Loading...
2000-09-26MINIYrE8 - CITY COUNCIL - SEPTEMBER 26, 2000 The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, September 26, 2000, at 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present were: Mayor Pat Meisel; Council Members: Andrea Ahrens, Bob Brown, Mark Hanus, and Leah Weycker. Also in attendance were City Attorney John Dean, City Manager Kandis Hanson, Building Official Jon Sutherland, City Engineer John Cameron, City Planner Loren Gordon, and Recording Secretary Diana Mestad. The following interested citizens were also present: Dorothy and Bill Netka, Orv Burma, John McKinley, Peter Meyer, Betty Hoy, John Bergerman, Tom Casey, Greg Petrich, Kay Hudstrom, Lorrie Ham, Lowell Olson. *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 Council Member 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 Mayor Meisel opened the meeting at 7:35 p.m. and welcomed the people in attendance. The pledge of allegiance was recited. SWEARING IN OF POLICE OFFICIER MICHAEL BUETOW, Michael Buetow read the statement of Public Trust to the Council and was then sworn in by Mayor Meisel. APPROVE AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA The City Manager amended the agenda to hold items 6 and 7 until 8:00 and to move forward with item 8, if necessary in order to wait for the City Planner's arrival. Council Member Weycker pulled item D from the Consent Agenda. MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Brown, to approve the agenda and consent agenda with the above amendments. The roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion corried. 5-0. 456 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINIUTE$- SEPTEMBER 26, 2000 CONSENT AGENDA *1.0 APPROVE MINUTES: A. AUGUST 29, 2000 BUDGET WORKSHOP. B. SEWTEMBER 6, 2000 BUDGET WORKSHOP. Motion - Hanus, Brown, unanimously. *1.1 APPROVE PAYME~ OF BILLS. Motion - Hanus, Brown, unanimously. '1.2 APPROVE PAYME~ OF PAYME~ REOUF~T~. A® KUSSKE CONSTRUCTION AUDITOR'S ROAD. MACHTEMES STREET & ULTILTY IMPROVEME~. Motion - I-Ianus, Brown, unanimously. *PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS, '1.3 PUBLIC LAND PERMIT: DOCK SITE #41824, DEVON COMMONS - MARK SMITH - 4665 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, Council Member Weycker stated that she recalled previously approving a permit for electrical work on this site and she was not aware that the final electrical inspection had been done. Council Member Hanus stated that the electrical work was part of this request. Council Member Ahrens stated that she was present when the electrical work was approved on this site. The City Building Official stated that the final inspection was not on file with the City and that Staff would work with the applicant to get this completed. 457 MOUND CITY COUNCIl. MINIUTE$ - SEFIEMBER 26, 2000 Council Member Hanus stated that all the electrical was being worked on and would need approval for this project. Mayor Meisel pointed out that inspection is a condition of approval. Council Member Ahrens, in reference to standard procedure, asked who gets the proof of inspection. The City Building Official stated that the proof is given to the appncant and that the City is not always sent a copy. Council Member Hanus stated that the applicant could have assumed that the copy was automatically sent to the City and the City Building Official agreed that this could have been an. honest mistake. The City Building Official stated that the system would work the way the Resolution is laid out with Staff follow- up or that a condition could be added that the permit would expire if the electrical inspection was not filed with the City by a certain date. He also pointed out that recent changes require an annual report be made to Council on the status of such cases and that this would insure Staff follow-up. Mayor Meisel pointed out that applicants should be made aware that it is their responsibility to file the inspection report. Brownmoved and Weycker seconded the following resolution with Staff follow-up on the f'fling of the electrical inspection: RESOLUTION #00-86 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT TO INSTALL EI.I~CTRICAL SERVICE, AN UNDERGROUND SPRINKI.i~.R SYSTEM, AND ATTACH A LIGHT AND EI.ECTRICAL OUTLET TO AN EXINTING LIGHT POLE ON PUBLIC LANDS KNOWN AS DEVON COMMONS DOCK SITE #41824. The vote was 4 in favor with Ahrens abstaining. Motion carried. 1.4 COMME~ AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT SUB.IECTS NOT ON THE AGENDA. /PLEASE LIMIT TO 3 MINUTF.~ PER Betty Hoy, 1809 Resthaven Lane, thanked the City Manager for her quick response to her concern over the granting of a private driveway in lake access property. Ms. Hoy stated that she felt this was wrong in that it takes away from the public use of the property. She further 458 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINIUTE$ - SEPTEMBER 26, 2000 stated that she did not feel that citizens read the public notices and felt they were probably unaware of this. She stated that the driveway that has been allowed on Resthaven Lane is dangerous and she wondered what the process would be to stop these type of driveway easements. Council Member Hanus stated that the City Council cannot deny people the opportunity to wake such a request. Ms. Hoy stated that she could understand allowing people to make the request, but felt that an ordinance