1994-02-1577
MINUTES - COMM/TTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING - FEBRUARY 15, 1994
The meeting was called to order at 7:30 PM. Members present: Mayor Skip Johnson,
Councilmenlbers Smith, Ahrens, Jensen and Jessen. Also present: Mark Koegler, City Planner
and Ed Shukle, City Manager.
Ed Shukle, City Manager, introduced the subject of Park Dedication Fees. He explained that
this issue had come to the Committee of the Whole meeting because the Council directed that
further study be made of this section of City Code relating to subdivision of lots and the Park
Dedication Fee that is currently required within subdivisions whether they be major or minor
and whether they be residential or commercial and industrial. He introduced Mark Koegler,
City Planner, who reviewed a memorandum dated February 14, 1994 on Park Dedication
requirements. Koegler indicated that his review provided an overview of the Park Dedication
issues that have occurred during the past two years. He wanted to obtain additional input from
the City Council for further review and analysis prior to this matter being discussed at the
Planning Commission. He indicated that over the past couple of years, three principal issues
have arisen regarding Park Dedication requirements. They are:
Collection of park fees for minor subdivisions
Amount of park fees charged for industrial and commercial developments
Amount charged for residential developments
The City of'Mound's current park dedication requirements are found in Section 330:120 in the
Mound City Code. The ordinance requires park dedication either in the form of land or cash
in lieu of land equivalent to 10% of the fair market value of the land. Koegler indicated that
the 10% dedication in Mound's ordinance is comparable to most ordinances used throughout the
Metropolitan area. The City Council's discussion was as follows:
The City Council felt that the $500 fee or the 10% number is a rate and could be
changed up or down by the Council
Council discussed setting a fee for minor lot splits in residential areas
Council discussed lots that currently have a structure on one part of the lot and
subsequently a subdivision takes place and under the current ordinance we require two
$500 fees or $1000 to split the lot in two. Council discussed the idea of only charging
one fee to cover the newly created lot, i.e. $500, etc.
With regard to the commercial and industrial property, the Council consensus was to keep this
language as it is. With regard to residential developments, Koegler pointed out that at the
present time Mound's ordinance requires a 10% residential park dedication or cash in lieu of
land in an amount not less than $500 per lot. Typically, a $500 fee has commonly been imposed
just as it has been imposed on minor subdivisions. Koegler stated that throughout the
metropolitan area, Mound's fee is probably on the "slightly low to average side." Council
agreed that further investigation be done with communities comparable to the City of Mound.
The discussion was concluded by basically stating that the Council does agree that a park
78
COMMrI'FEE OF THE WHOLE MINUTES - FEBRUARY 15, 1994
dedication fee must be imposed. The type of fee, the amount and other related issues require
further exploration by the City Planner and the Planning Commission. The City Planner is to
take the Council's input and bring it the Planning Commission for further review and study.
The Council's consensus was that the Planning Commission review the ordinance based on the
above information provided by the Planner and the comments made by the City Council. The
Planning Commission is directed to return this matter back to the City Council at a later date
with its recommendation.
Performance evaluation systems were discussed. More information will be available on this item
at a later date.
The Priest Bay light issue was briefly discussed. City Manager, Ed Shukle, reported that NSP
had not been out to the end of Highland Boulevard as of yet to adjust the light or to replace it.
He indicated that a "cobra" type of light could be placed at the area flooding the hill and dock
area without a beam going directly out onto the lake. This may take care of the problem. He
will keep the City Council informed on the matter.
The issue of a full time fire marshal was briefly discussed. Ed Shukle, City Manager, indicated
that this item had been briefly discussed at the last regular City Council meeting. Mayor
Johnson indicated that he did not consider the potential position a full time fire marshal position.
