1999-01-12MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - JANUARY 12, 1999
The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session
on Tuesday, January 12, 1999, at 7:30 PM, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road,
in said City. Those present were: Mayor Pat Meisel, Councilmembers Andrea Ahrens, Bob
Brown, Mark Hanus, and Leah Weycker. Also in attendance were: City Manager Edward J.
Shukle, Jr., City Attorney John Dean, Assistant City Planner Loren Gordon, City Clerk Fran
Clark and the following interested citizens: Garry & Made Everson, Ric Williams, Mark
Thiede, Pam Myers, Bill Pinegar, Mary Pauly, Patty Guttormson, Carol and Rick Todd, Greg
Meisel, Betsy Brown, Tom Reese, Frank & Betty Weiland, Becky Glister, Eric Meisel and Paul
Meisel.
OATH OF OFFICE
The City Clerk administered the Oaths of Office to Mayor Elect Pat Meisel, Councilmembers
Elect Bob Brown and Mark Hanus. Mayor Meisel apologized for wearing a hat to the meeting
but, she explained that she has had some major surgery and has no hair on the right side of her
head.
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.
Councilmember Brown asked to have Item B removed from the Consent Agenda.
Councilmember Hanus asked to have Items G, H and I because names need to be inserted in
these items. He also requested Items J and K be removed.
Mayor Meisel asked to have Item C removed from the Consent Agenda.
*CONSENT AGENDA
MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Weycker to approve the Consent Agenda,
as amended above. A roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
*1.0 APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 22, 1998, REGULAR
MEETING.
MOTION
Hanus, Weycker, unanimously.
*1.1
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - JANUARY 12, 1999
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PURCHASE OF AT LEAST A $20.000 BOND
FOR THE CITY CLERK.
RESOLUTION//99-1 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PURCHASE OF
AT LEAST A $20,000 BOND FOR THE CITY CLERK
Hanus, Weycker, unaoimously.
'1.2
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PURCHASE OF AT LEAST A $20.000 BOND
FOR THE CITY TREASURER/FINANCE DIRECTOR,
RESOLUTION g99-2
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PURCHASE OF AT
LEAST A $20,000 BOND FOR THE CITY
TREASURER/FINANCE DIRECTOR
Hanus, Weycker, unanimously.
*1.3
RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE OFFICIAL DEPOSITORIES FOR 1999,
RESOLUTION//99-3 RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE OFFICIAL
DEPOSITORIES FOR 1999
Hanus, Weycker, unanimously.
*1.4
CASE 99-01:
SET PUBLIC HEARING TO REVIEW CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR WESTONKA SCHOOL
DISTRICT TO CONTINUE THE OPERATION OF E.C.F.E.,
LOCATED WITHIN THE B-1 BUSINESS DISTRICT AT
5241 SHORELINE DRIVE, LOTS 7-20 & 26-35 & ALL VAC.
ALLEY & PARKING, BLOCK 1, SHIRLEY HILLS "F", PID
13-117-24 34 0072.
SUGGESTED DATE; JANUARY 26. 1999.
MOTION
Hanus, Weycker, unanimously.
*1.$
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES. JANU/IRY 12, 1999
PAYMENT OF BILLS.
MOTION
Hanus, Weycker, unanimously.
'1.6 RFSOLUTION APPOINTING ACTING CITY MANAGER FOR 1999.
Brown moved to appoint Fran Clark, City Clerk, as the Acting City Manager in 1999.
seconded the motion.
Hanus
RESOLUTION ~)9-4
RESOLUTION APPOINTING FRAN CLARK, CITY
CLERK, ACTING CITY MANAGER FOR 1999
Councilmember Hanus asked who would be next if both the Manager and Acting
Manager were gone. Councilmember Brown stated it would remain the same, Police
Chief Len Harrell.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
.1.7 RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE LAKER AS THE OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER
FOR 1999.
Mayor Meisel stated that The Laker is a tenant in the building that she and her husband own.
She therefore will abstain from voting to avoid a conflict of interest.