should be passed not to allow variances in these cases. She stated that the situation on Resthaven occurred because two lots were divided and that the property could have been divided differently to avoid this. John Bergerman, 1821 Resthaven Lane, stated that the access Ms. Hoy was discussing is very busy and is currently full of construction vehicles, which has restricted public use. Council Member Hanus stated that it was not acceptable for the construction vehicles to be parked in the access. Council Member Brown stated that the City should be called to enforce the law when this occurs. Council Member Ahrens stated that the problem with construction sites exists in areas other than the public access and that she has called the City to enforce the law when necessary. Mr. Bergerman stated that his point was that it is wrong to take public property for the driveway. Council Member Ahrens stated that she felt that the construction parking would have been a problem even without the easement. Peter Meyer, 5748 Sunset Road, asked where the Council was in the process of filling the vacancy on the Park Commission. The City Manager stated that the ad has run in the paper and that a new form was created to take the applicants' information more uniformly. The prior applicants for the position were sent the new form and asked to reapply. Applications will be brought back to the Park Commission and the City Council will be notified when the interviews are scheduled. She stated that the Park Director, Jim Fackler, could provide details on the timeline. 459 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINIUTE$- SEPTEMBER 26, 2000 1.~ PRF.~ENTATION OF FEASIBHJTY REPORT FOR THE IMPRO~NT OF WEST EDGE BOULEVARD. The City Engineer, John Cameron, stated that a feasibility study has been done on Westedge Boulevard that is located Ih in Mound and Ih in Minnetrista. He slated that there are a total of 6 properties developed on the east side (Mound) and that the current roadway is gravel. The survey indicated that the road basically follows the dividing line. The City Engineer showed photos of the area indicating the high rise of the grade and the heavily wooded area. He showed photos of retaining walls and hedges that are within the City right of way and further stated that there are wetlands on the Minnetrista side. The City Engineer slated that this was classified as a collector street and would normally be 32 feet wide, but because of the topography issues, he is recommending 30 feet in width with a full 6 inch curb (29 feet of surface), which is well above the Minnesota standard for a 30 mph design. The City Engineer slated that it was a possibility to have curb only on the Mound side, but that there would need to be about 300 feet of curb on the Minnetrisla side where there was no room for a ditch. Council Member Brown asked if this was necessary because of erosion and the City Engineer slated that the curb was necessary to carry water and to help the The City Engineer slated that the proposal was to stop short of Minnetrista's Wood Edge Road intersection. He slated that the pond would need to be resized t allow for wetland discharge and storm sewer drainage in addition to the needs of the Rottland development. He has given this information to the Rottland engineers. Staff has suggested to Rottland to carry the pond discharge to the railroad track. In reference to grading on West Edge, the City Engineer slated that the hill leading to County Road 15 would be raised as much as possible but that there is a driveway in that location that will somewhat impede the grading. The City Engineer gave the following cost estimates: 1. Based on curb and gutter on both sides 2. Curb on the Mound side only (alternative A) $209,900 $192,800 In reference to the assessments, he stated that in the past, the City has assessed most of the cost to the property owners, but these were residential streets. 46O MOUND CITY COUNCIL MI~ - SEP2F. MBF. R 26, 2000 Contribution from Hennepin County (estimate) 10% City share for a collector street $3,000 $21,000 Curb and Gutter on Both Sid~ Assessment to property owners 1/4 to 6 Mound residents Developer Alternative A Assessment to property owners 1/4 to 6 Mound residents Developer $186,000 $40,675 $140,000 $135,100 $7,100 $128,000 Council Member Ahrens asked if the properties were being assessed evenly rather than by lineal frontage. The City Engineer stated that the amount was simply divided, but that may need to be looked at. Mayor Meisel stated that she was concerned about the entry area of the first house on County Road 15. The City Engineer stated that they would be limited in how much the grade could be changed by this driveway and that the driveway would have to come down to the level of West Edge. Council Member Hanus asked whether Alternative A included the 300 feet of curb deemed necessary on the Minnetrista side. The City Engineer confirmed that this cost was included. Council Member Hanus questioned how much of the cost involved the roadbed and whether borings were taken. The City Engineer stated that these costs assumed starting the road from scratch and if the roadbed could be reused, it would lower the cost. Council Member Hanus asked how this model compared with a typical collector road model. The City Engineer stated that only residential roads had been assessed in the past and the 10 percent share to the City is meant to include the cost of the extra width and strength of the sffeet. The City Engineer stated that it was now necessary to meet with Minnetrista regarding this and that they are now showing an interest in having curb and gutter on their side, but are not willing to pay for it. 461 MOUND ClT~ COUNCIL MINIUTF.