Rather, it would be a fire marshal position which could be somewhere between part time and
full time. Councilmember Smith indicated that he would get some information from the city of
Clear Lake,. California, where a relative is on the fire department in that city. The City
Manager indicated that this matter had been discussed at the staff meeting of February 15th,
where a suggestion had been made to make the fire chief position full time to encompass not
only the handling of the fire department, but also inspection services and hazardous materials
management. The City Manager stressed that the needs would have to be identified by the fire
department and building departments of not only Mound, but the cities who currently are part
of the fire service area. In addition, public safety is being studied as part of the Area Cities
Cooperation Study and this matter could also fit as a topic of discussion within that framework.
This matter will be pursued by staff.
Councilmember Jensen led discussion with regard to goal setting items. Council went through
the list and updated it and provided some direction to the City Manager as to certain items that
need to be pursued. This list will continue to be discussed at future Committee of the Whole
meetings.
The City Manager updated the City Council on the Hanus vs. City of Mound litigation. He
pointed out that Judge Albrecht had ruled on the equal protection issues and found that the City
sustained in all areas. Mr. Hanus is going to be required to remove the boathouse on or before
January 15, 1995. He also distributed copies of the partial summary judgment that was issued
by Judge Albrecht in October of 1993. He indicated that putting both judgment orders together,
you have one complete package and it tells a very clear story as to the City's position on
2
COMMI'I~_,E OF TIlE WHOLE MINUTES - FEBRUARY I~, 1994
Commons. A press release that had been drafted regarding the case was reviewed and accepted
by the Council. The press release, as well as the related information, has been communicated
to "The Laker" newspaper for publication. The purpose of the press release is to clearly
present the facts and the outcome of the case.
It was noted that there was no meeting scheduled for March 15, 1994 since four of the five
councilmembers will be either attending the National League of Cities in Washington, DC or
will be on vacation. The next Committee of the Whole meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, April
19, 1994, 7:30 pm, Mound City Hall.
Upon motion by Smith, seconded by Jensen and carried unanimously, the meeting was adjourned
at 10:05 pm.
~~s ~tfully submitted,
City Manager
ES:ls
8O
February 22, 1994
MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 22, 1994
The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday,
February 22, 1994, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City.
Those present were: Mayor Skip Johnson, Councilmembers Andrea Ahrens, Phyllis Jessen, and
Ken Smith. Councilmember Liz Jensen was absent and excused. Also present were: City
Manager Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Clerk Fran Clark, City Attorney Curt Pearson, City
Engineer John Cameron, Building Official Jon Sutherland, Finance Director Gino Businaro,
Police Chief Len Harrell, and the following interested citizens: Dennis & Mary Brenny, Nancy
Ketcher, Scott Schmieg, Ryan Schulz, Vern Veit, Catherine & Jim Veit, Nate Perbix, Alan
Blackwell, and Michael Blackwell.
The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
1.0 MINUTES
MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Jessen to approve the Minutes of the
February 8, 1994, Regular Meeting, and the February 15, 1994, Committee of the
Whole Meeting, as submitted. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.1 RECYCLOTTO WINNER
The Mayor stated that $200.00 Westonka Dollars were presented to Mr. & Mrs. Doug Minzel,
6164 Lynwood Blvd. for recycling the week of February 14, 1994.
1.2
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING CASE g93-058: JAMES & CATHERINE VEIT,
2563 LOST LAKE ROAD, LOT 18, BLOCK 1, LOST LAKE ADDITION, PID #24-
11%24 22 0032, VACATION OF A DRAINAGE EASEMENT
The Building Official explained that the applicants revised request is for the vacation of the
easement on the northerly 45 feet of Lot 18. The applicant believes this easement is not
necessary for drainage. The Building Official then reviewed the Planning Commission's Minutes
from February 14, 1994. A motion recommending approval of the vacation of this easement
failed on a 3 to 5 vote.
The City Engineer stated that his memo of February 8, 1994, was not a recommendation for
approval of this vacation, but merely a statement of fact. He referenced State Statute 412.851,
Vacation of Streets.