Ahrens moved and Hanus seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION/n)9-5 RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE LAKER THE
OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER FOR 1999
The vote was 4 in favor with Meisel abstaining. Motion carried.
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- JANUARY 12, 1999
'1.8 RESOLUTION APPOINTING ACTING MAYOR FOR 1999.
Meisel moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION #99-6
RESOLUTION APPOINTING MARK HANUS
ACTING MAYOR FOR 1999
Weycker stated that discussion in the past had been to alternate this appointment. Ahrens
stated that last year this was discussed and the Council, at that time, decided then that
the appointment should run with the term of the Mayor. Weycker stated she thinks it
should alternate.
The Mayor asked what Councilmember Weycker would suggest.
Councilmember Weycker stated. "I would think it alternates to me if Mark was it before
Andrea. Andrea for the last two years. It should go to my seat."
The Mayor asked if Hanus had a problem with that?
Hanus stated. "I, and it has nothing to do with me. If it's come to this, I will give you
my opinion on Leah. Leah, appears still not to follow a lot of things that are being
talked about. I don't want to sit here and say this but, this is what's brought it up now.
It's a whole different thing to run a meeting and try and follow what's going on. I feel
that you're still trying to catch up on some of the regular activities, as far as what's
going on in some of the discussions, so I don't know how effective you can be doing
that."
Mayor Meisel explained that she was looking at long-term with Mark and nothing other
than that, when she made the motion.
Councilmember Brown called for the question on the motion.
The vote on ending discussion was unanimously in favor.
The vote on Resolution #99-6 was 3 in favor with Weycker voting nay and Hanus abstaining.
Motion carded.
4
'1.9
RE~OLUTION APPOINTINg; COI~NCILMEMBER$
REPRESENTATIVES FOR 1999.
The following was proposed:
Planning Commission
Park & Open Space Commission
Economic Development Commission
Dock & Commons Advisory Commission
AS COUNCIL
Bob Brown
Leah Weycker
Bob Brown
Mark Hanus
Councilmember Weycker stated. "I have a problem with that, in the sense that we had
set up that commission to be representative of the program with so many people using
the dock program, as abutters and as nonabutters. I feel it skews it due to the fact that
Mark is an abutter ......... There are two people here that haven't been in our dock
program and I would find that more appropriate than skewing the make-up when you set
it up to be made up of how the program is used and representative of the people in the
program."
Councilmember Ahrens stated. "The only thing I would say about the way it's set up
now is that it's 50/50, isn't it?"
Councilmember Hanus stated. "It is if the Councilmember is an abutter. If the
Councilmember is not an abutter then it's 4 to 2.
Councilmember Ahrens. "So now it's 3 and 3. So nobody has a majority."
Councilmember Weycker. "It was actually supposed to be set up ...... I think when
Mark set it up originally, it was set up by users of the program and there are many more
nonabutters using the program than there are abutters. I believe 3 nonabutters and 2
abutters."
Councilmember Hanus. "And them are more nonabutters appointed than there are
abutters, for that very reason.
Councilmember Weycker. "Exactly. So by putting you on, it skews that number and
makes it 3 to 3, instead of 2 to 3."
5
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- JANUARY 12, 19c~
Councilmember Brown. "I don't think Mark is one of these people that really takes a
side when it comes to something like that. I think when you start to say that it skews
the side one way or another, he sits on a lot of commissions and so do you. I feel that
having someone here from the Council like that, no matter who it is, your not going to
take a side. You're going to look at what's right. I agree with Mark."
CounCilmember Weycker. "I don't consider it an issue of sides. I consider it an issue
of experience in the program. What you're bringing to the commission is your
knowledge of being a participant in the program."
Councilmember Hanus. "You do consider it sides, that's why you want to make this a
4 to 2 vote in that group. That group doesn't typically do that. That group typically
votes unanimously. They get along quite well and they do produce and they're doing
good things. I take exception to the comment that you said that you're not for that. But,
that's not the case. Everything you do and argue about, relative to that, is to pit one side
against the other."
