Loading...
1997-01-14J ,11 · ,I , Minutes - Mound City Council - January 14, 1997 MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - JANUARY 14, 1997 The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, January 14, 1997, at 7:30 PM, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present were: Mayor Bob Polston, Councilmembers Andrea Ahrens, Mark Hanus, Liz Jensen and Leah Weycker. Also in attendance were: City Manager Edward J. Shukle,Jr., City Attorney John Dean, City Planner Mark Koegler, and City Clerk Fran Clark and the following interested citizens: Joan Polston, Anita Watson, Alvin Donahoo, Carl Johnson, Roger Anderson, Ray Anderson, Bill Darling, Marilyn Byrnes, Rita Peterson, Bev Botko, Tim Busse, Gary Landsman, Mikael Asplin, Peter Meyer, Jane Skinner, Jerry Petrowski, Steve Bedell and Jim Bedell. OATH OF OFFICE The City Clerk administered the Oath of Office to Mayor Elect Bob Polston and Council Members Elect Andrea Ahrens and Leah Weycker. The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 1.1 1.2 PUBLIC HEARING: CASE//96-68: REZONING FROM R-1 TO R-lA, WATERS EDGE INVESTMENT CO. (JOE ZYLMAN), 5470, 5490 AND 5510 THREE POINTS BLVD.; THAT PART OF LOT 25, LAFAYETTE PARK, PID #'S 13-117-24 22 0246, 0249 & 0250. PUBLIC HEARING: CASE //96-69: PREIJMINARY PLAT/PDA/VARIANCES FOR "MAPLE MANORS", WATERS EDGE INVESTMENT COMPANY, (JOE ZYLMAN) THAT PART OF LOT 25, LAFAYETTE PARK, PID #'S 13-117-24 22 0246, 0249 & 0250 The City Planner explained that this item has a direct relationship with the next agenda item. The first is a rezoning request on the property that has to come before any action can be taken on the request for preliminary plat approval or any type of development on the property. What has been found historically with Planning Commissions and Councils is that discussion on these types of issues get somewhat intertwined. He suggested that the Council do as the Planning Commission did and go through discussion on both items or cases and then come back and take action in the sequence as it is required. The Planner explained that the area west of the subject property is zoned B-2 and the area east is the Seahorse Condominiums which is zoned R-3. This item was first heard by the Planning Commission in November and at that time it was tied to a development proposal that had 12 units. Both Staff and the Planning Commission had concerns about 12 units and ultimately the Planning Commission recommended denial. The developer withdrew this request before it came before the City Council. The developer reworked the proposal and came back with 10 units and addressed some of the concerns of the Planning Commission and Staff. The property in question is currently zoned R-1 single family with a 10,000 square foot lot minimum. The request is to rezone it to R-lA which has very similar characteristics but a 6,000 square foot lot minimum. The site is within the shoreland area and is subject to all the shoreland restrictions in the Mound Zoning Code. The purpose of the rezoning is to allow consideration of a twin-home development that would be processed as a Planned Development Area (PDA). The two adjoining parcels (246 and 250) are included in the rezoning request to provide continuity. Minutes - Mound City Council - January 14, 1997 The Planning Commission and the Staff recommendation is for approval of the rezoning of all these parcels to R-lA. The Planning Commission and the Staff feel that even, if for some reason the project did not materialize, the property would already be rezoned R-lA. Because the site is so constrained by topography, by the City's Flood Plain Ordinance and by the City's Shoreland Ordinance that there are really not a lot of viable alternatives outside of something similar to what is being presented tonight. Waters Edge Investment Co. is the developer and Mr. Joe Zylman is the representative for that company. They are proposing a PDA on the 2.8 acre site. This would require the rezoning and additional variances as part of the PDA, and will require preliminary plat approval. He further related that the topography on the site varies from Three Points Blvd. with an elevation of about 960 and drops to about 930 when you get to the northeast comer of the property. All of the parcel is above the City's wetland elevation. The property does lie within the shoreland area but does not contain any bluff areas as defined by the code. The development plan calls for the installation of a cul-de-sac that originates off of Three Points Blvd. and extends approximately 420 feet into the site and all the lots would take service from that cul-de-sac. The proposed right-of-way is 40 feet wide. The City's standard is 50 feet. The proposed cul-de-sac curve area is 70 feet and there are some variances that are tied to that. The 10 housing units that are proposed are in 5 clusters and are twin-homes. The intent is that they will be minimum maintenance homes. That is being done with a smaller lot area, with the bulk of the property being in a common association. The common association is being maintained by one entity. Approval of this particular request will require a Conditional Use Permit to be issued for the PDA; it will require variances that are outlined in the packet; and approval of the preliminary plat. The PDA is a method by which this type of development can occur and is similar to the Pelican Point Development. The variances are as follows: REQUIRED PROPOSED VARIANCE RIGHT-OF-WAY 50' 40' 10' Recently most of the developments that have been proposed have been at the 40' for a variety of reasons. CUL-DE-SAC RIGHT-OF-WAY (RADIUS) 50' 40' 10' CUL-DE-SAC PAVED STREET (RADIUS) 40' 35' 5' Again, both of these are consistent with what we have seen in recent times. LOT SIZE (ALL LOTS EXCEPT 8) LOT SIZE (LOT 8) 6,000 sf 3,440 sf 2,560 sf 6.000 sf 3,314 sf 2,686 sf The lot size variances that are required relate to the type of development proposed. Because most of the site will be platted as an outlot to be maintained by a homeowner's association, actual platted lot sizes are under the minimum standard for traditional single-family detached development. Lot size variances of similar magnitude have been approved in other Planned Development Areas. 2 I II I I I Il,, !, J ,I, Minutes - Mound City Council - January 14, 1997 The applicants surveyor has worked with him and brought the impervious cover down from 32% to 28%. 30% is the maximum allowed so there is no variance for impervious cover. The preliminary plat shows a 40' right-of-way for Maple Manors Court that originates at Three Points Blvd. and terminates in the cul-de-sac. The City Engineer and the City Planner had concerns about that and have addressed it as the following condition: Preliminary Plat - Dedicate the 50 foot strip between the two existing single family parcels and adjacent to the City lot entirely as right-of-way; and 10 foot variances for remainder of right-of-way and cul-de-sac diameter. The 10 units, as proposed, do comply with Staff's analysis of Mound's Shoreland Ordinance. PDA's also have to comply with non-shoreland density provisions and that is where the rezoning comes in because if it remains R-1, what is allowed to occur here is 9 units. The proposed 10 units require the rezoning to R-IA to allow 6,000 square foot lot size, with the purpose of achieving the density that is desired. As proposed, the gross density of the project equates to about 12,180 square feet of land per unit and that density when we take out things like floodplain, streets and ponding gets down to about 8,600 square feet per unit. The Mound Code does deal with tree preservation. There was a tree inventory done on the site in the past and revealed about 34 significant trees, 16 of those will be removed as a part of this construction. About half of those are due to the roadway. In looking at this the Staff does not feel that the tree loss with this proposal is substantially different than it would be with a single family proposal, if one was offered. The staff feels the tree loss is unavoidable in terms of providing access to the parcel. There was a wetlands delineation that was done on the site, with actual field work done late this Fall. The proposals do comply with the Watershed District's requirement of a 35' setback in that regard. The placement of the street between the two existing homes does create nonconforming situations and that is outlined in the Staff reports. In past meetings there was discussion about traffic generation. There are statistics that indicate that the proposed twin-home development will actually generate less traffic than a comparable single family development. The Staff feels the twin-home proposal that has been presented is an appropriate use for the land, which lies between a dense condominium complex zoning classification and a business classification and is separated by Three Points Blvd. from the development that is south of that. Therefore, the Planning Commission and the Staff are unanimous in recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit, variances and preliminary plat with conditions, for Maple Manors. The proposed resolution starts on page 14 of the packet. The Planner stated that there is a handout tonight from the developer