Loading...
1998-05-26MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - MAY 26, 1998 The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, May 26, 1998, at 7:30 PM, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present were: Mayor Bob Polston, Councilmembers Andrea Ahrens, Mark Hanus, Liz Jensen, and Leah Weycker. Also in attendance were: City Manager Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Attorney John Dean, City Engineer John Cameron, Park Director Jim Fackler, Dan Parks with MRFA, City Clerk Fran Clark and the following interested citizens: Orr Fenstad, Frank Ahrens, Robert Holman, Tom & Amy Reese, Becky Glister, Vince Forystek, Mary Ellen Storlien, Cathy Bailey, Marie Johnson, Mike Wallis, Bob & Connie Schmidt, Barb Casey, Tom & Kathy Latchan, Becky Sheme, Greg Knutson, Shad Casey, Mark Dummer, Jim Schoening, Joan Evans, David Osmek, Kathy Meyer, Ron Motyka, Frank Mulvey, Matthew Phillippi, Jack Fallon, Delton Renspe, Bill & Dorothy Netka, Dennis Kohls, Robert & Margaret Hanson, Randy Johnson, Larry Cable, Jan DenBeste, John Edewaard, Robert Mitchell, Al & Elke Wigand, Jack Fallon, and Pam Amidon. The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. *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 Councilmember or Citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence. APPROVE AGENDA. At this time items can be added to the Agenda that are not listed and/or items can be removed from the Consent Agenda and voted upon after the Consent Agenda has been approved. Councilmember Jensen asked that the following 2 Planning & Zoning Cases be removed from the Consent Agenda: Case//98-20 and//98-12. Councilmember Hanus asked that the following 2 Planning & Zoning Cases be removed from the Consent Agenda: Case//98-24 and g98-12. *CONSENT AGENDA MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Weycker to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. A roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. *1.0 APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MAY 12, 1998, REGULAR MEETING. MOTION Hanus, Weycker, unanimously. *1.1 APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MAY 19, 1998, COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING. MOTION Hanus, Weycker, unanimously. 239 '1.2 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 26, 1998 CASE # 98-19; VARIANCE, FRONT YARD SETBACK, SIDE YARD SETBACK, DELTON & EVELYN RENSPE. 3003 BLUFFS LANE. LOT 1. BLOCK 1. THE BLUFFS. PID # 22-117-24 44 0001, RESOLUTION g98-55 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A FRONT YARD AND SIDE YARD VARIANCES IN ORDER TO ALLOW FOR REPLACING THE EXISTING DECK, AT 3003 BLUFFS LANE, LOT 1, BLOCK 1, THE BLUFFS, PID 22-117-24 44 0001, P & Z CASE//98-19 Hanus, Weycker, unanimously. '1.3 CASE # 98-21: VARIANCE. FRONT yARD SETBACK, ALLAN C WIGAND, 4754 HAMPTQN RQAD, LOTS 28-29-30, BLOCK 10, PEMBROKE, PID # 19-117-2~ 93 0106. RESOLUTION g98-56 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A FRONT YARD VARIANCE IN ORDER TO ALLOW FOR A NONCONFORMING ADDITION TO THE EXISTING NONCONFORMING DETACHED GARAGE, AT 4754 HAMPTON ROAD, LOTS 28-29-30, BLOCK 10, PEMBROKE, PID 19-117-23 33 0106, P & Z CASE //98-21 Hanus, Weycker, unanimously. '1.4 CASE g98-25: VARIANCE, SIDE YARD SETBACK, MICHAEL & KATHY MEYER, 1748 BAYWOOD SHORES DRIVE, LOT 5, BLOCK 6, REPLAY OF HARRISON SHORES, PID # 13-11%24 24 0016, RESOLUTION $98-57 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SIDE YARD AND LOT FRONTAGE VARIANCES IN ORDER TO ALLOW FOR MODIFICATIONS TO A CONFORMING DECK, AT 1748 BAYWOOD SHORES DRIVE, LOT 5, BLOCK 6, REPLAY OF HARRISON SHORES, PID 13-11%24 24 0016, P & Z CASE//98-25 Hanus, Weycker, unanimously. 240 *1.5 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 26, 1998 CASE # 98-29; VARIANCE EXTEN$IQN: FROM CASE 9%15, MARK MULVEY~ ~900 CHESTNUT ROAD, LOT 24, KOEHLER'S 2'~ ADDN TO MOUND, PID# 14- 117-24 43 0006. RESOLUTION g98-58 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A ONE (1) YEAR EXTENSION OF A VARIANCE ORIGINALLY APPROVED BY RESOLUTION g97-37 FOR 5900 CHESTNUT ROAD, LOT 24, KOEHLER'S 2'~' ADDITION TO MOUND, PID# 14-11%24 43 0006, P & Z CASE//98-29 & 9%15 Hanus, Weycker, unanimously. '1.9 RESOLUTION 98 - RESOLUTION REAFFIRMING AUTHORIZING CITY SPONSORSHIP OF STATE GRANT-IN-AID SNOWMOBILE TRAIL FUNDS. RESOLUTION #98-59 RESOLUTION REAFFIRMING AUTHORIZING CITY SPONSORSHIP OF STATE GRANT-IN-AID SNOWMOBILE TRAIL FUNDS Hanus, Weycker, unanimously. *1.10 PAYMENT OF BILLS. MOTION Hanus, Weycker, unanimously. *1.11 CASE # 98-20: VARIANCE, LAKESIDE & SIDE YARD SETBACK, HARDCOVER, ORVAL FENSTAD, 4366 WlLSHIRE BLVD, LOT 82, PHELPS ISLAND PARK 1sr DIVISION, PID # 19-11%23 13 0015. Councilmember Jensen was questioned the size of the deck because of a discrepancy between the proposed resolution and the request. She also thought there may be an overage on the hardcover. She felt the resolution did not clearly state what is being authorized. Councilmember Hanus stated that he believes the new deck is permeable so it would not affect the hardcover. The Building Official agreed. After discussion, the following revisions to the proposed resolution were considered: 4th Whereas to read as follows: WHEREAS, the proposed deck will be 8 feet in width and will be 41 feet from the Ordinary High water requiring a 9 foot lakeside setback variance: and #1 under NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED is to read as follows: 241 Jensen moved and Ahrens seconded RESOLUTION #98-60 The vote was unanimously in favor. MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- MAY 26, 1998 The City does hereby grant a 9 foot lakeside setback variance and recognizes a 418 square foot hardcover variance, as recommended by the Planning Commission. the following resolution with the corrections above: RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A LAKESIDE SETBACK VARIANCE IN ORDER TO ALLOW FOR A NONCONFORMING DECK, AT 4366 WILSHIRE BLVD, LOT 82, PHELPS ISLAND PARK Ia. DIVISION, PID 19-11%23 13 0015, P & Z CASE//98-20 Motion carried. · 1.12 CASE # 98-24: VARIANCE. SIDE YARD SETBACK. THOMAS REESE. 