Loading...
2005-12-13 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES DECEMBER 13, 2005 The City Council for the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, November 8, 2005, at 8:00 p.m. in the council chambers of city hall. Members Present: Mayor Pat Meisel; Councilmembers Bob Brown, Mike Specht, John Beise and David Osmek. Others Present: City Attorney John Dean, City Manager Kandis Hanson, City Clerk Bonnie Ritter, Community Development Director Sarah Smith, City Planner Rita Trapp, Finance Director Gino Businaro, Marilyn Byrnes, Virginia Gardstrom, Robbie Flatten, Tom Casey, Randy & Marilyn Bell, Tom Owens, Tom Rockvam, Michelle Olson, Mark Smith, Dee Olson, Jim Funk, Greg Eurich, Ray Salazar, Mark Hanus, Andrea Ahrens, Keith Foerster, Dan Rogers. Consent Agenda: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine in nature by the Council and will be enacted by a roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion on these items unless a Councilmember or citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence. 1. Open Meeting Mayor Meisel called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. 2. Pledge of Alle4iance 3. Approve Agenda Kandis Hanson requested the removal of Item #8, False Alarm Ordinance, stating that it would appear on the January 10th agenda. Specht requested the removal of Items 4D, 4E, 4G, and 4H from the consent agenda for discussion, and Meisel requested the removal of item 4K. MOTION by Osmek, seconded by Brown to approve the agenda as amended above. All voted in favor. Motion carried. 4. Consent Agenda MOTION by Osmek, seconded by Beise to approve Items A, B, C, F, I, J. and L of the consent agenda. Upon roll call vote, all voted in favor. Motion carried. A. Approve minutes of December 5, 2005 special meeting B. Approve payment of claims in the amount of $823,812.45. C. Approve Payment Request No. 2 from Chicago Bridge and Iron in the amount of $244,689.82 for the Chateau Water Tower Project D. (removed) Mound City Council Minutes -December 13, 2005 E. (removed) F. Approve Hennepin County/City of Mound Lease Agreement for Election Equipment G. (removed) H. (removed) I. Cancel special meeting previously set for December 19, 2005, at 8:00 a.m. (for consideration of Lost Lake Dredge bids, which will now occur at the regular January 10, 2006 meeting) J. Approve Kodet Architectural Group, LTD, for preparation of Space Needs Study and Conceptual Plans for proposed new Public Works Maintenance Facility. K. (removed) L. RESOLUTION NO. 05-154: RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT FOR PRESERVATION OF CITY-OWNED REMNANT PARCEL IN LOST LAKE DISTRICT 4D. Award of Bid for Repainting of Island Park Standpipe Specht asked reason for bid being higher than the estimate, and Hanson reported that she would check into that for him, as this would be question for the City Engineer. MOTION by Osmek, seconded by Beise to award the bid for the Repainting of the Island Park Standpipe to Champion Coating, with a bid of $166,000. All voted in favor. "' Motion carried. 4E. Award bid for 2006 Retaining Wall Project Specht again questioned why the bids came in higher than the estimate and Hanson will get back to him after consulting the City Engineer. MOTION by Osmek, seconded by Beise to award the bid for the 2006 Retaining Wall Project to Rosti Construction, with a bid amount of $266,496.00. All voted in favor. Motion carried. 4G. Adopt Resolution Approving a Premises Permit Application by Mohawk Jaycees for Gambling at Dailey's Pub Specht requested the removal of this item from the consent agenda because he will abstain as he is a member of the Mohawk Jaycees. MOTION by Beise, seconded by Osmek to adopt the following resolution. The following voted in favor: Brown, Beise, Osmek and Meisel. The following voted against: None. Specht abstained from voting. Motion carried. RESOLUTION NO. 05-155: RESOLUTION APPROVING A PREMISES PERMIT APPLICATION FOR GAMBLING AT DAILEY'S PUB 2 Mound City Council Minutes -December 13, 2005 4H. Action on Ordinance Amending Section 380 of the City Code as it Relates to Establishment of Land Use Fees Specht questioned why the site plan review fee was reduced from $350 to $200. Sarah Smith explained that it was lowered based on the expense and time to perform the review. The fee is to cover costs, but not to make money. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Beise to pass the following ordinance. All voted in favor. Motion carried. ORDINANCE NO. 18-2005: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 380 OF THE MOUND CITY CODE AS IT RELATES TO ESTABLISHING LAND USE FEES FOR THE CITY OF MOUND 4K. Approve Cooperative Funding Agreement between the City of Mound/MHRD/MCWD for Innovative Stormwater Strategies in Downtown Mound Redevelopment Project Meisel stated that she would be abstaining from voting on this because of her ownership of property in the redevelopment district. MOTION by Osmek, seconded by Specht to approve the Funding Agreement Mound Harbor Renaissance Project Stormwater Best Management Practices. The following voted in favor: Brown, Specht, Beise and Osmek. The following voted against: None. Meisel abstained from voting. Motion carried. 5. Comments and suggestions from citizens present on any item not on the agenda. None were offered. 6. Approve Minutes of November 22, 2005 MOTION by Beise, seconded by Specht to approve the minutes of the November 22, 2005 meeting. The following voted in favor: Brown, Specht, Beise and Meisel. The following voted against: None. Osmek abstained from voting because he was absent from the subject meeting. Motion carried. 7. Planning Commission Recommendations A. Case #05-72 and 05-73 - Minor Subdivision/Variance - 2855 Cambridge Lane Rita Trapp of Hoisington Koegler reviewed the request for a minor subdivision and variance at 2855 Cambridge Lane. She stated that both the Planning Commission and City Staff are recommended denial of this request. Osmek asked if undersize lots are unusual in that neighborhood and Trapp informed him that there are others smaller than 6,000 sq. ft., but she has issues with creating another non-conforming lot. Brown stated that all of the neighboring lots were originally platted as small erlots, and making another non-conforming lot doesn't work. Meisel agreed that the undersize lot would conform to what is in the neighborhood, but doesn't believe that another non-conforming lot should be created. 3 Mound City Council Minutes -December 13, 2005 Tom Owens, attorney for the applicant Ben Milbrath, presented the council with examples of what he thought were similar situations where the applicant was granted minor subdivisions and variances. He stated that if his client isn't granted this variance, he will request that the watermain and road encroachment onto his property be removed. He believes that his client is requesting to make reasonable use of his property and is not changing the character of locality. Ginny Gardstrom, 2867 Cambridge Lane, presented a petition to the Council in opposition to the request for a subdivision and variance. She stated that it was signed twenty residents in the neighborhood who are all requesting that this application be denied. Tom Casey, 2854 Cambridge Lane, made reference to a memo he provided earlier, that stated his opposition to granting this request and reasons why which hw substantiated by referring to the City Code. He also referred to a Notice of Intervention which was included in the agenda packet, that he and Ginny Gardstrom filed on November 10tH MOTION by Brown, seconded by Osmek to adopt the following resolution. All voted in favor. Motion carried. ~. RESOLUTION NO. 05-156: A RESOLUTION DENYING A VARIANCE TO THE 6,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2855 CAMBRIDGE LANE. P&Z CASE #05-73. PID #24-117-24-42-0019. MOTION by Osmek, seconded by Specht to adopt the following resolution. All voted in favor. Motion carried. RESOLUTION NO. 05-157: A RESOLUTION DENYING A MINOR SUBDIVISION FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2855 CAMBRIDGE LANE. P&Z CASE #05-72. PID #24117-24-42-0019 B. Case No. 05-70 -Variance for Uaper stow addition - 2636 Wilshire Blvd. Sarah Smith reviewed the requested by Dr. Paul Olson fora 20 ft. variance to ad an upper story addition over a portion of an existing garage located at 2636 Wilshire Blvd. She stated that the Planning Commission recommended denial of the variance request by a 3-4 vote and City Staff recommends approval. Because of the differing recommendations aresolution has not been prepared in advance and will be brought back to the next meet as directed by Council. Osmek stated that the Planning Commission was looking for a hardship in this case and not the reasonableness. The addition doesn't expand the footprint and this addition seems a reasonable function at the requested location. MOTION by Osmek, seconded by Specht to direct staff to draft a resolution for 4 Mound City Council Minutes -December 13, 2005 consideration at the next meeting, granting approval of the variance request. All voted in favor. Motion carried. 