Loading...
1999-05-11MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - MAY 11, 1999 The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, May 11, 1998, at 7:40 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 Planner Loren Gordon , and the following interested citizens:, Craig and Elsa Watson, Walter Neske, Frank W. and Betty Weiland, Cathy Bailey, Greg, Vickie & Sarah Pederson, Julie Andersen, Shirley M. Andersen, Amy Nelson, Addie Meuwisson, John Beauchamp, Greg Howard, Duane and Carol Norberg, Charles J. Chapman, Jr., David Shinn, Thomas R. Berent, Tim Pipkorn, Bob Dorfner, Matt and Tracy Walstrom, Darren Poikonen, Doug Anderson, Paul Ganst and Bill Beard, The Board Group, Inc., Gene and Gretchen South, Bob and Connie Schmidt, Becky Cherne, Greg Knutson, Stan and Marlene Straley, Don Williams, John Mundt, Joel Johnson, Connie DeBoct, Irene and Pat Harrington, Tammy Liljenquist, Mark Reschke, John' Miller, Janet L. Petersen, Greg Euvil, Brad Biermann, Todd Rask, John Zuccaro, Orv Burma, Michael Gaida, Jon F. Helgeson, Tim Hollenberger, Gina and Mark Smith, Sandi and Tom Effertz. The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. She apologized for the lateness of the start which was due to the Housing Redevelopment Authority meeting. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. *Consent Agenda: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the Council and will be enacted by a roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember or Citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence. 1.0 APPROVE AGENDA Clark added a New Tree License for Tall Timber Experts, Inc. as Consent Agenda item number B4. She also deleted Agenda item number 4 (Public Hearing P & Z Case #99- 09). This was withdrawn by the applicant and not rescheduled at this time. MOTION made by Brown, seconded by Ahrens to approve the Regular Agenda, as amended with the add-on Item and deletion of item number 4. The vote was 5-0 in favor. Motion carried. 1.1 CONSENT AGENDA Hanus pulled item A to be voted on separately. '1.2 '1.3 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINU'I'E$- MAY I1.1999 1.1 * CONSENT AGENDA MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Weycker to approve items B-F on the Consent Agenda. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. MISCELLANEOUS PERMITS TEMPORARY 3.2 BEER/SET-UP LICENSE, PUBLIC DANCE PERMIT, TRANSIENT MERCHANT PERMIT, PARADE PERMIT, FIREWORKS PERMIT FOR MOUND CITY DAYS - JUNE 18, 18, AND 20, 1999. PARADE PERMIT FOR AMERICAN LEGION/VFW FOR THE MEMORIAL DAY PARADE - MAY 31, 1999. PUBLIC GATHERING PERMIT FOR SILVERADO PRO BASS TOURNAMENT WEIGH-IN - JULY 30, 1999, MOUND BAY PARK. NEW TREE LICENSE - TALL TIMBER EXPERTS, INC., P.O. BOX 836, WAYZATA, MINNESOTA 55391. MOTION Hanus, Weycker, unanimously. RESOLUTION - CASE 99-10 -VARIANCE, FLOOD 'PLAIN, LAKESIDE SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION OVER THE EXISTING GARAGE AT 3153 PRIEST LANE, LOT 5, BLOCK 2, HIGHLAND SHORES, JIM SMITH, PID #23-117-24 34 0079. RESOLUTION #99-39 Hanus, Weycker, unanimously. RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A LOT AREA, GRADING, LOWEST FLOOR ELEVATION, AND LAKSIDE SETBACK VARIANCES IN ORDER TO ALLOW FOR CONSTRUCTION A CONFORMING SECOND STORY ADDITION, AT 3153 PRIEST LANE, LOT 5, BLOCK 2, HIGHLAND SHORES, PID# 23-117-24 34 0079, P & Z CASE #99-10 '1.4 RE-PURCHASE A CEMETERY LOT. MOTION Hanus, Weycker, unanimously. 348 '1.6 '1.7 1.8 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY II, 1999 APPROVE 1999 SEALCOAT BID - ALLIED BLACKTOP - $26,850. MOTION Hanua, Weycker, unanimously. APPROVE FINAL PAYMENT REQUEST - AUDITOR'S ROAD DEMOLITION - JME OF MONTICELLO, INC. - $7~85.75. MOTION Hanus, Weycker, unanimously. PAYMENT OF BILLS. MOTION Hanus, Weycker, unanimously. APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE APRIL 27,1999 REGULAR MEETING. The following were the corrections made to the April 27, 1999 Regular Meeting: Haflus Page 9, first paragraph, last three sentences This will now read: "He stated that the resident would allow the docks to he in front of part of his home. The following is a statement the resMent to the south gave indicating he would enter into an agreement with the city. The statement is dated 4/26/99 and reads as follows:" Weycker Page 6, fifth paragraph, last sentence should read: "She stated that ~f Swenson Park was used, there would be parking available." Page 9, fourth paragraph,~ add to the last sentence: "; and to be careful with the LMCD rules and regulations." Page 9, last paragraph, second to the last sentence should read: "Fackler needs to have this reviewed by the LMCD." 349 MOUI~) CITY COUNCIL MIN-gTE$- MAY I1, 1~ Page 8, second to last Paragraph, moving the "benches" no fences. MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Weycker to approve the Minutes of the April 27, 1999 Regular Meeting of the City Council, as amended. The vote was S.0 in favor. Motion carried. MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Weycker to approve items B - F of the Consent Agenda~ The vote was 5-0 in favor. Motion carried. 