5641 BARTLETT BLVD. P/SECTION 23. PID # 23-11%24 14 0003. Councilmember Hanus stated that the only issue he has on this item is as was discussed at the Planning Commission that this lot has four accesssory structures and this size lot is only allowed three. He stated this is an additional variance that is not reflected in the proposed resolution. Councilmember Hanus proposed the following changes in the proposed resolution: Add the following WHEREAS, WHEREAS, there are four existing accessory structures and Mound City Code allows 3 accessory structures for this size lot; and Change #1 under NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED to read as follows: The City does hereby recognize a .8 foot side yard, a 38 foot lakeside setback variance, and recognizes four accessory structures as recommended by the Planning Commission. Hanus moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution as amended above: RESOLUTION//98-61 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SIDE YARD AND LAKESIDE SETBACK VARIANCES IN ORDER TO ALLOW FOR A CONFORMING DECK, AT 5641 BARTLETT BLVD., P/SECTION 23, PID 23-11%24 14 0003, P & Z CASE//98-24 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. '1.13 CASE # 98-12; VARIANCE, FRONT YARD SETBACK, SIDE YARD SETBACK, REAR YARD SETBACK, MATT PHILLIPPI, 4519 MANCHESTER ROAD, LOT 22 AND PART OF LOTS 1,2,3, & 5, BLOCK 14, AVALON, PID # 19-117-23 31 0059. Councilmember Hanus stated this is a recommendation for denial and there is no proposed resolution. 242 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 26, 1998 The Building Official explained the request is to recognize a number of variances. The applicant has proposed 4 different options: 1. Building new roof structure to replace/repair the existing. The pitch, overhang and configurations would be changed to allow adequate venting, insulation and protection for' the existing stair. 2. Same as #1 except that the roof would be framed to allow a loft bedroom. 3. Build addition to allow a stairway to be built from the garage to the main floor. 4. Same as #3 except that the roof would be framed to allow a loft bedroom. The Planning Commission recommended denial based on no practical difficulty and no hardship. The Council discussed the fact that this structure does not meet the minimum square footage of 800 square feet for a dwelling. The Building Official reviewed the resolution from 1991, (Resolution #91-135). Councilmember Jensen stated she remembered this resolution and the discussion and it was passed reluctantly by the Council at that time. It was their opinion that this structure should have been removed at that time, but the Council could not take good information into a court case at that time. The Building Official reviewed pan of the Planning report from 1991, which read as follows "The nonconforming use provisions of the Zoning Code allow improvement of a structure that required improvements do not exceed 50% of the fair market value ............ "Further, "Despite the poor condition of the structure and the added hinderance of the poor site distance when exiting onto the street from the attached garage, the value of the improvements has been shown to be within the tolerances established in the Mound Zoning Code." The Building Official stated the structure is only 1 foot from the street. The Council discussed why this property was given a variance in 1991. The City Attorney advised that when that variance was given, this is what the applicant was asking for, which was asking that an existing structure be allowed to exist as it was. Now he is asking to expand that structure. Matthew Phillippi, stated he is just proposing to extend his soffits to protect the stairwell. The City Attorney stated that if the Council desires, it can adopt a resolution of denial tonight, based upon the action of the Planning Commission as reflected in the Planning Commission Minutes of May 11, 1998, and adopting those Minutes as pan of the f'mdings. Hanus moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution directing staff to prepare a resolution of denial adopting the findings as stated in the Planning Commission Minutes of May 11, 1998: RESOLUTION #98-62 RESOLUTION TO DENY THE REQUEST IN P & Z CASE g98-12, REQUESTING AN EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING USE AT 4519 MANCHESTER ROAD, LOT 22 AND PART OF LOTS 1, 2,3, & 5, BLOCK 14, AVALON, PID #19-117-23 31 0059. The vote was four in favor with Mayor Polston abstaining. Motion carried. 243 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- MAY 26, 1998 The Mayor stated he abstained from voting because of the time line, (the date this variance application was received was February 20, 1998). COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT. There were none. 1.14 ADD-ON ITEM - PUBLIC GATHERING PERMIT The City Manager explained that the Silverado Bass Tournament is asking to use Mound Bay Park for a Weigh-In only on Saturday, May 30, 1998. They had arrangements for this at an establishment in Excelsior but were told this week that this would not work out. They have all their permits and are requesting the use of Mound Bay Park for the Weigh-In. MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Jensen to approve a Public Gathering Permit for the Silverado Bass Tournament Weigh-In mdy at Mound Bay Park, Saturday, May 30, 1998. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.15 PUBLIC HEARING: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER VI OF THE CITY CODE, BY ADDING SECTION 650 RELATING TO STORM SEWER SYSTEM AND TO IMPOSE JUST AND REASONABLE CHARGES FOR THE USE AND AVAILABILITY OF STORM SEWER FACILITIES. The City Manager explained that the Council has been discussing the creation of a storm water utility for about a year. The purpose of this utility will provide the City with a fair method of financing needed operations and maintenance to the overall drainage system in the City. The utility would also provide funding for improvements such as the possible acquisition of property for regional storm water ponds and/or the maintenance of such ponding areas. Federal and State laws are mandating that we put together a stormwater management plan. This is an expensive study, analyzing what the City does with its stormwater, where the runoff goes, whether there are retention ponds for the stormwater, and calculating the amount of flow into the Lake. He then introduced, John Cameron, City Engineer, and Dan Parks, also with MFRA to add comments and answer questions on this. The City Manager stated that if the Mound Visions program is implemented in the downtown area, there are requirements that have to be met relating to ponding to handle the downtown area's drainage system. Specifically the City will be required to have regional ponds in its downtown area to handle drainage of the redeveloped area as well as account for other drainage issues in the community. Costs associated with the redevelopment of the downtown under Mound Visions would certainly be eligible for payment out of a storm water utility fund. Other costs, such as street sweeping, which are now paid for out of the General Fund, could be paid for out of the storm water utility fund. The City Manager stated there is a proposed ordinance which would create a storm water utility. The fees to be charged would be established later after the City has had the opportunity to study the issues in more detail. He further stated that many cities have established rates based on acreage. Many of the cities surveyed charge residential users $1.00 to $3.00 per month. It is 244 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 26, 1998 likely that residential customers in Mound will pay between $1.00 and $3.00 per month. Dan Parks, MRFA, stated he is here to answer any questions about what other cities are doing with their storm water utility funds. It is a program that can be used for maintenance of existing storm sewers, cleaning out existing storm water ponds, or small construction projects that are hard to assess and show benefit. City Engineer, John Cameron, stated that the Street Department has several locations in the City of Mound where improvements are needed in the storm sewer system, and without budgeting specifically for those, they do not have the money to do those improvements. The Mayor explained that there are many Federal and State regulations which deal with storm water and storm water management. We are mandated by the State to come up with a Stormwater Management Plan and to implement that plan as part of our Comprehensive Plan review. The Council has chosen to use this stormwater utility, rather than using the General tax base to generate the money needed to carry out these functions. The Mayor opened the public hearing. The following persons spoke: Joan Evans, 2571 Lakewood Lane - Asked if the County would be contributing to this fund for the water that comes off of the County Roads? Dan Parks, MRFA, stated that typically the County does not contribute to storm water utility programs. They may participate in specific projects in which they receive benefit. Ms. Evans then asked if there would be a difference in rates between commercial and residential? The City Manager stated there would be 7 classifications and rates and charges for the use and availability of the system would be determined through the use of a ("Residential Equivalent Factor") REF. The classifications would be as follows: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Cemeteries Parks and Railroads Two-family Residential Single-family Residential Public and Private Schools and Institutional Use Multiple-family Residential and Churches Commercial, Industrial and Warehouse Uses Ms. Evans asked what acreage is being considered for single-family residential? The City Engineer stated the proposed ordinance is at .5 acre. He further stated that any new development is required to do some ponding or pay fees, but the Watershed District handles this. Mike Wallis, 4977 Brunswick Road - Asked if this would be something we would have to do if the downtown was not being rehabilitated? The Mayor answered, yes, we still need to comply with the mandates and do a stormwater management plan. Dan Parks, MRFA, stated that the Watershed District approved their plan in January 1997 and we have two years from that date to adopt a local plan that generally consists of the watershed's plan as well as other statutes and requirements of the State. 245 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 26, 1998 The City Manager explained that rates have not been decided, but as he stated before $1.00 to $3.00 per month is typical for what cities our size would charge a residential customer. We will know better once we have a stormwater, management plan and determine the actual flows that are expected. Jack Fallon, 5862 Bartlett Blvd. - objected to being taxed further and suggested unineorporating the city so that Federal and State mandates would not have to be followed. He stated he practices sovereignty in the State of Minnesota. He stated he is not taxed by the State of Minnesota or the Federal Government. Pam Amidon, 1909 Lakeside Lane - Stated she would like to see a copy of the proposed stormwater utility ordinance. She will be provided a copy. Vince Forystek, 3131 Inverness Lane - Asked if he could have the state and federal rules and regulations that mandate this? The Mayor stated all these are available through the State of Minnesota. Mr. Forystek then asked if there will be a plan before the rates are set? The Mayor explained that the ordinance sets up Stormwater Utility so that we can proceed to put the plan together. This is not an overnight process. Mr. Forystek then asked what the plan will cost? Robert ltolman, 4851 Pheasant Circle - Asked what other communities about the same size have paid for a plan? Dan Parks, MRFA, stated there is a fairly wide range of fees for preparing a stormwater management plan according to State rules. He stated he has seen plans prepared for $50,000 and as high as $200,000. The City of Minnetrista is paying between $50,000 and $60,000 for preparation of a stormwater management plan. The City Manager stated that this utility is not a one time