Councilmember Weycker. "I disagree, Mark. I still don't think it's got anything to do
with sides. I think it has to do with how you come to the commission, with what
experience and coming into the commission as an abutter and a nonabutter are two
different experiences. Therefore, they contribute different information to the group."
Councilmember Hanus. "You've got ail sides represented."
Councilmember Weycker. "No, we don't. We don't have any people not involved in
the program. Which of the Mound citizens, actually, is the bigger percentage that aren't
currently active in the program, but have a chance to be."
Councilmember Hanus. "Now, you're getting into the same debate that we went through
a year or two ago.
Councilmember Ahrens. "We've been down this road before. W sent out 600 requests
to nonparticipants and we couldn't get one."
Councilmember Weycker. "Actually, we did have one on the Task Force and when Mark
scheduled how this Dock Commission was going to be formed or made up, he did not
put a non user into that mix. Rita Peterson was the one on the Task Force. She was
more than willing to serve again."
6
MOUND CI1T COUNCIL MINUTEg- JANUARY I~,
Councilmember Hanus. "It's not my intention to go down this road and re-debate that.
We're talking about an appointment to a commission here. I suggest, if you want to do
that, then we put that on as an Agenda Item at some point down the road and we re-
debate the entire issue all over again. I don't think that's a valid thing to do at this
point. We're just appointing Councilmembers as reps to these commissions.
Ahrens moved and Brown seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION//99-7
RF_~OL~ION APPOINTING LEAH WEYCKER TO
THE PARK COMMI~qSION (POSC); BOB BROWN TO
THE PLANNING COMMI~qSION; BOB BROWN TO
THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMI~qSION
(EDC); AND MARK HANUS TO THE DOCK &
COMMONS ADVISORY COMMISSION (DCAC) AS
COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVES FOR 1999
The vote was 4 in favor with Weycker voting nay. Motion carried.
*1.10 RF~qOLUTION APPOINTING COUNCHflVIEMBERS TO SERVE AS
DIRECTORS ON THE WESTONKA COMMUNITY CENTER BOARD (WCCB).
The City Manager advised that there are' two openings. One for a 1 year term and one for a 2
year term.
Ahrens moved and Brown seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION g99-8
RESOLUTION APPOINTING MAYOR PAT MEISEL
TO THE ONE YEAR TERM (EXPIRES DECEMBER
31, 1999) AND COUNCIL_MEMBER MARK HANUS
TO A TWO YEAR TERM (EXPIRES DECEMBER 31,
2000) TO SERVE AS DIRECTORS ON WESTONKA
COMMUNITY CENTER BOARD (WCCB)
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- JANUARY 12, 1999
*1.11
RESOLUTION REAPPOINTING MEMBERS TO THE PLANNING
COMMI$SION~ PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSIONi DOCK AND
COMMONS ADVISORY COMMISSION~ AND THE 'ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION,
{NOTE: City Council has had a Policy for several years to reappoint Members to
Commi~ions who desired to be reappointed. If a member desired not to be
reappointed, then the vacancy would be advertised in The Laker Newspaper and
applicants would be interviewed by the respective Commission. City
Councilmembers would be invited to attend the interviews, ff interested. Then a
recommendation would follow from the respective Commission to the City Council).
Councilmember Hanus stated that he asked for this to be removed from the Consent Agenda
because one of the member of the DCAC opted not to be reappointed and he is of the same
category that we just got done interviewing for about one month ago. He suggested appointing
the number two selection, Greg Eurich to replace Dennis Hopkins on the DCAC. The City
Manager will contact Mr. Eurich and notify him of his appointment.
The Council decided to leave the vacancy policy as noted above.
Hanus moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION g99-9
The vote was unanimously in favor.
RESOLUTION APPOINTING AND REAPPOINTING
THE FOLLOWING PERSONS: GEOFF MICHAEL,
MICHAEL MUELLER AND FRANK WEILAND TO
THE PLANNING COMMISSION; NORMAN
DOMHOLT TO THE PARKS & OPEN SPACE
COMMISSION; JIM FUNK AND GREG EURICH TO
THE DOCK & COMMONS ADVISORY
COMMISSION; AND STAN DRAHOS, PAUL MEISEL
AND JERRY PIETROWSKI TO THE ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION - ALL 3 YEAR
TERMS - EXPIRING 12/31/2001
Motion carded.