1.9 CONTINUED DISCUSSION: PEMBROKE MULTIPLE DOCK CONFIGURATION Fackler indicated that the map shown on page 1630 (estimate #3) of the packet is the recommended conf'~uration with the exception of sllp #10 which would be moved to the other side of the dock. Brown'stated he thought the plan looked pretty good, as did one on page 1631. Joel Johnson of 1531 Park asked what would happen to the beach and the park area with the dock conf~lred like this and located here. Mayor Meisel indicated that the beach would be left as is and roped off for safety sake. Mr. Johnson indicated that he doesn't understand why the dock needs to be moved to the commons area since it is not in it now. Also, he is concerned that the kids could run onto the docks and jump off creating a potential hazard. Mayor Meisel discussed that one of the things they were looking into was to gate off the dock area. Hanus stated that some people like the dock for jumping off, so he was thinking the gate could be mounted on the dock. That would allow security for the boats, but yet allow people to jump off the dock for swimming. Weycker asked where the dock was last year. Fackier said it was close to the same area as the 28.25-foot mark on the drawing. (The drawing was displayed on the overhead for all to see.) I)e~n Sulander of 2524 Emerald Drive stated that his understanding was that the dislocated people from Roanoke Would have spots elsewhere. Itanus stated that he was right. Mr. Sulander asked if there were any unused commons available in the future. He stated that slips 11 and 12 were far too shallow for boats and that it was a difficult area to maneuver around in. Hanns stated that 11 and 12 were to be assigned to Mr. Watson and that he had sailboats on lifts which required less depth than other boats. Hanus believes the water depth at this point is deeper than last year. 350 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- MAY 11, 1999 Mr. Sulander asked if the system has worked well in the last few years, why is it being changed. He asked why it couldn't be left alone and eventually decrease to seven slips as originally agreed to by the people. He suggested relocated the other slips on other commons to be developed. ??? of 2915 Tuxedo Boulevard asked why the people were relocated from other commons and if anyone on City .Council was 'affected by the changes. Mayor Meisel stopped the discussion at that point and stated that the discussion would not go that direction tonight. They have discussed these points previously and viewpoints had been aired. If anyone wanted to review the past meeting minutes they were available. She also stated she could be called and she would Oi~cl_ISS the issues personally with them. Every meeting in 1999 has had this topic discussed and now it was time to move on and make some decisions. John Zuccaro of 3136 Island View Drive stated that he lives three doors away from the proposed dock configuration. He has lived there for 46 years and aH his children grew up taking swimming l__~so~ ns there. He believes the dimensions of the dock as pictured on the overhead are confusing. He believes it is a safety issue and problem. The beach is unsupervised and he doesn't believe the ropes will help. Additionally to fully analyze the slips, the lake depth needs to be noted. He said these were the only issues he had. Brown disc~_~.~sed the option on page 1631 of the packet. He stated that on this option double piers encompass the beach area. If oil was a problem, he suggested placing ropes and a "floating absorbent material" between the boats and the swimming area. This material not only serves as a boundary, it soaks up the oil. Mr. Zuccaro asked why not leave it the way it is now. Hanus stated the primary reason for the change was to allow more room. That is why the multiple dock versus individual docks was initially in.gta~ed. However, he stated, it was not designed to be so totally in front of one person's picture window as it has ended up since after the f'wst year. This is the impetus for change to reduce the negative impact to the southerly neighbor, he stated. Stan Stralev of 4501 Island View Drive stated he was the property owner north of the park. He asked about his view. He stated this relieves the visibility for the neighbor to the south, but makes it a visibility problem for him. No the "marina" is in front of my house. Hanns stated that he shared his concern, but that all the LMCD rules and regulations had been followed in the new dock configurations. Mr. Straley stated that the plan last Council m,~e. ting would have required him to file for a variance and that he was informed that the LMCD believed he was in favor of that 351 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- MAY II, 1999 plan. He stated that no one had contacted him with any plans. He wondered if the presentation last time was an attempt to con~'mce the LMCD that all owners had agreed to the new conf'~,uration. Hanus stated that this was not the intention. Mr. Straley wanted it stated publicly that he was not in favor of the dock in the middle of the beach Hanus stated that it was 5 - 6 feet from the south access road. Mr. Straley asked why the #1 slip had a 10 foot setback to the property line. He asked why it was not on the south side of the dock. Fackler stated that other plans (pages 1628 and 1629) had this configuration, but that the intend was to stay within 143 feet. Members of the Council asked if the whole