charge, it's an ongoing charge that will cover the costs associated with managing stormwater beyond the plan. Mr. Holman, asked if there is a particular reason why this money has to come from a particular tax as opposed to coming through the General Fund? The City Attorney explained that one of the reasons that cities have the ability under state law to have this kind of a charge is because cities were encountering difficulties in funding necessary activities through other methods. The typical method is special assessments. Normally the people at the top of the hill benefit greatly from a stormwater system, but they don't benefit any, in the sense, that they can be specially assessed for it. It's the people at the bottom of the flood area that every time it rains benefit from the system, but they are a small portion of the people who can pay. As a result, special assessments have never worked well for this sort of thing. Ad valorem taxes are not very equitable in terms of this type of thing because they are based upon the value of the property, not upon the contribution that a property may make to stormwater problems so the Legislature, a number of years ago gave cities the authority to impose charges based upon contribution to the problem rather than other traditional methods of funding these kinds of activities. Many cities have found that this is an appropriate, fair and equitable way to do it. We are talking about a way of funding costs that are out there anyway, not to create new costs and a new mechanism to fund them. The Attorney stated that the mechanism that is being proposed will probably impose a greater fee on certain commercial and industrial users because they generate a lot more water runoff because of parking lots and other impervious surfaces. They are also the ones that have the highest value for tax purposes, but that is not the focus. It is the impervious surface that is the focus. 246 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 26, 1998 Mark Johnson, 1582 Bluebird Lane - asked if after this stormwater system is built and the expenditures are paid for, and the cost of maintaining the system goes down, would the tax go down too? The Mayor stated that the vast majority of the infrastructure, the stormwater system, is in place akeady. The reason for the stormwater management plan, as indicated, is because the State and the'watershed district (MCWD) have mandated that we come up with a stormwater management plan. The reason for the utility is to spread the cost of maintaining that system and future expansions somehow driven by usage rather than jugt property taxes, which is what the City is using today in order to maintain the stormwater system that is in place. Dan Parks, MRFA, stated that the City is not looking at developing a large public works project. The funds raised from this stormwater utility will be used for maintenance and cleanup of existing facilities. Vince Forystek, 3131 Inverness Lane, stated he would like to see a plan that says it will cost so much, and then it's done. He stated it looks to him like a tax so that we can build some ponds in a City project so that it can ultimately go into a fund for dredging the canal that the City can't pay for. Dave Osmek, 2160 Basswood, asked about whether these ponds were part of the downtown redevelopment plan when it was approved? The City Manager stated that the redevelopment of downtown has been in the process for 8 years. Since that time, the Feds and the State have mandated that we have a stormwater management plan and require us to do these retention ponds when we have major projects like this. They are on the concept drawing now, but the estimate on what the relocation of County Road 15 is going to cost is still in the future because it's not eligible for construction until at least the year 2000 and it may be later. So the City of Mound will be forced to acquire right- of-way for building the highway. The County will participate, but they do not pay the costs for acquiring the right-of-way to build the road as well as these ponds which have to be built as part of the project, to handle the stormwater that will be involved in the redevelopment of downtown. There is not a firm construction cost on the relocation of County Road 15. Vince Forystek, 3131 Inverness Lane, complained about all the taxes, school district, city, etc. He then asked if the City has a huge reserve fund. The City Manager stated that the General Fund Balance is enough to carry the City through the time before it receives the tax settlements from the County. The Mayor stated this stormwater management plan would have to be done even if we weren't contemplating the redevelopment of downtown. The downtown development is not driving the stormwater management plan. This has been mandated by the State and the watershed district. The stormwater utility is an effort by the City Council to spread the costs more evenly. This is not an effort to expand the stormwater system or to put infrastructure in place. Dave Osmek, 2160 Basswood, asked what would happen to the money already budgeted for maintaining storm sewers in the regular budget? The Mayor stated he would like to see this money go toward the development of a stormwater management plan. The Council agreed. Mr. Osmek then asked if the user fee generated from this utility fund would be dedicated to maintain the stormwater system? The City Attorney stated, yes. The City Attorney stated that the ordinance authorizes the City to have a stormwater utility. Then, in the future, the Council would set the rates by resolution. The Council 247 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 26, 1~)8 will, at that time, look at the detail of the cost analysis and will have better figures for the sources and uses of the money that will be generated. Randy Johnson, 2602 Tyrone, asked if there was an option to sell bonds for this? The City Attorney, stated this is not an option. The City Attorney stated you are better off if you accumulate a fund and don't have to sell bonds because that way the fund is growing because of interest you are earning, rather