Loading...
1998-11-10MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - NOVEMBER 10, 1998 The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, November 10, 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 Clerk Fran Clark, Assistant City Planner Loren Gordon, and the following interested citizens: Mayor Elect Pat Meisel, Councilmember Elect Bob Brown, Margi Raines, Frank Weiland, Paul Haik, John Quist, Daryl & Men-itt Geyen, Darleine Kotila, Tom & Margaret Dreissen, Elaine Kramer, Michelle Alexander, Mike Chitko, steve Behnke, Bob Abdo, Thomas Stokes, Mary McCurdy, Deborah & Mark McCurdy, Ralph Bauer, Donna Smith, Mary Ann Sells, Lois Sage, Bruce Olson, Lee Severtson, Kris Huspek, Josh Esse, Keith Clark, Tim Becker, Holly Schulter, Gary Wambold, Marshall Weber, John Rasmussen, Liz Nerd, Bob & Sheila Smith, Katy & John Bill, and Bonnie Aarsvold. The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 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. 1.0 *CONSENT AGENDA MOTION made by Weycker, seconded by Hanus to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. *1.1 APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 27, 1998, REGULAR MEETING. MOTION Weycker, Hanus, unanimously. · 1.2 APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 4, 1998, CANVASSING MEETING. MOTION Weycker, Hanus, unanimously. 538 '1.3 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- NOVEMBER I0, 1998 CASE 98-56: MINOR SUBDIVISION, TO CREATE 3 LOTS FROM 2 EXISTING LOTS. MARY ANN SELLS AND AL SAGE. 2232 WESTEDGE BLVD, AND 6351 LYNWOOD BLVD, LOT 1. BLOCK 1, ANDERSQN QNE, PART OF LOT 6, BLOCK 11. MQUND TERRACE, PID 14-117-24 3~ 0016 AND 14-117-24 33 0007, RESOLUTION//98-122 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A MINOR SUBDIVISION AT 2232 WESTEDGE BLVD AND 6351 LYNWOOD BLVD, TO CREATE THREE (3) BUILDABLE LOTS, LOT 1, BLOCK 1, ANDERSON AND PART OF LOT 6, BLOCK 11, MOUND TERRACE, PID # 14-117-24 33 0016 AND 14-117-24 33 0007, P & Z CASE g98-56 Weycker, Hanus, unanimously. *1.4 APPROVAL OF LABOR AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF MOUND AND LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES (LELS) FOR 1998-99, RESOLUTION g98-123 RESOLUTION APPROVING A LABOR AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF MOUND AND LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES (LELS) FOR 1998-99 Weycker, Hanus, unanimously. '1.5 BID AWARD: CBD(CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT) SNOW PLOWING RESOLUTION #98-124 RESOLUTION AWARDING THE BID FOR THE CBD (CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT) SNOW PLOWING TO WIDMER Weycker, Hanus, unanimously. *1.6 PAYMENT OF BILLS. MOTION Weycker, Hanus, unanimously. 539 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- NOVEMBER 10, 1998 1.7 PUBLIC HEARING; (~ASE 95-5~: STREET VACATION. LONGFORD ROAD, KH.DARE ROAD AND KINGS LANE. FINE LINE DESIGN. P.O. BOX 1611, BURNSVILLE. MN. City Planner Loren Gordon explained that this is a request for the vacation of the following unimproved streets: Longford Road, Kings Lane and a portion of Kildare Road. He reported that the Planning Commission recommended vacating the portion of Kildare Road that abuts Lots 24 and 25, Block 11, Seton up to Kings Lane. The Park Commission unanimously recommended denial of any vacation along these unimproved roads because of future linkages to trails and general access to the lake. The Dock and Commons Commission had a split vote, 2 in favor, 1 nay and 1 abstention, for approval of the street vacation of the three unimproved roads. He explained that what the Council is considering tonight is vacation of a portion of Kildare Road, from Kings Lane, abutting Lots 24 and 25, Block 11, Seton. The applicant, the Developer of Seton Bluff, has agreed with the Planning Commission's recommendation. Staff recommends approval. Councilmember Hanus stated he does not feel there is public access to Longford Road. He felt that the Planning Commission and the Park Commission were lead to believe there was public access to Longford Road and that is wrong. Hanus felt that the only Commission that had the correct information, was the Dock & Commons Commission. He then quoted the Park Commission Minutes of October 8, 1998, which reads, in part, as follows: ' ...... Recommend denial of the vacation request of Longford Road, Kings Lane and Kildare Road based on the finding that public access is still possible and it may be necessary ........ "Councilmember Hanus stated the public access is not currently there and does not exist." ....... Kings Lane is a continued access to that area ...... "(he is assuming "that area" refers to Longford Road. ' ......... the vacation does not comply with City Code, Section 255:20 indicating the public policy of the City of Mound which is to strive to: a)present and future residents of the City an unpolluted environment; b) provide access to lakes and streams in the community; ..... (Councilmember Hanus again stated that access does not exist now, so we are not taking anything away). "c) provide parks which afford natural beauty as well as recreational enjoyment." Councilmember Hanus stated, "Now we're talking about accessing areas that vary from zero feet wide to 3 feet to 10 feet, but it's mud, cattails and reeds. Also in some of those findings there was talk about benefiting by way of controlling the bluff, but the bluff is on private property, so there is no benefit. All of the findings that he found from both Commissions are pointless. There is nothing there." Councilmember Hanus then asked the Planner if there is access or not to Longford Road. The Planner stated that the word access seems to be the problem and in his opinion there is lake access from Kings Lane and Longford Road. Councilmember Weycker stated that what was proposed at the POSC was the vacation of Longford Road, Kings Lane and a portion of Kildare which would totally cut off access to the lake. Councilmember Hanus stated that since Kings Lane is only 30 feet wide, docks could not be put on this area because they would not meet the setbacks. Councilmember Hanus stated he is looking for reasons not to vacate but he has not heard any yet. Staff's opinion originally was that there was no public use for it. There were some comments in the minutes that these unimproved right-of-ways have to serve a public purpose or benefit the public to vacate, yet the 540 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- NOVEMBER I0, 1998 proposed resolution states that at least part of it benefits the public to get rid of it but gives no reasons. Hanus asked what applies to Kildare and not the remaining roads. He stated he sees no public use for Kings Lane or Longford Road. The Planner explained that the Planning Commission and the POSC felt that the portion of Kildare that abuts Lots 24 and 25 is more unusable than Kings Lane because of the topography. He further explained that Kings Lane is relatively flat and could be used for public access to the lake. Steven Behnke, Fineline Design, stated that the approximate ordinary high water level line shown is not consistent with what their surveyors found on the site. He stated that the 929 contour actually comes down into the intersection of Kings Lane and Kildare Road. He then referred to the holding pond construction which will extend into the Kildare Road right-of-way abutting Lots 24 and 25. This is why they are requesting the vacation of this portion of Kildare Road. He stated they have a plan that has been approved by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. The Mayor opened the public hearing. There was no response. The Mayor closed the public hearing. The Council discussed the fact that if certain areas were vacated it could cause some lots to become land locked. Councilmember Hanus pointed out that this whole issue of vacation of these right-of-ways came about because of docks. We have a situation here where we've got a certain amount of City land that we can count into the Dock Program. The applicants have submitted an application for a multiple dock in the area and have been granted that. He stated that we have an opportunity here to make a decision. We can either keep it in the public program and license the docks that are there. But in order to do that, there are more docks there than what the public land provides in linear feet to produce the BSU's (boat storage units) in the area. The applicant stated he figures there is approximately 450 feet of lakeshore. Councilmember Hanus stated that is counting the private land and the City cannot count that. The applicant stated he is looking at this in two ways. If it remains Commons Dock, there is 450 feet which allows 9 docks. If it's private, there is 450 feet and its 9 docks. Councilmember Hanus stated the City cannot count all that private shoreline that cuts across the development, because not all of that shoreline is public land. The applicant argued that the City can count noncontiguous lakeshore and the developer can only count