dock arrangement could be moved down one slip. It was indicated that the plan might be more favorable that way. The #1 slip is for a 36 foot cruiser and would need to be rearranged anyway to fit this size of a boat. Fackler stated that the #1 could be changed with #10. Hanus stated that would make it difficult to accommodate the sailboats on #10 and 11. If you moved it to the other side, he said, it would put it in the beach area more. Nonetheless, stated Hanus, he did not have a problem with minor rearrangements to the configuration. He would like to stay within the negotiated 143-foot measurement, however. Dean Sulander stated that he would like to see the dock issue tabled for this year, the existing configuration put in so people could go boating, the people could work together over the next 11 months to come up with a plan that suited everyone's needs. Janet Petersen of 3136 Tuxedo Boulevard stated that she had been informed she was a non-abutter to Pembroke Commons. She purchased her home because of the parkland and the swimming area for the children. She is concerned about such a large dock. She asked the following questions: Is it a public dock? Can anyone walk on it? Hanus stated that it was intended for dock leases only. What is the legal distance out an adult swim,her could go from the beach? Brown stated that a swimmer could go as far out as they were comfortable with. They could swim across the lake, he indicated. She was looking at the 1630 configuration and asked how it would keep the children from swimming under the rope. Hanus asked her how they kept the children within the rope area today. She stated that she agreed with those before her. She has real safety concerns with the boats and dock area so close to the swimming beach. She doesn't want it to be resolved 352 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- MAY 11, 1999 tonight. She would like to see it tabled. She also indicated that she did not receive notice of this meetin~ ~ Weycker Indicated that only the people with slips on the dock had been notified. Craig Watson of 4610 Tuxedo Boulevard stated that he had a petition signed by 90 people objecting to the dock. He doesn't like what they are doing to the dock. He doesn't like the trash that is going to result from having it here. He doesn't like what it does to the beach area and the danger to the kids. The petition reads as follows: %Ve, as residents of the Pembroke Beach area, feel that the proposed dock configuration will offer a hazard and inconvenience to the children who use the beach. The hazards as we see them are: An attractive nuance - in the physical dock that the children can climb on - run on - and jump off the structure. There will be flotsam on the beach area consisting of weeds, trash, and oil spillage, mainly due to the blockage of water flow by the boats. This we believe will be a health threat to the children as they use the beach. The dock will extend into the swimming area causing less usable area to play and swim." Mr. Watson indicated that slip #11 was too swallow for his boat. The dock would have to extend further out about 10 - 15 feet. His boat is 28 feet long and this is a low water year. He indicated that slip #10 was deep enough, however, it cuts off an additional 10 feet of the dock because of its size and length. It is a SeaRay. Brown stated that he had three slips. Mr. Watson quickly stated that the City has issued permits to have 4 boats at his own dock. He stated the neighbor to the south, Rod, indicated to him that last year's configuration was ali right. He just didn't want them to come any further in front of his window. With that configuration, stated Watson, the beach is safer, the kids are not affected by the boats. Additionally, he stated, he does not want to lose his own private dock. Sometime in the future, the City could say you could only have one slip. He believes his dock is supposed to be grand fathered in. He was told that the Park wasn't used as much and would be going away. He stated that was untrue. Last Sunday, there were 15 kids and parents playing at the park. 353 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- MAY II, 1999 They've taken away the lifeguard, he stated that used to be here. He believes a lifeguard is needed, the parents are afraid to send their kids down there alone. He has also heard rumors that a member of the council was talking about moving the dock even closer, like to within 3 feet. He was curious if there was some agenda that wasn't put on the table. Another concern Mr. Watson has is that he pays $150 for four slips at his own dock. Other people pay $150 per slip. Is the City going to charge him more he asked. The Mayor indicated that she felt the ordinances needed a thorough review to bring them in line with where Mound is today. Mr. Watson asked If the lake was public access to everyone. The mayor Indicated that a dock was a privilege, not a right. Mr. Watson went on to say that there was a %var and the council was writing their own rules and taking the vote away from the people." He went on that Rod Plaza has no objections to where the dock was located last year. Don Sherveru Jr. of 4529 Tuxedo Boulevard lives across the street from this area for 43 years. He believes the dock could be positioned