than having to go borrow money and pay a bank or bond holders interest after having sold the bonds, plus, pay the very considerable cost of selling bonds. Becky Glister, 5008 Wren Road, asked what the penalties would be if the City does not adopt a stormwater management plan? Dan Parks, MRFA, explained that the Met Council is requiring the stormwater management plan be completed as part of the Comprehensive Plan Update. He further explained that the Met Council can affect how the City deals with sewers or sewer extensions, in terms of permitting or not permitting these things to happen. Councilmember Jensen stated this is a question that the Council also asked. Jon Edewaard, 5125 Hanover Road, asked if there are any more approvals needed relating to the Lost Lake Canal Project? He asked if those approvals are contingent upon adopting the stormwater management plan and this utility? The Mayor stated, no, not that he is aware of. Mr. Edewaard stated that he thinks the dredge of LoSt Lake and the Lost Lake project is contingent upon the Council adopting the stormwater utility. The Council stated that is not true. The City Manager stated that the City did a Comprehensive Plan Update in 1990 and is working on another update now, that is scheduled for completion the fn'st part of 1999 and the Stormwater Management Plan is going to be part of the Comprehensive Plan Update. He further stated that the permits have been granted by the agencies that needed to grant them for the dredge. Permits have been issued from the Army Corps of Engineers, the Watershed District (MCWD), the LMCD, and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and none of them was contingent upon Mound adopting this stormwater management utility. The City Attorney asked if Mr. Edewaard was referring to a couple of years ago when the watershed district was thinking of requiring the City to enter into a regional ponding or cooperative ponding agreement with them before they would give the final permissions for the downtown? The City Attorney stated that the watershed district, however, relented on that and allowed this project, as well as others to go ahead without the need for that agreement. The Council explained that the Stormwater Management Plan would have to be adopted regardless of what is going on downtown. The idea of a Stormwater Utility is to pay for that plan. The City Attorney stated that he would like to respond to the question of what if the City does nothing? The Council stated they, too, would like to know. The Mayor closed the public hearing. 248 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 26, 1998 MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Ahrens to continue this public h rinl to June 9, 1998, and directed the Staff to find out what will happen ff the City does not adopt a Stormwater Management Plan. The Council discussed the fact that the answers to adopting a Stormwater Management Plan affect whether we need to implement the Stormwater Utility Ordinance. That means both the Plan and the Utility Fund ordinance will be continued until June 9, 1998. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.16 REPORT FROM STAFF REGARDING FACTS ASSOCIATED WITH DOCK#42129 {BARB CASEY). The City Attorney stated that Councilmember Ahrens has asked him to inform the City Council that she has voluntarily decided to absent herself from the Council table at this point and will not participate in these discussions. The City Manager explained that at the last meeting the Council directed that the Staff prepare a fact f'mding report indicating what the safety issues were in the Roanoke Access area, specifically the Casey dock that is located in the front of the Ahrens property on Commons. The Park Director prepared the report that is in the packet. The Mayor commented that in this report there are a number of items which can or could be done, in the Staff.s opinion, that would eliminate or alleviate a safety situation. The report is not specific and lists a number of items. He stated that as far as he is concerned, the Staff has the authority to implement whatever they need to do to assure the health, safety and welfare of the people who are using that Commons and docks. The Casey dock is installed. The Mayor asked if there were any questions or comments by the Council. Councilmember Hanus asked for clarification on the following that was in the report because if wasn't very specific: Hanus asked Mr. Fackler, "If you picture yourself walking down the access and then down the shoreline to access this general area, this dock site's water space, either east end or west end, where are you walking? Are you walking on the hillside, on top of the rip-rap, or where?" Mr. Fackler responded, "In this area when you start out you are down by the rip-rap, and as you get in front of the abutting home (Gabos), you begin going up a little bit of an incline and at that point is about the point where this dock site location would begin. It is about a 40 foot site. So as you start going toward the center of the dock location, you are going up hill. By the time you get to about the middle of the dock location, that's where you start going back downhill. You are up from the shoreline about 4 feet from the rip-rap, and then once you get over the middle of the dock location, there is a slight hill which does not have any ground cover on it at this time. It is the area that is adjacent to the retaining wall." Councilmember Hanus stated that he has a picture of the top of that rip-rap and he asked, if Mr. Fackler would show him where he was talking about walking. 