$ - 5F. PTEMBER 26, 2000 Council Member Ahrens pointed out that Minnetrista would normally tie the cost of the road to the developer and wondered if they would be willing to reimburse Mound when a fUture development went in. The City Engineer stated that homes are planned south of the intersection and that the developer will be improving that stretch along with a section that is in Mound. Council Member Ahrens wondered if it would be possible to swap improvements on this road. Council Member Hanus pointed out that Mound could not force the Minnetrista developer to do anything. Council Member Weycker suggested recommending Alternative A as the priority plan and getting a reaction from Minnetrista. Council Member Hanus asked about the section of road with wetland on one side and wondered how much wider the road would be in that area. The City Engineer stated it would be 6 feet and would impact the wetlands. He stated that he hoped this would fall under an exemption, but otherwise it would be necessary to do mitigation. Council Member Weycker stated that because Mound would be working with Minnetrista on their development, it could be presented to them that the cities need to work together on this road. The City Engineer asked for confirmation that the City Council preferred to go with Alternative A. The City Attorney stated that this was still in the early stages and a general direction from Council was all that was necessary at this point. The City Manager clarified that the next meeting with Minnetrista on October 9 would be for Staff only and Council would not need to attend. Council Member Ahrens asked when exemption status for the wetland would be known. City Engineer stated that Staff is working with Rottland on this as they are atready doing mitigation. The Council Member Hanus suggested looking at the City land south of the railroad tressel for mitigation. The City Engineer stated this would be a possibility and that there is an exemption up to 400 square feet that may work out. 462 1.6 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINIUTES - SEPTEMBER 26, 2000 DISCUSSION/ACTION ON AMENDED OUTDOOR STORAGE AGR~'~IF~, Greg Skinner, Public Works Department, addressed the Council and stated that this Agreement did not affect operations, but was for eliminating duplicate sections of the original Agreement. Council Member Hanus wondered if it would be wise to cover Mound in the event that Minnetrista did merge with St. Bonifacius in the future. The City Attorney stated that this would be overkill, because when mergers are done underlying obligations are addressed. Council Member I-Ianus wondered if the statement regarding the splitting of equipment would also involve trucks, etc. Mr. Skinner stated that the City of Mound does not leave equipment in the area being discussed. Council Member Hanus stated that he thought the original agreement contained composting and wondered if this had intentionally been removed. Council Member Ahrens stated that the composfing had never been in writing. Brown moved and Ahrns seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #00-87 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ~ MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A JOINT AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMF~NT WITH THE CITY OF MINNETRISTA TO OPERATE AN OUTDOOR STORAGE AREA The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.7 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMF~NDATIONS: CASE//00-48: VARIANCE - GREG PETRICH - 4856 DONALD DRIVE. The City Planner stated that it was Staff recommendation to deny the garage as requested and to require the setback to be not less than 6 feet from the property line. Orv Burma, from the Planning Commission, addressed the Council stating that he wished to explain his vote at the Planning Commission discussion of the this item. He stated that he missed the setback because he was concerned about the hardcover issue. He would have voted nay on the issue causing a 4-4 vote and the issue would have stayed at the Planning 463 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINIU'IF_.~- SEPTEMBER 26, 2000 Commission for further discussion. Commissioner Burma stated that the land next door is unlikely to be developed and that the intent of setbacks is to ensure privacy, fire safety, etc. Allowing the applicant to build as proposed would not interfere with this intent. Council Member Brown stated that he was in agreement with Commissioner Burma on this issue. Council Member Hanus asked whether other options were discussed. The City :Planner stated that it was suggested to push the garage back, or to keep one corner at the required setback. Council Member Ahrens pointed out that no hardship was shown. Greg Petrich, the applicant in this case, explained his building plans to the Council stating that he wished to add a 12 foot dining room, move the garage over, add an addition on the back to extend the bedrooms, and also add a screen porch. He stated that he initially received land