that outlines, conceptually, a switch that Mr. Zylman was interested in pursuing with the Park Commission. The Planner stated that, from the Staff's perspective, this is really a separate item from what else is going on tonight and can be considered by the Park Commission at a subsequent meeting, if they so desire. So for now the recommendation is for the applicant to pay park dedication consistent with Section 330:120 of the Mound Code of Ordinances. All other conditions are as listed in the proposed resolution. The Mayor asked if the Council had any questions of the Staff. There were none. Mr. Joe Zylman, resident of Mound for almost 18 years and representative for the proposal stated, "That he has been working on this project for about 1 year and he is very proud of the way it is coming together. This piece of real estate has been sitting for many years without a good imaginative idea of how to use it. He stated he develops and builds all his projects i.e. framing, roofing, siding, finish carpentry, etc. There will be quite a bit of brick used on the exterior, ceramic on the interior. There Minutes - Mound City Council - January 14, 1997 will be about 1,500 square feet on one level. They will all be look out or walk-out basements. So there is actually about 3,000 square feet of finishable living space in these units." The Mayor opened the public hearing on the question of the Rezoning of the property from R-1 to R- lA. ROGER ANDERSON, resident of the Sea Horse Condominium, and on the Board of Directors: "Stated they are not against the development of the property. They are concerned with density and water runoff. He stated that if the property is not rezoned it will accommodate 9 residential pieces of property. If it is rezoned, it will accommodate 10 multiple dwellings. Then you have the other two parcels where you could have 2 to 3 units on parcel 240, and 3 to 4 units on 250, so now instead of talking about 11 units, we're talking about 15, 16 or 17 units. He also voiced concern about runoff from the 10 units. He asked about the cul-de-sac ending right behind the Seahorse garages and all the drainage ending up in their garages. He stated they would like to see the cul-de-sac turned around to go the other direction and the two of the twinhomes moved over to behind the Seahorse garages. Another concern is the snow removal. The snow will have to be trucked out because there is no place to put it." He submitted a petition with 103 signatures that read as follows: PETITION IN OPPOSITION TO MODIFICATION TO ZONING MAP TO REZONE ATTACHED DESCRIBED PROPERTY FROM R1 TO R lA The undersigned, being all owners of properties located within 350 feet of the property described on the attached Exhibit A, do hereby register our objection to the modification of the zoning map relating to the legal property described in Exhibit A from R1 single family requiring 10,000 square feet minimum lot size to R1A single family residential which would permit 6,000 square foot minimum lot size. We feel that a reduction of the square footage requirement permits the construction of too many units on said property, setting a precedent that we believe should not be followed in the Mound community. Mr. Anderson further stated that they can see that the property is going to be developed; trees will be lost; there will be additional density. They would prefer not to see the property rezoned or built upon, but we don't have the money to buy it. He stated they would prefer to not see it rezoned and would prefer single family residential to multiple dwelling. If that can't happen, they would prefer only rezoning the one area and not the other two parcels." GARY LANDSMAN, 5470 Three Points Blvd. (owner of Parcel 250) - "He stated he is not for or against the rezoning. For the sake of one unit the rezoning makes sense." JOE ZYLMAN - "There will be a storm sewer system in there. Any water in the roadway doesn't leave the roadway. There will be curb and gutter to keep runoff in the roadway. It's not going to be running into the garages. We will actually build a swail between your garages and our property. The garages will be higher than this property. The property will be graded so that it is lower than the Seahorse existing buildings. No chance of flooding you folks out. 4 Last thing we would ever want." ROGER ANDERSON, "Asked that the Council consider having the developer put a substantial fence between the two pieces of property (Seahorse garages and the development) to compensate for the lack of green space." The Mayor closed the public hearing. Councilmember Jensen asked about snow removal in the smaller cul-de-sac. The City Engineer stated that he has talked to Public Works Supt. Greg Skinner, who had reviewed the proposal and stated that if there is another year like this year, the snow would have to be hauled away, but they already have to do this on a number of dead end streets in town. Councilmember Jensen then asked the City Planner about the Watershed District setback to the water line. The City Planner stated that the setback is to the OHW (ordinary high water) which is not even on this property. He further explained that the Watershed, within their own rules and policies has a 35 foot setback from a delineated edge of wetlands and this property does comply with that. That is a land based elevation, in this case, based on vegetation. It's not the edge of the OHW as we would perceive it with lakeshore. Councilmember Jensen then asked about the rezoning criteria that we use relating to circumstances have changed or we made a mistake in the original zoning. She stated that she can look at this and see that there could have been a mistake simply because we have B2 abutted by R1 and she would have expected that the City would have wanted greater density here not less. She stated she is struggling not with the rezoning, but rezoning from R-1 to R1A. The Planner stated that he did not know if that issue was specifically addressed by the Planning Commission when they reviewed it on 2 different occasions, but it did come up in the spirit of discussion. The discussion was clearly that allowing a low to mid-level density project, such as this, was a reasonable buffer between the B2 and R3 zoning that exists. The Planner explained that is was the Planning Commission's belief that the R1A with the smaller lot size with a particular PDA type project, such as this, made sense. Councilmember Hanus stated that transition would be a better word for this than buffer. Councilmember Jensen stated that after 15 years of looking at this kind of thing, she has developed the concept of your highest density highest use to your lowest and something was stuck in the middle of this one, R1. She stated that she is not necessarily opposed to this rezoning, but is trying to grasp it. The Planner explained that question was raised in looking specifically at the physical characteristics of this site, that you have a very large B2 zone, but you have a very small portion of it that is actually developable. The vast majority of it being in wetland which is permanently open space. Given that context, this site exists as an insult that sticks out into that so you don't get the same relationship between the business area and the residential area as you do looking at a map. All those characteristics taken into play, it was felt by both Staff and the Planning Commission that it was a reasonable use of the property. It did put a level of density in there that is more suitable than strictly a single family. Councilmember Hanus stated that he is struggling with this because of the criteria for granting zoning amendments which reads, "Such amendments shall not be issued indiscriminately, but shall only be used as a means to reflect changes in the goals and policies of the community as reflected in the Plan or changes in conditions in the City". He stated that he doesn't believe that it's the goal of the city to Minutes - Mound City Council - January 14, 1997 increase housing density as a general goal. He stated he does not have a problem with the project, but if it were reduced to 9 units, it would not be as congested. He asked the Planner the following: "If this were not rezoned, but the project, as proposed, were to be put through, could you tell me what additional variances would be needed?" The Planner stated that the project could not proceed under the current zoning. The Planner stated that he and the City Attorney, in reviewing the project, agreed that varying from the overall density provisions would be equivalent to not granting a use variance, which can't happen. So the only way it can happen is by changing the underlying zoning lot structure so that it does comply with that. It is not as simple as granting a lot size variance. It gets more to the meat of the ordinance. In other words, unless this property is rezoned, you could not have 10 units on the property, only 9. The Mayor stated that he is opposed to the rezoning for the reasons discussed, i.e. doesn't think there was a mistake made in the zoning; against the increased density on the property; all the variances that will be required; and creating nonconforming parcels. Jensen moved and Weycker seconded the following: ORDINANCE//83-1997 