249 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- MAY 26, 1998 He asked why he would not walk on top of the rip-rap where it is fiat." Mr. Fackler responded, "You could walk on the first few feet of rip-rap, but after that you would be walking one foot on the hill and one foot on the rip-rap and also one of the things that he looked at when he looked at it was that would be at the far westerly end of the dock location which would then begin to upset the next abutting dock location. It would be to the far end of their allotted 40 feet." Councilmember Hanus stated, "I walked that today, and if you want to walk on the hillside, as you're describing you can, but first of all the hillside doesn't show any evidence that people are doing that because it is pretty lush grass there, but use does show on the top of the tip-rap. It's fiat. I walked very easily next to the rip-rap up to the large tree. I can't get beyond, why someone would walk on the hillside when they have a fiat area to walk on." He stated he did not understand that. It has been talked about several times, but no one seems to address this." Mr. Fackler stated that when he looks at an area, he does not look at rip-rap when it is installed as making an area traversable. He stated he stays on the grass area when he walks it. He suggested asking the people who utilize the area. He stated that he agrees that when you begin the 40 feet it is traversable on the grass, but then it narrows down and you would have two different footings. He stated that putting the rip-rap there was not to make it traversable, it was to save the shoreline. Mr. Fackler pointed out that one of the things that is done when a site is assigned, they ask the person to go down and visit the site. He is very specific as to where it is and how the access point goes and where the boundary lines are. Then the person comes back and says whether it is acceptable or unacceptable. Councilmember Hanus stated that it is pretty obvious, when you look at the current site, that in order to gain access there has been some pretty large trimming going on. He stated he did not know if they were done some time ago, but some trees have been cut down and some large branches cut off to gain access, which would probably have to take place to get reasonable access to that site. He asked if Mr. Fackler, is endorsing trimming in order to gain access, even if there are alternatives. Mr. Fackler stated that this individual has been at this dock site for over ten years and Staff has never had a request from them asking about trimming. If there is a request, it has to go through a Public Lands Permit procedure. Mr. Fackler stated Staff does not just go out and approve these. Councilmember Hanus stated that this has already taken place and will in the future continue to take place whether by permit or not by permit. It's so far taken place without a permit. It will probably continue in order to use that dock site. Mr. Fackler stated that he believes there is an application for a Public I_ands Permit to do trimming within that area. That will be coming forth. Councilmember Hanus asked Mr. Fackler if there is a policy that a dock holder can move anywhere within their water space that they please. Mr. Fackler stated that this is not tree. The policy is that there is discretionary ability of the Dock 250 MOUND CITY COUNC1L MINUTES - MAY 26, 1998 Inspector to determine where the best access is within an are% based on either the individual asking to move within that area due to a new boat or a new dock design. We do say no if it will not fit in an area. The City does not just go in and indiscriminately move people around. All sites are inspected about 4 times a year. The City relies on the individuals to notify us if there is a problem that occurs somewhere in between. Generally requests come from the individual. Couneilmember Hanus pointed out that even though this particular site holder has been there for approximately 10 years, the area has changed substantially in the last three years. Councilmember Weycker stated she feels Councilmember Hanus is assuming that people aren't going to traverse past that part, but there are at least 2 more dock sites that have been previously issued beyond that site. Councilmember Hanus stated he is only talking about the Casey site not the other two sites. Councilmember Weycker stated that she also took pictures and the hill that Councilmember Hanus is talking about is only about 1 foot high. Councilmember Hanus stated that the hill he is talking about is if you are standing along the top of the rip-rap, it is about waist high. Barb Casey, 4704 Island View Drive, stated she is the one who traverses this area to her dock and there is not a lot of traffic to her dock. Councilmember Hanus asked Ms. Casey where she walks to get to her dock. Ms. Casey responded that she walks on the rip-rap for awhile and then in the middle of the hillside then up and around the tree and down to her dock. Ms. Casey suggested that 3 of the 6 trees be removed. She stated she would be willing to sod-the area and stake it or a step could be put in there and then there would be access to the docks that are further down from hers and public property would remain public property. She further stated she is getting a cost estimate on this. The Mayor stated he objects to a step because it is placing another obstacle in the area. Councilmember Hanus stated that if a step or steps are put in, there needs to be Public Land Permit. Ms. Casey stated she is aware of this. Ms. Casey asked about the availability of the docks beyond hers. The Mayor stated this is not an Agenda item for this meeting. The Mayor stated that the City Staff has the authority to make a determination as to what needs to be done in order to satisfy any safety concerns that are there. Councilmember Ahrens returned to the Council table. Gene Smith, 4705 Island View Drive, asked when the two dock sites beyond Ms. Casey's were eliminated? Councilmember Ahrens, called for a point of order. The Mayor stated this item is not on the Agenda and will not be discussed this evening. The City Attorney stated he thinks those questions can be answered by contacting the City Manager during regular business hours. 