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- JANUARY 1~, 1999
'1.12 APPROVAL OF 1999 DOCK LOCATION MAP.
The DCAC held a public heating in on November 19, 1998, for the 1999 Dock Location Map.
Their recommendation is as follows: Dock Inspector McCaffrey presented the 1999 dock
location map changes as detailed in his November 10, 1998 memorandum. In summary, the
recommendation is to remove docksites//01030, #00115,//00155,//60785,//60825 and//61070,
to add docksite #32750 (replaces #32775), change docksite #32760 to #32710, and add multiple
docksite #42800 sites A through J and remove docksite #42821, #42856, #42871, #42901, and
#42990.
In addition, Hanus brought up an issue that was raised last summer, a request from Mark Smith
on Island View Drive. Mr. Smith discovered last year that his dock was not centered in his
dock location. He is now asking to have a new number assigned to his dock where it currently
is located and has been for many years. The dock is located next to a light pole that has
underground wiring. He would like a new number assigned to his current location. Because
of that small shift, it would also require the next dock (the Albrecht dock) to the east to be
shifted. Albrecht leased the site last year, but never put in a dock. This would allow Smith to
be where he has always been. It would also allow him to use the light pole. Hanus stated it
wouldn't deprive anyone of anything. It is very flat and accessible along there. Smith currently
has two water spaces in front of his house and will continue to have two water spaces. Hanus
stated that nothing is really changing and it is a valid and honest request. Smith requested this
about 6 or 7 months ago and the City still hasn't taken any action on it. The neighborhood was
going to get together before winter and try to come to a consensus. There has not even been
a meeting on it. Staff has not resolved the issue. Hanus stated it is time to set the dock
location map and he suggested this change be made as well, to clean up the area.
Councilmember Hanus suggested the following: Move the Smith site (Dock #41866) to #41842
and then moving the next dock site to the east, which is currently #41824 up to #41790. This
would also complete the pattern that's in the neighborhood, where you have the abutter docks,
more or less toward the center of their lots and the inland docks that are in there tend to be
closer to the lot lines. It spreads them out a little more evenly and it's less intrusion on the
people that are there because the neighbors that are coming into the neighborhood are more
toward your lot lines rather than down toward the center of your lot.
MOTION made by Hanus to approve the 1999 dock location map as recommended
by the DCAC; moving the Smith site (Dock #41866) to #41842 and then moving the
next dock site to the east, which is currently #41824 up to #41790; and directing
Staff to resolve this by the f'wst Council Meeting in February,( February 9). If the
affected people come up with another alternative that they can reach agreement on,
that would be acceptable.
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- JANUARY 12, 1999
Councilmember Weycker stated that the last time this was before the Council, it
was decided that that neighborhood would get together and work this out. She
stated that notices did go out in their dock packets encouraging them to get
together with Staff and work this problem out.
Brown seconded the motion.
Hanus stated that this was to be taken care of before winter. Last Fall at a
DCAC Meeting when it was discussed, he told the Park Director to do it then.
He stated it is merely shifting 2 docks over a few feet.
Weycker disagreed and encouraged the Council to delay action on shifting these
particular docks until the neighborhood is notified of the possible shift and a
meeting with them can be arranged.
Hanus does not feel the neighborhood will be able to reach an agreement and that
is why he is proposing this shift. He stated it will only affect the two docks in
front of Mr. Smith's home.
The Mayor stated she would rather see Staff work with these people and reach
an agreement.
Councilmember Ahrens stated that Mr. Smith has two dock locations in front of
his house. The Park Director sent letters to 12 people asking them to agree on
where the docks should be located in front of Mr. Smith's home. She did not
feel this was appropriate.
Brown suggested the Council go ahead and approve the motion as presented on
the condition that Staff speaks to the two people involved and if they have no
legitimate objections to moving the two docks, it will be resolved.