AN ORDINANCE REZONING CERTAIN LANDS AS DESCRIBED FROM R-1 SINGLE FAMII,Y RESIDENTIAL TO R-lA SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL The vote was 4 in favor with Mayor Polston voting nay. Motion carried. The Mayor stated that now the Council will hold the public hearing on, and discuss the preliminary plat and conditional use permit, and variances for the Maple Manors property. Councilmember Weycker asked about the drainage in the area and if the City can control how the development is done to make sure the drainage is handled properly? The City Engineer explained that the applicant has to have the approval of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District on a drainage and erosion control plan. The developer is proposing two catch basins with a storm sewer line to the back of the cul-de-sac and then between 2 of the units into a ponding area which will take all the street runoff. Also there is a line that comes out to the lower area that will pick up the drainage from the rear yard of 1 unit and will then go into the ponding area. As the applicant mentioned, the low area on the site is kind of a swail that runs toward the wetlands, so the natural drainage is from the back of the cul-de-sac to the catch basins. All of this has to be approved by the watershed district as part of the conditions of the preliminary plat. Councilmember Hanus asked the City Engineer if this would meet the stormwater management requirements for the future or did he think it would need to be added to, to meet them? The City Engineer stated that if it meets all the requirements of the watershed district, yes it would. The Mayor opened the public hearing on the Maple Manors preliminary plat and Conditional Use Permit, and variances. There were no comments. Minutes - Mound City Council - January 14, 1997 The Mayor closed the public hearing. lensen moved and Hanus seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION g97-1 RESOLUTION APPROVING A PRELIMINARY PLAT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AREA WITH VARIANCES FOR MAPLE MANORS TWIN HOME RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON THAT PART OF LOT 25, LAFAYETTE PARK, PID//13- 117-24 22 0216, CASE g96-69 Councilmember Hanus asked if everything was included in the proposed resolution. The City Planner suggested adding the following: "The site plan and grading plan be incorporated as an exhibit as part of the resolution." The Council agreed. Mayor Polston stated that he does not agree with the number of variances being approved in this resolution. The Council disagreed with the Mayor. The vote was 4 in favor with Mayor Polston voting nay. Motion carried. APPROVE AGENDA. At this time items can be added to the Agenda that are not listed and/or items can be removed from the Consent Agenda and voted upon after the Consent Agenda has been approved. 1.0 *CONSENT AGENDA: Councilmember Jensen asked to have Items C, I & J removed from the Consent Agenda. Councilmember Hanus asked that Item M be removed. The City Manager stated that there are 2 additions to the Agenda, 1 to the Consent Agenda and 1 to the regular Agenda which are as follows: under Consent - Add approval of a Las Vegas Night for Our Lady of the Lake Church; under Regular- Add Executive Session to discuss the Auditor's Road Improvement Project as it relates to one of the properties that the City is trying to acquire. MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Jensen approve the Agenda and Consent Agenda as amended above. A roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. · 1.3 APPROVE THE MINUTFS OF THE DECEMBER 10, 1996, REGULAR MEETING Hanus, Jensen, unanimous. '1.4. APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 16, 1996, SPECIAL CITY COUNCIl, MEETING. Hanus, Jensen, unanimous. · 1.5 APPOINTMENT OF ACTING CITY MANAGER FOR 1997. '1.6 *1.7 *1.8 Minutes - Mound City Council - January 14, 1997 RESOLUTION //97-2 RESOLUTION APPOINTING FINANCE DIRECTOR, GINO BUSINARO, ACTING CITY MANAGER FOR 1997 Hanus, Jensen, unanimous. DESIGNATION OF OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER FOR 1997. RESOLUTION //97-3 RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE LAKER THE OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER FOR 1997 Hanus, Jensen, unanimous. APPROVAL OF BOND FOR CITY CLERK. RESOLUTION//97-4 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PURCHASE OF AT LEAST A $20,000 BOND FOR THE CITY CLERK Hanus, Jensen, unanimous. APPROVAL OF BOND FOR CITY TREASURER/FINANCE DIRECTOR. *1.9 *1.10 RESOLUTION//9%5 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE LEAST A $20,000 BOND TREASURER/FINANCE DIRECTOR PURCHASE OF AT FOR THE CITY Hanus, Jensen, unanimous. DESIGNATION OF OFFICIAL DEPOSITORIES FOR 1997. RESOLUTION//97-6 RESOLUTION DESIGNATING DEPOSITORIES FOR 1997 THE OFFICIAL Hanus, Jensen, unanimous. CASE//96-72: VARIANCE FOR ADDITIONAL TEMPORARY SIGN, MARQUETTE *1.11 BANK/ST. JOHN'S CHURCH, 2451 FAIRVIEW LANE, RLS 739, TRACTS A-G, PID #24-117-24 12 0014. RESOLUTION//97-7 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO ALLOW TWO TEMPORARY IDENTIFICATION SIGNS ON ONE PROPERTY FOR MARQUETTE BANK AT ST. JOHN'S CHURCH, 2451 FAIRVIEW LANE, RLS//739, TRACTS A-G - PID #24-117-24 12 0014, P Z CASE//96-72 Hanus, Jensen, unanimous. SET BID OPENING FOR 1997 FRONT END LOADER. SUGGESTED DATE; JANUARY 22, 1997, 11:00 A.M. Hanus, Jensen, unanimous. Minutes - Mound City Council - January 14, 1997 '1.12 SET PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONDITIONAI, USE PFa9311T FOR 4831 SUOREL/NE DRIVE TO Al,IOW S "MAJOR AUTO REPAIR" BUSINESS AS REQUESTEr} BY RANDY'S AUTOMOTIVE. SUGGESTED DATE: FEBRUARY 11, 1997. Hanus, Jensen, unanimous. '1.13 SET PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE VACATION OF THE UNIMPROVE!J OXFORD LANE LOCATED NORTH OF HANOVER ROAD AND SOUTH O1,' ABERDEEN ROAD BETWEEN BLOCK~ 5 & 9 IN DEVON. SUGGESTED DATE: FEBRUARY 11, 1997. Hanus, Jensen, unanimous. · 1.14 SET 1997 LOCAL BOARD OF REVIEW MEETING. SUGGESTED DATE: APRIL 22, 1997, 7:00 P.M. Hanus, Jensen, unanimous. '1.15 PAYMENT OF BILL,~. Hanus, Jensen, unanimous. '1.16 ADD ON ITEM: APPROVAL OF ON-SALE 3.2 BEER PERMIT FOR OUR LADY Ol~' THE LAKE SCHOOL - LAS VEGAS NITE - FEBRUARY 1, 1997 License to be issued pending all insurance requirements being submitted. Hanus, Jensen, unanimous. 1.17 APPOINTMENT OF ACTING MAYOR FOR 1997. Ahrens moved and Polston seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION//97-8 RESOLUTION APPOINTING ANDREA AHRENS AS ACTING MAYOR FOR 1997 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.18 APPOINTMENT OF COUNCIL REPRFSENTATIVES TO VARIOUS COMMISSION~;. The Council discussed the various Council Representative appointments. The following was suggested: Liz Jensen - Economic Development Commission Mark Hanus - Planning Commission Leah Weycker- Park Open Space Commission Jensen moved and Hanus seconded the following resolution: Minutes - Mound City Council - January 14, 1997 RESOLUTION//97-9 RESOLUTION APPOINTING LEAH WEYCKER TO THE PARK COMMISSION; MARK HANUS TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION; AND LIZ JENSEN TO THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION (EDC) AS COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVES FOR 1997 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.19 CASE g96-70: VARIANCE FOR FENCE HEIGHT, THOMAS PAUI~ON, 2465 LOST LAKE ROAD, LOT 16, BLOCK 1, LOST LAKE, PID ~24-117-22 0030. Councilmember Jensen stated, "That she is trying to figure out what the hardship is for this variance. What are the unique conditions on this property that say it is O.K. when others can't. Then there is a note in the report that mentions that there is an even higher fence next door for which I would like an explanation." Councilmember Hanus stated that he is not sure why the higher fence next door, except it may be for the pool where there is a required 6 foot fence. The Planner stated he was at the Planning Commission Meeting when this was discussed and there was not much discussion on this. He stated, he thought it was more a practical difficulty situation and not a hardship. The property owner had some specific need to have the fence 42" and the Commission in their view and by the Building Official's report indicated that it was not an obstruction, given the nature of the fence and the property. Ahrens moved and Hanus seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION//9%10 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A FENCE HEIGHT VARIANCE FOR 2465 LOST LAKE ROAD, LOT 16, BLOCK 1, LOST LAKE ADDITION, PID//24-117-24 22 0030, P & Z CASE//96-70 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.20 APPROVAL OF DOCK LOCATION MAP FOR 1997. Councilmember Hanus asked if the City is currently licensing all the docks, including the ones we are reserving for Lost Lake on this license or is that a separate license. If the answer is yes, he has a problem with charging residential dock users for a future commercial or quasi-commercial use downtown to hold those dock sites for future use. The City Manager explained that the dock system application is separate from the other license, but the understanding is that the LMCD is reserving up to 30 dock sites. The Council asked that the 30 dock sites for Lost Lake be paid for separately from the other dock sites. Councilmember Hanus then asked how the City is handling the dock sites on Wawanossa Commons. In other words is the dock fund subsidizing those docks and paying the LMCD fee that those people do not want to pay? And is it only 6 sites that are not paying? The City Manager stated that he believes it is only 6 sites. The City Manager stated he will get this license situation clarified and report back to the Council. MOTION made by Jensen and seconded by Hanus to approve the Dock Location Map for 1997, as presented tonight. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 10 Minutes - Mound City Council - January 14, 1997 1.21 REOUEST FROM STEVE BEDELL TO SEI.L BEER FROM "BY THE WAY SNACK SHOP" LOCATED AT 4801 SHORELINE DRIVE, MOTION made by Polston, seconded by Ahrens to approve a request for an Off-Sale 3.2% ' Beer License for Steve Bedell, DBA,; By the Way Snack Shop, located at 4801 Shoreline Drive. The City Attorney asked if this is the same license that we issue to the Lions, etc? The City Clerk explained that it would be the same type of license that the City issues to PDQ, Superamerica and Brickley's Market selling off-sale 3.2 Beer. Councilmember Jensen stated the since State Law prohibits selling beer from a drive-up window, is there a restriction for selling beer from a Transient Merchant? The Mayor stated, he thinks the difference is the drive-up window and in this case they are not actually serving it to the boat. The Council asked the City Attorney to check and see if there is anything in the State Law that would prohibit the issuance of and Off-Sale 2.3 Beer License to By the Way Snack Shop. Councilmember Jensen stated that she is all for making it as difficult as possible to purchase beer on the Lake. For this reason, she is opposed to this request. The vote on the Motion was 4 in favor with Jensen voting nay. Motion carried. The Council disdiscussed whether this is legal under Minnesota Statutes. Councilmember Ahrens asked the applicant, Steven Bedell, if he has any problem with having people come to the stand to purchaase the beer and not being allowed to deliver it to the boat. Mr. Bedell said he did not have a problem with that. 1.22 COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT. The Mayor asked if there were any comments or suggestions from the citizens present. PETER MEYER, resident of Sunset Road - He asked to give a statement regarding the possible creation of a new Commons Dock Committee. "I am strongly against the creation of a new commission who would recommend policy for docks and commons. If I have this clear, this proposal would take Commons, which are dedicated to all citizens in Mound, and would create a new Commons Advisory Committee which would be composed of a majority of its members being abutting Commons land owners and they would be setting policy regarding Commons abutters and dock holders. I believe there are approximately 400 dock sites and that's roughly 10 percent our households in Mound. I don't think that's a fair representation. The Park Commission, right now, is a real fair representation of the citizens of Mound. We have abutters, lakeshore owners and inlanders. Three of our finest members now are members of the Commons Task Force. So I really don't understand what the motive is or the benefit of this." BILL DARLING, 2500 Grove Lane - asked to read a letter (as follows) from Tom Casey, Chair, Mound Park and Open Space Commission, regarding "Proposal for ... Commission Rearrangement ..." by Mark Hanus. Minutes - Mound City Council - January 14, 1997 "Dear Mound City Council, The above-stated agenda item should be tabled without discussion for the following reasons: This item was not included in the published agenda of The Laker and, therefore, the public has no opportunity to present comments or questions to the Mound City Council this evening. The Park and Open Space Commission should be allowed the opportunity to review the proposal prior to its presentation to the City Council. o Because the proposal, if adopted, would conflict with the current Mound City Code, the proposal should include code sections that would need to be amended. In this way, the public could more fully understand the implications of the proposal. There is no imminent need to review the proposal this evening. There is no pending public land permit applications and two recommendations of the Commons Task Force have already been approved by the Park and Open Space Commission. I trust expediency will not override sound democratic process. Very truly yours, signed Tom Casey." BILL DARLING, Vice Chair of the Mound Park & Open Space Commission stated the following regarding "Mr. Hanus' proposal for the rearrangement of the Parks Open Space Commission and Creation of a Commons Dock Commi~ion, dated January 8, 1997. "I would like to publicly, for the record and including the local broadcast, comment on this proposal. First concern, is the procedural process associated with his proposal. Mr. Hanus completed and distributed his proposal on January 8th, the day prior to the last Parks and Open Space Commission. This proposal did not show up on the city council agenda as printed in the "Laker" newspaper, and city staff was instructed to not distribute this proposal to the Parks Commission at our last Thursday's meeting. I have to ask: What is it that scares various members of the city council? Why would the city council present and discuss this issue that requires change to city ordinance without first publishing their intent? Do they not want the public to review and comment first?, Why did various members direct city staff to not present this to the Park Commission??? If for no other reason, this proposal should be tabled until such time that the park commission and the public have a chance to review and comment, or is the city council so afraid of opinion that they would circumvent the very procedural process they created??? Second concern, is: Mr. Hanus's entire reason for this proposal, I believe, is flawed. Mr. Hanus says that the expected results are, quote "Avoidance of any more loss of shoreline control for Mound such as has happened in Woodland Point." "Is Mr. Hanus implying the Park Commission is responsible for the loss of city control of Woodland Point to its rightful heirs, as deemed by a judge. I would remind Mr. Hanus that it is the very city council that he now sits on that refused to accept the rights of Woodland Point residents, resulting in the court case and nearly $80,000 in legal bills." 12 Minutes - Mound City Council - January 14, 1997 "Does this mean Mr. Hanus's plans include making it tough on anyone who tries to regain their inherited rights resulting in a painful, long and costly battle if they stand up to the city council. It's bad enough to watch the City of Minnetrista fight a "Dig in my heels" mentality with Mr. Hawks." Now we have to think Mr. Hanus would subject Mound to the same "controling government" here. "Mr. Hanus's second point~isto "Reduce frustration and personal conflicts." "This is an interesting point of view, considering his relative's past legal battles with the City of Mound over building illegal structures on public lands and the intent to utilize those public lands for their own personal use. It is the very park commission that oversees Commons, and insures people like the Hanus's do not encroach on the rights given to all citizens." His third point is, "Where possible, increase number of inland households that have access to dockage in the city of Mound." "The fact remains that the number of docks is a formula set by the LMCD and managed by the Mound Dock Program, which already ensures a fair method for all citizens to enjoy dockage on Lake Minnetonka. Neither Mr. Hanus nor a new commission can change the LMCD formula, nor could he give more docks to "Inlanders" as he so implied." "I ask the public to carefully scrutinize Mr. Hanus's and his supporting councilmembers' objectives, as it would appear that these so called results are outside the control of any commission." "Mr. Hanus goes on to say that the conditions leading to his proposal are due to "....difficulties in the council soliciting opinions from the commission" , "disagreement in philosophy ... and ... It (the park commission) has become politically oriented..." "The fact is, Mr. Hanus and other supporting Council members are fearful of dissension and are looking for ways to quell such discussion. It is our constitutional right and duty to question government and state our opinion. There used to be another government system that would erase other government bodies that opposed it. Could it be that this council (like that government system) looks for complete and blind support and eliminate anyone that opposed them? I don't think so. Thankfully we defeated that system of government -- called Communism." "Mr. Hanus indicates people were turned away" because of the park commission, yet he failed to indicate that the very rules that his city council installed were the direct reason for the public in not meeting their needs. Mr. Hanus indicates "...this is the best way to calm the litigious atmosphere