8. (removed) 9. Action on Ordinance Amending Chapter 256 of the City Code as it Relates to the Docks and Commons Advisory Commission Meisel explained that the proposed merging of the Docks and Commons Commission with the Parks and Open Space Commission is due to a number of issues going on as far as asking for recommendations from the Docks Commission. The votes that are being case are not looking at the program as a whole, but are based on what type of dock holder the commissioners are. Osmek commented that he feels that the Docks Commission is a functioning body at this time and thinks that their configuration could be changed to add a person from the waiting list, to get some outside influence. He prefers at this point to give them some more direction and direct them on what to focus on and what is expected of them by the Council. He would like to work with them to iron out their differences. He suggested giving them an additional year with additional guidance. Brown also suggested sitting down with the commission and directing them to look at the program as a whole, and not at what benefits them as individuals. Beise stated that the combination of the commissions shouldn't be looked at as dissolving the Docks Commission. The Parks Commission will lose just as many members as the Docks Commission. There will be an equal amount from each commission so that they can learn from each other. As the liaison to the Parks Commission he feels the combination makes a lot of sense because they already cross paths in a lot of areas. Specht commented that he is the liaison to the Docks Commission and sees the biggest thing happening is the commission not coming to a collective group vote. There is a dwindling fund balance in the docks fund and they are having no success on how to resolve that. He has talked to City Staff and feels that now procedures are in place where bringing the commissions together will be better for the citizens of Mound and the people on the docks program. Osmek again stressed that he believes that getting rid of the Docks Commission instead of remedying the problem is not the way to do it. Putting the two together will dilute their focus. He feels they are focused now and very few docks problems haven't been resolved. He made a plea on their behalf to at least have some level of discussion with them to set goals and set communication lines to allow them to understand what the Council wants opposed to dissolving them. Meisel stated that she has made proposals to the Docks Commission that fell on deaf ears. If merged, the funds would always remain separate. She doesn't feel that goal setting and giving one more year will accomplish anything. When she took office there was a big fund balance because very little was being done to maintain our biggest asset. 5 Mound City Council Minutes -December 13, 2005 Dan Rogers, 4913 Island View Drive, approached the Council stating he is opposed to changing the current Docks Commission because the Commission affords a voice to the City Council. He agreed with Osmek that combining them would be dilution of the voice to the City. Disagreement between the docks commission and Council may be a healthy thing and serve as a checks and balances. Keith Foerster, 4645 Island View Drive, referred to an article that he read in The Laker that stated that the Dock Commission's views no longer aligned themselves with the views of the City Council and City Management. He was hoping that other residents would be concerned over that statement. He asked the Council to find a way to make the program the best for everyone in the City. By eliminating or silencing people that don't agree with their view is not the way to go. Democracy is not based on silencing critics, but to assure that everyone is heard. Meisel stated that she welcomes disagreement and what the newspaper article didn't say was that the Council looks for every commission to give recommendations, and the problem is the commission can't seem to make any recommendations because they are voting for self-interest. Kandis Hanson continued by there have been meetings with the Docks Commission imploring them to make recommendations and it simply hasn't happened. Due diligence has been done to try to get these recommendations. ~, Greg Eurich, 5585 Sherwood, stated he is a member of the Docks Commission and asked where this is all coming from. As far as self-interest, members look at the _ program as a whole and make improvements. Recommendations