The City Manager suggested giving these people some time to respond to Staff
since the letters just went out in their dock packets.
The Mayor stated she would like to see the neighborhood notified before a
decision is made.
The Council discussed moving ahead with the proposed motion. Having Staff notify the affected
people and if the neighborhood comes up with a different solution, it can be changed.
Councilmember Weycker did not agree.
A vote on the motion was 4 in favor with Weycker voting nay. Motion carried.
10
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- JANUARY 1~, 1999
1.13
CASE 98-67: MINOR SUBDIVISION: TO INCORI~RATE ADJACENT
RF_~IDENTIAL LOT 18 TO THE COI~MUNITY CENTER PROJECT AT
5700 LYNWOOD BLVD,, INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 277,
5600 LYNWOOD BLVD,, PID 14-117-24 44 0007,
Loren Gordon explained the background. Westonka Public Schools have submitted an
application for boundary adjustment to expand their property to include lot 18 of Lynwood Park
addresses as 5700 Lynwood Blvd. The property is currently zoned R-2, One and Two Family
Residential District and has an occupied residence currently. The lot measures 50 feet by 230
feet encompassing approximately 11,500 sf. In the rear of the property is a public alley used
for access purposes. The Westonka School District has a signed purchase agreement for the
property which is conditioned on approval of the Community Center CUP. As per the submitted
plans for the community center, the existing house will be removed to incorporate the lot into
the site.
Section 330:20 subd. I(B) Minor Boundary Adjustments states that "The relocation of a
boundary line between two abutting, existing parcels of property; such relocation not
causing the creation of a new parcel or parcels and such relocation not violating the
Zoning Ordinance."
Based on the Community Center proposal, the incorporation of lot 18 will not violate the
Zoning Ordinance. We have discussed the possibility of replotting the property to create
one PID for the property. This is an option to make the property "cleaner~, but is not
necessary for any approval of the project as proposed. Additionally, rezoning the
property to have one district rather than 3 was discussed. This too would make the site
"cleaner" from an administrative review standpoint, but is not needed from a use
standpoint.
The City Engineer has reviewed the plans and has two comments that need to be
addressed as conditions to approval. The first comment is the existing sanitary sewer
force main and storm sewer line the runs through the site. There does not appear to be
records of a recorded easement for these lines which runs from the alley to Alder Road.
If such easement exists, documentation needs to be provided, otherwise a new easement
will need to be established. The second comment is the storm sewer catch basin on lot
18 that will be removed with construction. Because the water run-off in the alley drains
to the east, a new catch basin will need to be installed in the alley adjacent to lot 19. No
public lands permits would be required to do this work, but the City Engineer will need
updated plans for review, and the Street Superintendent will need to oversee the project.
PLANNER'S RECOMMENDATION:
The Planner recommended that the Planning Commission recommend Council approval
of the minor subdivision as requested with the following conditions.
Approval be conditioned on ownership transfer of Lot 18 to the Westonka
Schools.
11
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- JANUARY 12, 1999
Approval be conditioned on approval of the conditional use permit and variances
for the Westonka Community Center, case//98-64.
Utility easement documentation for the existing storm sewer and sanitary sewer
force main be provided or a new utility easement be established.
A new stormwater catch basin be installed in the alley adjacent to Lot 19. The
City Engineer shall be provided with revised plans for review and approval.
Mr. Gordon then reviewed the City Engineer's Report and Recommendation.
The plan shows the City of Mound's existing storm sewer line that runs through the
school property from the Bellaire Lane/Alder Road intersection south to the alley. At
this point it runs west within the right-of-way of the alley. The plan, however, does not
show the existing Minnetrista sanitary sewer forcemain which runs parallel and on the
east side of the storm sewer line. The original construction plans show an air release
manhole on this line that will end up in the new driveway. None of the documents that
I have seen indicate if there are recorded easements for either of these mains.
