIRECTING. STAFF TO PREPARE.AN APPLICATION FOR
INTERMODAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION EFFICIENCY ACT (ISTEA)
FUNDS RELATED TO TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENTS - 1998-2000.
The City Manager explained that at the Committee of Whole Meeting, he. and the City Planner
presented a concept or an idea for the Council to cohsider. Basically, the Federal government
has started another funding cycle and cities can apply for governmental funds through ISTEA
to do further transportation enhancements to transportation areas. The concept is to construct
a trail from Commerce Blvd. along Auditor's Road and bring it over to Lost Lake and along the
trail have such things as lighting, benches, trash receptacles and making it pedestrian oriented.
Maybe a brick type walkway, to tie in with the "Buy a Brick" suggestion that was made by the
Lost Lake Task Force Strategy team. Based on that idea, the Council felt that it was worth
making the application' to the Met Council,. which is the agency handling the ISTEA program.
The City Manager further explained that this money would be· available for the years 1998
through the year 2000. It would be a project 'that would total under $500,000, which is the
maximum you can apply for and staff feels that based on the City's track record, it has a good
shot at getting these funds. The proposed resolution authorizing this was presented.
Jessen moved and'Ahrens seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION g9.5-16
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF MOUND SUPPORTING AN APPLICATION
FOR ISTEA FUNDING FOR THE CREATION OF
TRAILS, LANDSCAPING AND SITE
IMPROVEMENTS ALONG LOST LAKE AND
AUDITOR'S ROAD FROM COUNTY ROAD 110 TO
COUNTY ROAD 15 AND THE FUTURE BOAT
MARINA
45
January 24, 1995 ~
Councilmember Jensen suggested changing '"MTC" (Metropolitan Transit Commission)
in the proposed resolution to the correct name "MCTO" (Metropolitan Council Transit
Operation:'.
The vote was unanlmously in favor...Motion carded.
1.6 199~ cQM[MERCIAL INSURANCE PRO(RAM CARL BENNETSEN, R,L,
YOUNGDAHL & ASSOCIATES.
Carl Bennetsen, R. L. Youngdahl & Associates, reviewed the insurance coverage for 1994.
Property
Inland Marine
Liability
Auto Liability
Auto Physical Liability
Misc. Equipment/Auto
Crime
Worker's Compensation
Boiler & Machinery
AD&D Benefit
Liquor Liability
Employee Dishonestly
Open Meeting Law
TOTAL EST. PREMIUM
8,088
1,787
54,803
13,488
11,078
993
195
51,790
2,489
300
5,880
1,313
822
153,026
Mr. Bennetsen explained the two options that were available:
1. LMCIT Excess Liability Coverage Limits
2. LMCIT Package Deductible Option.
1994
8,793
2,351'
50,257
11,706
10,011
1,112
365
55,554
2,339
300
8,505
625
754
152,672
46
January 24, 1995
The Council decided against the two options.
Ahrens moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION//95-17
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE POLICIES,
PREMIUMS AS SUBMITTED BY CARL
BENNETSEN, R. L. YOUNGDAHL & ASSOCIATES
FOR THE 1995 INSURANCE PROGRAM
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion Carded.
1.7
APPROVAL OF PAYMENT REQUEST NO. 5 - WATER METER READ SYSTEM
AND CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 -WATER METER READ SYSTEM -
SCHLUMBERGER INDUSTRIES.
The City Manager stated that the staff is recommending approval of the payment request from
Schlumberger Industries in the amount of $73,205.59 and Change Order #1 which shows a net
deduct from the contract in the amount of $3,901.12. The deduct is for compensation to the
City for extra time spent by City personnel because the computer system was not fully
operational by the time specified in the contract.
Ahrens moved and Hanus seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION//95-18
RESOLUTION APPROVING PAYMENT REQUEST #5
FROM SCHLUMBERGER INDUSTRIES IN THE
AMOUNT OF $73,205.59 AND CHANGE ORDER #1,
A NET DEDUCT OF $3,901.12 FROM THE TOTAL
CONTRACT AS RECOMMENDED
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.8
RF_~0LUTION PROCLAIMING MARCH 5-12, 1995, AS VOLUNTEERS OF
AMERICA WEEK IN THE CITY OF MOUND.'
Hanus moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION g95-19
RESOLUTION PROCLAIMING MARCH 5-12, 1995,
AS VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA WEEK IN THE
CITY OF MOUND
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carded.
47
January 24, 1995
1.9 PAYMENT OF BILLS
MOTION made by Jensen~seconded by Jessen to authorize the payment of bills as
presented on the pre-list in the amount of $204,418.04, when funds are available.
A roll call vote was unanimoUsly'in favor. Motion carried.
ADD-ON ITEMS
1.10 SET DATE FOR LOCAL BOARD OF REVIEW MEETING.
MOTION made by Ahrens, and seconded by Jensen to set Tuesday, April 25, 1995,
at 7:00 P.M. for the Local Board' of ReView Meeting. The vote was unanimously in
favor. Motion carried.
1.11 SET BID OPENING DATE FOR A VAC-ALL
MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Ahrens to set the bid opening for the
purchase of a combination machine for high pressure water cleaning of sanitary
sewer and storm sewer drain lines, with air conveying vacuum system for the
simultaneous removal of debris from the manhole, for FebrUary 22, 1995, at 11:00
A.M. The Council will consider bids at the regular February 28, 1995, Council
Meeting. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.12 SET PUBLIC HkARING DATE FOR THE PROPOSED USES OF 1995 CDBG
MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Jessen to set February 28, 1995, for a
public hearing to consider the proposed uses of 1995 Hennepin County Community
Development Block Grant funds. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion
carried.
1.13 APPRQVAL GARDEN LEASE
MOTION made by Ahrens, and seconded by Jensen to authorize the Mayor and
City Manager to execute a one year lease with Leo & Beverly Wallis, for Lots 1, 2,
3, 4 & 22, Block 5, Dreamwood. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion
carried.
INFORMATIONAL/MI$CELLANEQUS
Monthly financial report for December 1994, as prepared by Gino Businaro, Finance
Director. This is a very preliminary report of 1994 activity. However, it will give you
some idea of what the financial status of each of the funds is and how each department
is projecting actual expenditures compared to budget figures.
48
January 24, 1995
B. LMCD Mailifigs.
C. Park and Open Space Commission Minutes'of January 12, 1995.
D. Planning. Commission Minutes of January 9, 1995.
E. Application for Planning Commission .vacancy from Becky Glister. Interview will be
conducted by the Planning Commission on Monday, February 13, 1995,. 7:30 pm. City
Council is invited to participate in interview procesS. We will forward any additional
applications to you if received.
F. Economic Development Commission Minutes of December 15, 1994.
MOTION made by Jessen, seconded by Ahrens to adjourn at 9:00 P.M. The vote
was unanimously in favor. Motion carrie .0c~~ ,
-~ ~ /:/)' 0~-~' /~ward J. Sh~kl~,Jr.;--City~g'~ffg-ffr~
Attest: City Clerk
49
BILLS
January 24, 1995
BATCH 4124
$ 66,976.71
BATCH 4126
26,756.26
BATCH 5012
TOTAL BILLS
110,685.07
$204,418.04
51