1997-05-13Il IJ ,I A Ii A~, & , & ,I ,
Minutes - Mound City Council - May 13, 1997
MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - MAY 13, 1997
The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session
on Tuesday, May 13, 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, City Engineer John Cameron, Finance
Director Gino Businaro, City Auditor Steve McDonald, Abdo, Abdo & Eick, Police Chief Len
Harrell, City Clerk Fran Clark and the following interested citizens: State Representative Steve
Smith, Harold Meeker, Nancy Clough, Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman, Hennepin
County Commissioner Penny Steele, Georgette Peterson, Gerry & Sharon Eklund, Jeff &
Darlene Chiles, Millie & Chuck Larson, Eva Hasch, Karol & Bruce Charon, Pauline Payne,
Jewell & Bunny Lyngaas, Bill & Kristi Holm, Jeff Sanders, Glen Zeller, Stu Eckstrand, Ed &
Linda Bloomgren, Mary Ann Lundberg, Carol Schmidt, Jeffrey Andersen, Julie Kittleson, Don
& Janet Anfenson, Clara Paz, Mary Flynn, Mary Kay Connolly, Larry Olson, Patrick & Diane
Johnson, Muriel Nunre, Win Hagen, Dell Rudolph, Eldan & JoAnn Freese, Carol Lindgren,
Gary Nachreiner, Steve Grand, Tim Wilkinson, Norm Berglund, Steve Behnke,
The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. The Pledge of
Allegiance was recited. The Mayor recognized the various dignitaries in the audience.
*Consent Agenda: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by
the Council and will be enacted by a roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these
items unless a Councilmember or Citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed
from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence.
1.0
PROCLAMATION DECLARING MAY 18, 1997 AS HAROLD MEEKER DAY IN
STATE OF MINNESOTA AND THE CITY OF MOUND
Mr. Meeker was asked to come forward.
Representative Steve Smith presented Mr. Meeker with a Proclamation from the Governor of
the State of Minnesota proclaiming, Sunday, May 18, 1997, as Harold Meeker Day in the State
of Minnesota.
Mayor Bob Polston presented Mr. Meeker with a Certificate of Recognition from the City of
Mound.
Mr. Meeker thanked everyone.
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 Weycker asked to have Item A.- Minutes of the April 22, 1997, Regular
Meeting removed from the Consent Agenda.
243
Minutes - Mound City Council - May 13, 1997
Councilmember Hanus asked to have Item F, Approval of an Ordinance Amending Section
235:27, Subd. 1 of the City Code Relating to Recreational Fires removed from the Consent
Agenda.
The City Manager stated that he has 3 ADD-on ITEMS to the Regular Agenda, as follows:
Discussion re: Legal Opinion from the City Attorney on the city's legal authority
to regulate the placement of docks on Wawonaissa Common at the end of
Woodland Road.
2. Discussion re: Possible litigation for tree cutting on Wiota Common.
ge
Discussion re: Reapplication of G Will Liquors for a Off-Sale Liquor License in
the City of Spring Park.
*1.1
'1.2
*CONSENT AGENDA:
MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Ahrens to approve the Agenda content,
adding 3 items and the Consent Agenda deleting Items A & F, as amended above.
A roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MAY 6, 1997 BOARD OF REVIEW AND
MAY 6, 1997 SPECIAL MEETING
MOTION
Hanus, Ahrens, unanimously.
RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) RE: ALLOCATION OF FUNDS
FROM WESTONKA INTERVENTION TO SOJOURNER LOCATED IN THE
CITY OF MINNETONKA
'1.3
RESOLUTION//97-41
RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO
THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
GRANT (CDBG) RE: ALLOCATION OF FUNDS
FROM WESTONKA INTERVENTION TO
SOJOURNER LOCATED IN THE CITY OF
MINNETONKA
Hanus, Ahrens, unanimously.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO
EXECUTE THE 1997 MUNICIPAL RECYCLING GRANT AGREEMENT
RESOLUTION//97-42
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND
CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE 1997
MUNICIPAL RECYCLING GRANT AGREEMENT
244
ii I& I I, & &~, & ,
a, ,&, i I1
Minutes - Mound City Council - May 13, 1997
Hanus, Ahrens, unanimously.
