1999-04-27MINUTF.~ - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - APRIL 27, 1999
The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session
on Tuesday, April 27, 1999, at 7:45 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, Leah Weycker. Also in attendance were Acting City Manager Fran Clark, City Attorney
John Dean, Park Director Jim Fackler, City Dock Inspector Tom McCaffrey, and the following
interested citizens: Paul Brown, Craig Watson, Mike Aspelin, Walter Neske, Duane Norberg,
Frank and Betty Weiland, Cathy Bailey, Don Pedersen, Thomas and Cathy Hart, Adie
Meuwissen, Christine Anderson, Kevin Sheeley, Joyce Ringwelski, Ralph Bauer, Sandi Schmidt,
Jori and Ani Ayaz, Matt Hoghaug, John Mundt, Jon E. Helgason, Jim Fogstad, Greg Knutson,
Becky Cherne, Connie and Bob Schmidt.
The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. The Pledge of
Allegiance was recited.
*Consent Agenda: Ail 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
Hanus asked that item 3A be pulled from the Consent Agenda.
The following items were reordered as follows:
1.0
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Comments and suggestions from Citizens Present
Update on Executive Session (Add-On by Mayor)
Request from Youth Baseball for Use of Swenson Park and Philbrook Park
Pembroke Multiple Dock Configuration
Continued Discussion: Devon Common, Roanoke Area
Separation Agreement with City Manager
MOTION made by Brown, seconded by Hanus to approve the Regular Agenda, as
amended with the Add-On Item. The vote was 4-1 in favor. Voting Nay: Weycker.
Motion carried.
298 298
1.1
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- APRIL 27, 1999
* CONSENT AGENDA
MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Ahrens to approve the Consent Agenda, as
amended, pulling item 3A. The vote was unanimously ill favor. Motion carried.
'1.2
SET PUBLIC HEARING DATE p & Z CASE #99-09
(SUGGESTED DATE - MAY 11, 1999)
REZONING. TO REZONE A PROPERTY FROM R-2 TO R-3 LOCATED AT
2033 COMMERCE BOULEVARD, W.218 FEET OF E.251 251 FEET OF N. 125
FEET OF NE ~A SU~ECT TO ROAD, UNPLATTED 14-117-24, PID # 14-117-24
41 0001.
MOTION
Hanus, Ahreus, unanimously.
'1.3
APPROVAL OF ADDITIONAL TREE LICENSE FOR RAY~ TREE SERVICE
Hanus pulled from the Consent Agenda.
.1.4 APPROVAL OF COMMERCIAL INSURANCE PROGRAM FOR 1999,
*1.5
RESOLUTION ~)9-37
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE 1999 INSURANCE
PROGRAM FROM THE LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA
CITIES AS SUBMITTED BY CARL BENNETSEN, R.
L. YOUNGDAHL & ASSOCIATES
Hanus, Ahrens, unanimously.
PAYMENT OF BILLS
MOTION
Hanus, Ahrens, unanimously.
299
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINIJTE$- APRIL 27, 1999
*1.6
APPROVE MINUTES OF APRIL 13. 1998. REGULAR MEETING,
MOTION
Hanus, Ahrens, unanimously.
'1.7 APPROVE TEMPORARY ~,2 BEER/SET-UP LICENSE AND PI. JBLIC DANCE
PERMIT FOR MOUND FIRE DEPARTMENT FISH FRY - JUNE S, 1999,
MOTION
Hanus, Ahrens, unanimously.
· 1.8 APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE APRH. 20,1999 REGULAR MEETING.
On Page 1336 of the packet, add to paragraph three, sentence one, under Community
Center Information/Discussion: "...regarding this topic which is expected very soon.
The Council wanted to avoid duplication of efforts..
MOTION
Hanus, Ahrens, unanimously.
COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT, NONE
1.9 UPDATE ON EXECUTIVE SESSION
City Attorney Dean gave a report to the public regarding the one and one-forth hour executive
session which had just finished prior to this council meeting. Some of the issues addressed this
evening were what to do now that the boating season has started and people want to get out on
the commons.
The City feels a certain amount of ambiguity over the judge's ruling. The City Attorney will
work with the City Manager to contact the license holders to inform them of the ruling. The
next step is to contact the judge with their concerns over permits that have been issued, where
the docks will be, what regulations will be enforced, and ask for clarification in direction from
the judge.
The license holders will be contacted in writing and notified of the judge's ruling. Until further
clarity, no one can assume any rights or authority. The letter from the Court did not indicate
what steps to take next; therefore, we will have to wait for clarification.
300 300
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- APRIL 27, 1999
1.10
REOUEST FROM YOUTH BASEBALL FOR USE OF SWENSON PARK AND
PH]ff~BRQQK PARK,
City Park Director Fackler stated that he had received a letter from Tim Dorfner of Babe Ruth
to discuss safety improvements to Swenson and Philbrook Parks for use by the Youth Baseball
as shown on the diagram on page 1511 of this meeting's packet. These requested improvements
(at Swenson Park) include:
2.
3.
4.
5.
Move players' bench behind backstop.
Increase ag-lime diameter 20'.
Add 1" Base line fence to prevent overthrow.
Use lock box to store rakes, shovel, and bases.
We will police field for trash.
This request came before the Park Commission to use these parks as practice fields for the
coming season.
Councilmember Brown spoke regarding Babe Ruth and the positive impact of this organization.
However, he feels that these two parks should remain as neighborhood parks and not be ball
fields. He suggested that they be used as practice fields only if available and necessary.
Terry Sincheff of 6077 Aspen Road stated that they had been in the neighborhood since 1961.
At that point, this park was wetlands. He watched as the City made this a recreational park.
Now, it has gone from a neighborhood park to an assigned ball field. Since the ball teams have
come in, his children have not had a park to play in. This person spoke against any organized
sports in this park.
Davis of 6170 Red Oak Road concern that the ball fields will take over the park. Fackler
stated that the City has a policy to work with the schools for practices. The league
representative stated that they intend to restrict the practice at the different fields and rotate them
so that the park will be available for neighborhood children to play in.
Councilmember Weycker stated that at the Park Commission, the specification was made that
the parks would not be used any more than they are being used today for ball fields and practice.
This would mean 2 to 3 nights for practice.
Deb Busse of 2144 Southview spoke against any use for the park for practice.
MOt. IbrD CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- APRIL 27, 1999
Brown stated that Philbrook is a nice circular park and does not want to see any organized
games here. Only practice games.
Walter Neske of 6225 Red Oak Road stated that he had been in the neighborhood for 41 years.
If Philbrook Park were used for practice or ball games, there would be safety issue. There is
no room for parking. The streets are only 26 feet wide. There is not room for a parked car,
and two-way traffic. It is not safe.
He has not heard about Swenson, but he believes that the character of the neighborhoods will
be destroyed with fences. Additionally, he feels that placing ball fields for Babe Ruth or Little
League is "gender biased." He stated that "no, no forever, on any improvements to Philbrook
Park.
Deb Busse of 2144 Southview spoke about the proposals. "Baseball is a good thing," she
stated. "However, Mound City Parks are an even better thing." She doesn't feel it is up to the
City of Mound to resolve the League's issues. Any solution needs to be addressed jointly with
other concerned cities and new locations found. She stated "improving parks to meet safety
needs of area baseball leagues needs to be stopped now and forever."
Gene Holtmeyer of 6118 Clover Circle stated that neighborhood parks should be for
neighborhood children.