surrounding the docks and commons"..., yet he forgot to tell everyone that it was the city council, not the park commission that pursued the legal bullying of the Woodland Point residents." "Mr. Hanus indicates that we joined the Parks and Open Space Commission because we were interested in "Park land" and not "Commons". I can tell you from my perspective that is false. Mr. Hanus has never surveyed the commission and I resent that he represents my viewpoint, as it is inaccurate. Mr. Hanus indicates that it has become increasingly more difficult to recruit commissioners, yet just this month we had three candidates for one position. Mr Hanus indicates many commission meetings were canceled due to a lack of quorum, yet in my three years on the commission, I remember only two meetings canceled for such, and in each case the city councilmember representative was one of those absent without excuse. Mr. Hanus indicates that we have "Pet Projects". "The only "Pet Project" the commission has is the preservation of public lands for current and future generations to enjoy. Mr. Hanus says, "We cannot afford to risk losing more lakeshore to a lawsuit". I could not agree with you more Mr. Hanus. Rather than trying to take public lands for yourself and your relatives and your friends personal purposes, why don't you and other supporting council representatives try spending your Minutes - Mound City Council - January 14, 1997 time on issues that really affect the public, like saving our community center, finding a home for the senior center and WECAN, attracting new businesses to Mound, or giving our youths structured activities like the skating rink you fave fought so hard to defeat. Mr. Hanus says it's time that the city council should be leaders. I agree. Step out from behind the protection of your position and work for the rights of the public, not the special interest that serves you best. I find your actions and this proposal to be a travesty to government. I cannot force you to drop this self serving direction, but I can as a matter of public record expose this proposal for what it really is, and bring to bear as much public pressure as I can. Thank you." MIKE ASPELIN, EAGLE LANE. "As you all know I have been very involved in the Woodland Point scheme of things. I would like to ask the city Council not to drop the number of permits or whatever we were talking about for the Wawonaissa Commons, yet. The reason being that, although the City seems to be out of Wawonaissa Commons, I have 2/3 of the households, minimum in Woodland Point that don't believe they are out and have got a lawsuit going to reinstate their rights. We would really like to see if these rights are reinstated and we have somewhere to park our boats." MAYOR POLSTON explained that the suggestion was not to drop the permits, but not to pay for them when we can't administer them. "If, in fact, something were reinstated, we have dock spaces available, but no one is suggesting that we drop the permits or get rid of the potential permits, if, in fact the court order were changed or the ruling changed or if you prevailed in your lawsuit. There is no question that there is adequate dock space." COUNCILMEMBER HANUS stated, "His concern was that the people on Wawonaissa Commons who prevailed in the lawsuit do not have to pay the LMCD fee and the rest of the dockholders will have to pay it if these units are to be included in the total number of docks." RITA PETERSON, MEMBER OF THE COMMONS TASK FORCE AND MEMBER OF THE PARK COMMISSION, stated, "She thinks it is a good idea to have to separate entities of a Park Commission and a Commons Commission because there are approximately 9,500 residents and they might be surprised to know that of the 12 meetings held, probably 10 were entirely on Commons issues and not addressing park issues, which seem to be ignored. We need to specialize." BEV BOTKO, MEMBER OF THE COMMONS TASK FORCE AND MEMBER OF THE PARK COMMISSION, stated, "She is in favor of Councilmember Hanus' proposal to create two separate entities, Parks and Commons. They are both a big job and it is too much for one commission to handle. The Commons Task Force has worked for almost two years and I feel has accomplished so much. At least we have a beginning. The multiple dock that was put in is working very well. There are plans for 3 future multiple docks in the next year. She did not feel the Park Commission can do justice to parks if they have to deal with Commons issues also." 1.23 REOUEST FROM STEVE BEDELL TO SELL BEER FROM "BY THE WAY SNACK SHOP" LOCATED AT 4801 SHORELINE DRIVE. The City Attorney stated that he has reviewed the Statute and talked with Mr. Bedell, the applicant, who informed him that although the 3.2 beer will be sold from a trailer, the trailer will be in a fixed location on the property and will not be moving around. Since this is the case and Mr. Bedell is aware of the limitations, the license is lawful and the City can grant it. 14 Minutes - Mound City Council - January 14, 1997 1.24 DISCUSSION: PROPOSAL RE: COMMISSION REARRANGEMENT AND CREATION OF COMMONS/DOCK COMMISSION- COUNC1LMEMBER MARK HANUS. Bill Darling asked why this was not published in the Agenda notice given to the newspaper? The City Manager explained, "That Mr; Hanus ;had called him on Monday asking about the possibility of putting this item on the Agenda, but he wanted to know when was the latest that it could be put in the packet and on the Agenda. He was told Friday morning. Wednesday is when the newspaper is given the tentative Agenda and he had not heard from Mr. Hanus by then. Mr. Hanus did not, to his knowledge, instruct anybody not to share it with the Park Commission, but the proposal came to us on Thursday, and with the interviews before the Commission, the City Manager did not believe it was appropriate to bring it up. The City Manager instructed the Park Director not to discuss the proposal with the Commission because of the interviews, and the fact that it had not even been addressed by the City Council. The Mayor introduced the item. Councilmember Hanus stated he would like to address a couple of the points that were brought up during Comments & Suggestions, because he has never heard such a misrepresentation of ideas or concepts. Councilmember Hanus - "First, Mr. Meyer stated the make- up, as he saw it, but I don't think he has read the proposal, because if he reads it carefully, it is the opposite of what he said. The make-up is not in favor of the abutters, it's the other way around. The reference to my legal battles with the City, is absurd, because I've had no legal battles with the City. It was also mentioned that I'm trying to represent someone else's position and that is absolutely untrue. I understand the opposition by people who have the same thought process or ideas that have been in Mound for a long time, but that's exactly what I'm trying to break from. That is what I am trying to bring a fresh perspective to, because what it has gotten us is where we are today, problems, litigations and loss of City control of public shoreline. That's exactly what I'm trying to avoid. There were a couple of points mentioned, actually out of the purpose that I had written. There were three points to that Purpose and I'm going to read them again just so everyone hears them in their entirety:" '1. Avoidance of any more loss of shoreline control for Mound such as has happened in Woodland Point.' "I believe we can stop that where it stands, but in order to do that we have to act pro-actively, not reactively. That particular case was dealt with reactively and we lost it." '2. Reduced frustration and personal conflicts, increased understanding of issues beyond the confines of ones property, and reduction of the we versus them attitude, which is the deep rooted polarization that has been festering for so long in Mound.' "There are people also that have been promoting that polarization, that is so destructive and so negative and it makes any kind of advancement or improvements so difficult. I'm trying to get away from that and I think given a little bit of time that would happen also." '3. Where possible, increase the number of inland households that have access to dockage in the City of Mound.' "That can be done. It was represented earlier that it can't be done. It can be done and it can be done through one of the methods that has been tried, up to this point and that's the multiple dock pilot program that we did. The more of those that are there, the more (I'm not saying that we can put more boats or docks in the City), that we do have limits on, but we can increase the amount of households that have access to those docks, if, in fact, they are limited to one boat, which most people have. The more people that have one boat, the more openings or BSUs (boat storage units) are available for other people in Mound. It can be done through that type of a program. It' s not something you want to do everywhere, certainly. It's the type of thing we use to 15 Minutes - Mound City Council - January 14, 1997 address problematic areas, congested areas, things of that sort. So it's definitely a doable thing and I think we've proved it." Mr. Hanus commented that this proposal is in front of the Council and is on