further south than the proposed configuration. He doesn't believe that one resident should get all the space freed at the inconvenience of others on a common area. He stated that if the dock were moved further south two slips, the boats could get in and out easier. He stated that it would be less of a safety issue and they should move it closer to Plaza's property. Hanus asked how it was less safe where it was proposed. He asked the people to get to the point. He stated that no one so far had come up with the real reason why the people don't want it moved. The Mayor suggested it be moved in front of where Mr. Watson's dock was now. Someone from the audience stated that might work on paper/board, but it won't work on the beach. Mr. Watson said the configuration was about 10 feet further north of where he is. He was 15 feet from the light pole. Janet Petersen asked about other's views. She stated that they had a picnic down at the Park last Sunday. They had a beautiful view of the lake. If the dock is placed there, the view will be obstructed. Dean Sulander stated that at the last Council meeting when the park issue came up for Philbrook Park the decision was to leave it as it was, a quiet neighborhood park. Now, he said, you want to come and destroy this quiet neighborhood park. He doesn't understand how the two are different. He feels the Council is talking "out of both sides of your mouth." The Mayor asked Mr. Watson for the petition. Mr. Watson stated that every family with kids signed this petition that they did not want the dock changes. Only one individual was undecided. Nine people circulated the petition-everyone on the dock. 354 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- MAY I1, 1999 Hanus asked what configuration they were told about. Mr. Watson stated that it was Option A and B from the last Council meeting. That was what they had then. He stated he didn't see any positives to the move. '~he kids get screwed, the people and boats on the dock get hammered, and Rod says to leave it as it was last year." Hanus asked how the people and boats on the dock would get hammered. Mr. Watson eXplained that in slip #10 he has a boat and a dock behind him. That means he will have to dock sideways and the boat will hammer against the dock in the wind. Fackier commented that several people had stated this to him also. Parking the boat sideways will not work. Hanus stated that Mr. Erlandson parked sideways and he didn't get hammered. Mr. Erlandson stated that while that might be true in most weather, in the storms there were times when he did. Further, he stated that it was very difficult to maneuver his boat in. Mr. Watson stated '~vhy not table and work on over the next year." Hanus stated that "past experience has shown that the people are not willing to work together for a solution. It was hard as a Council to stay in the same "rut" month after month. He stated if we do table it and begin working on it in October, do you think everyone can agree with a configuration they can live with? Mr. Watson stated that when you jam it down our throats with little to no notice, people don't want to work it out now. He stated, "the City Council is doing its best to ram it down our throats now. That's the only reason people are unwilling to work it out now. Mayor Meisei stating the City Council was becoming known as the "bad guys." She doesn't think that is the case. They are trying to work this out, but no one is working with them. A citizen asked why not put the additional people on another commons. There is a concern about safety. Originally the dock Was configured with. nine boats, it was supposed to get down to seven. Now it is up to twelve. Weycker asked what it is that needs to be worked out. This is totally different than the original configuration of nine slips that was supposed to revert to seven when two boats left the program. Why does the size need to be increased,' she asked. Hanus responded that it was to try to keep the people that were there in the neighborhood. Weycker disagreed, she stated that some of the people from Roanoke Commons needed to drive to get there. Brown called a point of order that things were getting argumentative. 355 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 11, 1999 Bob Schmidt of 4708 Island View Drive stated that they should eliminate the non-abutters. Then the only people to realize the privilege would be the abutters. Dean Sulander that when the multiple dock was put in three years ago, it created a lot of upheaval. However, he stated, we were able to work it out. We did not dig in our heels and came to an agreement. The first year became a problem when they added the additional slip. Enlarging the dock is what made it a "marina." Hanus asked that the people be logical. A marina was not what was intended. "Let's get this thing in the water and work it out." Don Schervern, Sr. has a concern about the park. He has heard the equipment in the park is to be moved. The Mayor stated that was rumor only. He stated that the entire neighborhood was concerned. He also stated that he had signed a petition. If any thing should be moved, the parking lot should be moved across the street. He said the park is very important to the community. He is glad to work with the City, he said he would