251 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 215, 1998 1.17 1997 ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT - STEVE MCDONALD~ ABDO~ ABDO~ EICK & MEYERS, Finance Director, Gino Businaro, introduced Steve McDonald from Abdo, Abdo, Eick & Meyers, who reviewed the management letter and the 1997 annual audit report with the Council. Ahrens moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #98-63 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING AND APPROVING THE AUDIT AND FINANCIAL REPORT FOR 1997 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.18 CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE RENEWAL. The City Manager explained that this presentation is to review the Franchise renewal that is being proposed by Triax Cablevision and the City of Mound. The current 15 year franchise expires this year. He introduced Brian Grogan, an attorney with Moss & Barnett, who is an expert in cable TV law regulation. The other cities involved are Wayzata, Waconia and Chanhassen. We have been developing a franchise renewal. What the Council has before them tonight is a Franchise Agreement and a Regulatory Ordinance Agreement. Mr. Grogan reviewed the documents with the Council. The Regulatory Ordinance is intended to become a part of the City's Code and that would govern the operations of any new cable television operator who tries to do business in the City of Mound. We want to create a level playing field for these companies. Right now there is only Triax, but we are seeing around the state there is more and more competition and over the length of a franchise, we hope the competition will come to the City, but we don't want to give any one company an unfair competitive advantage over another. So we have an ordinance that governs the standard operating principles the same. Things such as technical standards, customer service, insurance, indemnification and standard operating requirements. The City Manager has emphasized the importance of customer service, given the recent history here in Mound and in problems relating to the system. They feel the customer service standards contained in the proposed ordinance are very strong and very aggressive and put the City in a much better position than the existing document. The Franchise Agreement being proposed is essentially a contract that would be executed between the City and Triax and it would govern the unique relationship between the City and Triax. In particular it addresses things like the system upgrade. That was the next biggest issue to insure that the system gets improved as quickly as possible and to a state of the art improvement. What these documents require is that Triax will rebuild the system in Mound to a 750 megahertz level. There are only a group of communities on the eastern side of the Twin Cities that have a 750 megahertz system right now so Mound would be among the next wave of communities that would have this state of the art cable television system. It would improve chaunel capacity, improve reliability, and would improve the signal quality for the subscribers. This will also have a corresponding impact on the customer service issues. Also included in the Franchise Agreement are provisions to adjust local programming and support for that programming, like equipment. Mr. Grogan explained that the reason that we consider renewal with Triax instead of going out for bid is because the Federal Law doesn't work that way in regard to franchise renewal. It is not the same as when the original franchise was issued in 1983. Under Federal Law today, we are required to go through an actual process and the only way you can deny a cable operator the right to renewal is if they have failed to comply with the franchise or if they are otherwise not qualified. 252 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 26, 1998 This is very rare that an operator doesn't get renewal. The Cities have tried to cut the best deal as possible with Triax and get a new system as soon as possible and improve customer service and then bring it to the Council for consideration. Mr. Grogan stated that this is what has been negotiated with Triax and is being presented this evening. There are a few typos and minor changes that need to be made. He stated he would like to make those changes and bring a clean copy at a future meeting noting the changes. He is looking for conceptual approval with final approval at a later date. The following persons spoke about problems they have had with Triax Cablevision: Jan DemBeste, 5212 Lynwood Blvd. Ron Motyka, 1545 Bluebird Lane. Councilmember Ahrens. Mr. Grogan stated that Triax could not add a channel to the system if they wanted to because there is no more capacity that is the antiquated system. With approval of these documents, the City is guaranteed a new system will be built. The City Attorney asked if there has been any thought given to a joint powers entity among the cities to administer the franchises. Mr. Grogan stated there is a Lake Minnetonka Cable Commission (LMCC) but he is representing the cities (Mound, Wayzata, Waconia and Chanhassen) who are not part of the LMCC but have chosen to work together in a loose cooperation. He stated he felt these communities enjoyed their anonymity and wanted to have some autonomy as they moved forward in this. They want to keep their franchise fees and only address cable issues as the need arises. There has been no discussion by these four communities to do anything jointly except as they have been. There were members of Triax Cablevision present. Paul Pecora, Regional Manager from Waseca, addressed the Council on the upgrade to the sytem. This will give them additional channel capacity. The system today is operating at its maximum channel capacity. The new system will also allow them to increase the system reliability. He also stated that customer service is important to them. The City Attorney asked if Triax would agree to putting a provision in the regulatory agreement with Mound that to the extent that you offered, during the term of the franchise, a more beneficial rate or service or any other change to any of the other cities, that you would make the same offer to the City of Mound. Jane Bremer, General Counsel to Triax Cablevision nationally, stated the City Attorney is referring to a "most favored nations" clause which is not something that cable operators will generally agree to. This cable operator has not had any experience in agreeing to it for a variety of reasons. Primarily because cable franchises are negotiated on a community by community level and just as we went through every line and every word of this document with Mr. Shukle and representatives from the other communities, we go through a similar process with every other community where we are negotiating renewals. So what is appropriate for Mound, may or may not be appropriate the next community. They do have provisions in the document for a periodic revaluation where they agree to sit down and work with the City on any issues that it would like to bring up. The Council discussed holding a public hearing. 