There are two existing catch basins with leads connected to the main storm sewer line
that have been ignored on the plan. The critical catch basin is located at the east end of
the existing alley and is the inlet for most of the surface drainage from the alley and
adjacent properties. Because this catch basin will now be located within the median
between the parking lot at the drop-off area and the main driveway, a new collection
structure will need to be constructed in the alley.
These revisions will need to be incorporated in the final construction documents and
resubmitted for approval before commencing construction.
Engineer's Comments and Recommendations:
I would recommend that the following conditions become part of any approvals granted
for this minor subdivision.
The applicant furnish proof of recorded easements for both the City of Mound
storm sewer line and the City of Minnetrista sanitary sewer forcemain,
If there are no existing easements, the applicant must provide easements in
recordable form for said existing utilities, or,
The grading and drainage plan be revised to accommodate changes to existing
storm sewer system and be approved by the City Engineer.
The Mayor asked for any comments or questions from the Council.
12
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- JANUARY 12, 1999
Councilmember Hanus made the following comments:
"This subdivision doesn't represent the subdivisions required for the entire
project. There are other subdivisions that are going to be required in the future.
The site currently includes the football field and the baseball fields and that's
contrary to what the final plan looks like and what the final plan calls for. In
other words there are future subdivisions that are going to have to happen down
the road. What that really leaves us with now, is what I consider to be half a
subdivision plan. We have part of the subdivisions in front of us. That is very,
very bad public policy and it's very, very bad planning procedures. It's
something you just don't do. It is entirely possible that those future subdivisions,
that I'm referring to, may not get approved down the road. There are reasons not
to approve them and they may not get approved and then what do we have?
We've got an option, that a future Council has of really, what?
Three options:
A. We can either approve it.
Or the alternative is that, either the school district loses the property that
the football field is on and the baseball fields, because all of that property
has got to transfer at the end of the project.
C. Or we end up in court.
One of those three things are probably what's going to end up happening. I
believe that the entire subdivision has to take place now. The entire site has to
be subdivided now in its final plan in order to make sense. In order to keep from
binding a future Council. You're really not binding them. They still can do
whatever they want but, the options are not very good that I just mentioned. The
site has to be subdivided now in order to validate the variances that were granted
previously. The need doesn't even exist as we stand here today. There is no
reason why the rest of the subdivisions can't happen at this point in time. It just
doesn't make any sense not to do it.
e
This is no longer a minor realignment of a line. Actually, I never thought it was
but there's a question of whether it's a minor subdivision or a major subdivision.?
As far as the minor realignment that we have presented in our packet. Again,
think about what the minor realignment is doing in this particular case. It's
eliminating an entire parcel. The total elimination of a lot line rather than the
shifting of a lot line. It adds a third zone to a site that already has two zones in
it. It requires new drainage easements. It requires new utility easements. It
changes the use of the property from residential to public. Now, after the last
meeting, new information we found out, now that is does require alteration,
moving of the storm sewer, or at least the catch basins in the area. That's a
public improvement and Loren that's one of the primary points that you've argued
13
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - JANUARY 12, 1999
the last time that made it a minor subdivision, is that there are no sewer, water
issues involved. Now, there clearly are. It's very arguable now, that this is a
major subdivision,, not even a minor one, let alone, a minor realignment of a lot
line.
There's still missing information. I think a sketch plan does exist but, I don't see
one in our packet here tonight. A final plat, I believe is required and we don't
even have the site survey in here. I think that exists, as well. But, again, that's
not in our packet here tonight.
The utility easements that I mentioned earlier, have to be drawn up. They
haven't been done.
B. The drainage easements have to be drawn up. They haven't been done.
The new storm sewer and catch basins or at least the design work for
those, have not been drawn and submitted.
We're obligating a future Council to pass a future subdivision and we
don't even know how it's defined at this point in time. We don't know
the size of the future parcel. We don't know where the lot lines are going
to be drawn, exactly. We know they're going to go somewhere around
the parking lot but, we don't even know the size of the parking lot at that
point in time. We don't know about potential utility issues around those
lot lines. We haven't addressed the citizen comments that were brought
up at the 'last meeting, relative to the loss of the baseball field and the
rinks. That was the first comment I heard, was at the last meeting about
the negative aspects of losing those sites. If we were to pass this tonight,
we're just ignoring those people. ~
So again, the obligation of a future Council, puts them between a terrible
rock and a hard place. Between deciding whether to go to court or go
ahead and pass it. Not much of a choice.