80
February 22, 1994
The City Attorney referred the Council to Minnesota Statute 412.851, Vacation of Streets. He
stated that when the public has an interest in land, whether it's a street, alley, public grounds,
public way or whatever it is, if that interest is going to be given up, the State has mandated how
that is to be done and that is MS 412.851, "No such vacation shall be made unless it appears
in the interest of the public to do so ....... ". That is the test. He referenced the Planning
Commission Minutes where several planning commissioner's stated that this statute does not
apply because the headnote says this is vacation of streets and because we have an easement, we
don't own it. The Attorney then quoted Statute 645.16, 645.17 and 645.49 on the interpretation
of laws which are as follows:
645.16 LEGISLATIVE INTENT CONTROLS.
The object of all interpretation and construction of laws is to ascertain and effectuate the intention of the
legislature. Every law shall be construed, if possible, to give effect to all its provisions.
When the words of a law in their application to an existing situation are clear and free from all ambiguity,
the letter of the law shall not be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing the spirit.
When the words of a law are not explicit,
considering, among other matters:
(1) The
(2) The
(3) The
(4) The
(5) The
(6) The
(7)
(8)
the intention of the legislature may be ascertained by
occasion and necessity for the law;
circumstances under which it was enacted;
mischief to be remedied;
object to be attained;
former law, if any, including other laws upon the same or similar subjects;
consequences of a particular interpretation;
The contemporaneous legislative history; and
Legislative and administrative interpretations of the Statute.
645.17 PRESUMPTIONS IN ASCERTAINING LEGISLATIVE INTENT.
In ascertaining the intention of the legislature the courts may be guided by the following presumptions:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
The legislature does not intend a result that is absurd, impossible of execution, or unreasonable;
The legislature intends the entire statute to be effective and certain;
The legislature does not intend to violate the constitution of the United States or of this state;
When a court of last resort has construed the language of a law, the legislature in subsequent laws
on the same subject matter intends the same construction to be place upon such language; and
The legislature intends to favor the public interest as against any private interest.
645.49 HEADNOTES.
The headnotes printed in boldface type before sections and subdivisions in editions of the Minnesota
Statutes are mere catchwords to indicate the contents of the section or subdivision and are not part of the
statute.
The Attorney then advised the Council that what is before them tonight is a public hearing to
determine if it is in the public interest to vacate the easement on Lot 18. In essence, the
81
82
February 22, 1994
Planning commission recommended against vacation. This is a utility and public walkway
easement.
The City Attorney gave the background of this easement, stating that the City Engineer's
recollection of this is that originally both lots 17 and 18 were to be an Outlot and when the final
plat was approved, the Council in 1983 asked that the Outlot be deleted for maintenance reasons
and easements be taken on portions of the two lots. The easements were also taken so that there
was access to docks as well as drainage for this subdivision.
Councilmember Ahrens stated she could see no reason to retain this easement.
The Building Official stated that the rear comer of the house is too close to what is considered
the rear lot line and will need a variance. He stated this was confirmed by the City Planner who
considers the rear lot line to be the northeast line of lot 18.
The Mayor opened the continued public hearing.
Veto Veit - one of the original developers of this land, that it is his opinion that it is in
the best interest of the public to vacate the easement as requested to allow construction
of a garage for storage. He stated that the design for this lot was very poorly done and
if the one lot line had been moved over the house could have been moved over 10 feet
and the need for this vacation would not exist. Mr. Veit also questioned the Planner's
interpretation of the rear lot line.
The City Attorney stated that Mr. Veit could build the house exactly where it is shown, with a
variance for the rear yard setback and without a vacation of the easement, but it is his
understanding that he wants an upstairs and downstairs garage with two different driveways, one
from the side and one from the street. Mr. Veit agreed. The Attorney stated that they have the
right to do that even with the easement as it is. The problem is that if at any time in the future
the City needs to use the easement for any reason, he is subject to having the pond built there.
The Attorney further stated that there should be paper work signed by the Veits stating that they
understand what the consequences could be by putting a driveway on the easement.