from Hennepin County to make the lot 10,000 square feet and that he would like to get the variance or acquire additional land to mole his current plans possible. Mayor Meisel asked whether the applicant had applied to the City for the additional land. Mr. Pet.rich stated that he had talked to the City Building Official about this. Mayor Meisel asked where Staff was on the issue. The City Building Official stated that Staff recommendations were consistent with the City Planner in maintaining the 6-foot setback and that the request to purchase the land is being routed through the City departments. Council Member Weycker wondered if the issue should be tabled until the next meeting. The City Building Official stated that would push the project into the spring and that even if a variance were granted, the applicant would still pursue the purchase of the land. Council Member Ahrens expl:~iued the nde regarding variances and hardship to the applicant. Mr. Petrich stated that he was willing to wait until spring to move forward with his plans as he would prefer to acquire the additional land. He was in favor of tabling the issue. MOTION, by .S. hrens, seconded by Brown subject to receiving a written request from the Applicant to waive the 60-day period, to table this case. An amendment was added by Brown to direct Staff to pursue alternatives in this case and was accepted by Ahrens. The vote was unsnimollsly in favor. Motion carried. ~0. 1.8 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINIUTE$- SEP2F.,MBER 26, 2000 1.8 PLANNING COMMI~qSION RECOMMENDATIONS: CASE #00-58: VARIANCE - OARE - 11 01 RESTHAVEN LANE. The City Planner stated that the house has been gutted by fire and the applicant is requesting a variance to recognize nonconforming setbacks including a low floor elevation that is 7/10ths of a foot below the requirements. He stated that the variances were necessary because the fire damage to the building was greater than 50 percent of the assessed value which required it to be rebuilt to the current code or variances granted. The City Planner stated that in reference to the low floor elevation, the Flood Plain standards do not allow variances to be granted and doing so would jeopardize the City's participation in the Flood Insurance Program. He stated that it is Staff's position not to allow a variance for the floor elevation. The Planning Commission has recommended approval of the setback variance in an unanimous vote. He further stated that the Planning Commission discussed the current flood elevation standard, and wished to discuss this further at another time as it was quite involved. Ted Oare, the applicant in this case, stated that only the interior of the house was destroyed and that the outside would only need a coat of paint. He stated that the highest Lake Minnetonka has been is 930.5 and he feels that he will never have a flood issue and has never had any moisture in his basement. He checked with FEMA and stated that they told him they do not have a problem with a variance being granted for the low floor elevation. He further stated that it will cost him $40,000 to raise the house. Because his house does not qualify for flood insurance, he does not feel it is in a flood zone. Council Member Brown stated that he also called FEMA and that while the City Planner gives the level at 931.5, the FEMA flood map states 931. He stated that going back to 1910 the highest flood level was 930.5 and that the dam controls the water level. Council Member Brown also questioned why the City of Mound had set this at 933 when the FEMA regulation is 931 and the state requires 932. He also pointed out that the house is not in a flood area, but possibly some of the shoreline would be. Mayor Meisel confirmed that the point is that the City has set the high water mark at 933. The City Planner stated that Council Member Brown's points are correct, but that the Watershed added the half-foot to the 931 making the level 931.5. He stated that the history is being checked and at this point he is unsure why the City added the additional 1.5 feet, but that it has been in place for a long time. 465 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINIUTE$- SEPTEMBER 26, 2000 Council Member Ahrens stated that she remembered investigating the surrounding cities and that none of them were at 933. The Mayor of Spring Park was present and stated that his city was at 932. Council Member Hanus stated that he was on the Planning Commission when this was redone and that it was the Commission's impression that the 933 would be the least restrictive, but perhaps that was the wrong impression. He further stated that the Council could not change the code tonight and that this case would have to be dealt with as the code is currently written. Council Member Brown agreed that this code needed to be dealt with, but did not feel a citizen should suffer. The City Attorney pointed out that there is a provision in the statute requiring DNR approval to changes. He further stated that the City may want technical advice on what the proper level should be. Mayor Meisel stated that the process could take several months and wondered if the applicant wanted to table the issue or go forward with the code as it is written. Council Member Ahrens wondered if the damage was less than 50 percent of the value, would the City be able to ignore the