even take over the park maintenance at his own expense. After the healing that the City was not closing the park, he did not care what happened to the dock. Elsa Watson of 4610 Tuxedo Boulevard stated that she wants the dock as it is. She stated, 'Nye were promised out own dock." The Mayor stated that the ordinances needed reviewing. Everyone should have access to the commons if anyone did stated Ms. Watson. We have a good relationship with Rod and want to keep it that way. We were all happy with the way the dock was. '~fou are digging in your heels. Don't change it." Hanus stated that he did not agree that Mr. Plaza was content with the way it was. He believes there is a miscommunication somewhere. He will not support putting the dock back in the way it was. Brown asked if they used the configuration shown on page 1630 for this year and worked with the neighborhood to work out a "better" plan for next year that meet everyone's concerns would Hanus vote for it. Hanus responded that he would agree provided it isn't put in beyond the 143-foot pre-negotiated location and provided that City Council doesn't mind working with this again. Brown suggested that the City work with four neighborhood representatives. He was willing to represent the Council. Weycker asked why they were working with Hanus and not the Dock Commission. Hanus stated that he was the one contacted on the issue last year. Weycker asked why he didn't 356 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MAY 11, 1999 gO through the Dock and Park Commissions first. 'She stated for the public that Hanus bypassed the two appropriate advisory boards prior to coming to the City Council By doing that, she stated, the multiple slip dock configurations is not in alignment with the City's Comprehensive Plan. That called for seven slips not twelve. Twelve overtakes the beach and makes it a "marina." There are three beaches on the island including this one. She feels this is creating another "Al and Alma's" situation. She asked the attorney to rule on the City's responsibility on liability if anyone were to get hurt. The Initial configuration went in on a one-year trial period. The resulting Issues were never addressed such as the shallowness. Now it has been there three years and they are adding more slips. Why not fix the problems she stated. Hanus stated that they are adding more multiple sites every year so that was a non-issue. As for going to the Park Commission, the beach is not impacted. He pointed out that the records for the original Task Force recommendation covered both small and large park complexes. He did not see a conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Weycker stated that the park area complex was never discussed in the conceptual plan for the multiple dock. They never talked about using more parkland or wrapping around the beach. Additional slips were never discussed. Hanus stated that another part of the plan discussed a larger complex. But, stated Weycker, the trial was on a small neighborhood Brown stated that the rope was separating the beach area and the dock area. Could the rope be extended over further to keep the docks from entering, he asked. Fackler stated it could be and you could use an upright buoy with an anchor of double bricks to stop something from floating into the area. Hanus stated that the conceptual plan was Just that, a concept. They need to be flexible and change and manage the programs efficiently. This allowed that area to have a triple use: park, swimming beach and docks. Nothing is permanent he stated, everything is changeable. One needs to change with the times. Brown asked if they could assign a lifeguard down there. Fackler stated the lifeguard had been taken from this area and used elsewhere. talk with Tim Piepkorn and see what his recommendation is. He could Mayor Meisel asked what would happen if they moved .the dock fifteen feet closer to the light pole. Hanus stated that it was.outside the pre-negotiated area of 143 feet. It doesn't open up the beach any, he stated, but does help visually. He suggested just moving the stick over. Mayor Meisei indicated she felt this.would make a safer beach. Ahrens suggested moving the stick back .to between slips 7 and 8. The mayor agreed. 357 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTE5 - MAY 11, 1999 Mr. Watson posed the following question to the Council. You have had all the users say we will work together towards a mutually acceptable plan. Leave the dock as it is. The City Council is elected and works for the people. They have totally ignored what the people want. · Another citizen stated they thought they lived in a democracy and that the majority should rule. The mayor indicated that this was not to please just one person, but to open it up for molt. Marlene Straley, a iakesholl owner from the north side said she didn't think they were concerned about their visibility or how the dock would affect their property, the Council was only concerned about the one person. Several citizens asked why fix what works. Hanus said it doesn't work ,that's why. The response was, it doesn't work according to one person. This same citizen wanted to know why the Docks commission didn't review this. Weycker stated that it certainly should have gone to that advisory