Tim Dorfner from the League, realizes these are neighborhood parks. The League lost seven
ball fields in the past five years. They need a place to go, a place to practice. He .recognizes
that people do not like some things in their neighborhoods, such as water towers. However, this
is an issue of convenience. With the current issues in our country, we want local parks to be
safe for the younger children to play and practice near home.
The parks would be used for practice only and not for organized games. There are five teams
and thus, three teams would use each of three fields per week. Tournaments will be held on the
weekends and would not use these two parks then. He doesn't know another solution to the
dilemma the League is in right now.
Brown asked Mr. Dorfner to explain the issues with using the Babe Ruth field currently. His
understanding is that there was an "attitude" issue with the kids who played and the owners of
the fields. He has a concern that this attitude will carry over into neighborhood parks and make
it difficult for local children to play at them.
302 302
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- APRIL 27, 1999
Dorfner to Brown stated that the Babe Ruth program was falling apart because of other issues,
too many sports and not enough fields. There is a lack of parental participation and thus, the
coaches need safer fields to be able to monitor what is going on at all times and try to maintain
control. There has been a lot of injuries, that's why they want a safety fence
Hanus asked if the proposal has changed at all. Dorfner stated that the lock boxes have been
"tossed out." Hanus asked how many practices would be required. Mr. Dorfner stated that
there were no scheduled games, and the practice would depend upon field availability.
Brown does not question Mr. Dorfner's commitment and plans. However, once a foothold is
gotten into the neighborhood parks for practice, other people will want other things and before
you know it, it will not be a neighborhood park anymore. Additionally, everyone wants practice
to be at six or after which ties up the parks for the evening.
Hanus wanted to know how much of the circle would be used at Philbrook with practices.
Dorfner stated that the citizens would have over half the park. He also stated that once the
games began, practice time goes way down. Hanus asked how many people are involved when
there is a practice. Dorfner replied that there are about 15 people included coaches and team
players. Only one team practices at a given time. Of this number, three are adults usually, one
coach and two helpers. Hanus asked how the kids got to the park. Dorfner said that some
biked or were dropped off by their parents. As a rule, parents did not stay for practice.
Weycker stated that the recommendation of the Park and Open Spaces Commission was to leave
Philbrook Park alone and only address safety issues of the general public, but not increase the
usage at all. She asked if Swenson Park was used, where would there be parking.
Dorfner stated that of the two parks, he preferred Swenson himself. However, there were
safety issues that needed to be addressed. These are addressed in the Mound Park and Open
Spaces Commission Minutes from April 8, 1999 attached to this agenda.
Chuck Champine of 1550 Canary Ln, asked to address the council regarding the litigation
summary given by City Attorney Dean earlier in the meeting. Both Dean and the Mayor
indicated that the topic was closed unless the council wanted to hear additional issues. He
asked whether or not the City would continue in the dispute and what the follow-up will be.
Dean stated that they would be following-up to get direction from the judge. Mr. Champine
asked what other communication would there be with the dock holders.
At this point, the discussion on the litigation was tabled until later in the meeting.
Sandy schmidt, of' 6216 Red Oak. ROad has concerns over the use of the parks, for Little
League. Over the past few years there has been a number of injuries. If opened this year for
practice, what would be' asked next and so. forth. She asked the council to please listen to the
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- APRIL 27, 1999
neighborhood people and not use the neighborhood parks for Little League. There are strong
residential feelings to leave these as family parks.
Peter Meyer of the Parks and Open Space Commi~ion indicated that he could see the need
for additional ball fields. He also could see the needs for neighborhood parks. This has been
an issue they have had to deal with, particularly as it relates the Comprehensive Plan for the
City and the Park's portion. They are wrestling with the language to put in the plan. Mound
Parks are inadequate for the needs of all sports. They have looked at a lot of options and spent
a lot of time trying to determine the best usage. They have looked at adding park land and have
considered getting land between the cities and so forth for ball fields and other sports.
Duane Norberg of 6015 Aspen Road stated that he has been a resident for over 27 years now
and bought his home because of the park. Now, he doesn't feel it is safe to have kids playing
there. There is too much traffic. Also, the aesthetics lend them selves to openness. Fences
would close it down to the group using it. If residents want to use the parks as recreation,
organized ball games puts them in danger. He pleaded that the "council would not distract from
the parks. 'He would like to see more openness and have it be more wild. Don't fence it in."
Sarah Peterson has lived across from Philbrook Park for 21 years. She is home from 5 - 6
p.m. and normally, there are about 8 different people using the park from different families.
If there is practice games there, the residents will not be able to use the park for basketball, or
walking or other unorganized things to do. Fences will limit the use. Over 25 people use the
parks daily. Over 120 people have signed a petition not to change Philbrook Park.
Mary McKinley of 5948 Hillcrest Road stated that this is a stable, long-term neighborhood.
It is a building block in Mound. "Philbrook has low traffic and therefore is used a lot by
neighbors. Baseball is an okay activity, but don't sacrifice Philbrook to 13 and 14-year-old kids.
If Mound wants to sustain neighborhood, keep park as it is."
MOTION made by Brown, seconded by Hanus to permanently keep Swenson and
Philbrook Parks as neighborhood parks. No organized sports shall be held at them.
Discussion
Hanus gave his summary as a Councilmember. Both parks are neighborhood parks and
he has no problem with limited use for practice fields. However, the neighborhoods
should have ample time to use. He is concerned with the improvements. He feels that
be doing them, things are nudged one-step further towards organized sports. He doesn't
fully understand baseball practice, but they do things and use methods that do not require
full safety equipment. He also has concerns regarding the additional traffic and
3O4
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- APRIL 27, 1999
precedence that this will set. He believes that practice time could grow to be too much.
But he does support some informal restricted practices there.
Brown is concerned that if you have practice, there are nine kids in the field. The rest
should be behind the backstop for safety. When the kids are on the benches, the coach's
attention is on the players. This can create problems since both areas are tough to
control at once.
Weycker the recommendation from the Park Commission was to do no safety
improvements requested and remove the benches that were there today. There are
parking issues today. Additional practices only adds more. Anyone can call community
education and schedule a time
In response to comments on page 1527, Hanus stated that "staff fix it is not the answer."
He stated that there was a motion on the floor. Brown stated that the word
"permanently" could be removed from the motion.
A concern over the benches was raised again. Dorfner stated that the problem with the
benches is that people use them to sit on and they are in the way of the play. Safety
issues and injuries could happen if they stayed there.
Ahrens stated that the flavor of the Park and Open Spaces Commission was not in favor
of using these parks for organized baseball. It sets precedence, creates more traffic if
the improvements are made. She is voting against the improvements. She doesn't see
a long-term solution.
Brown stated that using these parks should not be a long-term solution. It's Babe Ruth
and the Little' League issues, not the City's,
After additional discussion on the benches, Brown was asked if he wanted to amend his
motion to include moving the benches back behind the backstop. He said he would and
Hanus accepted the change also.
The vote was unanimously in favor. MOtion carried.
1.11 PEMBROOK MULTIPLE'DOCK CONFIGURATION
Hanus gave a history of how the multiple dock program configuration started. He Stated that
the configuration went in as a. pilot a few years, ago and has been quite successful. However,
it was never properly installed as the City' Council intended it to be. The Southerly resident
ended up with the. majority of the docks. By correcting this situation, three additional slips can
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINU1E$ - APRIL.27, '1999
be created. "He stated that the residerff would allow the docks to be in front of part of his home.