variances. The City Attorney stated that an assessor has valued the property and there is no way around the issue. Council Member Brown stated that the applicant would not be doing any work in the basement and so would not be affecting the variance. The City Attorney pointed out that the ordinance referred to the whole structure. The applicant agreed to tabling this issue. Council Member Hanus pointed out that this case is a good example of why a nonconforming property is not desirable. Brown moved and Weycker seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #00-87-A RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FOR A SIDE YARD SETBACK AT 1801 RESTHAVEN LANE, lOT 11, BLOCK 12, 466 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINIUTES- SEPTEMBER 26, 2000 SHADYWOOD POINT, PID #13-117-24 14 0016, P & Z CASE g0058 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 5-0. MOTION, by Brown, to table the applicant's request for a variance to the flood plnin subject to a written agreement with the applicant. Motion died for lack of a second. The City Building Official pointed out that the applicant was advised from the onset that the flood plain was not variancable and that this is not something that can be tabled. The City Attorney stated that it may be necessary to deny the variance request made on the application. MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Weycker, for denial of the request for a flood plain variance. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 5-0. The City Building Official stated that in regard to the levels of flood plains required in other cities, Mound had issues regarding hardcover. The DNR has raised the issue that the flood plain issues differ on lake Minnetonka. The Watershed is attempting to make this consistent at 932.5. Council Member Brown stated that Staff should pursue changing the code to follow the state guidelines. Council directs Staff to pursue changing the current code to follow the state guidelines and bring the information back to Council." Mayor Meisel called a break at 9:50 p.m. Mayor Meisel called the meeting to order at 10:05 p.m. 1.9 SENIOR CENTER: DISCUSSION/ACTION ON AGREEMENT FOR STORM WATER PONDING ON CITY PROPERTY. The City Planner stated that he had prepared the requested documents including the Declaration for a Storm Pond, the Declaration for Phosphorus Free Fertilizer, and the Consent form. The forms are now ready for signature. The City Planner stated that there is a surety item of $1,000 outstanding that was not addressed by Staff. He thought that this was a construction item and was not enough to cover any potential problems. He wondered if the City could put up the surety. 467 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINIU'IE5 - SEP'IF. MBF~ 26, 2000 The City Engineer stated the surety was for erosion control during the construction of the pond. The City Attorney stated that this would need to be explored further because if it was for ongoing maintenance, it is the City's responsibility. The City Attorney stated that if the applicant was willing, a provision stating that no Certificate of Occu~cy would be issued until the pond was complete and th. at would be a way around the surety bond. He did not feel the City Council should take a position on this at this time. Lowell Olson, Yanick Company, stated that the documents met their expectations other than the surety bond, which was a surprise to them. He stated that the provision for the Certificate of Occupancy was agreeable and would certainly carry more clout than the $1,000. Mayor Meisel asked that the issue of the surety bond would be left alone for now and the City Planner stated that Staff would contact the Watershed for clarification. The City Attorney stated that this should be left for now and that he did not feel the Watershed would require the City to put up the surety once the situation was clarified. Mr. Olson stated that he has equipment on site and needs to start the pond. He wondered if this would hold up the permit. The City Attorney stated that the hold up was with the Watershed and could be resolved quickly, but that the developer could deposit the $1,000 in the meantime, if necessary. Ahrens moved and Brown seconded the following resolution: ~LUTION ~ RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT FOR STORM WATER PONDING ON CITY PROPERTY FOR THE GILLESPIE SENIOR CENTER The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 5-0. 468 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINIUTE$ - SEPTEMBER 26, 2000 1.10 6[LLESPIE SENIOR CENTER: DISCUSSION/ACTION ON SENIOR CENTER gEOUESTS. Council Member Ahrens referred to the Council briefing distributed by the City Manager and asked whether item 4 referencing the cost of burning the structures was a City contribution. The City Manager confirmed that it was. Council Member Ahrens stated that assuming the Senior Center requests tax free status, the City's portion would be approximately 17 percent. The City Attorney stated that under statute, the City has the authority to make the Center exempt for all other tax authorities including the county, state and school and in effect, would be contributing other people's money to the Senior Center. Council Member Ahrens pointed out that the other taxing authorities would not be losing money they already had; just not receiving new money. She