committee first. Hanus stated that if it had to pass two other committees/boards/commissions, it would be July before the dock was put in. Hanus stated that the individual slips and depth of water and distance from the beach had not changed. John Helgeson of 3124 Tuxedo Boulevard asked if they had a list of people with boats to be on that dock. The answer was no. He is concerned about the 36-foot boat. There will problems anywhere on the dock with this boat. Brown suggested that "maybe your boat is too large for the dock system." The mayor came back to the need to review the ordinances. Ahrens suggested extending section one towards the shore. That would give him room for his boat and protect the beach more. Mr. Heigeson stated that would work for him, but he still couldn't see why the dock had to change. He asked if the reason was to relocate people from Roanoke onto this dock. He still wanted to know why they couldn't work with what was there and change for next year. Hanus responded that Plaza has absorbed the entire dock far too long. The citizens asked why he (Plaza) wasn't at the meeting. Mr. Helgeson stated he felt like the City Council was holding this over their heads, if they didn't agree, then the docks wouldn't go in at ali. Ahllns stated that they needed to fit 12 boats into the dock. Mr. Watson stated that if they left it as it was, there would 11 of the 12 boats there. Hanus asked where they should locate the other people, elsewhere in the city. 358 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- MAY 11, 1999 Weycker asked Hanus if this was still impacted by the Roanoke area. The attorney was asked if it was a conflict of interest to have Ahrens participating in this discussion. Dean came back after attempting to listen to the tape (which had been switched off unbeknownst to the Council in the audio/visual room upstairs and therefore there was no taped record), and stated that when this discussion had begun he was approached with the question of whether or not there was a conflict of interest on the Council. Ahrens asked him that question herself. He didn't think at the time there was an issue. When the question was asked about where do we locate the other people in the city by Hanus, he still did not see a connection to Devon. Therefore, he still does not see a conflict of interest if Ahrens remains on the Council for this discussion. The Mayor made a motion which was: MOTION made by Mayor Meisel, seconded by Brown to put in the configuration as it was on page 1630 with the accommodations for an extra section onto. number I to accommodate a 36 foot boat. The stick would be located 1325 feet from the light post. The Beach area would be roped off from the rest of the area and this would be revisited in October to determine how it worked. This season would be a trial period. In conjunction with his second, Brown asked that a representative neighborhood group work with people from the City to come to some compromise through the summer rather than waiting until October. Four neighborhood representatives, one City Council member, one Parks Commission member, and one Dock Commission member was suggested. At least one of the neighborhood representatives needed to live in the neighbor hood, the other three could be on the dock or residents or both. The Mayor accepted Brown's amendment. Discussion Hanus asked that along with the motion be an amendment which would direct the City Attorney to draft an agreement between the City of Mound and the neighbor to the south of Pembroke Park, Rodrigo Plaza Navarrette at 4539 Island View Drive. This document will state that Mr. Plaza agrees that the city may freely utilize 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 promise of no contest in the future, the city will agree that it will not expand, extend, or shift the dock/boat complex area beyond a point 143 feet southwest along the shoreline as measured from the north property, line of Pembroke Park. 359 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- MAY I1, 19c~ Weycker went on record to say that this was 'truly a scary precedent" that the City w~ald allow themselves to be fled to a particular limit on public property. She feels this will become an issue and follow them through discussions on ali the different commons. She asked Dean what the City's liability would be if anyone got hurt because of the configuration they set up. Dean stated that he couldn't comment on the configuration, but surely, if it was set up to deliberately be unsafe and someone was injured, the City would have liability. Hanus also asked that along with the motion, the money be released to pay for the dock. The Mayor accepted the 143-foot guideline. Weycker stated "beware, it is a sad thing that we are doing. I believe that will eliminate the beach and kids won't use because it will be too dirty. It is another "Al and Alma's" situation. The motion was called. Motion carried 4-1. (Weycker stated she was very opposed and voting nay.) Mr. Watson stated '~ou have just shown us that we have nothing to do with governing the City of Mound and once again 3 yahoos have hurt us." Mark Cita stated that he found it interesting that a council member can just pre-negotiate an agreement with one individual without considering others or even including them in the negotiations. Dean stated that if by "pre-negotiate" he meant discuss, a person could do this. However, he cautioned them to remember that he was only one vote. Tim Hoilenberger of 4512 Clyde Road stated that the City Council did not even consider the 90 signatures on the petition as indicating their preference. Since that was the case, why would four members of the council make a difference. Weycker publicly pointed out that there was nothing recorded on this discussion via video or via tape~ Neither one were functioning. This will not be shown on the public video. The following people volunteered to work with the neighborhood: Stan Straley, John Mundt, Dean Sulander, Todd Rask, Tim Williams. Brown volunteered again from the City Council. 