The Planning Commission has not yet reviewed this plan, relative to the
Comp Plan. This goes back to that strange issue we talked about with that
Statute at the last meeting. I still believe that it's a State Law and it says
that they need to review that relative to the Comp Plan. The 45 day
provision has not yet passed. The Council has not passed a resolution to
take it away from the Planning Commission yet, which they can do, but
haven't yet. And if we approve this, subject to the Planning Commission
approval, then we are really conveying to a group of volunteer
commissioners, that are appointed (volunteer people). We are putting
them in the position of having a veto authority over this project because
if they don't approve it. If we approve it subject to their approval and
14
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - JANUARY 12, 1999
they don't approve it, it's 'dead. That's a vary unfair position to put a
group of volunteers into.
So, where does that leave us? We are sitting here now with a CUP that's
been passed subject to conditions, not all of which have been met yet, so
the CUP isn't even valid yet. We've granted variances to conditions that
don't exist. We've required an escrow account that doesn't state whose
in control of the account; doesn't state how much needs to be in the
account; and doesn't state when the account must be used. It's a pretty
worthless provision. I still believe that the CUP language is just full of
incorrect information. It also requires the City to be satisfied that the new
neighbor's concerns are satisfied and I haven't seen anything back on that.
I don't know if those discussions have taken place yet.
Now, we have a proposed subdivision in front of us. It's half a plan, like
I stated. It doesn't address the entire site. It's only part of a plan. We
have evidence that it could now be a major subdivision, rather than a
minor subdivision and it's time to stop for a second and backup. There
has been enough short circuiting of this system. The process has been
short circuited here and that's why we've got such a terrible mess that
we're looking at. It is a terrible mess, from a planning perspective, to
work through. It's because things have been short circuited and bypassed.
We have to let the process work. The process was designed to work out
the bugs. It may not always be a great process. It may be difficult to
work through sometimes but, the process was designed to work out the
bugs in these plans. We need to let it do what it was intended to do. It's
the only way the City can stay out of trouble. The process is spelled out
in the ordinances. The process, I don't think, has been followed. The
Planning Commission, as an example, hasn't even had an entire Staff
report on the subdivision yet. It got part way through it and that was the
end of it. I think that we're in big trouble, if, this gets to a point down
the road, where one of the groups wants to sue the City for not following
a process. We're in trouble because we've circumvented the process here.
We need to back up and run through the process. We know that the
School District has already hired an attorney. We've received a letter
regarding comments about the process. It's already started. I want to be
very careful, from a legal perspective here, that we don't circumvent the
system and the process. We have to be consistent. We have to treat this
case the same as we would any other subdivision."
Hanus then referred to the Planning Commission Minutes from January 11, 1999. The
Commission discussed this and passed a motion recommending that the City Council return it
to them, by a unanimous vote. That is what Hanus would strongly recommend.
15
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- JANUARY 12, 1999
MOTION m~de by Hanus, seconded by Brown to return this case back to the
Planning Commi~ion to go back through the process as the process was designed
to work.
The Mayor and Councilmember Brown both voiced concern about the subdivisions and
how this will all come .together.
The Mayor asked for any comments from the people in attendance. There were none.
The vote was 4 in favor with Weycker voting nay. Motion carried.
The City Manager asked if the Council would like this back from the Planning Commission by
a certain date?
MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Brown to reconsider the motion. The vote
was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
The Council discussed a time-line for this item to return to the Council from the Planning
Commission.
MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Brown to refer this case back to the
Planning Commission to go back through the process as the process was designed
to work. The Council asked that the Planning Commission have this back to the
City Council for their 1st meeting in February (February 9, 1999).
The Mayor asked that the Planner provide the School District with an good guideline of what
the Planning Commission needs.
