Loading...
1999-02-10 MINUTES - SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING- FEBRUARY 10, 1999 MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 10, 1999 The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in special session on Tuesday, February 10, 1999, at 6:00 PM, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. The purpose of this meeting was to consider the Hearing Examiner's Report on the Wetland Delineation and exemption appeal by the Peckers for four lots on Three Points Blvd. in Mound. The City Clerk called the roll. Those present were: Mayor Pat Meisel, Councilmembers Andrea Ahrens, Bob Brown, Mark Hanus, and Leah Weycker. Councilmember Ahrens was absent and excused. Also in attendance were: City Manager Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Engineer Kelly Bopray, Building Official Jon Sutherland, City Attorneys John Dean and Mack LeFevre, City Clerk Fran Clark and the following interested citizens: Tim Becker, Mark Jacobson, John Quist, Cheryl Fougeron, Jeffrey Skelton, John Campbell, Michael Fitzgerald and Larry Johnson. The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. The City Attorney outlined the procedure, process and rules for this hearing as follows: February 10, 1999 Hearing on Becker Wetland Delineation and Exemption Appeal A special meeting of the Mound City Council has been set for Wednesday, February 10, 1998 to consider the report of the hearing examiner on this matter. The purpose of this memorandum is to review the procedure and the rules that the council may wish to follow during the hearing. Although it is occasionally appropriate to recognize exceptions to hard and fast rules and procedures, generally the hearing process will go more smoothly and the information will be received in a more coherent and understandable way if the effort is made to follow the established procedure and rules. PROCEDURE A. PARTICIPANTS. City Council. Your role is to review the record, hear the information presented by the parties at the hearing, and render a decision. Beckers, The Beckers have appealed the Building Official's denial of a grading permit. That decision was reviewed by the heating examiner who has recommended that it be affirmed. The Beckers may be represented by counsel at the hearing, or may represent themselves at their option. City Staff. The staff is responding to the Becker appeal and proposing that the Building Official's denial be affirmed by the Council. The position of the staff will be presented by John M. LeFevre, Jr. City Attorney. The city attorney will be present to provide assistance to the council as it may direct. 156 .MINUTES- SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING- FEBRUARY 10, 1999 B. PROCESS 1. Meeting called to order, roll taken, pledge of allegiance, etc. 2. City manager and/or city attorney called on to introduce topic. 3. Council can ask any questions about the procedure or the rules. Presentations. It is my suggestion that the Beckers' should have the opportunity present their case first. Following the conclusion of the Beckets' initial presentation, the staff position will be presented. I also recommend that the Beckets' have an opportunity to make further comments, but that those further comments should be limited to matters raised in the staff presentation only. Any additional presentations should be only with the permission of the council The council has the right to ask questions at any time during the presentations. Co Summation. If the council wishes, the parties should each be given an opportunity, starting with the Beckers', to sum up their presentation. I suggest that a time limit (say five minutes) be placed on each. Council Deliberation and Decision. The council should formally acknowledge the close of the presentations and move into the deliberation phase. The principal issue here is whether to adopt any of the proposed resolutions, or to adopt a different resolution. It is not required that the decision be made on the evening of the hearing. RULES The following rules were provided to the parties in the hearing notice, and consequently should be incorporated in the hearing. The evidence that was presented to the hearing examiner is the only evidence that will be considered by the council. No testimony will be permitted at the hearing. The parties should limit their factual statements to a review of the evidence that was presented to the hearing examiner. The issue for the council to consider is whether to accept, modify, of reject the Recommendations of the hearing examiner; and, if rejected, what alternative findings are to be made. Consequently, the presentations of the parties should be directed to a review of the hearing examiner's recommendations from the perspective of.- (i) whether they are supported by the evidence in the record; And (ii) whether they correctly apply the applicable law. MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Brown to accept the rules as laid out. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 157 MINUTES- SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING- FEBRUARY 10, 1999 Mr. Becker made his presentation. Mr. Quist and Mr. Jacobson showed an exhibit that was presented at thc hearing. Mr. Becket reviewed his letter dated February 9, 1999. Hc then read a letter from his parents, Lorell and Dale Becket. Mr. Becker did not agree with the Hearing Examiner's Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommendation and did not feel she was qualified to make these. The City's Attorney, Mac LeFevre, made his presentation and presented the proposed resolution and recommended that the City Council accept and adopt the Heating Examiner's Findings of Fact; Conclusions of Law; and Recommendation in the Appeal of Timothy Pecker and Dale and Lorell Becker, Relating to the Wetland Delineation and Exemption on Four Lots in the City of Mound, with modifications as indicated in the attached Exhibit A, made in order to conform the said Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommendation, more closely to the evidence in the hearing record. The City's Wetland Engineer, Kelly Bopray (MFRA), agreed with Mr. LeFevre. Mr. Becker reiterated his contention that the Hearing Examiner was not qualified. The Mayor closed the hearing at 9:30 P.M. The Council discussed adding more monitoring wells on the property and continued monitoring. Brown felt the monitoring wells should continue to be monitored for a full year to get a tree reading of the water level and hydrology. LeFevre stated that even if the Council adopts the recommended resolution tonight, the Becker's can take a further appeal to BOWSR on this decision. If they have additional information, they could renew their request for a permit based on that. Councilmember Brown felt that more monitoring was necessary. Hanus suggested an addition: The duration of the monitoring is not to extend beyond September 1, 1999, provided that acceptable results are received and the TEP ends the monitoring requirement. City Attorney's suggested addition: This conclusion does not prejudice the right of the Becker's to request revisions in the delineation following the conclusion of a monitoring program reasonably acceptable to the City. Monitoring need not continue after September 1, 1999, at the locations and the number that are currently there, based upon a certification to the City, by Barr Engineering that that is an adequate sampling of the site and the TEP ends the monitoring requirement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota that in accordance with the Wetland Conservation Act ("WCA"), Minn. Stat. Ch. 103G, the City hereby, determines that the Hearing Examiner's Findings of Fact, as modified below, are reasonably supported by the evidence of record, and that the Hearing Examiner properly applied the applicable law, and therefore the City accepts and adopts the Hearing Examiner's Findings of Fact; Conclusions of Law; and Recommendation in the Appeal of Timothy Becker and Dale and Lorell Becket, Relating to the Wetland Delineation and Exemption on Four Lots in the City of Mound, with modifications as indicated in the 158 MINUTES- SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING- FEBRUARY 10, 1999 attached Exhibit A, made in order to conform the said Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommendation, more closely to the evidence in the hearing record. The following resolution was moved by Councilmember Hanus, and seconded by Councilmember Weycker with the additions as outlined above: RESOLUTION//99-15 RF_3OLUTION ACCEPTING THE HEARING EXAMINER'S FINDINGS OF FACT; CONCLUSIONS OF LAW; AND RECOMMENDATION IN THE APPEAL OF TIMOTHY BECKER AND DALE AND LORELL BECKER, RELATING TO THE WETLAND DELINEATION AND EXEMPTION ON FOUR LOTS IN THE CITY OF MOUND The vote was 3 in favor with Brown voting nay. Motion carried. MOTION made by Weycker, seconded by Brown to adjourn at 10:05 P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager Attest: City Clerk 159