253 MOUND CITY COUNCI~ MINUTES- MAY 26, 1998 MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Hanus to set June 23, 1998, to hold a Public Hearing regarding the renewal of the Franchise Agreement with Triax Cablevision. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.19 CONTINUED DISCUSSION: PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 440:00 OF THE CITY CODE RELATING TO TOBACCO SALE, POSSESSION, AND USE OF TOBACCO, TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND TOBACCO RELATED DEVICES IN THE CITY OF MOUND AND TO REDUCE THE ILLEGAL SALE, POSSESSION AND USE OF SUCH ITEM TO ANY MINORS AND AMENDING SECTION 510:00, SUBD.2, OF THE CITY CODE RELATING TO FEES FOR CIGARETTE LICENSES. The City Manager reported that this is on the Agenda because the Council extended the current Cigarette Licenses that were to expire on February 28 to May 31, 1998. The direction was to check with Hennepin County and see what their licensing procedures were going to be. The City Clerk reported that she has talked to Howard Epstein at the Hennepin County Community Health Department and the County is still in the early planning stage for doing a County Ordinance to regulate cigarette sales. The County Board has not taken any action on this. No fees have been established. Mr. Epstein faxed a comparison of what the other 6 counties in the metro area are doing at this point. 4 small cities (Greenfield, Hanover, Rockford and St. Bonifacius) have notified Heunepin County that they will not have their own ordinance. The City Manager advised the Council that Christine Valerius of Mainstreet Market submitted a request that this item be tabled until the next meeting because she is unable to attend the meeting tonight. The Council discussed extending all the licenses until February 28, 1999, and monitoring the County to see what they are going to do with licensing and at what cost. MOTION made by Polston, seconded by Weycker to issue all Cigarette Licenses until February 28, 1999, at the current License Fee of $24.00 each ($50.00 for vending machine) and work with Hennepin County when they have adopted an ordinance to license cigarettes. The City Attorney reminded the Council that when the County has a Licensing program up and running, the Council will have to deal with this. The Council discussed the fact that they cannot compare the County restrictions to the City restrictions until the County has a system in place. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.19 EXECUTIVE SESSION: WOODLAND POINT LITIGATION. The City Attorney explained that the Council went into Executive Session to discuss pending litigation. The Council returned from Executive Session at 12:50 A.M. The City Attorney stated that they 254 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 26, have just concluded an Executive Session to discuss providing direction to the City's Attorneys in connection with the continuing mediation on the Bailey Case involving Woodland Point Commons. The Session did result in direction being given to the attorneys and the attorneys now will take that information and direction into the continuation of the mediation sessions. INFORMATION/MISCELL ANEOUS: A. Monthly Financial Report for April 1998 as prepared by Gino Businaro, Finance Director. Letter from State Representative Steve Smith regarding our letter opposing levy limits and the state sales tax. Memorandum from the Metropolitan Mosquito Control District regarding Adult mosquito control notification procedures. Letter from Mayor Sharon Sayles Belton, Minneapolis, regarding an upcoming luncheon inviting Mayors from surrounding communities to discuss future challenges. The luncheon is scheduled for Thursday, July 11, 1998, Noon - 1:30 p.m., Minneapolis Club, downtown Minneapolis, RSVP'S must be received by June 5. Annual Park Tour with Park and Open Space Commission will be held Thursday, June 11, 7 p.m. Meet at City Hall if you are interested in attending. REMINDER: City offices will be closed on Monday, May 25, 1998 in Observance of Memorial Day. Insert in City Newsletter regarding Storm Sever Utility Ordinance public hearing had typographical error on the time of the hearing on Tuesday, May 26. It should be 7:30 p.m. and not 7 p.m. We will put an notice on the front door in case person are coming for a 7 p.m. hearing. Information received from Keith Rennerfeldt, Hennepin County Assessor's Office regarding the results of the Open Book meeting held earlier this Spring. Also included is some information from the Assessor on the County Property types, classes and class rotes. Letter dated May 20, 1998 from Ceil Strauss, Area Hydrologist, DNR, regarding a request to her office to visit the Roanoke Commons area and a report on her visit and her comments regarding the trimming of trees and tree removal along the commons area. Apparently, residents in this area called her office to have her view the area. Memoramdum from Jim Fackler, Park Director, regarding the issue of a dock site on Paradise Lane raised at Tuesday's Committee of the W~nole meeting. I think the memo is clear that the fee paid by Mr. Klein was paid on time. Ms. Cornetet has no valid claim. 255 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- MAY 2~, 1~)8 MOTION made by Polston, seconded by A~o adjou~t 12:55 A.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion ca/~'l'~~// ~ AtteSt: City Clerk 256 Bills May 26, 1998 BATCH 8052 $191,181.57 Total Bills $191,181.57 § ~m Z~ ,mm © o~ z m 0 0 Z CD C: Z i ? o :;om THIS PAGE LEFI' BLANK INTENTIONALLY