· 1.4 APPROVAL OF VARIOUS PERMITS
The following permits are being requested. Please waive the fee on them as indicated.
Approval contingent upon all required forms, insurance etc. being turned in. All fees may be
waived except the Beer Permit.
1. Mound Volunteer Fire Dept. requests the following permits for the June 7, 1997, Fish
Fry.
Temporary On-Sale 3.2 Beer Permit
Public Dance Permit
Set-Up Permit
2. Mound City Days - June 13, 14 & 15, 1997.
Temporary On-Sale 3.2 Beer Permit - Mound Bay Park
Carnival
Concessions
Craft Show
Entertainment
Fireworks
Merchant Sales
Public Dance Permit
Public Gathering
Set-Up Permit
American Legion/VFW
Parade Permit- May 26, 1997 - 10:45 A.M. to 11:30 A.M. - Memorial Day
Parade
VFW AUXILIARY - June 7, 1997 - Annual Pillow Puff
MOTION
Hanus, Ahrens, unanimously.
'1.5 PAYMENT OF BILLS
A short break was taken from the meeting.
1.6 APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE APRIL 22, 1997 BOARD OF REVIEW AND
THE APRIL 22, 1997 REGULAR MEETING
Councilmember Weycker asked that the following be added to the April 22, 1997, Minutes
under Item 1.11 Multiple Slip Dock Systems, right before the Motion:
"City Attorney, John Dean, felt that the resolution did not authorize what the intent was
245
Minutes
1.7
- Mound City Coundl - May 13, 1997
and therefore the City Council needed only to state that intent and approve it that way."
MOTION made by Jensen seconded by Weycker to amend the Minutes of the April
22, 1997, Regular Council Meeting as amended above. The vote was unanimously
in favor. Motion carried.
APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 235:27, SUBD. 1 OF
THE CITY CODE RELATING TO RECREATIONAL FIRES
Councilmember Hanus stated that he remembers addressing this about a year ago and what is
being presented tonight is basically the same as then. He then asked why it is back?
The City Manager explained that the Council did not taken action on this item before. This item
has been reviewed by the Fire Dept. and the Police Dept. and now that Spring is here, they are
saying we need to do something about this ordinance because there are all kinds of people
lighting fires that are not in compliance with either the existing ordinance or one that 'they would
like to see in place of it. What is being suggested and proposed are changes that were made
before but some things were added, i.e. the total area of 3 feet or less in diameter and 3 feet or
less in height; the time recreational fires would be allowed; and the distance from any building
was originally 20 feet and what is being proposed is 25 feet. This would give more teeth to the
Fire Chief and Police Dept. and regulate people's ability to light recreational fires.
They are getting a lot of calls about these fires.
Councilmember Hanus stated that he was against this last year and is still against this. He has
a problem with some of the language in the Exception part of the proposed amendment, i.e.
diameter and height restrictions and how that could be a prosecution problem; the time that
recreational fires would be allowed.
The Council then extensively discussed the proposed ordinance amendment as it relates to the
following:
1.
2.
3.
4.
what people are burning;
the size of the fires;
the time limitation for when people can burn; and
the distance from any building that a person could have a recreational fire.
The City Manager reported that this proposed ordinance amendment was based on other cities
in the metro area and how they deal with recreational fires. This amendment has been reviewed
by the Police Chief, Fire Chief and Fire Inspector and they all gather their approval or made
the changes they felt were necessary.
The City Attorney suggested that the wording, "Recreational fires shall be at least 25' from any
building and shall be supervised at all times.", could be changed to read as follows:
"Recreational fires shall be at least 25' from any building which is intended for human
occupancy and shall be supervised at all times."
The City Manager explained that the only intent of this ordinance amendment is to regulate
recreational fires, open burning is still not going to be allowed.
Councilmember Hanus asked that the "not" in the first sentence of the Exception be deleted
because he felt it says that a fire place, incinerator or barbecue pit are not a recreational fire,
246
I Il I I i , ii, & , I ~l ,
Minutes - Mound City Council - May 13, 1997
but they are open burning, therefore they do not meet the criteria under either the exception or
the open burning which prohibited.
The City Attorney stated that he also feels the "not" in the Exception should be deleted.
MOTION made by Polston to delete the word "not" from the Exception and the time
frames in the proposed amendment. This motion died for lack of a second.
MOTION made by Jensen to delete the work "not" from the Exception and revising
the following sentence "Recreational fires shall be at least 25' from any building and
shall be supervised at all times" to read as follows: "Recreational fires shall be at
least 25' from any building intended for human occupancy and shall be supervised
at all times." This motion died for lack of a second.
MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Polston to leave the existing ordinance as
is with the deletion of approved (His reason was that there is no criteria for
approved fire rings.) and the addition of one sentence, as follows:
Section 235:27, Subd. 1 of the City Code is amended to read as follows:
Section 235:27. Burning Restrictions - Burning Permit Required.
Subd. 1. Open Burning Prohibited. It shall be unlawful for any person to start
or allow to burn any open fire on any property within the City of Mound without
a permit, except for supervised recreational or cooking fires contained within
........ '~ fire rings, pits or barbecue grills. Only charcoal, coal, or clean, dry wood
may be used for burning (no refuse, grass, leaves, yard waste or other
combustibles).
No permit shall be required for any official fire set by any public official as provided
in Section 490:20.
The Council discussed this motion.
MOTION made by Polston, seconded by Weycker to table this item. The vote was
4 in favor Jensen voting nay. Motion carried.
The Mayor asked that this item be sent back to Staff to come back with a report
on why we are looking at this proposed ordinance amendment and what it is we
are trying to accomplish and is it based on one complaint or a hundred
complaints.
This item will be brought back at the June 10, 1997 meeting.
1.8 PROCLAMATION DECLARING THE MONTH OF MAY 1997 AS WESTONKA
SENIOR CENTER MONTH
Weycker moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution.
247
Minutes - Mound City Council - May 13, 1997
RESOLUTION g97-43 RESOLUTION PROCLAIMING MAY
WESTONKA SENIOR CENTER MONTH
1997
The vote was unanimously in favor.
1.9 PUBLIC HEARING:
Motion carried.
CASE g96-64
REVISED
PRELIMINARY
PLAT/PDA/VARIANCES SETON BLUFF, FINE LINE DESIGN GROUP, INC.,
LOTS 15-32, BLOCK 11, SETON, 19-117-23 22 0036-41 & 54
The City Planner reviewed his report dated April 9, 1997. He reported that a comprehensive
review was done by the Planning Commission in February when the plan had 8 units. The
Planning Commission, at that time, voted 7 to 1 recommending denial. Based on the action of
the Planning Commission, the applicant took the comments and suggestions that the Commission
offered and revised the plan and went back to the Planning Commission with the new plan which
is what is before the Council tonight. The Planning Commission has now voted 7 to 2 for
approval of the new plan with 7 units. There are a number of conditions that Staff suggested
be included if this is approved on pages 1583-2585 and the Planning Commission further
modified the suggested conditions that were offered by the City Engineer on pages 1575 - 1576.
The Council asked about stormwater management and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District.
The City Engineer stated that the Watershed District will not hear this until the City has given
preliminary approval. The City Engineer stated they have to meet Rule B.
Councilmember Hanus asked about the turning radius of the road. The City Engineer stated that
what is on the plan right now is without obtaining an additional easement on the corner that
allows for a 9 foot radius. He further stated that when all these streets were constructed where
we have 30 foot right-of-ways back in 1978 through 1980, the intersections were all put in with
a 5 foot radius and that is what is right across to the east. In new construction, most
communities require a 15 to 20 foot radius. This would require an easement from the property
owner.
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
NORM BERGLUND - stated he has been involved with this parcel of property since the
late 1960's. At that time it was zoned for multiple and a number of problems came up
and we couldn't build multiple. They then went to townhouses and again problems
arose. The property has been dormant for years now. He stated that he feels the project
as proposed by Brenshell Homes (Fine Line Design Group), is the best for the area and
would like to see it approved.