The Planner stated he has good notes of Councilmember Hanus concerns but he disagrees with
his interpretation of the process.
The vote on the motion was 4 in favor with Weycker voting nay. Motion carried.
COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT,
There were none.
1.14
RF~OMMENDATION FROM PARK AND QPEN SPACE COMMISSIQN
RE: PURCHASE OF LAND AT 2217 CHATEAU LANE
FOR PARK PURPOSES.
The City Manager explained that Sunshore Partners Limited of Dallas, Texas has contacted the
City about donating Lot 18, Block 1, L.P. Crevier's Subd. of Lot 36 to the City of Mound for
16
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - JANUARY 12, 1999
$1.00 for use as a park or any other purpose the City feels is appropriate. It is an unbuildable
lot as it only has 4800 square feet. The Park Commission has reviewed this and recommended
the purchase for parkland usage.
Councilmember Weycker stated that she voted against it at the Park Commission because they
wanted it dedicated to park land usage. She felt there are houses on both sides of this lot which
appear to be nonconforming because of lot size and it might better serve to be divided and
attached to each nonconforming property to make them conforming.
The Council discussed this and decided to do some further checking on this property and the
neighboring property to see if there is a better use than park land, possibly leaving it just as
green space.
The City Attorney suggested checking on whether the property taxes have been paid on this
parcel.
Hanus felt this item should go to the Planning Commission for review because we're taking
private land and putting it into public use.
MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Hanus to direct Staff to investigate if there
are any back property taxes owing on this parcel and then refer this item to the
Planning Commi~ion for their review. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion
carried.
INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS:
A. Department Head Monthly Reports for December 1998.
B. Dock and Commons Advisory Commission Minutes of December 17, 1998.
C. Park and Open Space Commission Minutes of December 10, 1998.
Dw
Notice and agenda material for the Suburban Rate Authority (SRA) Annual Meeting.
Councilmember Hanus is the City's delegate to this organization and Ed Shukle is the
alternate delegate.
OFFICIAL ANNOUNCEMENT: The City of Mound now has a Web Site. The address
is www.tranweb.com/cityofmound/ The web site was developed by Ted Leif, a Mound
resident, who works for a software company. He approached Gino one day about any
interest from the City in having a web site. We had been exploring different ways in
which to develop a site but Ted's expertise made the process much easier. The only
charge we pay is for the host server. The site will require ongoing "maintenance"
which means keeping it updated and changing the type of information that is placed in
the site. Please check it out tell us what you think. Special thank you to Gino who
17
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- JANUARY 12, 1999
coordinated the project and to Ted who developed the material for the site.
F. REMINDER: City offices will be closed Monday, January 18, 1999 in
observance of Dr. Martin Luther King's Birthday.
WCCB Meeting is scheduled for Monday, January 18, 1999, 7:30
p.m., Mound City Hall. This is the annual meeting and there will
be some organizational items on the agenda as well as other items
from past meetings. Currently, Councilmember Hanus is a voting
member and Councilmember Weycker is an alternate member.
HRA meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, January 12, 1999, 7:00
p.m., before the regular meeting of the City Council. I have
asked Fran to administer the Oath of Office prior to the HRA
meeting so that the Council is officially sworn in as
Councilmembers who then will be HRA members in order to
transact HRA business.
I. January 1999 Calendar.
MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Brown to adjourn at 8:55 P.M.
was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
Attest: City Clerk
The vote
~Shukle, Jr., City Manager
18
Bills
January 12, 1999
Batch 8103
Batch 8104
107,362.36
155,038.19
TOTAL BILLS
$ 262,400.55
~'~'
7-'
c
o
C ~
?
~ rp ~r
°i°
¢
ir-.
ZZ~
mm m
mm~mm~m
o gg~o o
o o
· · · · ·
I!°
o~
m
c
o
o
5o
.-40
mm
· · · · · ·
n
ITl
0 0
~-~
,
ZZ
-mr-m'
-=¢ --~
oo°
Z
-r
C.
Pt'
o o
C
,0
r-
O0 0
~r
0
7
~{~}u
THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY.