1997-01-28J ,11 I J I J,l,, I, J, ,I ,
Minutes - Mound City Council - January 28, 1997
MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - JANUARY 28, 1997
The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on
Tuesday, January 28, 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, City Attorney John
Dean, City Engineer John Cameron, Building Official Jon Sutherland, Finance Director Gino Businaro,
City Insurance Agent Carl Bennetsen and City Clerk Fran Clark and the following interested citizens:
Bill Johnson, Bev Botko, Jim Funk, John Mayer, Bernice Putt, Marilyn Byrnes, Mark Goldberg, Gina
& Mark Smith, Don Pedersen, Mike Aspelin, Gerry & Don Swenson, and Rodrigo Plaza.
The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. The Pledge of Allegiance was
recited.
1.0
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.
Councilmember Hanus asked that Item A (Minutes of 1-14-97) be removed from the Consent Agenda.
The City Manager stated that he has three items to add, one to the Consent Agenda and two as Add-on's
to the regular agenda. They are as follows: Consent Agenda add Item *G. SET DATE FOR CDBG
FUNDS FOR FEBRUARY 25, 1997. Regular Agenda Add
ITEMS SA. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION RE: SUBURBAN ALLIANCE.
8B. UPDATE THE COUNCIL ON CONVERSATIONS WITH THE MINNEHAHA
WATERSHED DISTRICT SINCE LAST THURSDAY'S MEETING ON LOST
LAKE CANAL.
MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Jensen to approve the Agenda and Consent
Agenda as amended above. A roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
*CONSENT AGENDA:
*1.1 APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 21, 1997, COMMITTEE OF THE
WHOLE MEETING.
MOTION.
Ahrens, Jensen, unanimous.
51
*1.2
* 1.3
Minutes - Mound City Council - January 28, 1997
CASE g96-71: REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF PLATTING AND REI.ATED VARIANCES
FOR 1853 SHOREWOOD LANE, LOTS 4, 5, & PART OF 3, BLOCK 12, SHADYWOOD
POINT,, PID #18-117-23 23 0063 JOHN & NANCY MAYER.
RESOLUTION g97-12
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A WAIVER OF PLATTING
AND RELATED VARIANCES FOR 1853 SHOREWOOD
LANE, LOTS 4, 5 & PART OF 3, BLOCK 12, SHADYWOOD
POINT, PID #18-117-23 23 0063, P & Z CASE g96-71
Ahrens, Jensen, unanimous.
BID AWARD: 1997 FRONT END LOADER.
Two bids were received as follows.'
GROSS
BID
St. Joseph Equipment $89,300
RDO Equipment $85,839
LESS NET
TRADE-IN BID
(32,000) $57,300
(20,000) $65,839
The recommendation is for the lowest bid that met specifications from St. Joseph Equipment in
the amount of $57,300.
RESOLUTION g97-13
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE BID OF ST. JOSEPH
EQUIPMENT FOR THE 1997 FRONT END LOADER IN
THE AMOUNT OF $57,300
Ahrens, Jensen, unanimous.
'1.4 REQUEST FOR RELEASE OF LETTER OF CREDIT - PEI.ICAN POINT - BOYER
BUILDING CORP.
MOTION.
Ahrens, Jensen, unanimous.
52
'1.5
J ,11 I I
PAYMENT OF BILLS.
J, ,I , ~ , I1~
Minutes - Mound City Council - January 28, 1997
MOTION.
Ahrens, Jensen, unanimous.
· 1.6 SET DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING - CDBG FUNDS - FEBRUARY 25, 1997.
MOTION.
Ahrens, Jensen, unanimous.
REGULAR AGENDA
1.7 APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 14, 1997, REGULAR MEETING.
Councilmember Hanus stated that the following corrections need to be made to the Minutes of
the January 14, 1997, Regular Meeting:
1. Add his name to the list of Councilmembers attending on page 262.
2. On page 270, Item 1.17, the resolution was moved by Hanus, not Ahrens.
3. A typo on page 277, delete one "t" from "that",
4. On page 278, #2, change the word "should" to "must".
MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Ahreus to approve the Minutes of the January 14,
1997, Regular Meeting as amended. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.8
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:
SHERWOOD DRIVE.
PROPOSED PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS TO
The City Engineer explained that as directed at November 12, 1996, Meeting, he has investigated the
option of adding concrete curb and gutter, and overlaying Sherwood Drive in lieu of a full
reconstruction project. They had GME Consultants evaluate the soil conditions and recommend a street
section and the feasibility of an overlay. Soil borings were done on Sherwood Drive and it has been
determined that the existing street was constructed with a 2" bituminous mat over 2 to 8 feet of pit run
fill, composed of sand, silty sand, and silt, with no gravel base. The soils engineers also looked at the
option of an overlay on the existing pavement, instead of total reconstruction, a complete determination
cannot be made at this time because of the ice and snow cover which makes it impossible to fully
evaluate the condition of the existing pavement. He is recommending that the City wait until the ice and
snow come off so they can more fully evaluate the street. If the City can overlay and not have to
reconstruct the street, it will save approximately 1/3 of what the proposed cost was in the preliminary
report. GME has recommended a new pavement design consisting of 6" Class 5 aggregate base with
a minimum of 2-1/2" bituminous surface. This design is 1" less bituminous that was used in their
preliminary report, which would reduce the estimated cost of the project by approximately $4,000.00
or 7 %, if it is totally reconstructed.
The City Engineer recommended that a final decision on this project be delayed until spring.
The Mayor reopened the Public Hearing.
53
Minutes - Mound City Council - January 28, 1997
DENISE LARSON, 5574 Sherwood Drive - asked when in the spring this would be considered
again.
The City Engineer recommended the first meeting in April.
There were no further comments or questions from the public.
The Mayor brought discussion back to the Council.
The Council asked that the Engineer and the Staff be sure to notify all the residents involved of the
possible assessments before April 8th Meeting.
MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Jensen to continue the Public Hearing until the first
Council Meeting in April, April 8, 1997, to allow the City Engineer time to evaluate the
street after the snow and ice is gone and come back with a firm recommendation. All
persons involved in the proposed assessment to be notified of the reconunendation and the
proposed assessment amounts prior to the April 8th Meeting. The vote was unanimously
in favor. Motion carried.
1.9 1997 COMMERCIAL INSURANCE PROGRAM CARL BENNETSEN, R. L.
YOUNGDAHL AND ASSOCIATE,~.
City Insurance Agent Carl Bennetsen, presented the renewal premiums from the League of Minnesota
Cities Insurance Trust. He reported that this year the City of Mound received an insurance dividend
of $38,883.00 based on the City's past good experience and longevity in the program. He reported that
this year the City's insurance costs will be slightly less than in 1996. The premium summary is as
follows:
1997 1996
PROPERTY 8,181 8,001
INLAND MARINE 1,991 2,035
LIABILITY/E&O 45,265 43,973
AUTO LIABILITY 13,090 12,723
AUTO PHYSICAL DAMAGE 19,208 17,019
CRIME 433 328
WORKER'S COMPENSATION 35,627 42,167
BOILER & MACHINERY 1,473 1,236
AD&D BENEFIT 350 350
LIQUOR LIABILITY 7,080 6,714
54
I ,11 _ I I
Mound City Council Minutes
January 28, 1997
EMPLOYEE DISHONESTY
1,180 1,180
OPEN MEETING LAW
679 660
TOTALS 134,557 135,150
Mr. Bennetsen stated that there is an option for the Council to consider that would raise the deductible
from $500.00 to $1,000.00, per loss. Based on past experiences this would be to the City's advantage
to increase this, because the approximate savings are $6,350. During the past four years the City has
not approached that figure. He is recommending increasing the deductible to $1,000.
The Council agreed.
The Council asked about the premium increase in liquor liability. Mr. Bennetsen explained that the
premium is based on sales.
Jensen moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION//97-14
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE 1997 INSURANCE
PROGRAM FROM THE LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES
AS SUBMITTED BY CARL BENNETSEN, R. L.
YOUNGDAHL & ASSOCIATES
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.10
CASE //97-03: VARIANCE NEW DWELLING, FRANK NIESEN, 5300 LYNWOOD
BLVD., LOTS 18, 29, 20 & 21, BLOCK 7, A.L. ADDN. TO LAKESIDE PARK, PID//13-
117-24 34 0089.
The Building Official explained that the applicant is seeking variances to construct a new home on an
existing vacant lot. The variances are to both front yards, Lynwood Blvd. and Center View. The Staff
and the Planning Commission recommended denial because the lot has a substantial buildable area which
could accommodate a conforming house with a different footprint. The Planning Commission and the
applicant discussed options for a detached garage on the site, which is one of the things that could be
done. The applicant has not contacted the City since the Planning Commission Meeting to look at other
options for the site.
MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Hanus, to direct Staff to prepare a resolution of
denial to be brought back at the next meeting.
The Mayor stated that he is having a problem with this. "Because of the approval at the
last meeting, of a large number of variances for new construction that created
nonconforming uses and they could have built those streets and taken care of that
subdivision without any variances or creating nonconforming uses. How do we justify
treating this person differently?"
55
Minutes - Mound City Council - January 28, 1997
Councilmember Jensen stated. "We granted variances for three streets. There is no
street being constructed here. The case at the last meeting was a Planned Development
Area (PDA), not one lot. When one is looking at a PDA, the idea is that we have some
flexibility because of some development challenges with the land so you cannot compare
the two cases. When I compare this particular application to the (setback variances, no
that's not a good term. There is no street so that takes care of three of the five variances
that were looked at last meeting. The two variances at the last meeting dealt with lot
size. In a PDA, the developer instead of totally dividing the entire parcel among ten
units, decided to have each of the structures own only the land on which the structure
stood. Therefore, in our language, in dealing with our ordinance, we had what was
technically a 3,000 square foot lot, approximately, in what is zoned for a 6,000 square
foot lot area, but when you divide the number of square feet in the entire development
by the ten units that were being developed, the units actually had more than the required
6,000 square feet. There were a lot of differences between that case and this case. To
my knowledge there were no setback variances in the PDA." The Building Official
stated that was correct. Councilmember Jensen stated, "This is not lot size, it's not
street, this is setback on a lot that has plenty of room for a house to be conforming."
The Mayor stated, "The complete configuration and design could have been changed on
the PDA approved before so that it would have fit without any variances, if the City
Council had asked that that be done. I will have to vote against this denial."
The vote was 4 in favor with Mayor Polston voting nay. Motion carried.
COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT.
The Mayor asked if there were any comments and suggestions from citizens present. There were none.
1.11 PRESENTATION ON RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE COMMONS TASK FORCE
MARK GOLDBERG, CHA1R AND OTHER MEMBERS OF TASK FORCE.
Mark Goldberg, Chair of the Commons Task Force, "stated, After 1 1/2 years, they are done, and they
tried to come up with some recommendations that make sense." Mr. Goldberg explained that they have
broken the recommendations into sections, time-line review of what was done, and then their
recommendations to the City Council. They are as follows:
1. Shared dock policy recommendation.
2. The multiple dock program recommendation.
3. Commons encroachment recommendation.
MARK GOLDBERG - "The Commons has been a source of friction and lawsuits and election
hot buttons for quite some time and it's a difficult issue because you've got a strip of land that's
directly in front of some peoples houses that is owned by, dedicated to the public or dedicated
to specific neighborhoods and you've got a number of different constituencies that have rights
and effects with regard to that land. That's where you get the problem and the key to this whole
thing is moderation. You've got a real polarization out there. You've got a small minority of
56
Il I
Minutes - Mound City Council - January 28, 1997
abutters that would like to see the whole property privatized and kick all the non-abutters off of
there with the attitude, this is mine, go away. That is ~a-ing the daylights out of the non-
abutters and the citizens at large, as well it should. But it's a minority of abutters. On the other
side of the coin, you've got a small but vocal minority of non-abutters that would like to see the
Commons paved and fences put up between the Commons and the abutters houses. That is
scaring the daylights out of the abutters. The thing you have to remembers is, you've got both
extremes on this issue. Then you've got a very large chunk of abutters and a very large chunk
of non-abutters that are basically mellow people that, if given the opportunity, can get along and
both be pretty satisfied. The key is to put aside the vocal folks and recognize that they're an
extreme minority and keep focused on what the majority of abutters and majority of non-abutters
are really looking for and what will make them happy. Based on our year and a half of meeting,
there is definitely room for consensus there and I think that's what we've found and I think
that's what our recommendations reflect. In the past, we we've heard all kinds of extreme
points of view. In the future, we'll have all kinds of extreme points of view. If we just really
stay focused on what the vast majority of the middle people are looking for, I think we'll be able
to come up with something that will work pretty well. We've been meeting for like a year and
a half, since May of 1995 and it's been made up, primarily, of abutters and non-abutters, with
a citizen at large represented at the first 'x' number of meetings. It was basically a lot of
abutters gripping, a lot of non-abutters gripping back and we weren't working together all that
well. Over an extended period of time, we got all the issues on the table, we talked frankly,
and started realizing that the things that one side wants can probably be accommodated without
losing what the other side wants. A number of votes we took weren't particularly split, if they
were split, there might have been one person that objected. But, by and large, we kept hashing
out the issue until we reached consensus and I think that's what these recommendations show.
That was my conclusion."
MARK GOLDBERG - "The first thing I want to go through is just a real brief time-line on the
process. In March of last year, the Council recommended forming a Task Force to explore the
issues, identify the frustrations and irritations that were being experienced by the users of the
program. After numerous lawsuits and hot election issues, the Council, basically, decided, let's
try to do a Task Force and try to explore what these issues are and see if there are solutions to
them. We've held quite a number of meetings (26 as of December, 1996). We have done
surveys, both in July of 1995 and a more quantitative, extensive survey in November of 1995
to identify where people are coming from and what their thoughts are. We separated all the
polarized screaming from what the majority of the people really care about. We got the results
back and presented them to the Council in January of last year and found that a very high
percentage of non-abutters were very happy with the program. Over half of the abutting dock
holders were unhappy with the program. The response from the citizens at large was relatively
low and fairly mixed in terms of what we learned from that and basically we took away was
that, citizens at large want access to the Dock Program. Beyond that, there's some fishing and
miscellaneous issues but, by and large, the two groups that care the most about the Commons
are the people that are using it. That being the non-abutting dock holders and the abutting
homeowners. We found that the most important thing to the non-abutting dock holders was not
the opportunity to have their non-abutting dock. It's to have their boat at the lakeshore, easy
access, particularly walking distance from their house. With the abutters, it was a sense of
privacy and a sense of more control over that land than they have. Not privatizing, not making
it private property, but more the sense of, this land is right in front of my house, I'd like to have
a little more say in what happens in front of it. It basically came down to, in a nut shell, how
do we improve the level of satisfaction of the abutters without lowering the satisfaction level of
57
Minutes - Mound City Council - January 28, 1997
the non-abutters? That's what we spent a fair amount of time working on. The key things for
non-abutters were:
Maintain the total number of boats participating in the Dock Program.
Keep non-abutting boats within walking distance of their homes.
The key things for the abutters were:
Attempt to reduce the number of dock sites in front of some abutters homes, recognizing
that some Commons have more problems than others due to topography and/or tight
quarters.
Encroaching structures. That was a hot button among a sizeable number of abutters.
Where encroaching structures aren't harming the use of the Commons, basically, don't
make a capital issue out of it.
Those were the main points."
"In the spring of last year, we tested a multiple boat slip dock. That was done last summer and
we met with everybody involved with that in the winter just before spring hit and got everybody
in the neighborhood on board to give it a try. We met again in the fall and there were some
problems with the multiple boat slip, but by and large, people were happy with the way it
operated. The primary problem was the lake level went down so much that some of the slips
got almost unusable. In some instances, they had to walk their boat into their boat slip and
that's not good. But beyond that, they were basically happy with the program. That was the
pilot project on the multiple boat slip dock. We have been meeting since to finalize
recommendations on a few other things. That's where we are. There are a number of Task
Force members here. Jim Funk will review the shared dock recommendation and the multiple
boat slip dock program and then I'll come back and talk about encroachments."
JIM FUNK - "I want to start off by presenting the proposal on the shared docks. This is, in
fact, a proposal that has actually been incorporated into the 1997 program and basically, the
objectives of it are to reduce the dock density. It's good for the dockholders in that, it reduces
the amount of in/out labor as well as the cost can be shared by two dockholders. It would be
executed by the two dockholders, who most likely have shared docks next to each other, and
would choose to share one dock yet continue to pay for their individual site. So the site that was
vacated by the person moving over to share with someone would be left open. That would open
up the space and then they wouldn't have to worry about that being filled by another dock. That
would be in addition to the existing sharing rules that are in existence or have been prior, where
two people can still share an existing dock."
MARK GOLDBERG - "The Park Commission, I'm pretty sure, approved that with no changes."
JIM FUNK - The second recommendation would be in regard to multiple boat slip dock and this
stems off of the pilot program that was put in at Pembroke and that is borne out of the survey
that was done and it was found that the dissatisfaction seemed to be greatest on the Devon
Commons. That did show up pretty predominately in the survey that some Commons are pretty
good left alone and people seem to be pretty happy and others seem to have a lot of tension.
Devon was one of those. That was the reason for choosing that area as a pilot program. The
objective here was to increase the number of satisfied users, both abutters and non-abutters, by
58
~ ,i ~ a , iii
Minutes - Mound City Council - January 28, 1997
reducing some of the congestion which would ease some of the tensions there. It can reduce the
overall cost of participation by combining these docks and each person wouldn't have to
maintain in and out the costs associated with their own dock and it would accomplish the
objective of improving the shoreline aPpearance and the abutters are happy with that aspect. The
implementation recommendation would be to continue with this program but concentrate on
problem areas rather than just get them across the board on all the Commons, because they
won't necessarily all need it. Then follow the success like the pilot program at Pembroke.
There was a meeting with those users at the end of the season and there were some
recommendations on improving that and we recommend that we follow some of those
recommendations on placement so they have easier navigation, as well as some security
concerns. We would continue to use the feedback from these users to improve the multiple boat
slip program. As Mr. Goldberg mentioned, we want to maintain the number of users not using
the multiple boat slip program to either increase or decrease the number of users and keep it
within walking distance was the other main factor that abutters were interested in." He then
asked if there were any questions.
Mr. Goldberg asked if the Council wanted to go through the specifics of the multiple boat slip
recommendation, such as implementation steps or is the Council comfortable with it?
Councilmember Hanus referred to page 369 of the packet, under Installation and Transition
Issues, item F., ltl. He asked if the following statement was written correctly or was it a typo
and should read, "If a majority (instead of minority) of nonabutters don't want to move to the
multiple slip dock."?
MARK GOLDBERG - "It's a minority. If a majority of nonabutters don't want to move, then
maybe you don't do it at all."
Councilmembers Hanus stated, "That's what I thought you said, keeping it voluntary.
MARK GOLDBERG - "It's not as well written as it could be. The idea is to keep it voluntary.
If a majority of nonabutters don't want to move, then it's not going to happen in that area.
If a minority of nonabutters don't want to move, then they don't have to move and at some point
in the future, when they drop out of the program, then maybe you can move that site or if they
choose to move, then you move them. That's what we are trying to say there."
The Council decided this was written correctly, but not clearly.
Councilmember Hanus referred to the same page, under Secondary benefit. "You talk about
allowing the remaining permit holders to have more than one boat, while maintaining the number
of participants." Councilmember Hanus stated, "Actually, one of the big things that I look at
there is that, I see is a huge opportunity, rather than looking at it the way you have it there, to
actually provide availability of dockage to more households in Mound. In other words, you're
spreading the program to more households rather than a taking an existing ...... It is purely a
concept rather than a rule?"
Mr. Goldberg explained, "We're starting to fix on a finite number of BSU's) Boat Storage Units
allowed in our program. I can't remember what that number is, but somewhere around 600.
580 or 610 or something like that. So if you have 600 BSU's available and also one of the
features of the program is that a dockholder can have more than one boat. With wave runners
59
Minutes - Mound City Council - January 28, 1997
and fishing boats, there's still a fairly small number of people who have more than one boat at
their dock. But, it is increasing a little bit, I think and plus that option is there. If the number
of dockholders increase the number of boats they're using, that reduces the number of people
you can have in the program because you're at a fixed number of BSU's. What the multiple
boat slip dock is set up to provide is one slip per permit holder. If you have a number of people
that are comfortable with one boat and are going on this slip, that reduces the likelihood that you
are going to start bumping into that top limit by putting more boats on a dock. You are leaving
room for the number of people participating in the program, which would be limiting some of
them to one boat."
Councilmember Hanus stated, "This is similar to what I was trying to get at."
Councilmember Jensen stated, "This isn't written to tell me that. It says limiting the multiple
slip permit holders to one BSU gives more flexibility for allowing the remaining permit holders
to have more than one boat ............. "
Mark Goldberg stated," .... while still maintaining the number of participants in the program and
staying within the LMCD BSU limits.
Councilmember Jensen asked, "So basically that says, if you are in the multiple thing, we limit
you to one boat, but if you're not, you can have more than one?"
Mark Goldberg answered, "yes."
Councilmember Jensen stated that she did not like that at all.
Councilmember Weycker agreed.
people ..... ""I know even at your
not told that they could only have
She further stated, "I think it needs to be clearer that the
meeting, the people that were using the Pembroke dock were
one boat."
Mark Goldberg - "No they weren't, but that was a pilot project and we're still getting the hang
of this thing."
Councilmember Weycker - "I just want that clear because, the overwhelming success thing has
a lot to do with that too and I think that should have been a factor. I guess that's no secondary
benefit, when it isn't written that clearly, to say O.K. we are restricting you to one boat at all
the multiples. That needs to be clearer if that's what the intention is."
Councilmember Jensen - "I could understand this if it was everyone who participates in the
program can have one BSU, therefore we can have more people participating in a program."
Mark Goldberg - "If they want to have more than one boat, they'll have to maintain their own
dock because we can't charge someone $150 for a permit and give them more than one slip at
that multiple dock. We just can't afford to do that."
Mayor Polston - "I don't think that's what Councilmember Jensen is saying."
Councilmember Jensen - "If you have 590 BSU's, I look at that and say that means I can have
590 people participate in the program, however, if one person wants to have two boats, now I
60
I 11
Minutes - Mound City Council - January 28, 1997
can only have 589 people participate in the program."
Mark Goldberg - "That's the reality."
Councilmember Jensen - "O.K., what this says to me is that we are going to fix the number
below 590 and we're going to say to people on the multiple docks, you only get to have one
boat, so that the folks here who are not on the multiple docks can have more than one boat.
That's what doesn't make sense. It doesn't increase utilization or participation in the program
at all."
Mark Goldberg - "We're not trying to go below 590. We're just saying that as more people get
wave runners and additional boats on their dock, if we can get people to go to that multiple boat
slip and live with one boat, we increase the likelihood that we can keep a sizeable number of
people in the program."
Councilmember Jensen - "I like what you're saying, but not what this says."
Mark Goldberg - "I don't have a problem rewriting it."
Councilmember Weycker - "I don't think it's clear at all either."
Councilmember Hanus - "I think Councilmember Jensen is getting close to what I was trying
to explain too. It's saying something slightly different, but the trade off, as I see it in this
particular thing, is.. the trade off to the people who are limited to one BSU on a dock is what
they get for limiting themselves to that one boat, is they get the dock put in for them, they get
it taken out for them, they don't have to buy the dock or maintain the dock. All of those things
are taken care of for them so that's the trade off and keeping in mind that as they have this
proposal here, it's voluntary. That's a key point. If you don't want to be on it, you're not on
it."
Mayor Polston - "I think we should change the language so that it says it is voluntary and is
more clear."
Mark Goldberg - "Most of the people in the total dock program do only have one boat.
Councilmember Weycker referred to page 368, Implementation Steps, Item//4. "The multiple
slip would be on a voluntary basis and if they did want an additional boat or they had a wave
runner, then they probably couldn't go to this multiple dock so they would have to remain at
their own dock. This doesn't allow them to have a dock in their neighborhood anymore, or
within walking distance of home."
Mark Goldberg - "One of the major objectives of the multiple boat slip dock is to reduce
congestion in a particular area and what we don't want to have happen is we move permit
holders to a multiple dock or they choose to move to the multiple dock and then we back fill
right behind them and put someone else in that space so now we have multiple dock and
individual docks. That's the purpose of//4. You can rework it."
Mayor Polston - "I think the key to it is that it's voluntary. This is not anything that is being
forced upon someone. However, when the individual dock site holder moves to the multiple slip
61
Minutes - Mound City Council - January 28, 1997
dock, that dock can no longer be used as a dock location and that is intended to reduce the
congestion."
Councilmember Jensen - "So conceptually, let's say that the following year one of the people
that is at the multiple dock says, I really do want to get that wave runner or whatever it is, have
we permanently eliminated that site?"
Councilmember Weycker - "That's my point exactly."
Mark Goldberg - "We haven't really addressed that. We're not sure. We haven't thought about
if they move and then choose to move back, what do you do."
Mayor Polston - "Well obviously, as it stands, if they choose to move voluntarily and then next
year or several years later they were able to afford more boats, then there is nothing that says
they can't reapply, but they wouldn't necessarily get the same dock."
Mark Goldberg - "One of the keys to this thing is that we want to at least maintain the number
of situations in which a nonabutter is within walking distance of their house. That can get sticky
in some of these situations. For instance, if they move to a multiple boat slip and then want to
move back and you've already cleaned up the Commons and you like it just the way it is. Do
we want to put another dock in there, or do you want to keep it within walking distance of their
house. Can we accommodate them someplace else within walking distance of the house, maybe
not. There are some issues."
Mark Goldberg - "One of the things I liked about Councilmember Hanus' idea of the Commons
Commission is, if you have an active body of people who are really heavily involved with
lakeshore Commons, they can be ....... When these things keep coming up and they're going
to keep coming up, you'll have people that can really dig into it and figure out how to do it.
But this thing is going to be ongoing and we probably haven't got it perfect right up front and
the pilot dock may not be the right word. It may need to be permanently pilot. In other words,
you may need to be fooling with it as you go. We're not saying we have this thing nailed cold."
Mayor Polston - "Well, the twenty some years I've lived in Mound, it has never been perfect,
but over the years I think everybody has made an effort to try to move forward and that's
basically what we're trying to do now. I don't expect that we're going to have come up with
a perfect solution to every problem, but it is important that we continue to work on it.
Mark Goldberg - "Let's hold that middle ground and try to ignore, as much as possible, some
of the extreme viewpoints that are out there."
Mark Goldberg - "The final section is the encroachments and this was probably the most
controversial section. I should make a quick point. The Parks Commission basically approved
the shared dock and multiple boat slip dock recommendations but they wanted to be sure that
it is very clear that the multiple boat dock slip dock is funded in full by the Dock Program and
in fact, it would be funded by the current fees."
Councilmember Weycker - "I want it to be clear that it was not self-funding the multiple itself.
That it is funded through the entire program. It is more expensive than the amount of people
in it."
62
I 11 I I I, _ii,, 1 .....
Minutes - Mound City Council - January 28, 1997
Mark Goldberg - "Yes, the people at the multiples are subsidized somewhat by the rest of the
program. You could also make the point that the people who get rip-rapping at the'~r shoreline
and the people who get dredging because they are having problems getting in and out of their
dock, are kind of subsidized too."
The Park Commission has recommended approval of the Shared Dock Proposal and the Multiple Slip
Dock Program but, have not finished discussing the Commons Encroachment Policy Proposal. They
requested that the Council not review this item until they finish their review and recommendation.
Mark Goldberg - "The underlying factors regarding the Task Force's recommendation on
encroachments are:
1. Encroaching structures existed before rules restricting them existed and, in fact, there are
city ordinances approving encroaching structures on Commons, dating back to the 50's
and 60's. The City's mandate regarding existing encroachments also should have the
right to impose any reasonable conditions that may be advisable to protect Mound
resident use of the Commons shoreline.
3. The City must justify actions that harm individual citizens by showing a greater good.
4. The City has a responsibility to monitor encroachments to confirm that they do not
hinderthe Mound resident use of commons and that they are safe.
This thing boils down to there's a whole bunch of encroachments out there. The policy, for the
most part in the past, has been let's remove as many of those encroachments as we can and that
was causing a lot of negative problems that we've been having with abutters. After review and
after coming to conclusions on those key factors, we've made these recommendations:
The onus is on the City to show that there are sufficient use hindrances or safety
problems to justify taking actions beyond those that would involve structures on private
lakeshore.
b. Five year permit renewals are justified to aid the City in monitoring the encroachments.
Co
Rules governing maintenance of encroaching structures should be consistent with the
Shoreland Management Ordinance and no more restrictive than all other shoreline in the
City unless use hindrance or safety issues exist.
In our view it comes down to use and safety.
do
Reduce the level of permit renewal authority needed. The objectives are to 1) lessen the
"hassle" felt by the abutter in straight-forward renewal situations, and 2) reduce the
politicalization of renewals:
Give City staff authority to renew permits unless additional hindrance or safety
issues arise.
Write detailed rules under which staff must go to the Park Commission/Council
before renewing a permit.
eo
Abutters should be made legally responsible for their encroaching structure through the
use of legal encumbrances or other means.
63
Minutes - Mound City Council - January 28, 1997
Try to make that a little simpler to lessen the anxiety and hassle involved with the abutters. If we are
going to allow these abutters to keep their structures, we have got to make sure that when they become
dilapidated or something that they don't just leave the City holding the bag."
Councilmember Weycker - "In regard to item "c", "What would be the difference in how it is
now vs. under the Shoreland Management .Ordinance?"
Mark Goldberg - "Let me give you an example. There's a note on the current flow chart that
kind of summarizes the City's current standard in regard to encroachments on Commons:
'Structures like boat houses, patios, decks, etc. are all nonconforming uses. It is the intent of
the City to bring all these uses into conformance which means that those structures will at some
time in the future have to be removed from the public lands.' .... That's basically the current
policy and we are making the recommendation that while obviously not violating the rules of the
Shoreland Management Ordinance, if those structures aren't affecting safety or use, then let
them be. We're talking about existing structures."
Councilmember Weycker -" Under Shoreland Management too though you couldn't rebuild a
structure."
Mark Goldberg - "We're not recommending that structures be allowed to be rebuilt. We're just
talking about existing structures."
Councilmember Weycker - "I guess I'm confused on what the difference between the Shoreland
Management, how they're handling it and how the City was handling it other than the wording."
"Mark Goldberg - "The City is saying, at some point, we want these things out of here. That's
the difference. Shoreland Management is not saying, at some point, we want things out of here.
They're saying, if it's dilapidated you can't fix it up and replace it, but they are not saying get
them out of here. They're not saying remove them."
Councilmember Hanus - "Under both situations, they are both nonconforming uses, so in that
sense they're the same."
Councilmember Weycker - "So it's not really changing it a whole lot other than the language."
Mark Goldberg - "Well, it is a different posture."
Mayor Polston - "It is changing it dramatically."
Councilmember Weycker - "In language."
Councilmember Jensen - "I think the perception may be that we get the big stick out and we're
going to start knocking these things down."
Mark Goldberg - "The perception is that the structures have to justify their existence and we
would like to change the onus as the City has to justify the removal of the structures based on
use and safety issues."
64
Mayor Polston - "I think there is a very definite change, if the policy is adopted to allow them
to exist under the permitting that's being suggested and recommended by the Task Force. It
may be better to talk a little bit about, why that should happen. As a City, we could take the
position that no, they're coming down and there is a certain date that they're going to have to
come down by and if the property owner doesn't remove them, they're on public land and we're
going to take them down, and so be it. Where we're headed with that thought process, is right
back to a place where, I don't think we want to go: 1)We're going to create some really bad
feelings between some of our citizens and the City, 2)We're going to end up in court and it's
going to cost all of us a lot of money that we don't need to spend if we can achieve the end the
result of what we want to achieve by letting them exist and finding a way to co-exist with the
building there and not interfere with the public safety or the public use of the public land.
I think that's where we all would like to go and avoid costly court battles and hostilities among
the citizens in the City. We are looking for, I think, as a Council, and as a Task Force and as
a City, that middle ground where we can find a way to live by each other and be neighbors
without causing hassle and a great deal of legal cost that's not necessary."
Councilmember Jensen - "It's unfortunate that the perception has developed that we are taking
a proactive action to remove boat houses. We specifically said, we are not going to take that
action because of the cost and the likely lawsuits that would result. To think that that was the
approach that we were taking, is unfortunate because that is not the approach we have taken and
we specifically stated that we are not going to start that. We haven't figured out how we're
going to do that, but to let anybody think that we're going to ignore it would be irresponsible."
Mark Goldberg - "There's a history of birdhouses and decks and all kinds of stuff that when a
homeowner has wound up in front of City government has scrambled desperately to try to keep
those and the City has maneuvered strenuously to remove them. It's not an unfounded
perception and it doesn't just relate to boat houses. There's a number of instances of
encroaching structures that are having no impact on either safety or public use. A good example
is one right now that was tacked on just a month or so ago, a deck that is one or two feet onto
Commons in an area that is not impacting the use of that Commons and the City recommended
that the deck be moved off of Commons and it results in a deck that is pretty dam small and
semi-usable relative to the way it is right now and the primary reason for the City
recommending that change is to simply get that deck off of Commons."
Councilmember Jensen - "When one has an opportunity, because of construction that is
occurring, to correct something that is an encroachment, one does take that action and that was
the situation that we had, we could correct that one. We didn't take proactive action. We didn't
go out there and start that, the homeowner initiated construction and it was the opportunity to
remove it from public land."
Mark Goldberg -"That's a very narrow line and you're not sure when you're on one side of that
line vs. on the other side of that line."
Councilmember Jensen - "Public land is public land.
Mark Goldberg - "It's Commons and the City is the trustee for the people that use that
Commons and the abutting homeowner is one of the people that the City is trustee for. That's
why we made the point that the City must justify actions that harm individual citizens by
showing a greater good."
65
Minutes - Mound City Council - January 28, 1997
Councilmember Hanus - "I will agree public land is public land, but not all public land is the
same. I think that's a key point."
Mark Goldberg - "A couple of things I want to address, a number of reasons that the Task Force
unearthed through our proceedings as to why encroachments should be removed:
1. They're on public land.
2. They restrict public use of the shoreline by either making the Commons appear to be
private or physically restricting the use.
3. They take away from the natural state of the shoreline.
Those tend to be the main reasons we hear why encroachments shouldn't be there. With regard
to #1, the City is the trustee of that land, not the owner of the lakeshore commons and the
abutting property owners are some of that public that the City is the trustee for. With regard
to//2, up until the 1970's, City Code gave approval for construction of boat houses, boat ramps
and slip on lakeshore commons. It seemed safe to assume that lesser encroachments were
acceptable as well. They were approved to be there and it just seems like there should be a
good reason why they should be unapproved. Because we have the power to do so, relates to
enforcement, that doesn't justify policy. Big difference. The City has the power to do all kinds
of things, but, the full extent of power does not always make sense with what good public policy
is and that's a significant distinction."
Mayor Polston - "I don't have a problem with what you're saying, as far as the facts go, but I
do get real concerned when you say, 'it seems safe to assume that lesser encroachments were
acceptable'. It doesn't seem safe to me to assume anything, particularly when it relates to the
Commons and the Common uses. I would just as soon not use that term. I would like to have
some type of a factual basis."
Councilmember Hanus - Mark, is it correct in stating that what you meant by that is that, boat
houses and ramps and the like were acceptable by ordinance back in the 50's, 60's and 70's, and
I've read the ordinances that are in here. So what you're saying is that 'it's probably safe to
assume a birdhouse is also acceptable'?
Mark Goldberg - "I would also agree with Bob, that we can't base that on fact.
The City Attorney stated he would like to ask a question about #1. I think that's a proper
statement of circumstance and it really puts the City in the position of an arbitrator, arbitrating
the kind of competing interests in the Commons that exist and that being the case, the notion
occurs to me that, if you permit an abutting property owner to maintain a structure in the
commons, aren't you, in fact, conferring a benefit on the abutting property owner, which you're
not conferring on other people who also have equal interest in the Commons?"
Mark Goldberg answered "yes, I would agree with that". "It's also fairly safe to say that you're
conferring benefits on other people involved with the Commons that aren't equally shared, like
tree removal and rip-rapping, and dredging."
The City Attorney - "I wasn't trying to start an argument, I was just curious as to what your
response to that question might be."
66
Minutes - Mound City Council - January 28, 1997
Councilmember ]ensen - "I didn't understand your statement that followed. Is it conferring
additional benefits because of tip-rapping and tree removal'?."
Mark Goldberg - "I guess my thought was that the benefits of Commons are not perfectly even
across the entire board. Where someone has the benefit of a tree removal or of the shoreline
in their area being rip-rapped, that's not true of other people that don't have a dead tree or
something."
Councilmember Jensen - "You mean the City doesn't come in and remove dead trees from my
property. Is that what you're getting at?"
Mark Goldberg - "I guess what I'm saying is, it doesn't seem that objectionable to have that
benefit accrue to one homeowner because a structure is existing when it was acceptable to exist.
That now it should be torn down in the interest of them having no more rights than anybody else
on the Commons.
Councilmember Jensen ~ "I would simply add that this group is often faced with having to deal
with situations that were permissible in the past and now because of ordinance changes are no
longer permissible, such as setbacks, be they street or sideyard setbacks, and given the
opportunity to correct a nonconformance, for whatever reason, and often times it is historical,
we have taken these opportunities to do that."
Councilmember Hanus - "But, if you'd like to use that argument, the other side of that coin also
is that we use a lot more leniency on cases that we have previously approved and were there
legally or rightfully at one point in time. We give a lot of leniency to those people and call it
special privilege if you will, I don't think that's what it is."
Councilmember Jensen - "One important point, it's not public land."
Mark Goldberg - "What are your thoughts on the statement, 'The City must justify actions that
harm individual citizens, by showing a greater good.'?"
Councilmember Hanus - "The concept, I like, personally."
Mark Goldberg - "That is one of the key concepts to our recommendation."
Councilmember Weycker - "I think it sounds fair. I would have to think of a situation where
it would come into play and wonder how the City could prove that it would be harming
someone. I'm not sure that it would be possible."
Councilmember Hanus - "What it does is it forces the City to look at the entire picture rather
than taking the opinion, public land is public land, doesn't matter what the conditions are
surrounding it, it's on public land, it's got to go. What this forces the City to do is look at a
bigger picture and do a balancing act between everybody concerned and one of the people
concerned is the person living there that has that structure and their loss has to be weighed
against the public's loss as well. So I think that's what this is forcing."
City Attorney - "I wasn't clear on a couple of things. If an encroaching structure is destroyed
by a casualty, what would your group's recommendation be on how that would be handled?"
67
Minutes - Mound City Council - January 28, 1997
Mark Goldberg - "We're not recommending that it be allowed to be rebuilt."
City Attorney - "In other words, whatever right that existed would terminate with the casualty
loss. How would that apply to significant rebuilding and things of that sort?"
Mark Goldberg - "One of the issues we have to address, assuming you all agree with the
majority of our recommendations on our various overheads here, is what's considered
maintenance and what's considered rebuilding? That we haven't addressed, but that's an issue."
Mayor Polston - "I think maybe the litmus test is the same as it is in other parts of the
ordinance, where if the building or structure is 51% or more destroyed, then it is deemed not
rebuildable."
Councilmember Hanus ~ "That is one guideline you could draw, the 50% rule. Another issue
too that we need to think about and now we're going to get wrapped up in some other
ordinances. You talk about it being consistent with the Shoreland Management Ordinance, you
have 50 foot setbacks so in most cases structures that we're discussing at this point, probably
do not meet a 50 foot setback. If the construction being considered is incidental and Jon can
maybe identify what this is, it will not require a building permit and may not require it to go
through a variance process, but if it does require a building permit, now you're talking about
a potential variance issue and it gets wrapped up into the regular Zoning Code as well as the
Shoreland Management Ordinance. So that's another issue. How do you draw the line, how
do you determine incidental maintenance vs. major rebuilding or construction. Those are not
delineated here. These are things that will have to be looked at if we go forward at all."
Mark Goldberg - "Another point that we've heard. They restrict public use of the shoreline by
either making the Commons appear to be private or physically restricting the use. The problem
we're having now is that currently the above is being used as the rationale to remove all
offending encroachments and we need to be a little bit more sensitive on a case by case basis
to make those decisions, since there is a wide variety of Commons. We can't use it as a blanket
statement. It's not accurate given the number of circumstances we've got out there. 'They take
away from the natural state of the shoreline.' This rationale must be balanced with the fact that
it's an urban lake, it's lined with houses. It's O.K. to have boat canopies, large boats, multiple
boats per dock. The following question needs to be asked: Does the negative impact on the
lakeshore overwhelm the harms done to the encroachment or removing the encroachment? It's
again, an issue of greater good vs. harm to the individual citizen.
We're recommending a change to the flow chart as it affects lakeshore Commons. The
summary of change is to remove the NOTE on the flow chart as discussed before and replace
it with the following: 'All permits granted, are for a limited time, they are transferable, and the
structure must meet City guidelines for renewal of Public Lands Permits.'
Mayor Polston - "I somewhat disagree with that. I still would think we want it to be the goal
of the City to have the encroachments removed at some point in time, whether it's through
natural removal or whatever. I don't think we want to change that concept, but I think we want
to be able to work and allow them to be permitted. My feeling is that we don't want to change
that as a goal. The City would like to have the nonconforming uses removed at some point in
time. The rest of the Council can correct me if I'm wrong. I don't know that that is something
that we want to totally remove."
68
Minutes - Mound City Council - January 28, 1997
Mark G01dberg - "I think in the Sh0reland Management Ordinance that eventually this stuff goes
away, but it goes away because it is not maintained, or becomes dilapidated, or gets nailed by
a lightening strike, or something. Not that it's in good shape and it's forced to be removed
because you just plain want it out of there:'" ~
Mayor Polston - "Allowing this to be a scenario where somebody lets something get in such a
rundown condition, either through neglect or through no fault of their own, and they would not
or could not correct the situation and it became a safety issue for the people who are using the
property, I don't think the City ever wants to relinquish the fight to remove something that's a
threat to the health, safety and welfare of the general public."
Mark Goldberg - "We stated the exceptions are safety and use. We couldn't not agree with the
safety issue and frankly, we couldn't disagree with the use issue, if it's blocking use of the
Commons, you can't justify that."
Councilmember Jensen - "I'd like to think we have language in here that suggests that if
something does become dilapidated, it's not a threat, but it's dilapidated and you have a change
in ownership occurring, there's an opportunity to fix something. The suggested language says
you don't get to do that because it's transferrable."
Mayor Polston agreed.
Mark Goldberg - "I don't think the Task Force has a problem with the idea that if the structure
is dilapidated, the City should enforce its removal. We're not trying to say that and if some of
this language allows that to happen, we're trying to justify it."
Mayor Polston - I think the open dialogue is great. That's how we're trying to get to where
we're going by working out the difficulties."
Councilmember Weycker - "There was a year on that too, fight? In your NOTE section, all
permits granted for a certain period of time.
Mark Goldberg - "Five years."
Councilmember Weycker - "So the City would jump in at that point, even if it is transferrable,
you've got a five year permit."
Mark Goldberg - "We're not trying to justify that dilapidated structures be allowed to stay
there."
Mark Goldberg - "The second significant change in the Flow Chart is, previously, the request
to maintain an encroachment resulted in a negative impact on a use plan and if it does then you
grant the permit, but if it's not renewable, then the encroachment has got to go. We added a
box which asks the question: 'Is the negative impact on the use plan substantial enough to
override the negative impact on the owner of removing the structure? Again, this is to make
sure there is a balance of judgment going on."
69
Minutes - Mound City Council - January 28, 1997
Councilmember Hanus suggested that Box (7) on the Flow Chart have the following question
which he feels would be a more appropriate question: "Is the construction consistent with the
Shoreland Management Ordinance? That's where that issue comes into play and then reverse
the Yes and No. In other words, is it consistent with the SMO, if it's no - boom, you deny the
request. If it is consistent, its yes, you go down to the next one and now you start asking the
same questions. It seemed as if the verbiage was more consistent with your recommendations
if you ask the question, if it's consistent with the SMO rather than a boathouse or other building
because there are some other buildings that may be, conceivably, if this all went through, could
be allowed.
Mark Goldberg - "We didn't spend as much time on the left hand side of the Flow Chart as we
did on the right. So you'd be comfortable if we changed the left side of the Flow Chart
consistent with the recommendations we've made on the previous pages.
Councilmember Hanus - "Yes. O.K."
Mark Goldberg - "Some of the issues that we thought about with regard to encroachments -
transferability, and definitions of use hindrance and safety hazard, allowable maintenance without
a permit, and what constitutes maintenance vs. rebuilding. That's basically it."
Councilmember Hanus - "One Item that I would like to add if you could discuss them is
delineating what dilapidated is. Somehow we need to define all this stuff as well as define what
construction constitutes rebuilding versus incidental. I think Jon is going to need a lot of input
on that one, if, in fact, I assume we are going to be dealing with the Building Code. So I think
that's got to be interpreted by Jon, in a lot of cases."
Mark Goldberg - "Also, how do you make abutters legally responsible for their encroachments
so that the City is not held responsible."
That's a legal question. The City Attorney stated it would be hard to do.
The Council discussed putting an encumbrance on the home or requiring a bond or financial guaranty
of some kind. In case the City said to remove the encroachment and the owner did not, the money
would be there to have it done.
Mayor Polston - "Mark, what are you and the Task Force looking for with this presentation of
the recommendations?
Mark Goldberg - "Basically, the ball is now in your court and this recommendation is what we
would like to see changed and you determine what you can live with and what you can't, and
we would like to see some of this adopted."
Mayor Polston - "I'm going to throw out a suggestion and you can take it from there. If anyone
has a better suggestion or would like to modify it go ahead. I think what we may need to do
is have Mark Goldberg and a couple of Councilmembers, the Attorney, the Building Inspector,
and the City Manager sit down, having heard the concerns and try to put something together
with the recommendations from the Task Force that meets that criteria. Then bring it back
before the whole body after they've had a chance to put it together and address the issues that
have come up tonight or what comes out of this group meeting."
70
II 11 I
I ,~ ~ , I1
Minutes - Mound City Council - January 28, 1997
Mark Goldberg - "It may be worth a Committee of the Whole Meeting to chew this stuff around
and see what ~/ou all might be able to reach a consensus on and what things are going to be shot
down..
Mayor Polston asked the City Manager what the next Committee of the Whole Meeting looks
like for Agenda content? The City Manager stated there will be some issues coming back from
the last COW Meeting and there will probably be some new issues coming up. We always seem
to have a full agenda.
Councilmember Jensen - "A couple of thoughts. One is I can see that the recommendation can
easily be divided into three parts, shared dock, multiple dock and encroachments. Shared dock
and multiple dock, I didn't have a whole lot of issue with them. Where is the rest of the
Council on these? I'd like to get down to some specifics when it comes down to is there going
to be a multiple dock at this spot, with this many slips on it, and I don't know that we're there
yet, but conceptually it all makes sense."
Mayor Polston - "I think what they're looking for is conceptual approval of the shared dock and
multiple dock recommendations. I don't feel comfortable to conceptually approve the
encroachments part of the recommendation. I think we need to do some work on the
encroachments part."
Councilmember Hanus - "I agree with that. There are some loose ends we need to tie up and
whether that stops you from endorsing it conceptually or not doesn't bother me too much one
way or the other. I would not adopt this until the loose ends are tied down. In addition to what
was said, I also agree witht the shared policy (I don't know if there is enough of a carrot
dangling out there to have a lot of success yet, but there is no harm in trying it). I endorse the
multiple dock recommendation. On those two issues we have Park Commission
recommendations. The encroachment recommendation, we do not have a Park Commission
recommendation.
Mayor Polston - "If we feel comfortable enough to adopt the conceptual part of the Shared Dock
and Multiple Dock recommendations, then we could bring back the Encroachment part to the
Committee of the Whole Meeting.
The Council all agreed that they wanted to wait for the Park Commission's input on the Encroachment
part of the recommendation.
The Council asked this be put on the March 18th Committee of the Whole Meeting. They asked that
the Park Commission put this item on their priority list so that the Council will have their feedback.
MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Ahrens to conceptually approve the Shared Dock
and Multiple Dock part of the Task Force recommendation and schedule referring the
Encroachment section to the Park Commission with their recommendations to come to the
March 18th Committee of the Whole Meeting.
Councilmember Jensen asked that the motion be read back because
sensitivities about how we communicate things to the Park Commission.
the motion back.
there are sometimes
The City Clerk read
71
Minutes - Mound City Council - January 28, 1997
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
The Council thanked the Park & Open Space Commissioners and the Task Force Commissioners for
all the work on this project.
1.12 ADD-ON: RESOLUTION REGARDING SUBURBAN ALIJANCE,
The City Manager explained that at the last Council Meeting, the City Attorney was directed to prepare
documents to send to Suburban Alliance relating to the dissolution. The City Attorney explained that
in the proposed resolution we are clear that we are not indicating that we ever were a member nor will
we be obligated to make any payments, but we are agreeing to the dissolution and agreeing to permit
some of the participating Cities to assist in the winding up of the affairs of Suburban Alliance. This
is something that needs to be done in order to move on to the next stage. The City Attorney
recommended approval of the proposed resolution.
Hanus moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION//97-15
RESOLUTION TERMINATING THE WEST HENNEPIN
HUMAN SERVICE PLANNING BOARD (SUBURBAN
ALLIANCE
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.13 UPDATE - LOST LAKE CANAL - MINNEHAHA CREEK,WATERSHED DISTRICT
PERMIT
The City Manager stated that at the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Regular Board Meeting
January 23rd, the City of Mound's permit application was discussed. The intent of the Staff of the
Watershed District was to recommend approval of the permit subject to some findings that had to be
drafted by their attorney and brought to their meeting in February. Two days prior to the meeting, a
local resident, who is also an attorney, filed what he called, a notice of intervention (a fifty page
document that asked the Watershed District to deny the permit) and he verbally, at the meeting, asked
that the permit be tabled so that members of the board could study it and review it further with hopes
that his recommendation to deny the application would be approved. Following some comments by our
EDC Coordinator and questions by the Board of their Staff and Mr. Casey, the Board did table the
matter until February 6. This will be a continued regular meeting of the Board of Managers~ The City
Attorney suggests that we publish this meeting, since the City Council will be in attendance at these
meetings on February 6th and February 13th.
MOTION made by Polston, seconded by Ahrens, to publish the meetings on February 6th
and 13th with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District as Special Mound City Council
Meetings. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
MARK SMITH, 4665 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, stated that he has a problem with Tom Casey, who
Chairs the Park & Open Space Commission, and has filed a motion to stop what the citizens of Mound
have endorsed. Mr. Smith suggested the Mr. Casey be removed from the Park & Open Space
Commission. Mr. Smith stated that he hopes Mr. Casey is not successful in stopping the Lost Lake
Canal Project.
72
Minutes - Mound City Council - January 28, 1997
The Council again expressex~ support for the Lost Lake Canal Project and is encouraging the Watershe~
District to approve the City's permit application. The Counell discussed the importance of obtaining
this permit for the Lost Lake dredge so that the downtown improvement .an continue.
INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS:.
A. Preliminary financial report for the year ended December 31, 1996.
B. LMCD MAILINGS.
C. Park & Open Space. Commission Minutes of January 9, 1997.
Brochure from the Association of Metropolitan
Municipalities (AMM) on policy priorities for the 1997
Minnesota Legislative Session.
E. Planning Commission Minutes of January 13, 1997.
Information from Metropolitan Council Transit Operations (MCTO) re: Schedule
changes beginning January 25, 1997.
MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Jensen to adjourn at 9:40 P.M. The vote was
unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
Attest: City Clerk
73
BILLS,
-January 28, 1997
Batch
Batch
Batch
6126
7011
7012
Total Bills
$ 15,472.58
34,650.97
115,629.22
$165,752.77