Mr. Veit stated they are willing to take the risk but they have not been able to obtain a
building permit from the Building Official for the following three reasons:
1. Placing part of the footing in the easement;
2. The 15 foot rear yard setback that just came up at the last Planning Commission
meeting; and
3. The garage door on the north side of the house faces the drainage easement.
Catherine Veit, stated that the reason the vacation was requested was so that they can
develop and landscape the land and not worry about having it trampled and wrecked.
82
February 22, 1994
She complained that it seems like the Building Official keeps coming up with reasons
why they cannot build on this lot. She stated that she has done everything that has been
requested by the City and still cannot get a building permit. Her opinion was that the
the requested vacation area is not needed for drainage.
Nancy Ketcher, 2502 Lost Lake Road - asked what effect this vacation would have on
the docks that are in the area. The Staff stated the docks would not be affected.
The Attorney stated that the issue before the Council tonight is the vacation of the easement and
not the rest of the building permit issues that have been brought up tonight, i.e. the rear yard
setback, garage door facing the easement, footings near or in the easement.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
MOTION made by Jessen, seconded by Smith directing staff to prepare a resolution
of denial for the vacation of this drainage easement. The vote was 3 in favor with
Ahrens voting nay. Motion carried.
The Council suggested that the Veits get together with the staff on the rear yard setback, the
garage door facing the easement, and the footing placement. The Veits stated they would call
the City Manager for an appointment on these items.
1.3 CASE//94-07: DENNIS & MARY BRENNY, 4909 THREE POINTS BLVD., LOT
3, BLOCK 4, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID #13-117-24 11 0008, VARIANCE FOR
DECK
The Building Official explained the request. The Planning Commission recommended approval.
Smith moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION//94-26
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE FOR A
DECK AT 4909 THREE POINTS BLVD., LOT 3,
BLOCK 4, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID #13-117-24 11
0008, P & Z CASE #94-07
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.4 RECOMMENDATION FROM PLANNING COMMISSION TO FILL VACANCY
ON THE COMMISSION
The City Manager reported that there were two applicants for this vacancy, Lisa Ann Bird and
Lorraine Phernetton. The Planning Commission recommended the appointment of Lisa Ann
83
84
February 22, 1994
Bird.
Smith moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION//94-27 RESOLUTION TO APPOINT LISA ANN BIRD TO
THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR A 3 YEAR
TERM TO EXPIRE DECEMBER 1996
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carded.
COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT
Scott Schmieg, 1736 Bluebird Lane asked why there is a difference in price between a
straight dock and an L-shaped dock? The Council stated they feel it is perceived value
of the different docks.
1.5 PUBLIC LANDS PERMITS - BATCH//2 - PRIVATE STRUCTURES ON DOCK
SITFS, i.e. STAIRWAYS OR OTHER ENCROACHMENTS ON PUBLIC LANDS
The Building Official explained that the Park Commission acted on all items that needed no
discussion with the following conditions:
1. The permits will expire five (5) years from the date of City Council approval,
unless otherwise noted in the Comments solumn of Batch//2.
2. The permits must be renewed with change in dock license holder.
3. Repairs to stairways, and erosion control measures be made as required by the
Building Official and Parks Director.
The Council asked that number 3 read as follows:
3. Repairs to stairways and the related erosion control measures be made as required
by the Building Official and Parks Director.
The Council agreed with the recommendations of the Park Commission.
Smith moved and Johnson seconded the following resolution:
RF_~OLUTION g94-28 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE SPECIAL PERMITS TO
ALLOW PRIVATE STRUCTURES ON PUBLIC LAND
ACCORDING TO "BATCH #2"
Motion carded.
The vote was unanimously in favor.
84
1.6
RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AGREEMENT FOR THE INSTALLATION OF
A FISHING PIER AT CENTERVIEW BEACH & AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR
AND CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT WITH THE STATE OF
MINNESOTA
The City Manager reported that the State of Minnesota through the Department of Natural
Resources will be installing a fishing pier at Centerview Beach. They have submitted an
Agreement that needs to be approved and executed by the City of Mound. The City will have
the following responsibilities:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Concrete work;
Hard surfaced walk;
City to operate and maintain, pay for routine maintenance;
City to get license or permit to operate;
City to take out or protect from ice damage;
20 year contract.