public record. He asked how the Council would like to proceed. The Mayor asked Councilmember Hanus to give an overview and then it can be open to Council discussion. Councilmember Hanus stated, "That back in November, at the Committee of the Whole Meeting, he presented a very conceptual, very brief thought to the Council to see if there was some interest in pursuing it. At that time it was nowhere near as comprehensive as the report is today. It was just a one page, brief little report. He continued that at that particular time, there seemed to be a majority of the Council that was interested in pursuing this so he offered to go ahead and write a more comprehensive proposal for their review. That has been done now and that is what is before you now. Councilmember Hanus stated, "In my opinion, the success of the multiple dock pilot program I don't think can be disputed. It's been a success from the eyes of the people who use it. It's been a success from the eyes of the City and it seems to be working very well and I think the Council has shown at least some tacet interest in pursuing it because they have budgeted for some more complexes of similar nature this year. These complexes are self funded by the dock users. There is no tax money or City General Fund monies put into them." "The Woodland Point loss is quite clearly a result of reactive actions, rather than proactive and if we are going to save anymore of those, we have to be proactive. There are rumblings out there that there are some other areas that are considering similar type things. I think they are sitting on their hands right now waiting to see what comes out of Woodland Point. So again, if we just sit back and don't do anything, we can be looking for more of the same." "The dock program, itself, is an independent program, separate from other programs within the City. It's independently funded. It's 100% funded by the people who have paid for docks. It's accounted for separately in its own fund. I believe the recommendations for this program should come from the people who use it and pay for it. Historically, this primarily was regulated by people who don't use the program, with just a couple of small exceptions and I don't think that's the right thing to do and I think that's what has gotten us into the problems we're in today. People get frustrated when they have problems and they can't get anyone to listen. That's where we are today and I think two years ago when the proposal first came out for the Task Force, that was the first step in trying out this type of a thing. To see if we could get some ideas cooking and bouncing around and I think it's worked extremely well. There are, as you would expect, always some confrontations when you have potential mixed, or opposing views between parallel groups. The Park Commission is not a parallel group to the Task Force. The Task Force does now, or did in the past, and always did recommend to the Park Commission. There is only one exception to that and it is the pilot program that the Council took on it's own. All other recommendations were planned and have gone through the Park Commission. There has been, and the Council has discussed, problems getting quorums with the Park Commission. Attendance has been a bit of a problem. As was mentioned before, it has become far more political and if you attend the meetings, watch them or read the minutes, it's quite apparent to me, that, on occasion, even become totally dysfunctional. It's certainly disrupted it's function. Past Councils have discussed the possibility of reducing the size of the Park Commission. They haven't acted on it, but they have discussed it so it's not a brand new idea and I do believe that reducing the size will simplify and re-establish its focus and its function. I just want to state, without a doubt, my number one 16 Minutes - Mound City Council - January 14, 1997 purpose, focus, in this whole thing is public service. That's why we're here. That's certainly why I'm here, to do my best to serve the public's interest and that's exactly what I'm trying to do with this. I'm not trying to step on toes, but I don't want to back away from this because a few people may not agree with it. I believe it's the right thing to do and I believe, in the long term, we are going to find out that it's absolutely the right thing to do.' .... ''~ Councilmember Hanus then reviewed the points of the proposal and what he suggested be considered, which follows: The Council should create a Commons/Dock Commission. Representation should reflect a cross section of dock users as much as possible. He is suggesting that the Dock Commission consist of five members, plus a Council and Staff Rep. (i.e., three inland and two abutting representatives.) The initial Commission seats should first be offered to the Task Force members since they have been performing this very exact function for nearly two years, followed by Park Commissioners, but keeping in mind his concern that, in order to serve on the Dock Commission, you must be in the dock program. The Park Commission membership and Dock Commission membership would then be "filled" out and propagated by standard commission procedure, which is through the interview process and advertisement in The Laker. Move all commons/dock issues that are currently being reviewed by the Park Commission over to the Dock Commission as the recommending body, freeing up time for traditional park issues. The Dock Commission should have the same ability to make budget recommendations on the Dock Fund, as the Park & Open Space Commission has in the Park Budget. o Terms should be staggered, which is pretty standard with all commissions. If a Commission member ceases to be active in the dock program, that seat should be vacated and filled as soon as practical. The Dock Commission meeting frequency would need to be determined as based upon need. It may be more frequent initially and taper off later. That would be dependent upon work load. Reduce the size of the Park and Open Space Commission to five members, plus a Council Representative. This goes back to the earlier points made. Traditional park and open space issues would be the primary focus of the Park and Open Space Commission, which is traditionally the function of park commissions throughout the country. Councilmember Hanus stated these are the eight points he is putting up for proposal. The Mayor asked if there was any discussion or questions from the City Council. Councilmember Weycker stated, "That being new on the Council, she does not fit into a lot of what is said in the proposal. The current Park & Open Space Commission seems to be balanced for users and non-users. There hasn't been enough time for them to handle these issues. They could have tacked on extra meetings. I have been at several of their meetings and that was actually discussed. I don't think this proposal, per se, helps with the "we versus' them" attitude or with the politics attitude. I see this, actually, contributing to the problem. I think the Park Commission should have some time to 17 Minutes - Mound City Council - January 14, 1997 discuss this before we would move on it for any reason." Councilmember Hanus stated, "They could have more meetings, however, the recommendations that are in front of them right now went to discussion last Thursday and they had the opportunity to have another meeting to make recommendations knowing that we were going to be dealing with those issues, I believe, the 28th, but chose not have an extra meeting on those issues but they have got a history of having extra meetings for "Pet Projects". He stated he hates that term, because that is where ideas come from and we don't want to stop that, but now on this issue they chose not to have extra meetings. Again, it gets back to the issue, that was mentioned earlier in this report, that in order to do this you need to have some motivation and I don't think that the people on the Park Commission are motivated to deal with these issues. There is no question in my mind that, if we leave things the way they are, further advancements in the program; further discussions; and any other improvements down the road, will cease today. They will cease today if we don't make some changes and have it discussed by people with some motivation to make improvements." Councilmember Weycker stated that she feels being the Council Rep. to the Park Commission, she could direct them not to go that direction. She stated, "I believe there have been problems in the past, but with a new Council Rep., things may change. I do know they had a problem with the communication with Andrea. So maybe with me on there it would help. I think the Councilperson actually needs to have more direction on it. I assumed that was the job as the Council Representative. At their last Park meeting, it was actually scheduled for two years worth of the Commons Task Force Meetings, there was an hour and a half scheduled for them to talk about that. To me that was a scheduling problem and maybe the City Council shouldn't be heating it at our next meeting. Maybe we should let them hear it first and finish what they need to do. There is no extreme rush on it right now. The docks are not going to be in the water for a while. ! don't see where we are pressed for time that we have to rush them on that issue of discussing it and I was at their discussion and thought it was going very well. Actually they agreed with most of the things that the Commons Task Force had proposed. I also have gone through what the Commons Task Force has proposed and it is very in depth and I think the Parks Commission deserves a lot more time than an hour and a half." Councilmember Jensen stated, she has seen one multiple dock in one part of town and yet has heard consistently that it's a raving success. "I find it amazing that we can judge that based on one time. I am also not in support of this. I have a real hard time separating parks and commons because they are public open spaces and this proposal would take that focus and put it on docks and any other public use of that land doesn't get addressed. It is proposed to be staffed by people who are just users so where do people who are interested in having access to water, (where do their needs get addressed?) when the focus, as a group, is strictly on the needs of the dock users? I see it, at this point, as a step to further polarization that I would prefer not to take." Councilmember Ahrens stated, "In the past we've stacked the Park Commission against dock users. There were years and years, in this City, Liz, with a Park Commission that didn't have one dock user on it." Councilmember Jensen stated that she would love to see the statistics on that. Councilmember Ahrens stated that currently there are two and herself, as Council Rep., but there were years when there wasn't a single, solitary, dock holder on there and when there wasn't an abutter on it. 18 Minutes - Mound City Council - January 14, 1997 Park Commissioner, Marilyn Byrnes, stated that she has been on the Park Commission for 11 years and that yes, Councilmember Ahrens is correct about the make-up of the Park Commission and that's one of the reasons she has stayed on the Park Commission, because she was the only one representing the people who lived on Commons. She stated that she feels the Task Force has done an excellent job of really delving into the possibilities of what canbe done with the Commons and the Task Force has been representative of abutters and non-abutters. Councilmember Jensen stated that she is not arguing about what the Task Force has done. She thanked them for their efforts and will continue to do so. She stated that she thinks the recommendation on the multiple dock was great and it does appear to be a success. She stated that's the only recommendation she has seen. She stated, she would support the idea of the Task Force continuing until its life as a Task Force has expired, because task forces are of that nature. "They are put in place for a task and they are disbanded when the task is completed and I think, ultimately, we'll see completion of this, but I would prefer that their recommendations continue to come to us through a body that has a broader view, the Park Commission." Councilmember Hanus stated, "I believe that if the task force continues, we will continue to see friction. We will continue to have disruptions to city business that we've seen in the past, and I think we need to change things to calm those waters. It may not be easy, right now, but I think long-term we're going to calm them. Councilmember Jensen - "You're talking about making the task force into a permanent commission." Councilmember Hanus - "Creating a new commission. I'm not saying the task force is going to be the new commission. Councilmember Jensen - "Your recommendation is that we use the people who are already on the task force." Councilmember Hanus - "I'm saying that you give them first choice to it, sure." Councilmember Jensen - "So you're going to take a group, that you've said is already causing friction and make them a permanent commission? That's your proposal?" Councilmember Hanus - "As I understand it from the Park Commission, there are parallel discussions, there's parallel issues, that they took issue with. They didn't like the other group working either independently or not working with recommendations coming through them. Now you know and I know that those recommendations always, from day one, were intended to go through the Park Commission. That was clearly discussed when we set this up, but the friction was there anyway. The problems were there anyway and for whatever reason, be it personal, be it political, be it conceptual, or whatever the reason,and that will continue. Look at the resolutions that the Park Commission drew up. There were demands that we disband the Task Force immediately, or take the work away from them and give it back to the Park Commission. This is not working and to continue the task force, at this point, I think is to continue our problems and I think if we give a permanent home to the issues so an appropriate group can deal with these issues, this will calm down and settle out and the City will be better off for it." Councilmember Jensen - "Sorry, I disagree. Putting permanence in place to a group that has focused on one item, just doesn't make it for me." Minutes - Mound City Council - January 14, 1997 Mayor Polston stated, "that he thinks that whenever there is an opportunity to do some change that will be in a positive nature, that we would be remiss if we didn't try to move in order to make positive changes. He further stated that some people are afraid of change just because change itself is scary and frightening. He stated that we have to be open minded and look at trying to move forward here and do something of a positive nature. When this was initially brought up at the Committee of the Whole Meeting, I indicated that I liked the idea, I supported it and said that the only way I would consider it or support it would be, if in fact, the Commons Commission was made up of two abutters and three non-abutters and that is what has been proposed here. We are actually adding more people to the commissions. There will be five people on the Park & Open Space Commission and five people proposed for the Dock Commission. The Mayor further stated that this will afford the Park and Open Space Commission an opportunity to address park and open space and recreational issues. Since there are very few recreational opportunities in Mound and given the right set of circumstances, the Park and Open Space Commission will begin to address recreational and park and open space issues and can make some recommendations to the City Council and we can move forward and make things better from a park and from a recreational standpoint. He stated that the Dock Commission, as proposed here, based upon the success of what the task force has been able to do, would perpetuate putting to rest some of the unrest and moving forward and finding resolution to the problems. It is unfortunate that some people, don't see or grasp, the positive things that can come out of this. He stated he thinks this is one of the best proposals that has come along in a long time. MOTION made by Mayor Polston, seconded by Hanus to accept the proposal and direct the City Attorney and Staff to make the necessary document changes in the Park & Open Space Ordinance and to set up the Dock Commission. This would include the appropriate Code changes and anything relative to establishment of a commission as well as the changing of the current code. This to be brought back to the Council for their approval. COUNCILMEMBER WEYCKER stated, "She did not feel she has enough information to vote in favor of this." COUNCILMEMBER AHRENS stated, "That abutters and non-abutters made up this task force and the Chair of the Task Force told the Council many times that they reached consensus on every single recommendation or decision. These same two groups who have been at each others throats for years because of the perpetuation of the polarization of them by other people, either by Staff or commissions and if you talk to anyone of the members of this task force they will tell you that they have all been congenial to one another. They have worked out their differences. It has been the greatest group that I've ever seen sitting on any of our commissions. I don't see the Economic Development Commission very often, but this group has gotten along wonderfully." COUNCILMEMBER HANUS added - "When this group first started, all the members came with the same prejudices that the public has out there. The inlanders were worried about the abutters and the abutters were worried about the inlanders, but once they sat down and started finding out what the other person had in mind and what the agendas were, things calmed and settled down, and they have been a very workable group. It doesn't matter who you talk to. They will all tell you the same thing." MAYOR POLSTON stated, he does not see this as a negative move for the Park and Open Space Commission because they will be able to address park and open space and recreational issues and they'll have more time to do it in and more opportunity to do that." He feels it is a positive recommendation. 