contiguous lakeshore. The applicant feels that either way they will be allowed 9 docks. The developer feels that if this land is keep in the dock program, there will be a net gain of 1 dock to the program. Councilmember Hanus did not agree with this. Councilmember Hanus stated that if Longford is vacated, we loose a little City shoreline, but we don't have to draw BSU's from other portions of the City dock program. Councilmember Hanus stated that he feels there would not be 7 individual docks going out because they have a homeowners association situation here and the LMCD will push for a multiple dock, like the applicant is proposing now. Mr. Behnke stated that the Homeowners Association documents are filed and they do represent a multiple dock. If Longford were vacated, it would not be assigned to the individual lots adjacent. It would be Association owned 541 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- NOVEMBER 10, 1998 land. Councilmember Hanus asked Councilmember Weycker why the POSC wanted to retain Kings Lane. Councilmember Weycker stated that it is public access to the lake. She felt the dockage was not an issue at the POSC. The issue was lake access. She did not feel it is in the public interest to vacate Kings Lane or Longford Road. Councilmember Hanus asked about how the POSC felt about just vacating a portion of Kildare abutting Lots 24 and 25. Councilmember Weycker stated that was not proposed at the Park Commission oK ....... ,.~ ,11.~.· .... ~-I~1~ ~ I.,~1. ~^ +1~ nt'~etTM .e~ ,1~;,,It could go back to the POSC for their review. lensen moved and Weycker seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION g98-125 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A STREET VACATION OF AN UNIMPROVED PLATTED CITY RIGHT OF WAY KNOWN AS KH.DARE ROAD ADJACENT TO LOTS 24 & 25, BLOCK 11, SETON, P & Z CASE//98- 55 Councilmember Weycker stated that the second Whereas should read as follows: WHEREAS, Minnesota Statues, Section 412.851 provides that the City Council may, by resolution, vacate any street, alley, public grounds, or public way, or any part~ thereof, when it appears in the interest of the public to do so; and, Councilmember Weycker asked that the fourth Whereas read as follows: WHEREAS, the vacation request was reviewed by the City staff, Park Commission, Docks & Commons Commission, and the applicable utility companies, and ,~. ................. .~ .... :.:~_,:r.~., ..... ~':~':~- '~ '~ ...... ':~- In addition it appears to be in the public's interest to vacate this right-of-way as it does not have a public use; and, She asked for the deletion because the Park Commission did object to the vacation. Councilmember Hanus commented that relative to the docks that has not been addressed is that what this is allowing is, even though it is a pretty enclosed situation here, the City is allowing homeowners who own private lakeshore to use City Commons Docks. There is a provision in section 320 that allows that, but they would be last on the priority list. He asked if this is precedent setting. Councilmember Weycker asked the developer if what Councilmember Hanus said is accurate, because she thought there was a private dock as well as a multiple dock and the private dock came off their lakeshore lot. Mr. Stokes stated that was correct. The private lots will put in their own docks. There are two lots that qualify as private 542 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- NOVEMBER 10, 1998 lakeshore and will:not be using the multiple dock. There will be 6 slips on the multiple dock. The Council discussed adding language to the resolution to cover retaining utility easements in the vacated land. Under the Now, Therefore be it Resolved add the following: L The City of Mound reserves an easement for utility and drainage purposes over. under and across that part of the above described vacated Kildare Road. Mr. Behnke then asked for clarification of a statement in the Planning Commission Minutes of October 12, 1998, that read as follows: "Mueller clarified the status of the property that it would require a public lands permit to do the grading (in the intersection of Kings Lane and the vacated portion of Kildare Road) and the ownership would remain the City's." Mr. Behnke stated the Building Official, Jon Sutherland, stated this would be handled as an amendment to their grading permit not a public lands permit. Mr. Behnke stated he thought this would all be taken care of here or as an amendment to the grading permit. He did not want to have to apply for a Public Lands Permit. The Council asked which Commission would see this if it were a Public Lands Permit Application to grade at the intersection of Kings Lane and Kildare. The Planner stated it would go to the Park and Open Space Commission for review and recommendation. The Council discussed the fact that if the applicant wanted this, he should have applied for a public lands permit at the same time he applied for the vacation. The Council did not feel they should grant this before it goes through normal channels. The Planner stated he was not aware of the conversation Mr. Behnke had with Mr. Sutherland about the grading issue being handled as an amendment to his grading permit. The Planner further stated that at the last Planning Commission Meeting they were trying figure out how this ponding facility would work and how it could be moved onto the vacated portion of Kildare Road. At that time it was thought there was some area that they would have to blend out into the Kings Lane intersection, which will not be vacated. It was then decided, the developer would need to get a Public Lands Permit. The Council was not comfortable granting a Public Lands Permit, at this time, because it could set a precedent that they did not want to do by skipping the POSC review and recommendation. The Council also wanted to have the City Engineer review design of the ponding facility. The City Attorney stated that the Council could approve this subject to the POSC review and recommendation. The Mayor stated he is opposed to this. Councilmember Hanus reminded the Council that a vote on the Public Lands Permit requires a 4/5 vote of the Council. The vote on the vacation Resolution//98-125 was unanimously in favor. Motion carded. The City Attorney advised that if the Council would like to deal with the Public Lands Permit tonight, the motion would be: "A motion to permit Land Alteration Permit under Section 320 of the City Code, subject to consideration and consent by the Park & Open Space Commission at its next meeting." 543 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- NOVEMBER 10, 1908 MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Jensen to approve a Land Alteration Permit under Section 320 of the City Code, subject to consideration and consent by the Park & Open Space Commi~ion at its next meeting and approval of the ponding design by the City Engineer. The vote was 4 in favor with Polston voting nay. Motion carried. 1.8 PUBLIC HEARING: CASE 98-61: UTILITY EASEMENT VACATION, 6351 LYNWOOD BLVD. AND 2232 WESTEDGE BLVD., ALFRED SAGE AND MARY ANN SELLS, PART OF LOT 6, BLOCK 11, MOUND TERRACE AND LOT 1, BLOCK 1, ANDERSON ONE, PID 14-117-24 33 0007 AND 14-117-24 33 0016. The City Planner explained the request that this is the second stage to what was done on the Consent Agenda, Case g98-56. The Staff and the Planning Commission recommended approval. The Mayor opened the public hearing. There were no comments. The Mayor closed the public hearing. Hanus moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION g98-126 RF~OLUTION TO APPROVE A VACATION OF A UTILITY EASEMENT LOCATED AT' 2232 WESTEDGE BLVD, LOT 1, BLOCK 1, ANDERSON ONE, PID # 14-117-24 33 0016, P & Z CASE//98-61 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.9 PUBLIC HEARING: CASE 98-62: ONE YEAR REVIEW OF CONDITIQNAL IJSE PERMIT FOR A NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS, AL & ALMA'S SUPPER CLUB. 5201 PIPER ROAD. LOTS 20-23, BLOCK 9, WHIPPLE, PID 25-117-24 21 0156. The City Planner explained that this item was before the Planning Commission on October 26, 1998. It is a one year review for a Conditional Use Permit that was issued for building improvements to A1 & Alma's Supper Club. The Planner reported that the improvements have been completed over the last year and the project is complete. Staff did a review on it a couple of weeks ago and found that the conditions that were attached to that approval in Resolution//97- 104, are in compliance. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval. Councilmember Hanus stated that he thought there was some confusion about the parking on the southerly lot. He stated that one of the conditions that the Planning Commission recommended adding was that non-commercial or non-business related parking would be allowed there. He stated he did not see this reflected in the proposed resolution. He asked if this was really the lot that was being referred to. The Planner stated the original resolution (//97-104) did not state what the vacant lot was. It should have referred to Lot 1, Block 12. He stated that was 544 .MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- NOVEMBER 10, 1998 clarified at the Planning Commission and determined to be the lot that was for non-customer parking. Councilmember Hanus then referred to resolution ~97-104, g2. which reads as follows: "The vacant lot south of the building remain as undeveloped and parking not be allowed." He stated that he thought the Planning Commission recommended that business related parking not be allowed. The Planner stated that is the way he understood it, that customers of A1 & Alma's could not use that vacant lot for parking, but it would not preclude Daryl & Merritt Geyen from parking their personal vehicles on the lot. Hanus thought this should be included in the proposed resolution to clarify the situation. The Planner agreed. The Mayor opened the public hearing. He then acknowledged that numerous letters were received and are in the Council packet and are part of the public record. The following people spoke in favor of A1 & Alma's Conditional Use Permit: MARGI RAiNES stated she is here also on behalf of Bill Voss and read the following letter: "We would like to offer the following comments regarding the Public Hearing for the Conditional Use Permit for A1 & Alma's restaurant. We are offering these comments not only as citizens of Mound residing on the "Island" but as REALTORS with Coldwell Banker Bumet licensed out of the Lake Minnetonka office. In our weekly sales meeting held on October 26th, 1998 we conducted a poll of 30 Realtors assembled as to their opinion on the effect A1 & Alma's restaurant has on the Real Estate market on the Island and Lake Minnetonka area. All agents unanimously agreed that the restaurant has not diminished Real Estate values and can be considered an attractive amenity for the Lake Minnetonka area. Several comments were made that A1 & Alma's is a "landmark" and a prominent feature that certainly has historical significance. Many agents were shocked to think that A1 & Alma's restaurant would be threatened with the loss of their Conditional Use Permit. In summary A1 & Alma's restaurant is an asset to the City of Mound and has a positive effect on the quality of life and housing values in the neighborhood." Thank You, Bill Voss 4608 Kildare Road Mound, MN 55364 Margi Raines 5100 Drummond Rd. Mound, 55364 545 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- NOVEMBER 10, 1998 e MARY MC CURDY, 5420 3 Points. Blvd. BOB BROWN, 5450 3 Points Blvd. DONNA SMITH, 2531 Avon Drive The Mayor closed the public hearing. Councilmember Hanus asked that the following amendments be made to the proposed resolution: PROPOSED RESOLUTION RESOLUTION TO APPROVE AN EXISTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AL & ALMA'S SUPPER CLUB, LOTS 1-3, BLOCK 8, LOTS 20-23, BLOCK 9, WHIPPLE, PID # 25-117-24 21 0156 PZ CASE # 98-62 WHEREAS, Resolution #97-104 required a one year review to verify compliance~ and WHEREAS, the rectuest was to permit an expansion of their restaurant: and. WHEREAS, it has been determined that substantial compliance has been achieved; and WHEREAS, the restaurant is defined as a Class 1 (Traditional Restaurant) which is allowed in the B-3 district as a conditional use; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and has recommended approval of the conditional use permit with conditions; and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota hereby approves the existing conditional use permit as stated in Resolution # 97-104 for Al and Alma's Supper Club with the following revision: 1. The vacant lot south of the building. Lot 1. Block 12. Whi0ple remain as undeveloped and that business related parking not be allowed. 2. The river rock be allowed to substitute for the landscaping. 3. No further scheduled reviews are r~_uired. The Council agreed. 