are coming from unanimous votes made up of abutters, non-abutters and multiple slip holders. They do have issues with budgeting, etc., but as far as self-interest goes he doesn't think most of them have self-interest. He encouraged the Council not to dissolve the Docks Commission at this time. Jim Funk, 2940 Oaklawn, stated he is on the Docks Commission and is opposed to combining with the Parks Commission. He presented some history, stating he was a member of the original task force and a lot of work went into forming the commission and to dissolve jerk-kneed would be a mistake. He agreed with Osmek that they should meet with the Council and get targeted direction. He stated that sometimes the vote is with self-interest, but not always the case. He feels the commission still has a purpose and with some contentious issues now and feels that the commission is needed now more than in previous years. Mark Smith, 4665 Island View Drive, supported what Osmek stated and encouraged him to be a liaison to the Docks Commission. He stated if someone wants to get rid of a commission, he probably shouldn't be serving on it. He asked where the members of the Parks Commission were to voice their opinion on this merger and Beise told him that he is their liaison member and carrying their approval. Smith also expressed concern over the dock and parks funds co-mingling and Meisel assured him that they would remain separate funds. Hanson also stated they are two distinguished budgets and won't merge. 6 Mound City Council Minutes -December 13, 2005 Mark Hanus, 4446 Denbigh, reviewed the history of the formation of the Docks Commission. Years ago when the Parks and Docks were one commission, there was a lot of anger and mistrust between the Council and Commission. There were many, many reasons for this, but it boils down to one main reason; docks are very close to people and a passionate issue. It involves a lot of dollars when one looks at the alternative of having a boat in a marina. Back then there was not one commissioner that was on the docks program and now people feel they have a commission that understands their problems, whether they're abutters or non-abutters. He feels that if it goes back to one body made up of people not in the program, the mistrust will brew and boil and it will go back to the days where it used to be. As far as self-serving, if it is or isn't is not for the Council to judge, but having served on the commission since inception until last year, it's not hard to lose sight of your focus. He urged the Council to really put some thought into merging the commissions because if it's an error it won't be easy to fix. He thinks there are ways of achieving the Council's goals without getting rid of the Docks Commission. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Osmek to continue the Docks Commission as is and work with them for a year to give them guidance, and to reevaluate the situation after a year. Osmek requested the liaison to the Docks Commission so he can work with them to resolve some of the issues. The following voted in favor: Brown and Osmek. The following voted against: Specht, Beise and Meisel. Motion failed. MOTION by Specht, seconded by Beise to pass the following ordinance. The following voted in favor: Specht, Beise and Meisel. The following voted against: Brown and Osmek. Motion carried. ORDINANCE NO. 19-2005: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 256 OF THE CITY CODE AS IT RELATES TO THE DOCKS AND COMMONS ADVISORY COMMISSION 10. Action on Ordinance Amending Chapter 255 of the City Code as it Relates to the Parks and Open Space Advisory Commission See discussion above. MOTION by Specht, seconded by Beise to pass the following ordinance. The following voted in favor: Specht, Beise and Meisel. The following voted against: Brown and Osmek. Motion carried. ORDINANCE NO. 20-2005: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 255 OF THE CITY CODE AS IT RELATES TO THE PARK AND OPEN SPACE ADVISORY COMMISSION. 7 Mound City Council Minutes -December 13, 2005 11. Adoat Resolution Establishing Fee Schedule MOTION by Brown, seconded by Beise to adopt the following resolution. All voted in favor. Motion carried. RESOLUTION N0.05-158: RESOLUTION ADOPTING FEE SCHEDULE 12. Adoat Resolution Aaarovinq the 2006 Final General Fund Budget, Setting the Levy and Aaaroving the Final Overall Budget for 2006. Kandis Hanson reviewed the budget process, followed by a presentation of the budget summary by Gino Businaro. MOTION by Beise, seconded by Specht to table this item until December 20, 2005, at 7:30 p.m. He feels the budget is the most important think that the Council does and if they can't come before the public with a unanimous vote they haven't worked hard enough to do this job. The following voted in favor? Specht, Beise and Meisel. The following voted against: Brown and Osmek. Motion carried. Osmek asked to add the budget discussion on as item 17A for this evening's agenda so a decision can be reached this evening. 