further pointed out that the potential costs for snow removal at the Senior Center lot is $3,780. Council Member I-Ianus stated that the intention of the CBD program is help with parking in the downtown area. If the Senior request is approved, Council could expect to get more requests from others not in the core downtown area.. Council Member Weycker stated that she has spoken with the Senior Center and snow removal is their intention, not membership in the CBD. Council Member Ahrens asked whether a private snow plower would be eligible for a charitable contribution. The Mayor confn'med that it would be eligible with a receipt. Council Member Hanus pointed out that the City's finances are tight at this time. Council Member Ahrens suggested responding to the Seniors with a list of what the City is already contributing. Council Member Ahrens questioned whether the City Building Department could afford to lose the $10,000 in permit fees. The City Manger stated that the Finance Director has stated that this would be a substantial amount for that department to absorb. Council Member Weycker asked whether saying no to the presumed request for tax exemption was a possibility. The City Attorney stated that the Center can be a 501C3, but that does not include taxable property. Under new statutes, the City could say no to the property tax exemption. 469 MOUND CI'IT COUNCIL MINIU'IF~- 8EP'IF. MBER 26, 2000 Council Member Hanus stated that the opportunity to say no was when the final plat was approved. He further stated that the City Council did not want to say no to the request, and wanted to help the Senior Center. Council Member Ahrens asked whether the ongoing maintenance for the pond could be charged to other users in the future. The City Attorney confh'med that future users could be assessed the cost. Council Member Ahrens pointed out that the Senior Center has already benefited from not having to buy the land for the pond and not having to pay for the ongoing maintenance. The City Manager stated that the City cannot make dollar donations, but could do in-kind services. She felt it was important to point out where the City has partnered with the Senior Center in this project. She asked Staff who was designing the pond. The City Engineer stated the engineer for the Senior Center was doing the design work. The City Manager asked whether the reimbursement requested was for the creation of the pond. The City Attorney stated that it was felt the request referred to the construction portion of the cost and that the City Engineer has been unsuccessful to date in obtaining the costs for this. The City Manager asked whether there would be room to oversize the pond for future revenue. The City Engineer stated there would not be room and Council Member Weycker pointed out that the area may already be too tight for the trail. The City Planner pointed out that City land abuts this and could be used for the trail. Council Member Weycker stated that it is necessary to reconfirm the location of the trail as the buffer zones were 16 feet. Council Member Hanus stated that the City Manager should be instructed to write a letter to the Senior Center stating the City's position and outlining the current savings, including the potential tax savings. He further stated that he would like to accommodate the Senior Center's requests, but the money is not available. The Council agreed with Council Member Hanus' statement. The City Manager stated that she would also clarify that the City was funding the maintenance of the pond. Council Member Ahrens pointed out that the City had given the Senior Center the land for the pond. 470 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINIUTE$ - SEPTEMBER 26, 2000 1.11 DISCUSSION/ACTION ON STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR ORDINANCE REVISION REGARDING VEHICLES FOR SALE IN CITY-MAINTAINED PARKING LOTS. Council Member Brown moved the ordinance as recommended by Staff. The motion died for a loack of second. Council Member I-Ianus stated that he felt this ordinance was too far reaching. Council Member Ahrens stated that she felt there was a problem with the language involving the streets. Council Member Hanus stated that if this ordinance was adopted, it would need to be enforced and this would keep the police force very busy. Council Member Ahrens stated that the parking lot of Bayview Apartments was full of cars for sale. Council Member Hanus suggested making the ordinance apply to the downtown area only. Council Member Ahrens pointed out that a person taking the bus from downtown who was also selling their car, would cream confusion. Council Member Weycker suggested removing the words "any street." Council Member Hanus stated that all streets are public property. The City Attorney suggested modifying the ordinance to read "in downtown areas", taking out ~any street," and adding ", except streets." Council Member Hanus stated that if this was not a problem elsewhere, the ordinance should only apply to downtown. Council Member Ahrens felt that enforcement dollars should be spent downtown and would like to see this as part of a nuisance ordinance. Council Member Hanus asked what would constitute a car lot and wondered if the code stated 3 cars. The City Attorney stated this was more of an institutional violation and would be hard to prove. The City Manager stated that she had a discussion with the Police Chief who wanted to know if there was City Council support to clean up the neighborhoods. Council Member Ahrens stated this would allow one car to be for sale. The City Attorney pointed out that it could not be one car and one snowmobile. 471 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINIUTE~- SEPTEMBER 26, 2000 Council Member Ahrens stated that she did not want to see cars for sale downtown, but one in a yard was okay. She suggested adding "Staff will use reasonable common sense in enforcing" to the bottom of the ordinance. Council Member Hanus asked if removing "any street" would allow a single car in front of a house to be for sale. The City Attorney stating that removing that phrase would allow any number of cars to be in the street. Council Member Weycker wondered if a purpose or intent clause could be added. The City Attorney stated that the problem would be that the person enforcing the ordinance might not be clear on the intent. Council Member Brown suggested tabling this item and directing Staff to go back and work out the issues. The City Attorney stated that he felt the ordinance was clear as written. Weycker moved and Brown seconded the following resolution: ORDINANCE 112-2000 Discussion: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 700:30 OF THE CITY CODE BY ADDING ORDINANCE PROHIBITING THE DISPLAY OF VEHICLES AND CONTENTS FOR SALE AT CERTAIN LOCATIONS. The City Attorney pointed out that the words ~, except streets" should also be added to the third line of the ordinance. Amendment by Weycker to add the words ", except streets" to the third line of the ordinance. Brown accepted this amendment. Mayor Meisel called the question. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 5-0. 1.12 DISCUSSION/ACTION ON MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT REO~T FOR REPRESENTATION. The City Manager asked if there was any interest in volunteering for the position. Council Member Weycker asked whether this would be appropriate for a Staff member. Council Member Hanus stated he did not want Staff holding this position. MOTION, by Brown, seconded by Hanus, to take no action on this request. 472 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINIUTE$- SEPTEMBER 26, 2000 Discussion: Council Member Weycker stated that she disagreed and felt this would be an inside track on what was happening with the Watershed. Council Member Hanus stated that it did not sound to him like the volunteer would have much technical input. Mayor Meisel called the question. AYES: 4 NAY: I (Weycker) Motion carried. Tom Casey addressed the Council and stated that he felt people in the community could help with this and suggested advertising in the Laker. He felt that this could provide information and cooperative links between the Watershed and the City. Council Member Brown stated that he disagreed with this. The City Manager stated that the volunteer would need to give a report to Council after each meeting in order for there to be a benefit. Mayor Meisel pointed out that there are four meetings annually. 1.13 WORKSHOP: DISCUSSION ON GUIDELINES FOR AN ETHICS POLICY, The City Manager stated that ethics policies are common for cities in order to establish principles for a positive image of elected officials. Council Member Brown stated that he felt this should include all of the Commissions and Council Member Hanus stated that it should include all applicants also. The City Manager stated that in her prior positions, the auditors required this annually. Council Member Weycker asked whether this information would be available to the public. The City Attorney confirmed that it would be. Council Member Weycker asked the City Manager whether in her previous positions, the policy covered Commissions. The City Manager stated that it did not. Mayor Meisel pointed out that the policy requested the sources of income, but not the actual amount. Council Member Hanus questioned what income would be included citing examples of child support and alimony. The City Attorney pointed out that this was constructed using the statues and documents used by other cities. 473 MOUND CITY COUNCil., MINIUTE8 - SEP'IF, MBER 26, 2000 Council Member Hanus questioned why Disclosure A was open-ended. The City Attorney stated that it would be possible to have dealings with a business that was not located in the city. Council Member Hanus questioned why Disclosure B was 50%. The City Attorney stated this was meant to define a controlling interest. Council Member Hanus stated that this was wrong at any percent. Council Member Hanus stated that item 8A would not allow discussion of cases with citizens if 3 council members were present. The City Attorney stated that the language may need to be modified to read "as a group." He also stated that the Council Members really should not be discussing cases as this could cause a misperception on the part of the public. Council Member Hanus asked what the purpose of this ethics policy would be. The City Manager stated that it would put all the information in one place to use as a training piece for new members. Council Member Hanus stated that he did not believe this would stop allegations from being made. Council Member Weycker stated that she thought the policy would help. The City Attorney added that it would give the perception that ethics are