546 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- NOVEMBER 10, 1998 Hanus moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution as amended above: RESOLUTION ~98-127 RESOLUTION TO. APPROVE AN EXISTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, AL & ALMA'S SUPPER CLUB, LOTS 1-3, BLOCK 8, LOTS 20-23, BLOCK 9, WHIPPLE, PID # 25-117-24 21 0156, P & Z CASE # 98-62 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.10 LEGAL REVIEW OF TITLE ON CHESTER PARK PROPERTY AS IT PERTAINS TO USAGE BY AL & ALMA'S SUPPER CLUB. The City Attorney reviewed his Memo, dated November 5, 1998. SUBJECT: Use Restrictions Applicable to Chester Park At its September 22, 1998 meeting the Council directed me to report back to it at its November 10th meeting concerning any use restrictions found in the real estate title records which limit the use of Chester Park. Specifically, the Council was interested in whether any restrictions exist which would impact on the operation of Al &Alma's Supper Club. The direction of the Council was limited to matters of real estate title; and my continents here do not include a discussion of any restrictions which may exist by operation of the City's land use requirements or other regulations. Chester Park is located on land which is legally described as Lot 24, Whipple Shores, Mound, Minnesota (the "Property"). The Property is owned by the City of Mound; and title is evidenced by Certificate of Title No. 448395. The Property was conveyed to the City by Warranty Deed dated October 10, 1969. The deed of conveyance contained several restrictions: the Property "at all times be open to the use of the general public and particularly for the use of property owners on Island Park, so as to afford them lake shore privileges; the Property shall not be diverted from the specific purpose or purposes above designated without the written consent of said Tuxedo Park Company, its successors or assigns; Co the Property shall not be used for any commercial purpose, nor for the benefit of any one individual or group of individuals for the furtherance of their own particular interest; 547 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- NOVEMBER 10, 1998 d. the Property shall not be used for the launching or docking of boats. At the September 22 Council meeting, the question was raised whether certain activities relating to the operation of Al & Alma's were in violation of any of the referenced restrictions. Based upon the material presented at that meeting I conclude that they are not. Al & Alma's principal restaurant location is south of Chester Park across Piper Road on property legally described as Lots 1 through 3, Block 8, Whipple. In addition, A1 & Alma's maintains off site parking on Lots 20 through 23, Block 9, Whipple and maintains a dock located on Lot 23, Whipple Shores immediately east of Chester Park. While a number of points were raised by the public at the September 22 meeting, only one seemed to relate in any way to the title restrictions cited above. That point involved the use of Chester Park by patrons of Al & Alma's who were congregating in, or crossing through the park on the way to or from the boat dock on Lot 23. The crossing or congregating in the park does not seem to involve any potential violation of restrictions a, b, or d above. Moreover, I cannot conclude that it suggests a violation of restriction c. above. The crossing of the park is at the option of the patrons to cross the park rather than to use the adjacent pathway provided by Al & Alma's on Lot 23; and congregating in the park is a public right actually granted in restriction a. above. It is clear that the presence of the commercial activity has had an impact on the park and upon others who use it, but there is no suggestion that Al & Alma's has attempted to capitalize on use of the park in the promotion of its commercial activities. Consequently, I cannot find that the park is used for commercial purposes or in furtherance of the interests of Al & Alma's. COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT, There were none. 1.11 RESOLUTION APPOINTING A HEARING OFFICER TO HEAR AN APPEAL OF A WETLANDS CONSERVATION (WCA) EXEMPTION REQUEST FOR TIMOTHY BECKER AND DALE AND LORELL BECKER AT 5331/5341/5351/5361 THREE POINTS BLVD. The City Attorney explained that there is a process that the City has been pursuing, involving a certain request by the attorney representing the Beckets, for a filling within the floodplain which raised traditional wetland issues. As a result of that, a (TEP) Technical Evaluation Panel was convened which provided certain reports to the City and the applicant has appealed the report from the TEP. BWSR (Board of Water and Soil Resources) has referred the matter back to the City indicating that before it will consider an appeal by the applicant, they are requesting that the City conduct a hearing and make 548 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- NOVEMBER 10, 1998 a record and provide BWSR with findings and conclusions supporting its decision. After receiving that information, the City examined its ordinances and determined