Smith moved and Johnson seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION//94-29
RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AGREEMENT FOR
THE INSTALLATION OF A FISHING PIER AT
CENTERVIEW BEACH & AUTHORIZING THE
MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A
CONTRACT WITH THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
Councilmember Ahrens asked if total cost to the City has been determined and whether
or not this is in the Budget? The City Manager stated that the Park Director has
reviewed this and feels we can cover the costs in the Park Budget. The Council
suggested taking the money from the Liquor Store to cover the costs. The Council also
suggested signage to let people know the fishing pier is there, trash control, and
recycling containers.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.7 1993 DEPARTMENT HEAD ANNUAL REPORTS
The following Department Heads presented their 1993 Annual Reports to the Council: Building
Official Jon Sutherland, Police Chief Len Harrell, Finance Director Gino Businaro.
85
February 22, 1994
1.8 LICENSE RENEWALS: HEADLINERS BAR
PERMIT & ENTERTAINMENT' PERMIT
1.9
& GRILL - PUBLIC DANCE
MOTION made by Jessen, seconded by Ahrens to approve a Public Dance Permit
and an Entertainment Permit for Headliners Bar & Grill, 5241 Shoreline Drive.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
PAYMENT OF BILLS
Councilmember Ahrens asked that $1,326.54 of the bill from McCombs Frank Roos be
considered separately. She does not agree that this amount which has to do with boathouse
removal should come from Dock Funds. This bill was pulled and acted upon separately.
MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Jessen to authorize the payment of bills as
presented on the pre-list in the amount of $318,422.66, when funds are available.
A roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Johnson to authorize the payment of a bill
from McCombs Frank Roos, in the amount of $1,326.54, charged against fund//81-
4350-3100 Docks, when funds are available. The vote was 3 in favor with Ahrens
voting nay. Motion carried.
1.10 APPOINT TO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
The City Manager reported that the EDC is recommending that Dave Willette be appointed.
Jessen moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION//94-30 RESOLUTION TO APPOINT DAVE WILLETTE TO
THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carded.
INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS
A. Financial Report for January 1994, as prepared by Gino Businaro, Finance Director.
B. LMCD Mailings.
C. Letter from Community Builders regarding application for funding from MHFA. The
application has been rejested. This pertained to a lease to purchase program for single
family dwellings for low to moderate income persons.
86
De
Ee
League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) annual Legislative Conference is scheduled for
Thursday, March 24, 1994, in St. Paul. Please note agenda. If you are interested in
attending, please let Fran know ASAP.
Memo from Multiple Dock Owner Association, re: multiple dock license fees.
REMINDER: No COW Meeting March 15, 1994. Next COW Meeting is April 10,
1994, at 7:30 P.M.
REMINDER1 City Offices closed Monday, February 21, 1994, in observance of
President's Day.
Park Commission Minutes of February 10, 1994.
Planning Commission Minutes of Feburary 14, 1994.
The City Manager reported that Boy Scout Troop 571 from Our Lady of the Lake was
present earlier in the meeting. Their attendance was part of a required exercise for the
Communication Merit Award. The three that attended and one other that was not present
will be candidates for the Eagle Scouts in the near future. Those present were: Leader
A1 Blackwell, Ryan Schulz, Michael Blackwell and Nate Perbix, not present was Steve
Erickson. The Troop wanted to thank the Council and the Staff for the good example
of work in the public interest.
MOTION made by Johnson, seconded by Ahrens to adjourn at 10:35 P.M. The vote
was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
Attest:' Q£ty Clerk
c'~'r_zlward J. Shukle, Jr.~Cit-y Manager
87
BILLS
February 22, 1994
BATCH 4013
BATCH 4022
Total Bills
$186,170.88
133,498.42
$319,669.30