20 Minutes - Mound City Council - January 14, 1997 COUNCILMEMBER WEYCKER stated, "I have been at two of the Commons Task Force Meetings and at each of those there was only one non-abutter in attendance, all others were abutters. She would like to see the attendance records as to who actually showed up. They did seem to get along, but getting along does not mean you're getting a job done. The differences in opinion· is what government is all about." COUNCILMEMBER HANUS stated. "That he agreed, but the point Councilmember Ahrens made earlier is the key point. "It was reached by consensus. It was agreed to 100%, all of the recommendations that they made. They talked, discussed, bent, negotiated, compromised until everyone could agree and that is conducting business when you go to that point." COUNCILMEMBER JENSEN stated, that she is not afraid of change, but her concern is that we're taking open space and calling it something other than open space. "Commons is open space, it's public space and the public isn't being represented in the commission that's being proposed. I think having additional time for the Park Commission to look at recreational issues is commendable, but where will the funding come when they come with recommendations." COUNCILMEMBER WEYCKER asked, "I am curious how these two groups too, would get together and discuss. I think our City has to have a general plan because if these two groups are going down different avenues, how do we handle that as a City Council? I see that as a huge potential problem. Just another thing to think about." COUNCILMEMBER HANUS - "I will reiterate a point that was mentioned somewhere in my report, and that is that these are only recommendations and the Council does have to retain it's objectivity. As far as people not being represented, I hope that they're represented here as well as there because there is general public, as proposed, in the Task Force. They do happen to be in the dock program, but they are the general public, as well, and we have to have a certain amount of faith in our Commissions and one of the things we have to have faith in, in this particular case, is that they will fairly address open space issues. If they do not, we have to deal with that, but that's one reason why we're here too, is to exercise objectivity. We do have to be careful of that, but we have to be careful of that today, as well." COUNCILMEMBER WEYCKER asked Councilmember Hanus - "Where do you see the difference between the Commons Task Force right now presenting to the Parks Commission and having two separate groups?" COUNCILMEMBER HANUS - "The problem with that, I think, is that I was talking to the Chairman of the Task Force and he made a comment to me that he is concerned about how long they can continue the way their going because volunteers only go so far. When the Task Force first met, there were weeks when they had two meetings a week, every week, and it went on and on. I think in the first 6 months, I heard someone say they had 26 meetings and this has been going on for almost two years. This will only go on so long before you give some permanency to the group. We need to seat them where they have a permanent home and a job that they can focus on. Right now there is no sunset, there's no end, it's laying out there, you don't know what's going to happen with it or when it's going to happen. They are even starting to lose its purpose now. How far do we go.'? I know that one thing I'd like to look at, is continuing the multiple 21 Minutes - Mound City Council - January 14, 1997 dock program and where does that go? Where does it end? That was one of the things we' discussed in the Fail. When does it end? When is their job done? It's difficult to answer that and this particular job, I don't know if it ever ends." COUNCILMEMBER WEYCKER - "Regarding your comment about volunteering, the Parks Commission and the Task Force are ail volunteers." The vote was 3 in favor with Jensen and Weycker voting nay.' Motion carried. 1.25 APPOINTMENT OF PERSONS TO SERVE ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION'. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION The City Manager explained that the Planning Commission and Economic Development Commission members have indicated they wish to be reappointed. The Council will have to decide on the Park & Open Space Commission appointments, pending the previous item. He pointed out that Mary Goode resigned yesterday, due to personai constraints. Now there are two vacancies on the POSC. Three people did apply for the one vacancy and the POSC recommended one of the three people interviewed. The Mayor asked how many people are on the POSC at the present? The City Manager stated that including the Council Rep. there are nine. The Council discussed the fact that if Councilmember Hanus' proposal is adopted, there would be 5 members of the POSC, plus a Council Rep. and 5 members of the Dock Commission, plus a Council Rep. In view of that, they chose not to appoint or reappoint anyone to the POSC. Ahrens moved, and Hanus seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION//97-11 RESOLUTION REAPPOINTING THE FOLLOWING PERSONS: ORVIN BURMA, BECKY GLISTER AND BILL VOSS TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION; AND MARK BREWER AND JERRY LONGPRE TO THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION - 3 YEARS TERMS - EXPIRING 12/31/99 The vote was 4 in favor with Jensen voting nay. Motion carded. Jensen indicated that she voted against the resolution because the Park & Open Space Commission reappointment was not included in the resolution, not because she was against the reappointments to the Planning Commission or Economic Development Commission. 1.26 EXECUTIVE SESSION: SUBURBAN ALLIANCE. The City Attorney explained that the Executive Session involves a matter pertaining to the winding up of one of the Joint Powers organizations that the City of Mound has been involved in, whether as a member or not. There has been a suggestion of litigation in the event that resolution of this matter can't be achieved. The City Council therefore, has the right to have an Executive Session to discuss this matter. The City Council moved into Executive Session. The City Council returned from Executive Session. The City Attorney advised stated that the purpose was to consider the City's response to Suburban Alliance regarding a bill they claim is owed by the City of Mound. The Council met and discussed this matter and the various options. The City Council has 22 I1 11 I I il j,~,, j , Minutes -/l,lou~t Cig/Council - January 14, l~7 provided direction to the City Attorney on how to proceed. LY/ M~B-ON ITeM - ,~UBITOR~ ROM) The City Manager explained that this item is in regard to the acquisition of the following property in the realignment of Auditor's Road Project, Parcel B (Lindquist property, also known as Mound Collision property). This property is on the right-of-way and needs to be acquired. The City has been negotiating with the property owner for some time and did include this property under the condemnation proceeding. Efforts were made to resolve this before going forward with condemnation and as a result, a proposal was agreed to several weeks ago. The closing is set for January 15th. The proposal is for the acquisition of the property, covers the appraisals, and the cost of the moveable fixtures as well as the fixtures that cannot be moved for a total of $395,210.00 of which $25,000.00 will be held from the purchase until such time as the tenant is out of the property, which is April 15, 1997. The option that the City has if it did not want to accept this agreement, would be to take the person forward into condemnation. The Staff is recommending approval. MOTION made by Poiston, seconded by Jensen to accept the recommendation as presented above and authorize the City to proceed in closing the property known as Parcel B in the Realignment of Auditor's Road Project. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.28 A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. K. INFORMATION/~SCELLA~US: Department Head Monthly Reports for December 1996. LMCD Representative's Monthly Report for December 1996. LMCD Mailings. Park and Open Space Commission Minutes of December 12, 1996. Planning Commission Minutes of December 9, 1996. Economic Development Commission Minutes of December 19, 1996. Letter from Ric Hanson, Triax Cablevision, dated December 10, 1996. Letter and enclosure from Charles D. Howe, 4730 Cavan Road, RE: Mound Visions. Letter from Hennepin County Sheriff, Pat McGowen, RE: Citizen Enforcement Academy. Reminder: Committee of the whole meeting, Tuesday, January 21, 1997, 7:30 P.M. Reminder: City Offices will be closed Monday, January 20, 1997, in observance of Martin Luther King Day. Reminder: Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) Board Meeting will begin at 6:30 P.M., January 14, 1997, city hall. Please refer to packet which is enclosed with this Regular City Council packet. You are now the HRA Board. Minutes - Mound City Council - January 14, 1997 MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Ahrens to adjourn at 10:35 P.M. unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Sward J-. shuki~ Jr., City Manager-'"~ The vote was 24 Ii Ii I J & J,J, &, · ,I , Bills January 14, 1997 BATCH 6122 BATCH 6123 BATCH 6124 Total Bills $166,570.46 597.375.51 120,704.91 $884,650.88 25