36O MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- MAY 11, 1999 COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT Barb Casey of 4704 Island View Drive wanted to know why it was in the City's best Interest to remove her dock and Albrecht's dock last week. Mayor Meisei discussed the decision made last meeting regarding Roanoke Commons. Ms. Casey asked where the study from the Docks Commission was and why they were not used. Hanus stated that it was a hot, legal issue that had to he resolved. In cases like that, it doesn't do much good to use the advisory committees. Weycker indicated that until this Issue, the advisory committees were always used. Renae LaFortune of 46?? Island View Drive Indicated that not everyone In the room was opposed to the dock. She wanted the Council to know that she was not opposed and that there were two sides to the "story." She also stated that she very much enjoys using the park system, however, she recognizes that Pembroke Park is lacking in facilities. She has been taking her children to Plymouth to play, but has recently contacted Fackier for suggestions of another park to use. She has started using Dundee Park and feels this is a very good park and the neighborhood protects it. She thanked the Council for considering "ail" citizens' viewpoints. 1.10 RECOMMENDATION FROM PLANNING COMMISSION ON FENCEfFRELLIS STRUCTURES Gordon covered the information the Planning Commission passed on to the Council regarding fences and trellises. The Planning Commission reviewed this issue on April 26, 1999 at their regular workshop meeting. The decided to not change the way the ordinance reads. Ahrens stated that in the minutes it notes that none of the cities that Gordon researched have a definition spelled out regarding fences and that Mound Staff was asked to use "common sense" when they were ~viewing a situation involving something that could he considered a fence. She found it interesting that all cities regulated fences, but did not define them. She asked if the definition for fences was removed from the ordinance, wouldn't it make it easier for the staff. Brown stated that the Planning Commission did not see a problem leaving the definition in. Ahrens pointed out that because of the materials cited in the ordinance, she could put a wrought iron enclosure around her yard and it would not be considered a fence. Weycker asked if there was a problem with the definition. Ahrens indicated that it needed changing to include more or to he dropped entirely from the ordinance. 361 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- MAY 11, 19c~ Gordon stated that he has worked with communities that do not have a definition and if there was a question, the normal default w~ the dictionary definition. Hanus stated that it still becomes an interpretive issue. Gordon stated that our ordinance is basically that, a definition from the dictionary. Without it, there could be issues if Staff tried to enforce something also. Hanus stated that by not having a definition, Staff is allowed to look at the intent of the structure and the person placing it at the same time. Dean stated that if there were to be change, the law would require the entire process to be completed. In this case, it means that the Council could say that the Planning Commission had their "shot" at the ordinance or that they could allow the Planning Commission to take one final view at it. Then a public hearing would be required. Brown stated he thought the Planning Commission would like to review it again. Hanus suggested that either the acceptable materials be added." common sense. materials not be listed or a phrase such as "other The Mayor said they needed to give Staff credit for Gordon suggested that when the Comprehensive Plan was finished, a zoning ordinance review was needed. He suggested that this issue could wait until then. Dean suggested that would be okay, however, it should be within the next year. 1.11 RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON LAKESIDE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES Gordon indicated that this was a Planning Commission discussion item that initiated from the Hunt Boat House case. In his research, other communities ruled on both sides about evenly. The DNR stated that they look to the City for insight on these issues and if the City wants this to be reflected in the ordinance, they may have to "give up something else." This would open up the opportunity for the DNR to review all the codes again. Therefore, the