The following is a statement the resident to the south gave indicating he would enter into an
agreement with the city. The statement is dated 4/26/99 and reads as follows:"
"Mayor and City Council:
This handwritten note is to inform you that my wife - Ginny Miller-Plaza and I Rodrice
Plaza-Navarrete residing at 4589 Island View Drive, Mound, Devons Commons next to
Pembrook Park have been contacted by Councilmember Mark Hanus with a proposal for
a different multiple dock 'configu.ration.
The proposals are marked exhibit "A" and "B" either of which we accept-subject to
agreement that the .encroachment will not exceed 143 feet distanc6-southwest of the
northerly property, line of Pembroke Park, as drawn in exhibits "A" and "B."
It is' therefore agreed to the above proposals presented to us by Council member Mr.
H' ,anus-today 4-26-99.
Signed: Rodrigo Plaza-Navarrette and Ginny Miller-Plaza"
Weycker objected to this being a handed out item and added to the agenda at this
meeting. She wanted her concern and objections shared publicly.
Fackler hasn't visited the site recently with the plan in hand. However, he had the
following two concerns: the lot line goes out into the water at an angle; and to be
careful with the LMCD rules and regulations.
Hanus stated that this plan meets their (LMCD) requirements. He stated that it meets
the setback requirements of 30 feet and the distance beyond is the length of a boat, which
is 15 feet to 40 feet. Fackler needs to have this reviewed by the LMCD. The actual
installation has been halted until resolution of the issues, stated
Tom Casey of 2854 Cambridge Lane would like to see this issue tabled until the public
has an opportunity to review the information and plans. He stated that it is too big of
a picture and that the public had no warning that it was to be on the agenda.
Mayor Meisel agreed that there was quite a bit to understand before a motion was made
and about the Pembroke issues when looking at Devon Commons.
Hanus still wanted a motion made, he wanted to do this new dock configuration.
3O6 306
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- APRIL 27, 1999
Dean'Sulander of 2524 Emerald Drive felt the issue should be tabled until the fall. He
stated that it was just like last year, he wasn't notified by mail that this was an issue and
it does impact him. Why, he asked, wasn't this resolved during ~e winter months.
Now it is boating season and the dock installati°n is being held Up because of this.
"Let's install the docks and go boating."
Bob Sehmldt of 4708 Island View Drive stated that the City Council approved nine
slips, but adding three more, the proposal is changed. He doesn't understand why the
proposal was changed. Hanus stated that the additional slips were being added to
combine a private dock in with this one. Hanus stated that everyone would get what they
have today and three more can be accommodated.
Mi'; Sehmidt asked if it was the city's intention to turn private docks into marinas.
Hanus stated that they were charged with managing what is correct for all the citizens.
He stated "progress isn't always progress..~
Tom Casey stated that since this will impact the beach, he would like to see the issue
reviewed by the Parks and Open Space Commission. He was supported in his comments
by Dean Sulander who stated that too many docks ruins the beach area because of the
weeds and the motor oil. He sited Spring Park as an example.
Brown asked if there were twelve boats in the vicinity today. Hanus stated that there
was. This was not adding boats, but slips to dock them at.
Weycker stated that the original intention was for nine boats and as boats left, the slips
would be eliminated, not expanded in number. The final number was to be seven slips.
According to the 4/22/98 City Council minutes, the people Were asked if the docks
should be expanded and all said no except one. She stated that the public has a right to
know, and that they are here to serve all the citizens, not just one.
Hanus stated that they had a duty to manage, the. docks program and that they were at
risk of losing the commons to the courts. He is attempting to save them. He stated that
if every, action the city takes has to be ruled on by the people, nothing would'get done.
He is trying to perform his functions efficiently.
Peter Meyer of Sunset Road who Chairs the Parks and Open Space Commission feels
that this affects the parks as well as the docks and as such should be reviewed by the
Parks and Open Space Commission. It impacts the beach, traffic and other park issues
which is under their jufisdicton. Hanus stated that there was a buoy swimming rope
separating the beach from the dock area. Mary Albrecht of 4701 Aberdeen Road. stated
that when the beach is open, the boat launch is Closed.
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUIE$- APRIL 27; 1999'
Tom Casey asked Hanus how adding additional slips would save the commons. Two
years ago when the City lost its district COurt issue regarding the common issue at
Woodlands Point and I recommended that' the 'City Council ' perfect their appeal to the
court of appeals while we were negotiating those commons and you (Hanus) were one
of the people who did not vote in favor of doing that and you lost negotiating
authority/power and you.lost your chance in' the court of appeals because now what's
happen with the second round of litigation is that the city is stopped from asserting some
of the defenses that they could have put 'forth 'to the court of appeals, so you ought to
bear in inind that you have not been a unilateral supporter in keeping the commons.
Later, "don't try to tell us 'you are trying to save the commons because right now what
I hear is the opposite."
Hanus responded that his decision in-that vote was based upon deliberations on the
council (bear in mind that I was not the only one voting that way, several voted against
appeal), and it was based upon legal adVice and discussion and debate at the Council
level.
Brown raised a point of order: recommend that we don't allow personal attacks and that
there is no venting. If you have something good to say, come up and say it, but if you
are going to take a personal attack at someone, or just vent, that shouldn't be allowed.
A citizen wanted to. know. how adding' slips 10-12 at 10-16 feet each save the commons.
Hanus stated that this citizen was "totally twisting this thing around." You can't take
a statement like save the commons and address it to one little boat. That's ridiculous.
The citizen stated that Hanus said'that adding the slips would save the commons. Hanus
stated that was not what he said. I am doing this one little thing in an attempt to save
the COmmons, yes. This helps by getting the docks out from in front of people's
property who are facing a marina out their picture window that is about fifteen or twenty
feet outside their window. In this case, it is the neighbor to the south.
The'citizen stated, but you are adding boats. Hanus responded that "isn't that a great
thing, that while you are solving one problem, you are also creating more slips. Would
you like me to shut them down?, Hanus asked." The citizen stated that this neighbor
agreed to the COnfiguration that the docks went in at. "Not in front of his picture
window he did not stated Hanus. He is COmpletely in favor of this COnfiguration. I've
got a signed document, I don't know what you want, he is completely in favor of this
plan."
308 308
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- APRIL 27, 1999
Weycker suggested that ail the people be notified of the plan and it be published in the
newspaper and present it this way so that the people can come and comment on it. Also,
have the Park Commission look at it.
Hanus responded with "and who else, now." Weycker suggested o Hanu~ that he is
"stickler on whom body reviews issues." "Per the city policy, the Park Commission has
the right to review on this issue. If you (Hanus) don't want the Park Commission to
review this, then I guess that says something.'
Hanus responded that the beach continues to exist. Weycker did not see a beach shown
on the plan. Additionally, property lines and other information is missing on the plan
and she doesn't understand how a vote could be taken tonight without that information.
"Had I been privy to this information, perhaps I would have requested the information
earlier," stated Weycker.
Craig Watson on 4610 Tuxedo Boulevard stated that he was one of the people on those
docks. The way it is configured now is a lot better than the last time I saw this
configuration. Either way, what the gentleman is talking about when he talked about the
trash and the oil on the beach, it is going to be there, he stated and cited the Yacht Club
in Spring Park. It's is filthy in there, the docks and boats stop the flow of water. You
get the milfoil floating up in there, it stinks, and we have at times stopped the kids from
going out and swimming on the beach because of the oil and the milfoil that was in there.
It was suggested that we table this over the winter. Let's work on it then and get this
things set up so we can dO something about it, he suggested. Right now everyone is hot,
we want to go boating. It was bad last year, it will be bad again this year, but let's get
it fixed so that everyone is happy, not just one. We do need to have everyone know
what is going on. We do need the neighbors up there, the non-abutting property owners
to know what is going on, the abutting property owners to know what is going on and
the public to know what is going on."
Brown, we worked on this pretty much since January to figure out what is going on
here. It has been festering for several months now. Mr. Watson stated that the public
knew nothing about it, he' only knew about it because he had spoken with Hanus last
weekend. It wasn't in the' paper,, no notice, we did not get a call. This is a public outfit,
this is a .public thing that you guys are doing. You guys are hired by us. We need to
know what is going on. We have that right and you're not giving us that right when you
spring something. If no one had been here tonight, this would have 'been railroaded in
and none of us would have known anything about it. You guys have to let uS know what
is going on, we trust you to do 'that.~ You have a lot of our way of life going on in this
City going on that you can mess up and we have no way of knowing unless you let us
know what is going on. I don't know whether this is a good deal or 'not, I've got'to
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- APRI~ 27, 1999
think about it because this is the first time I've seen it,' stated.Watson. "I'm probably
the worst guy out there, I've got the two sailboats and the little dinghy. I've got five
boats that I'm registering, whether I-get all five on the dock or not has nothing to do
with it.
Hanus thanked him for calling him 'on it. The design he brought in tonight has nothing
to do with the one he showed Watson on Saturday. It has been changed primarily to
accommodate him. "I truly.believe what is here is better than what you have now, stated
Hanus."
Truly, I believe you have a better scenario here than what you have now, he stated.
Watson. stated that might'very well be true, however he needs to think it through since
he would need to give up his dock for this configuration.
Mayor Meisel tabled this discussion until later in the meeting after asking for additional
comments. Hanus asked if her intention was to delay the motion.
1.12 CONTINUED DISCUSSION: DEVON COMMON, ROANOKE AREA
Open for public comment. The mayor asked for short remarks and varied ones with no personal
attacks.
Bob Schmidt asked for a definition of the problem within the commons. Hanus stated
that.the problem had been stated many times. Mr. Schmidt stated he heard people
wanted private lakeshore. Hanus stated that the public said that, not the council. Mr.
Schmidt stated that people are bothered because there are docks in front of their homes
and people walking in front of their house. I paraphrased that as people wanting private
lakeshore, stated Mr. Schmidt and he apologized.
Becky Cherme, 4701 Island View Drive stated that just last week, "Andrea Ahrens said
she had a right to privacy.' Ahrens stated that wasn't private lakeshore. Brown
reminded the public and the council that there wasn't to be personal attacks. He stated
that everyone "has a right to privacy, it doesn't matter where you live or what you do,
you haVe a right to privacy...doesn't have anything to do with common's docks and
private lakeshore. Privacy has been given us by the constitution.'
Tom Casey asked what is the proposal that they were looking at right now. The Mayor
explained that they were trying to come up with something reasonable. There has been
trespassing that is somewhat not tolerated but needed because of our ordinances and the
3{0 310
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- APRIL 27, 1999
fact ..that the city does allow storage of docks and lifts on the commOns and in' most areas
of Mound, this isn't a problem. However, a problem is at fifteen foot or less strip of
c0mmo~s down along Roanoke and its been talked about since November and prior to
that.' A motion was made two weeks ago at the Council meeting to make it. a Class "C"
commons..
Hanus stated the essentially, Class "C" means there is no dockage other than abutters.
Bob Schmldt recited criminal code 609.605 relating to trespassing which states:
"Co) a .person is guilty of a misdemeanor if the person intentionally:
(a) permits domestic animals or fowls under the actor's control to go on the land of
another within a city;
(c) trespasses on the premise of another and, without claim of right, refuses to
depart from the premise on demand of the lawful possessor;"
In Mr. Schmldt's mind, there was no criminal trespassing that took place. He believes
a person has a right to access their dock site that was given to them by the city. If
someone blocks that access, they certainly have the right to walk around the blockage and
obtain access to the site. Hanus stated that this brought them to the crux of the issue.
The baseline issue of this matter, stated Hanus, is the question "is it appropriate to have
this particular area configured as it is in the dock program and the city run a program
in an area (this is subjective) that encourages trespassing because of its size, topography,
or whatever. That's a question, he stated that this council going to wrestle with tonight.
Mr. Schmidt asked if he was implying that any commons that does not have the space
for a boatlift should be deemed as non-traverserable. Hanus stated that he couldn't make
a blanket statement like that.
Mr. Schmidt asked why this area was being singled out. Hanus stated that this area
was not historically open to dockage. It was closed. It was Class "C" at one time and
it was opened with concern about its appropriateness in ~977. Over that time, there was
not much renting of the inland spaces. There was not that much of a problem.
However, recently, there has become more and more of those spaces leased and that is
where the problems are occurring now. So, stated, Mr. Schmidt, the vote is not to open
up these commons, but it's a vote to suspend eligible dock locations that are currently
on the map..
Hanus stated that was part of the issue. Mr. Schmidt said that City ordinances require
that for the City Council to suspend a dock location they must show blockage in
:Jill '
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- API~ 27, 1999
waterways or har~dship on an abutting property. Without any trespassing, Mr. Schmidt
wanted t6 know where the hardship was.
Brown discussed animals on a.leash as it relates to the ordinances Mr. Schmidt has
presented. He stated that if an animal was not on a leash, that in itself is a
misdemeanor. He indicated that some of his neighbors have let thei~r animals on ·his
property and he doesn't see the council up there talking about taking their docks away.
Don't take away someone's dock because they allow an animal to go on someone's land,
stated Mr-.' Schmidt.
Mike Osland stated that if there is a problem with a fifteen-foot common in this area,
why not address all the areas in Mound at once, not on a case by case basis. Perhaps
anything under a fifteen foot setback you need a four foot traversal of. space in order to
keep the equipment there or amend that'to say you 'can't have the equipment tied up to
the line. It seems that would unilaterally take' care of every bit of commons in the future
instead of band-aiding this location. The mayor agreed with him. She asked Faclder
how many fifteen-foot pieces does the City of Mound have for commons property.
Fackler said there were two. They are both in Roanoke and Devon area. Fackler is not
sure he totally understood what the mayor was referring to, so there may be more.
Mr. Schmidt stated that even with fifteen foot, there could be issues. If the non-
traversablity is caused either by an abutter or a non-abutter, the easiest thing to do is
either remove the blockage or change ordinance so there is access.
Weycker doesn't see that this area had been Class "C" in the past. She sees evidence
of both Class "B" and "D" and that the fifteen-foot fire lane had to be upgraded before
they allowed non-abutting docks in it. She provided the council with a definition of
Class "C" and doesn't believe this property was class "C" since the terrain of the
property would have had to change.
Hanus agreed with the statement, but stated that it was a bit of a misnomer. The
categories/classes that are identified are pretty generic in terms of what they say, but the
intent is pretty consistent. As an example, his lot is class c, but it is fiat as a rug, but
you can't get to it, because it is abutting docks only. The shape of mine does not at all
fit this designation, but it done for other reasons, more practical usability of the area.
Thus, there is another side, the practical usability and the intent.
Weycker discussed the difference between type of terrain, done with letters, and types
of use done with numbers in the ordinance. This area is classified as a 2, 4, and 8,
which is neighborhood park facility and use. Designed for Passive and active recreation.
312 312
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTE8- APRIL 27, 1999
Designed to serve residential neighborhood rather than COmmunity at large. Fishing
opportunities and resident docking and adjacent launching of boats. ..
Hanus disagrees that it meets class two.
Mr. Watson raised a point of order. Not that long ago, you COuldn't store docks on the
commons. Why not go back to that if the problem is storage and having to walk around
them. Weyeker stated that storage is not necessarily the problem, the ordinances state
that things must be stored COmpactly and if it obstructs a pathway or something, then
Staff should take up this issue. These are not COmpactly stored items that are blocking
the COmmons, she stated. They are boat lifts and dock structures that are spread out
now. She brought pictures.
Hanus, however, feels that they are stored very compactly.
Mr, Schmidt asked if a motion was approved, to designate these commons as Class "C,"
there are still ordinances in the City which prohibit blocking of commons regardless of
what is there. He doesn't see how this would alleviate the problem. Hanus stated it was
a matter of practicability. They discussed using cranes to move equipment closed
together. Mr. Schmidt's solution is to stop putting this issue on the agenda.
Jay Peterson on Haistead Lane. If this resolution fails to pass as Class "C," he wanted
to know where this left them for the coming season. The mayor stated that the resolution
would go to the January 12, 1999 meeting minutes. This meeting went over the dock
plan and map and that would be the motion we would referred back to. Hanus stated
that the unfortunate thing was a surveyor that came down and locate sites, however, these
measurements were totally in conflict with what is there now. We don't know where the
January 12 locations really are. It would leave us with a festering neighborhood problem
that would get worse than it already is.
Weycker disagrees, the January plan was done prior to the survey. The survey is a
working tool that can either be disregarded or we can change the plan. Hanus, since the
survey is in COnflict with the numbers, the waters are certainly muddied. The mayor
stated there were environmental issues such as cottonwood trees etc.
Mr. Peterson stated that there were docks in last year. Hanus stated that there are
additional docks in this year. Mr. Peterson stated that three people would be displaced,
however, the original plan showed seven non-abutters. Hanus gave the reasons that the
number has changed.
Fackler stated that the original intention was seven spaces.
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUIE$- APRIL 27, 1999
Mr. Peterson asked how many slips they were losing for non-abutters. Four. The
mayor stated that there really isn't room to add more. Mr. Peterson asked what was the
configuration in the original resolution. Original resolution shows 40-foot spacing.
Hanus refocused the discussion on the question at hand which is what type of commons
should this be. Mr. Peterson then said if changed to Class "C,' we will eliminate four
non-abutting spaces from the Roanoke Commons. Or are we increasing Pembroke by
three as we reduce Roanoke by three. Storage, per your ordinances must be unobtrusive.
I think there are ways to do this, stated Mr. Peterson. If the City Council approves
Class "C' they are rewarding bad behavior.
Hanus discussed definition of obtrusive. Mr. Peterson asked that if defining obtrusive,
do it in its entirety, not picking the definition we chose. Relevancy when written is what
we should focus on, stated Hanus. Mr. Peterson agreed and stated that intent would be
tO keep the access in his mind. Hanus thought that things should be stored neatly and
didn't see it as an access issue.
Mr. Peterson stated that the trespass is being created by the access, not the visual look.
That is creating the issue. The two disagreed as to the obstruction definition. Mr.
Peterson stated that if the City Council approves Class "C" they are rewarding bad
behavior.
Hanus asked if Mr. Peterson was suggesting that all areas had to be clear regardless of
practicality. Mr. Peterson said, "let's keep our commons to serve those who it was
intended to serve, and yes, if staff needs to step in to correct the blockage."
Brown focused on the issue of whether or not abutters or non-abutters have access to
docks, the commons is still there and it is still the people's commons. There is no
commons being taken away or sold, the people still have the fight to walk along the
shoreline, bio one is trying to take away the commons. Trying to make things work for
everybody. Fighting this issue for the four months I have been here. It is no longer
about commons. A citizen stated that you can't walk along the commons if you cannot
get to it. Brown stated that one could walk along the fire lane. This citizen stated 'not
without trespassing' and that was the issue.
Hanus commented, that the problem in this area will not be solved by asking for
everyone to remove everything. It is a band-aid. The neighborhood is so rooted in
conflict, that forcing everyone to move everything around is not going to resolve the
problem.
314 314
MOUND CIYT COUNCIL MINUTES- APRIL 27, 1999
.Mr. Peterson does feel that if the council allows the docks to remain in Roanoke and if
.allowed to expand on Pembroke, the neighbors' attitudes would change. Don't need Io
enact new ordinances, just enforce the ones on the books and not block the access.
Mr. Sehmidt asked if the City has considered the legal ramifications of have the city's
only non-abutters forced into a city multiple dock program in the same commons the non-
abutters whose dock happens to be in front of a city council member's house. Hanus
stated they are installing more multiple docks in three other areas. One area told him
not to bring' the configuration before the neighbors, just do it.
Brown stated that our ordinances do not guarantee a dock for the non-abutters where
they necessarily want it, only that they can sign up for a dock.
Mr. Peterson asked whether or not the multiple slip program should be voluntary.
Hanus, until now, it has been a policy, not an ordinance. But as time passes by, as
things get worse and worse, we will be forced to make decisions whether people like
them or not for the good of the city, for the good and health of the city.
Weycker, if an access problem, city has right to dismantle docks or whatever to provide
access. Hanus stated that if enforced, the rules must be enforced all over not'just in one
Mr. Jori Ayaz raised an issue, but it turned out that the he had misunderstood and it was
resolved.
Weycker discussed the multiple dock concept that was passed by the City Council in
1996 and the various parts of the ordinance and the trial at Pembroke. She further
discussed that the plan called for seven slips and that any changes should notify the
public for comment.
A public hearing must be held and the involved parties be allowed to vote on the issue.
Her problems are with the procedure, not the concept.
Cathy Bailey, 1554 Bluebird Lane. She doesn't live in this neighborhood. Lives in
Three Points. We are part of the group that has been in court for five years. Some of
us feel very strongly that we are fighting for all of you. All of you that are non-abutters.
We hope you feel that same support to us and stand behind us and we would hope that
the next time, instead of saying "it doesn't affect me, you would say it does .affect me.
We have 9640 residents in the city, correct.. Of that we have 180 abutting docks and
we'll just assume that those people have four in the family. · That's a very, very small
group of people that first priority and I'm embarrassed to admit that I helped write that
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- APRIL 27, 1999
ordinance. Because at the time, my husband was very angry at me.
words at the time.
We had lots of
But, the commons belongs to everybody equally. But at the same time, I think I sat like
the Park Commission did years ago and said, "Well, but these are the folks that are
affected the most, they are probably the ones that are mowing down here, they are also
the ones that live ~ght outside their doors, so why not. I now regret that we did that.
Maybe we should be like the other areas in Lake Minnetonka that have a complete lottery
system. Although I would still probably feel bad for my neighbors who have abutting
lots. If you live on the lake you would like to have a dock on the lake..
So therefore, in our neighborhood (an example). One quarter of the. residents of our
neighborhood are guaranteed a dock. They can pass that on, they can sell there home.
They are very, very fortunate to pay $150.00 for that right or that privilege, I should
say: The other three fourths have the same equal number of docks. We have been
fighting for five years. This is ridiculous. I sat twenty-two years ago and listened to the
same conversation. This is not a new fester in this neighborhood. This neighborhood
was very angry.
What happened was that inadvertently, they were not included because everyone thought
they are Class "C." The way I remember Class "C" that there is no way for the non-
abutting person to access the docks without crossing private land. Am I right? Does it
still say that. The only way a non-abutting person can get to that commons is to cross
private land. That's not right. Just what Andrea said earlier and Bob reiterated about
privacy. You deserve your privacy, it is not correct for me to cross your property to
even go to public land. OK.
Our dock inspector at that time, Gary Glassow discovered, in looking at some maps of
that area, that there was access to that commons. There was a fifteen-foot fire lane down
to Roanoke Access. So he in 1977, said he wanted the Roanoke access added to the rest
of our commons and the Class "C" changed to a Class "B." They were furious. They
never had an abutting property oWner; oh thank you, Chuck, but this written very
simply, I know what Mark is saying, but not all of it is smooth at the bottom, some of
its bumpy. But I think the whole idea was that there should have been a way to get there
without crossing other people's property lines.
So, they were very, very angry. We had a meeting and none of your meetings, when
you talk about festering meetings, we had meetings that lasted past twelve o'clock, and
we had threatening phone calls to us. As Park Commissioner, I received many of them,
the people on the council received many of them. We had a huge meeting in Shirley
Hills in the auditorium because that's how many people showed up. In those days, lots
316 316
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- APRIL 27, 1999
and lots of non,abutting people stood up for their rights.. Howe%r, what the decision
was 'to come up with something that appeased both sides. We treated them special.
These' People were treated a little special than all the other commons in town. Instead
· of thirty foot spacing like all the other commons, or twenty, feet like some of the people
on Warrika???.? Or even fifteen-foot spacing, they were treated with. forty:foot spacing
and the way they came up with that is that they determined how far that commons went.
At that time, Speaker lived down at the end. I might be wrong about that, but you
couldn't get around his, or something that clumped in the middle, so they took that and
divided it forty foot spacing. That meant seven abutting and seven non-abutting, they
thought this would be fair to the neighborhood.
Then they did something even more unusual, that's a publicly dedicated commons.
They gave that non-abutting slots only to people within two blocks were allowed to use
it. That's very special. For public. Because truly, I, as a person on Bluebird Lane
could ask for a dock down there. That's a public 'commons, not privately dedicated,
which makes our neighborhood so messy, because now the City is not part' of that. I
think we need to look further than what these teeny weeny neighborhoods. I've been
watching over the years and ail the festerings have started on Roanoke, whether is was
building a boathouse or without a permit, and on and on. It seems to me as a person
who lives in this community and loves this community that it is "divide and conquer"
and that's exactly what I am seeing.
When I heard about the multiples down at Pembroke, I thought, how interesting and the
neighborhood all went for this and thought it was a good idea. I was kind of interested
in this because I knew some of the people have more boats than one. It seems unusual
that one person can have multiple slips on one dock. I think what we need to do in
Mound as citizens of this community is realize what a wonderful asset we have. We
have four and one half miles of shoreline, but it is for everybody.
Listening to those wonderful parents who showed up and talked about Philbrook Park,
I'll tell you why the commons is important to me. I don't even have a boat. I have a
dock, took'one out just to stay part of this thing, but I don't ·have a boat. I care about
the little kids in -this community. We don't have green space anymore. We Used to have
lots of it. In my neighborhood, ~ere was woods that kids could play in. It's all built
up. There's not a lot of land for. kids just to enjoy and I disagree with Bob2 You can
say all you want, but you just' want to go down and put your little line in, .I'11 tell you
something. If you are not used'to being down there, I can tell you what happens in
Three Points. You can be intimidated right out of using by bully's, just plain bullies.
And the rest of the neighborhood just stands back and does nothing. We have people put
up no trespassing signs. When I. called the City, they said, you know that is not a legal
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 27,
Well, of course not, but why didn't the rest of the neighborhood stand up and say
No trespassing. What are we talking about.
But What I'm really getting at is, with this asset we also have a grandfathering clause.
We are very fortunate because we do not come under the LMCD rules. The LMCD
rules right now will be changed this summer. When they get changed, there will not be
one dock, lets forget the dock, one boat storage unit per 100 feet. If we don't have the
Mound Commons program, I'll tell you just in our neighborhood,, we are going to
reduced..I don't know that even all the abUtting people are going to get a boat storage
unit. Sounds like LMCD doesn't care about how many docks.' All they care about is
how.many boats go in those docks. By the way, a boat counts as anything twelve feet.
Jet-skis', paddleboats, and cruisers count as one BSU per 100 feet. We are all cutting our
noses off to spite our face. I think we all need to stand united. 9.000 residents in this
town better be standing up and telling people that we have the right to be there. This is
public or even if it is privately dedicated, it is still privately dedicated tog0 homes. If
we are not the public, who the heck is. These are residential docking areas. I would
think that even the public could raise a point in the state of Minnesota and say they had
a right to be there. I notice Minnetonka Beach fought for their commons last year and
won.
In February that court case came back and I read that case. I think it is interesting that
in that case, the City of Minnetonka Beach carefully noted although they were supporting
the residents of their community to use that access, they knew it was public and they
knew they could not deter the public from using it. I think you would find that same
thing out with our commons. Some of this is public, so I implore this council to stop
doing all these itty bitty little things that it seems to me that you are just trying to just
keep each little group and then that group. It's going to happen and every one of us is
going to fall with this if we don't stand up and say this is a wonderful, wonderful Mound
asset. Thank you.
Hanus addressed Ms. Bailey. He was not sure if she was getting close to saying "one
size fits all" or not. Can't regulate this .system as one size fits all. There are different
areas. I would also be curious to find out how you would respond to the premise if we
were to suggest that if we opened all the Class "C" commons, and there is quite a bit
of it, to dockage, how would you respond.
Ms. Bailey took at the second question first. I would never recommend opening up type
C shoreline because you would have to trespass on private property to get there. Who
wants to go down a goat trail and send your kids down there. But when you are talking
about one-size fits all, I think you are dealing directly with, I was shocked to hear the
Pembroke thing on the agenda. Why are you dealing with a abutting property owner.
318 318
MOUND CITY cOUNCIL MINUTES- APRIL 27, 1999
One person is g~tfing your attention to write a brand new beautiful scheme, for a multiple
dock. tf I asked you to come to my neighborhood, (I don't'like the. persOn next to me
and would you-come to my neighborhood), would you rewrite my thing. Would you
give me a special meeting. I think you are getting yourselves into a lot of.trouble over
these things. The rumors are out there, People are meeting separately,: people are
finding out about these things and we have commons in Three Points where we implored
our other abutting commons, privately dedicated commons, we said, please jOin us, lets
get this settled, let's get this back to a neighborhood that is peaceful and kind. It ran for
years and years. I don't remember an issue until one person started a lawsuit and then
· from that one, it went little by little by little. And you know what, Mark, I bet you
wouldn't have stood up to our: neighbor who started this whole thing .either. No one
stands up to bullies. We are all too afraid to stand up to bullies. I'm too afraid to stand
up to bullies and in this day and age, who wants to be the one who to go down there and
stand up and actually have someone blow you off.
And by the way, that almost happened on Devon's commons. Were you asking about
in 1974, they wanted to have something wonderful. They thought six of them might
have a multiple and those that had boats could put them there. A man that lived there
actually pulled a gun. It's a very famous story that we all know about, but don't talk
about anymore, pulled a gun and threatened those people. They never put a dock down
there again, they were so afraid. No one stood up for them. So that man with a gun
was able to tell those people you can't do that anymore.
No, I don't think there is one size that fits all, but I think there is one size that could fit
all in a neighborhood. If you worked with a neighborhood and the neighborhood agreed
on something, and I think people would. Sound like Roanoke isn't that far' off except
for one person right now. Easy to get on the bandwagon once you think you might get
private lakeshore. Even in my neighborhood, this issue in Three Points is not a law yet,
it is a ruling, but it has mediation,.a trial, and an appeal time. So, why does the city
have to do anything right now.
I raised this issue to point out that not all areas are the same, stated Hanus. Ms. Bailey
agreed and said that is why you have this issue and the issue hasn't changed since 1975.
If this is what you don't like, get your Park Commission to look at it and change.
(referencing the ordinance), Change the rules, but don't in May tell people they are not
going to have docks this year.
Hanus firmly stated that wasn't what was said. It wasn't what he had, in mind.
Mr. Casey summarized that the suggestions had to do with obstructions. That can .be
corrected by enforcing the ordinances. The other is conflict and. he doesn't believe .the
M~.IND CIT~ COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 27, 1999
impression should be left that the City rewards bullies and by allowing someone to be
pushed off the public commons, it rewards bullies.
Jim Albrecht of 4701 Aberdeen Road, a non-abutter. For two years he has tried to put
his dock in, paid his fees and currently has 32 feet out into the water now, but now at
limbo. Doesn't understand why he was granted the dock site and now everyone has
docks in, and he cannot get his in. He would like to see the encroachment on the access
issues enforced. If enforced, then everyone will fit and three more will fit also. Hanus
stated that if they did that, there would not be room for the boats in there. Mr. Albrecht
stated that is the problem. Originally, there was room for seven, now four, but some
people aren't pleased where that room is.
Hanus shared with the public and council the following information about other cities
dock systems:
Size of Maximum Fee Population % of
Waiting List Boat Size population on
Waiting list.
Tonka Bay 50 (37 slips) 21 foot $600 1466 3.0%
Excelsior 40-50 24 foot $39/foot 2377 1.8 %
24 feet =
$936
18 feet =
$702
Wayzata 55 20 foot Inner Inner $615 3830 1.4%
26 feet Outer Outer $775
"If you can affOrd more than a 26 foot boat than you can afford a marina."
Deephaven I 289/476 124 foot 15400 13646 17.9%
"Current #1 guy took 14 years to work up to #1 (on waiting list). First applied in 1984."
Greenwood 44 24 foot $400 643 6.8 %
Mound 38 No limit - $150 9643 0.4%
subject to 24
foot on a
multiple dock
generally
Hanus stated that this was a comparison of other cities around the lake. Doesn't know
for sure it's relevant or not. He only wants the people to see what Mound currently has
320 320
~ITiUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- APRIL 27, 1999
compared to other cities. Mound has the most reasonable number of slips and fees and
waitin~ list.
Joy~ Ringwells, 2125 Cedar Lane pointed out the Mound waiting list is only 38 people
tn~au~ they sat out all night in the cold. She was one of them,, so she believes this list
ia totally skewed. In other cities, people can just call in and put their name on a list.
If we don't move around, we can get more slips for more boats. He doesn't see the
relevancy to Mound's situation because it is different than other situations.
A citizen stated that the last time he checked, he thought we lived in a democracy and
thought the people who represent us in the government are supposed to vote for programs
that we would like and are of general interest to the public instead of only one or two
people. Let's vote on what has been voiced here tonight.
Peter Meyer stated that 10,000 people in Mound have equal access to four and one half
miles of shoreline. He wanted to know how many maintained miles of trails does Mound
have on the shoreline. There is none. Hanus didn't feel this was the issue.
Scott Mack, 4657 Island View Drive, an abutter. He realizes the great system for the
non-abutters, and agrees with it. He didn't hear that anyone was going to lose their site
at Pembroke, just be reconfigured. As a citizen, if people aren't happy with the system,
they can rent at a marina. He feels that the council has tried to help everyone there.
However, you cannot please everyone at once. Decisions need to be made and the
council move on. Go with what the people wanted on the survey. Multiple docks is
what they want. He has heard everyone speaking about the pollution that would come
with more boats. But in the wintertime, he has seen trucks, fish houses, snowmobiles,
and four-wheelers up there also which contribute to the pollution also, but nothing is
spoken about that access. The complaint is always about the summer months. He
doesn't see the issue since no one is losing their docks. Beaches are not the excuse,
since there are other beaches available. Good system, at some point a decision has to
be made and the facts speak for themselves.
Renae LaFortune, 4649 Island View Drive. She wanted to thank the last speaker
because there are a lot of citizens on both sides. Because of early comments to bring
only new information to the council, this side had chosen to sit by quietly. But speaking
for many people, there are differing opinions present even thOugh they haven't spoken.
Thank you.
321
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- APRIL ~7, 1999
Council Comments
The. Mayor spoke her comments.. Lots of discussion two weeks ago, lots of discussion
this week. She has done a lot of.background checks going all the way back to 1991.
Lots' of people have put hp a lot of questions. Pembroke came up since I began
questioning on where we would put people if they were moved from Roanoke. I wanted
to know these things.
Sunday; she walked at Roanoke, she was amazed, she trespassed, and she was walking
on private property with permission. 'The area does narrow down because of "Mother
Nature" taking her course. We have tried to maintain what we could. She also called
other people. One was to Mr. Fenstad and Bob Polston. She wanted to make her own
decision with all the input possible. She wanted to make her own decision. She believes
the ordinance is off base for what exists today. In !977, didn't have the number of water
toys or lifts one has today. She did find the area congested. She does see it as a
hardship, she calls it privacy. This. is from' experience. She does understand when
people talk about privacy being a hardship.
If a motion was made tonight, she would have a hard time to support keeping the
commons open here. She would vote to close it.
MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Brown recommend the following:
1. Reconfigure the Pembroke multiple dock area to the dimensions
outlined on the drawing provided.
2. Release the minimum funds required to accomplish the changes
outlined in the plan.
3. Direct the City Attorney to draft an agreement between the City of
Mound and the neighbor to the south of Pembroke Park Rodrigo
Plaza-Navarrete at 4539 Island View Drive. This document will state
that Mr. Plaza agrees that the city may freely utiliTe a portion of the
property in front of the Plaza property for city dockage in either a
single or multiple configuration without contest. In exchange for this,
the city will agree that it will not expand or extend its dockage area
beyond the limits shown on the drawing referenced above. The
furthest distance south that this expansion is allowed is 143 feet
southwest measured from the north property line of Pembroke Park.
4. Mr. Watson will be allowed to utilize one side of the southerly straight
dock by either tying up directly to the dock or angling his lifts
provided that his boats and equipment do not exceed the 143-foot
322 322
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- APRIL 27, 1999
limitation described above. 'It is understood that :once Mr. Watson
leaves the program' or reduces the number of boats from his
application, the unused portion will revert back to the dock system for
general use.
Discussion
Weycker wanted the record to show that she was opposed to this motion due to the
late addition to the agenda and without proper notice. Dean stated that the item was
given in the special session the evening before and as such could ap .pg~_ar on the
agenda for a motion.
Hanus indicated that it was not his intention to "snowball" this item through the council,
however, if it was not addressed tonight, these people would have to wait another two
plus weeks for any dock.
A call for the vote was made.
Ayes: Brown and Hanus. Nays: Weycker and Meisel. Motion failed.
(Ahrens did not participate in this vote.)
MOTION mode by Hanus, seconded by Brown to recommend the following:
1. Locate all abutting property owner's site centers to where they have been
placed in recent years and for staff to determine the appropriate numbers
to assign. If a change from these prior locations is desired, a request Will
be submitted to the city for the change.
2. Remove what has become known as the Stead site. Mr. Stead will share
with the Lafortune dock for the 1999 boating season. Mr. Stead may
access this site through the Lafortune property if necessary.
3. Remove what has come to be known as the Albrecht site. Mr. Albrecht
will be assigned a vacant site on the Pembroke multiple.
4. Remove what has come to be known as the Case site. Ms. Casey will be
able to share the Harrington dock for the 1999 boating season. If she
would like, she may share with another dock in the area provided she can
work out the details.'
5. Mr. Schmidt will remain in his current location centered at the f'we lane.
This dock location will be designated for a straight dock only and that
MOUND C~ COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 27, 1999
dock/boat complex shah not project beyond the eXtended boundary lines of
6. The Roanoke commons area, both east and west of the fire lane, but not
including the fire lane, is to be treated like Class "C.'
7. All of the displaced inland site holders will continue to have a perm.anent
location as long as they remain active in the dock program according to
city codes.
The above motion was .amended as. being read as the Pembroke Motion failed.
Both the nmker Hanns, and the second, Brown were agreeable to the _amended
portions (specifically, ~2, 3, and 4 which designated an alternative to the
Pembroke Park site multiple dock configuration.)
Discussion
Weycker again made the public aware that she was against voting on this
motion tonight, but rather felt that the public should have been given adequate
notice and further opportunity to be heard. She also indicated that the
proposed Albrecht site would not work, it was not a good site, it was too
swallow. Thus, other arrangements would have to be made. Additionally, she
commented that she felt it Would be wrong to reclassify this area.
The vote was called.
Ayes: Meisel, Hanus, and Brown. Nays: Weycker. Motion carried.
Mr. Albrecht came forward and asked for his money to be returned
regarding the fact that he has lost a "private" dock space and now must
be located at a multiple dock. He has paid $400 in dock fees and
$2,000 in attempting to put in his dock where now is deemed too little
space for it. He feels he started constructing this dock in good faith
that he had a spot designated to him. Other docks were put up prior to
his and took all the space. The fact that it is deemed too narrow puts
him in a tough spot.
Mayor Meisel understands that under the dock program, fees must be
continued to be paid to keep priority in the program. Her question is if
the fee is refunded, will Mr. Albrecht lose his priority.
Hanns stated that he was given a chance to get a refund last fall. Now
is too late in his opinion.
324 324
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- APRIL 27, 1999
The Mayor asked about the late fee and the price of the dock.
does the council feel we should rule on that.
How
MOTION mnde by Brown, seconded by WeYcker to give Mr. Albrecht back his
dock fee and his late fee without any repercussion due to extenuating circumstances.
Discussion
Hanus is concerned that this will set a precedence. The mayor felt that it would
not set a precedence since it was caused by storm damage and tree issues.
Ahrens thought that staff had been directed not to lease this spot until it was fully
accessible. The fact that staff went ahead and rented it prior to being ready was
not Mr. Albrecht's fault. While she supports and understands what Hanus is
saying, she will support the payment hack to Mr. Albrecht.
The question was called.
Ayes: 5-0. Motion carried
Mr. Albrecht was asked to bring in copies of his receipts for dock materials when
he asked for that money to be refunded. The mayor asked Fackler to see if he
needed a dock.
At the request of Don Schroeder of 1566 Eagle Lane, City Attorney Dean
reviewed his comments earlier regarding the pre-council meeting executive
session. At this point, pursuant to the judge's orders, dock permits will be
suspended, they will not remove docks. He has requested additional
clarification from the judge on the order prior to taking additional steps.
When asked about appeal rights, Dean stated that the City had about 60 more
days to file. Ms. Bailey asked if this was law or just a summary judgment at
this point. Dean stated that until the judgment was clarified, the order must be
honored.
Ms. Bailey asked if it could be publicized in the local newspapers more so the
public would know about it.
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINU1ES - APRIL 27,.1999
1.13
SEPARATION AGREEMlV~NT WITIt CITY MANAGER.
After a thorough discussion regarding the settlement package the City agreed to with Mr.
Shukle, Dean presented the package to the Council for approval. The one issue was the amount
used to calculate the sick hours and Dean presented this to the Council.
MOTION made by Brown, seconded by Weycker to accept the proposed resolution as
amended with additional dollars for adjustment of sick leave pay.
Resolution Number 99-38
Resolution approving separation agreement
WHEREAS, the City Manager has presented the City with a proposed
agreement relating to his separation from employment with the City; and
WHEREAS, following further discussion between the City Manager and the
City, the parties have arrived at a mutually acceptable agreement and understanding
concerning the terms and conditions of the City Manager's. separation from
employment with the City; and
WHEREAS, the financial terms of the proposed agreement have been
disclosed at a regularly scheduled City Council meeting held on this date
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Mound, Minnesota as follows:
The proposed Separation Agreement is hereby approved, and the resignation
of the City Manager is hereby accepted.
e
The Mayor and the City Clerk are authorized to execute the Separation
Agreement on behalf of the City and to take all actions necessary to carry
out its provisions.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS:
A. March Financial Report as prepared by Gino Businaro, Finance Director.
326 326
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- APRIL 27, 19~) ,
Invitation from Lake Minnetonka Area cOOperating CitieS (LMACC) group to
attend a housing workshop scheduled form Thursday, May 20~'1999, 7:15 a.m.
to 9:00 a.m., South Shore Community center, Shorewood. Topics for discussion
at the workshop include what can be done to maintain existing affordable housing
· and preservation and development of affordable and lifecycle housing. The
invitation is open to all planning commission members, city council members,
city administrators and managers and other staff. I would encourage you to
attend. We will notice the meeting as a special meeting of the council and/or
planning commission.
C. Dock and Commons Advisory Commission Minutes of April 15, 1999.
Notice from the Board of Hennepin county Commissioners of the appointment of
Charles Scott Thomas of Minnetrista to fill the vacated seat of Thomas Maple,
Jr. for the term that ~xpires March 8, 2000.
Ee
LMCD -FINDINGS OF FACT AND ORDER RELATING TO THE PELICAN
POINT VARIANCE REQUEST.
Fo
LMCD - CITY OF MOUND VARIANCE APPLICATION FOR SETON
BLUFF DOCKS, 100 FEET TO 19 FEET BECAUSE OF WATER DEPTH
AND TO NOT DISTURB THE CATTAILS AND REEDS.
MOTION made by Brown, seconded by Ahrens to adjourn at 12:40
P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
Fran C. Clark, Acting City Manager
Attest: Council Secretary
BILLS
April 27, 1999
Batch 9060
204,355.17
TOTAL BILLS
$ 204,355.17
I! I t
I c'
nlm
,
0'o ~
OOCI
'i
C:
z
::l:
0'I)
~"' 3,,
-r'
1'13
' A '
Z~
-l-
Inn
~'-r
Z
.-I
Z
Z
C)
f
'I
I
o o
oo o o o
I I I I
! I !
~1 <1 (I ;I ZI
.... ~ ·
o~ ~dd oo
0
m
Z
¢..0 ¢_r-
,9,-. ,'i-~
7.°
o, o
,-- 4
2:>'
°~
0
z~
!
?
?
Z ~
~.m
*~ I
.HO
4
'-r'
rrm
0
1.{y3
Z
(.
Z
/
0 0
o
o o
o
ZO
I'" ,-~
I: 0
Z
0
"ri:)..
o
Z
CC)
f-
z
LU
0
!Z
OI---
Zl::3 0
o
/
!
oo
0 0
!