13. Adoat Resolution Aaaroving Levy for the Housing and Redeveloament Authority for the Year 2006. MOTION by Specht to table action on this item until the General Fund Budget is determined. Specht then withdrew his motion. MOTION by Osmek, seconded by Brown to adopt the following resolution as amended, leaving the HRA levy at the same figure that it was in 2005. The following voted in favor: Brown, Specht, Beise and Osmek. The following voted against: Meisel. Motion carried. RESOLUTION NO. 05-159: RESOLUTION APPROVING A LEVY NOT TO EXCEED $136,124 FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEFRAYING THE COST OF OPERATION, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF MSA 469, OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF AND FOR THE CITY OF MOUND FOR THE YEAR 2006. 14. Action on Contract Proaosal with Law Enforcement Labor Services Local No. 35 -Police Sergeants MOTION by Osmek, seconded by Brown to approve the Contract Proposal with Law Enforcement Labor Services Local No. 35 effective January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2007. All voted in favor. Motion carried. 8 Mound City Council Minutes -December 13, 2005 15. Action on Proposed Signage for Andrews Sisters Trail Tom Rockvam presented the plan for signage for a portion of the Lost Lake Trail previously designated to be named the Andrews Sisters Trail. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Osmek to accept the plan as presented by Mr. Rockvam. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Mayor asked fora 10 minutes and the meeting resumed at 10:52 p.m. 16. Executive Session for discussion of attorney/client privilege information regardinct Michael & Judy Gardner vs. City of Mound John Dean explained that the City received a proposed settlement from the plaintiffs and will be going into executive session to discuss the agreement and receive recommend on what position the City should take with respect to the agreement. This is client/attorney privilege information and the Council will report back after this session. The Council returned from Executive Session at 11:14 p.m. 17. Consideratin/Action on Gardner vs. City of Mound Settlement John Dean explained that they just concluded the discussion on the proposed settlement agreement as outlined and he answered any questions that the Council had and gave the recommendation that the settlement agreement should be approved as presented. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Beise to accept the settlement agreement in the case of Gardner vs. the City of Mound as presented. All voted in favor. Motion carried. 18. Miscellaneous/Correspondence A. Questions and comments from Councilmembers: Brown asked to extend the Council meeting and take a 15 minute recess to allow Councilmembers to go home and get their budget material, return and discuss the budget for an additional hour. MOTION by Specht, seconded by Beise to reconsider Item 12. All voted in favor. Motion carried. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Osmek to recess for 15 minutes, at 11:21 p.m. to allow Councilmembers to go home and get their budget materials. All voted in favor. Motion carried. The meeting reconvened at 11:42 p.m. 9 12. (continued) Brown and Osmek distributed a list of proposed amendments to the budget and the Council discussed these items. MOTION by Specht, seconded by Brown at 12:47 a.m., to continue the meeting for 15 minutes. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Discussion continued on possible cuts from the budget. MOTION by Specht, seconded by Brown at 1:17 a.m. to continue the meeting for 15 more minutes. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Gino Businaro will plug in the revised figure for consideration. MOTION by Osmek, seconded by Brown to continue the meeting until 8:00 a.m. on Friday, December 16, 2005. All voted in favor. Motion carried. 18. B. Correspondence: Mediacom C. Reports: Harbor Wine & Spirits -November 2005 Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk Mayor Pat Meisel 10