Planning Commission wanted to leave the codes as they are written for lakeside accessory structures. Hanus stated that in the Hunt case, the roof was rotting. Because it was a structural issue, the Planning Commission reviewed. The owners wanted to replace the shingles. Planning Commission said they couldn't. The Building could stay, but the roof would have to go. Otherwise, it was a sound structure. But they needed a building permit. Now it is non- conforming and they need a variance. The Mayor made some additional comments on the Hunt case. 362 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- MAY 11, 1999 Weycker asked how the accessory buildings fit in with the Shoreline management for the DNR. Gordon stated thatthe model allows lakeside accessory structures close to the lake. Hanus stated that the City's regulations do not always match the DNR's. In fact, often they are stricter. However the DNR signs off on the City's. The Mayor asked about the comments made by DNR's hydrologist as found on page 1661. She requested that perhaps she could come in and speak with the Council about what changes the City might have to make or give up if they were to change the Lakeside Accessory Structure ordinances. There was some additional discussion regarding boat houses and the different philosophies people have about them. For example, Ahrens likes boat houses along the Lake. She thinks they add character. Frank Weiland of the Planning Commission stated that the reason the Hunt case was denied was not Just the roof. It was denied because the owner had been warned that he would need a building permit and he went forward anyway. "He didn't play ball all along." Weiland stated that the structure could be repaired for up to 500 of the overall value over a lifetime. Mayor Meisel asked if she could put up a brace Gordon stated that if the support structure were modified in any way, then the ordinances wouldn't support it. The Mayor said that didn't make sense. Hanus said that was because fixing the support structure was considered adding life to the structure. Again, it could be repaired up to 500 of the value over it's life time. Structure repairs normally take more than 50%. The Mayor stated the ordinance needed review and the Council needed more information from the DNR about Issues they would need to "give up." Hanus suggested after further discussion that the. issue be sent back one more time to the Planning Commission with these minutes and they should hold a study session on it and perhaps bring in the area hydrologist for comment. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS A. Financial report for April as prePared by Finance Director, Gino Businaro. B. Letter from City of Excelsior, thanking the Mound Fire Department for their help in containing a fire on main street of Excelsior on April 25, 1999. 363 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY I1, 1999 C. LMCD mailings. D. Planning Commission Minutes of April 26, 1999. E. Letter from Our Lady of Grace Catholic Church asking that the City consider using the name of Father Francis Jager when renaming Auditor's Road after the improvement. (The Mayor will respond with a letter to them regarding this.) F. Letter from C. Scott Thomas of Mlnnetrista, who was appointed to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Board of Managers. G. Action alert from the League of Minnesota Cities regarding levy limits. Letter sent to Gen and Steve regarding this. H. Notice from the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities regarding Tax Increment Financing legislation. I. Update from Suburban Rate Authority on Area Codes. J. Reminder:. HRA meeting, 7:00 p.m. prior to the Regular City Council meeting, May 11, 1999. K. Reminder:. Committee of the Whole meeting, Tuesday, May 18, 1999, 7-24) p.m. at City Hall. Brown again brought up the Pembroke Park committee and offered to be the City Council representative on the committee. The mayor stated that they would address this at the Committee of the Whole meeting. Dean had an add-on information piece on the letter from Michael Gavin regarding the Devon Commons issues. Mr. Gavin has respectfully asked the Council to reverse their decision. Dean will draft a response to Mr. Gavin and fax it over to him tomorrow. Clark stated that she received notice that Triax is finalizing things to purchase Media Communications. As a result, there will not be public cable available for a while. Brown stated that bids were being taken at the Builders Exchange on May 13m for the demolition on the Community Center. MOTION made by Brown, seconded by Weycker to adjourn. Motion carried 5-0. Meeting was adjourned at 11:10 p.m. 364 MOUND CITY COUNCIL' MINUTES.- MAY 11, 1999 THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK ~ONALLY, 365 BILLS May 11, 1999 Batch 9041 93,941.36 Batch 9042 153,602.60 247,543.96 TOTAL BILLS ZZ r'~ i~'1 4'-4> Z~ 0:1: 3=,113 C:: rtl Z 0 z Ooo&ooOooooo 4 r-r-r- AZ O0 mm i: ~° n o I Z J 0oo0oo 0 0 Z rn Y ~Y ~Y ~Y Z Z n~ t~ 0 u~ 0 0 CZ Z Z .-.I oc~ Z Illllll ~ I 0"'0 Z ~ / zm ! o° 7_.© ¥ · o ' {21 · !..J Z IIIII Ill Z Z C m '13 I C 0 Z C: Z ! I I I I I I · I · I :::DO 0 0 £ ? ? r~ ff-- 0 Z 0 rw ! Z 0 4~4 0'13 Z~ -q-ST ;o Z Z · .t,, t/1 Z CZ Z I ,' /.", "'"' I ~D r'n 1'7 r- -.j- o z z L.L~ J ;~ g