important to the Council. Council Member Hanus stated that the guidelines would be picked apart and misinterpreted. Council Member Brown stated that he agrees with this. Council Member Hanus suggested a set of guidelines as a policy without disclosure. Mayor Meisel stated that she did not feel the disclosure was a big deal and Council Member Ahrens stated that she felt it was generic enough. Council Member Ahrens stated that she did not want this to become an ordinance and Council Members Brown and Hanus agreed with that. The City Attorney suggested finding language that could be agreed on and calling it a policy. Council Member Weycker pointed out that if this was not made an ordinance, the next City Council might not even see it. Council Member Ahrens stated that there was no guarantee that a new Council would read the ordinance. Council Member Hanus asked how honest mistakes in disclosure would be dealt with if this were made an ordinance. Council Member Weycker stated the intent of the disclosure was to bring the conflict to the council member's attention so that they could abstain from voting when necessary. Mayor Meisel stated that she had no problem with the disclosure and that the ethics should be left as guidelines. 474 MOUND CITY COUNCIl. MINIUTE$- SEPTEMBER Z6, 2000 MOTION, by Brown to accept the ethics policy as guidelines only anti not as an ordilumee. Discussion: Council Member Ahrens asked whether it would be policy to have the disclosure completed when a council member was elected. The City Attorney stated that the last section under the heading of "Hearing" would go away if this became a guideline. Council Member Brown withdrew his motion at this time. Council Member I-Ianus asked what "beneficial interest" in Disclosures E was referring to. The City Attorney stated this was the opportunity to receive income. MOTION, by Ahrens, seconded by Mayor Meisel for discussion, to adopt the policy and begin disclosure. Mayor Meisel suggested mending the Motion to include the Commk$ions and to direct the City Attorney draw up a disclosure form. Council Member Ahrens accepted this amendment. Discussion: Council Member Weycker stated that she felt this should be an ordinance in order to give it more impact. Council Member Hanus stated he was against this as he felt it needed more work. Council Member Ahrens pointed out if this was left as a policy it could be changed as needed. Mayor Meisel called the question. AYES: 2 NAYS: 3 (Hanus, Brown, Weycker) Motion failed. 2-3. MOTION, by Brown, seconded by Ahrens, to table this issue. AYES: 4 NAYS: 1 (Weycker) Motion carded. 4-1. 475 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINIUTE$- SEPTEMBER 26, 2000 1.14 INFORMATION/MLqCELLANEOUS A. Advisory Park and Open Space Commt~ion meeting minutes: Sept. 14 Council Member Weycker stated that the Park Commission would like to meet with the Council and discuss the working relationship between the two groups. Mayor Meisel asked Council for their interest level on this. Council Member Hanus confirmed that the last meeting between the two groups was last spring. The City Manager confirmed it was in April or May when the capital plan was discussed. Council Member Brown stated that he did not think it was beneficial to meet until after the election because the Council could change. Council Member Ahrens stated that the City normally has a holiday time get together, but because there was no City Manager last year, the get together was not held. She asked the City Manager whether she was the one who raised the issue of the appreciation night for this year. The City Manager stated that Commission members requested the appreciation night. Council Member Ahrens confirmed that this idea was brought to the City Council by the City Manager who felt that the lack of a party had been an oversight. Tom Casey addressed the Council and stated that the Park Commission was suggesting the meeting for the sake of good government. Council Member Brown stated that he had no problem with such a meeting, but felt it should be held after the Council was set. Mr. Casey stated that this was an emergency situation and this was a good time to get started. Council Member Ahrens stated that finding time for such a meeting would be difficult. Mr. Casey suggested the meeting take place at 6:30 on a Thursday Park Commission meeting night. B. C. D. E® LMCD Correspondence. Memo on Hennepin County Member At-Large Appointments. Notice of public hearing from Hennepin County Board of Commissioners. Letter from Metropolitan Council on appointment. 476 MOUND crrr F. Letter from Metropolitan Council on Town Hall Meetings. G. Letter from Hennepin County on Fair Housing. H. Communication from Westonka Healthy Community Collaborative. I. Financ~ll Reports through August 2000. J. Notice of new compost location. K. AMM Fax News. L. Notice of new web site address. M. Westonka Senior Center President's Message. N. Planning Comm[asion Minutes: September 11, 2000. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION by Brown, seconded by Ahrens to adjourn the meeting at 12:00 a.m. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 5-0. Kandis Hanson, City Manager Attest: 477 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINIUTE$- SEP'IF. MBER 26, 2000 THIS PAGE LEFF BLANK INTENTIONALLY. 478 / S'T'IIfl "IVZO,I, £NDOI~IV i600# # ItD~LV~I Sqql~ IN~IAIAVd