that it really did not have an ordinance in place that specifically dealt with and appeal of this type. Therefore, the City needed to come up with a potential mechanism which might fit the nature of the matter, provide for adequate due process, and also provide for the creation of a record which would be useful for consideration by BWSR, recognizing that this is a relatively technical issue. It was the result of that which has caused the City Attorney to recommend to the City Council, that the hearing process occur at the level of consideration of the evidence by a hearing examiner appointed by the City Council who would then follow the hearing process, make written recommendations of timings to the City Council, which then the Council could act upon. A proposed resolution was submitted to the Council for consideration. Paul Haik, attorney for Dale Becker, addressed the Council. He did not agree with the City Attorney in appointing a hearing examiner. He asked that the Council hear the case and make a decision without appointing a hearing examiner. Mr. Haik made a presentation claiming that the area in question is not and never will be a wetland area under the Wetland Conservation Act. He claimed there were misstatements and objected to the entire process because he feels it is an unlawful act. Councilmember Hanus asked Mr. Haik if it is his opinion that these are buildable lots, and he can maintain all setbacks required in that zone, with no variances? Mr. Haik responded, yes, that is not a problem. He stated they may have to combine three lots into two lots and have it rezoned to R-lA. Mr. Haik is claiming the area is not a wetland. Mr. Haik also objected to not being able to participate in the selection of the individual who will be the heating examiner. The City Attorney explained the process that will take place with the heating examiner. The City Council will then have written findings on which to base their decision. Polston moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION//98-128 RESOLUTION APPOINTING HEARING EXAMINER IN THE CASE OF THE APPEAL OF BECKER Councilmember Weycker asked if the City could get another recommendation from another hydrologist to clarify the data, as opposed to taking this to a hearing examiner? The City Attorney stated that there may be conflicting information here and there may be a significant amount of data that the City would want to have a hearing examiner review. He advised that all the persons involved in this have taken the position that this is the approach to take. The vote was 4 in favor with Weycker abstaining. Motion carried. Mr. Haik objected to Karen Marti being the heating examiner. 549 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- NOVEMBER 10, 1998 1.12 REQUE.qT FOR STREET LIGHT ON BEACHWOOD ROAD, The City Manager advised that the City Council had previously approved this request subject to the neighborhood supporting the installation of the light. He reported that the Police Chief sent a memorandum to all he persons affected and only received one objection to the street light. Councilmember Weycker stated she does not see this as an objection, but rather as the person does not think the light is necessary. The Council authorized the installation of the street light as proposed at the September 22, 1998, City Council Meeting, Resolution//98-105. 1.13 RECOMMENDATIONS FROM DOCK AND COMMONS ADVISORY COMMISSION RE: DOCK ADDITIONS, SUBTRACTIONS AND CHANGES TO DOCK LOCATION MAP. The City Manager stated this was put on. the Agenda in error and should not come before the Council until January, 1999. No action taken. 1.14 EXECUTIVE SESSION: THREATENED LITIGATION - NETKA PROPERTY, 2313 COMMERCE BLVD. The Council went into Executive Session at 9:40 P.M. to discuss threatened litigation, regarding the Netka property at 2313 Commerce Blvd. The City Attorney advised that the City has received notice from an individual of an intent to commence legal action against the City on the basis of certain activity he is claiming the City has been involved in. The City Attorney advised the City Council to meet in Executive Session to discuss that litigation and strategy as to how to proceed with respect to that litigation. He further advised that the plaintiffs attorney has made a proposed settlement offer that needs to be discussed. The City Council returned from Executive Session at 10:43 p.m. The City Attorney reported that the City Council heard a report from the City's attorney concerning the threatened litigation. The City Council provided the City's Attorney with direction as to how to proceed. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS: A. Department Head Monthly Reports for October 1998. B. Minutes and financial information from the Suburban Rate Authority (SRA). 550 De MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- NO~MBER 10, 1~8 Thank you letter from the St. Peter Police Department to the Mound Police Department for the assistance we provided to the City of St. Peter during the March 29~ tornado. List of At-Large appointments from various Hennepin County commissions and boards that are due to expire soon. Vacancies will be formally announced later. Please note that the MCWD appointments are expiring in March 1999. We want to pay particular attention to those appointments as they draw near. Applications for the DCAC are enclosed. They are from non-abutters and will be interviewed by the DCAC at their next meeting scheduled for Thursday, November 19, 1998. The City Council is invited to attend the interviews. Recommendations will be heard at the November 24, 1998, Regular City Council meeting. The City Manager reported that all the applications for the DCAC are from non-abutters. REMINDER; LOST LAKE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT GROUNDBREAKING IS SCHEDULED FOR TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 1998, 8:30 A.M., AT THE LOST LAKE SITE. I WOULD LIKE EACH OF YOU TO BE PREPARED TO SPEAK AT THE GROUNDBREAKING. WE WILL HAVE A TENT AT THE SITE, WITH A SOUND SYSTEM, CHAIRS, COFFEE AND DONUTS, ETC. A BANNER WILL BE PLACED AT THE ENTRANCE TO THE LOST LAKE SITE ALONG WITH BALLOONS TO CELEBRATE THIS HISTORIC OCCASION. WE HAVE INVITED OVER 250 PEOPLE AND WE HOPE TO HAVE 50-100 PEOPLE ATTEND. WE HOPE THE WEATHER WILL CoopERATE! REMINDER: VETERAN'S DAY HOLIDAY IS WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 11. CITY OFFICES WILL BE CLOSED IN OBSERVANCE OF VETERAN'S DAY. REMINDER; SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TO DISCUSS THE PROPOSED 1999 BUDGET IS SCHEDULED FOR MONDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 1998, 7:30 P.M. REMINDER; COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING IS SCHEDULED FOR TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1998, 7:30 P.M. REMINDER; ANNUAL TREE LIGHTING CEREMONY IS SCHEDULED FOR TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1998, 6:30 P.M. REMINDER: HRA MEETING IS SCHEDULED FOR TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 1998, 7 P.M. REMINDER; WCCB MEETING IS SCHEDULED FOR THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 1998, 5:30 P.M., MOUND CITY HALL. 551 Ne MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- NOVEMBER 10, 1998 REMINDER: CITY OFFICES WILL BE CLOSED ON THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 26 AND FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 27 IN OBSERVANCE OF THE THANKSGIVING DAY HOLIDAYS. REMINDER: ANNUAL CHRISTMAS PARTY IS SCHEDULED FOR SUNDAY, DECEMBER 13, 1998, BEGINNING AT 6:30 P.M., AL & ALMA'S. INVITATIONS WILL BE SENT WITHIN THE NEXT FEW WEEKS. REMINDER; WCCB REPRESENTATIVES ARE INVITED TO ATFEND THE NOVEMBER 9TH PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO HEAR THE PRESENTATION ON THE PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION FOR THE COMMUNITY CENTER RENOVATION PROJECT. MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Jensen to adjourn at 10:50 P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Attest: City Clerk Crad~ard J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager 552 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- NOVEMBER 10, 1998 THIS PAC~E LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY, ~0'6~E'OL6 09'O08'tII 8608 qaa~a 866I 'OI xoqmoAo~ ~ 1~ o~ o~ o~ > ~ ~ o~ o~ ~ ~ o ~ o ~ ~ o ~ o ~l ~1 o o ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ I O0 O0 O0 m } ) m I m j i k J I m} I i I il I Iii IIi ilm ~ j ~ m~ ~ ~ ~ ~/ ~ ~ I / ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~) ~ % I ; ! '. 'f'~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~J ~1 ~ · I I , : / ,o.~ oc:~ I I z m o o C 0 ZFn ~°°i°° I (:3 Z -.I (:3 r'T n Z I ~ 0 o ! o (. ¢ .'G C. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 © ~ 0 0 .;) ~:-I, Iq3 '03> Z I C, c c ..,,( c z r n ,.. ,. ,2, C. C: ,,..... 0 ID 0 0 0 0 0 0 ....) 9 0 g ;:) ~ Z r- _J z 0 1'13 Z 0 ~m --in o -i-i '~,. o C~ Z 4 ~.. r' (~.. C~ C':. © © ~) C) 0 0 0 0 0 ,'"', .") .3 ', ", ~ , ,! 4 ~o ? Z~ (Au. 0 C::: Z r"-