PETE BUCKNER, 2626 KILDARE LANE -spoke in favor of the project because the
applicant built his home and a neighbors home and did a quality job. He felt this
development will add value to the area and community.
The following persons spoke against this project:
Steve Grand, 2620 Kerry Lane
Tim Wilkinson, 4628 Carlow Road
Vicki Hockert, Kerry Lane
248
Minutes - Mound City Council - May 13, 1997
STEVE GRAND, 2620 KERRY LANE - stated he is against this proposal. Reasons:
the comer turning radius; he will have to look at 14 foot retaining wall across from his
home and worry about his children climbing and failing from that wall; the 23 variances
that will be approved if this is approved; and will diminish property values in the area.
TIM WILKINSON, 4628 CARLOW ROAD - concerned about drainage onto his comer
lot which is on the corner of Carlow and Kerry and currently gets about 40 % of sites the
water; he was also concerned about child safety and the 14' wall. He was against the
project.
The Developer stated that with the private drive capturing the water and a new slope
system only 8 % of the water will be directed to the coner.
VICKI HOCKERT, KERRY LANE - concerned about additional sand that will be
washing down in the winter; this could cause parking problems.
REASONS:
The corner turning radius.
Will have to look at 14 foot retaining wall and worry about children climbing and
falling from that wall.
The 23 variances that will be approved if this is approved.
This will diminish property values in the area.
Concern about drainage onto the corner lot which is on the corner of Carlow and
Kerry and currently gets about 40 % of sites the water.
The Developer stated that with the private drive capturing the water and a new slope
system only 8 % of the water will be directed to the corner.
o
Concern about additional sand that will be washing down in the winter.
This could cause parking problems.
The Mayor closed the public Hearing.
Councilmember Hanus asked about parking and if this meets the code requirements for parking.
The Planner stated that the project does meet the parking code requirements. The code requires
2. He further assured the residents and the Council that there would be no parking on the
extended Kildare Lane. Guest parking would be in the private driveway portion of the project.
The developer stated they are providing 4 parking spots per house (2 inside, 2 outside, plus 5
guest parking spots).
Councilmember Jensen asked about the retaining wall height and if a fence would be required
on top of it. The developer stated that they have broken the wall up into 3 tiers with planting
between and they are planning heavy planting at the top which could take the place of a fence
if that meets the approval of the Building Official. He further stated they are planning a
keystone type wall with ivy so the effect will be softened.
The Council discussed Rule B and the fact that the City has not yet entered into a cooperative
agreement with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. The City Engineer stated that there
is more to Rule B than just the cooperative agreement. The problem is that the water cannot
249
Minutes - Mound City Council - May 13, 1997
be contained on the site. The Developer stated that the MWCD is willing to look at their
management system, evaluate it, and assess it out to make up the difference. The City Engineer
stated he is fairly sure that the Watershed District will require a monetary contribution for part
of it.
The City Engineer explained that the City Attorney has revised some verbiage in the agreement
that has been sent to the watershed district that would give the City more control in this type of
project. The City Attorney stated that we are trying to address this as a preclusion from being
required to store water on locations outside the City and giving the City the say in additional
storage of water from locations within the City beyond those contemplated at the time the
agreement is entered into. The City Attorney suggested that the Council think about adding a
condition to the preliminary approval resolution as follows: "The approval would not be
construed as creating an obligation on the part of the City to expend funds to provide a location
for off-site water storage." The Council thought this was a good idea.
The Mayor stated that he will have to vote against this item because of concerns about the
watershed, drainage plan, and the number of variances (23) for new construction.
Councilmember Hanus asked the City Planner how many of the variances would not be required
if these were lots of record? The Planner stated that the variances that pertain to the street
construction would be there regardless of whether it is this proposal or one home, if it's
proposed to be served by a cul-de-sac street of this nature. If it was considered a lot of record
the bluff setback is 10' instead of 30' so they would be compliant with that. The sideyard
setbacks, they would be compliant with as well. He stated the only thing that would be an issue
would be the front yard setback on two of the lots and what they've reduced was originally about
7% overage in impervious coverage, is down to 2.8 %. Those would still be there regardless
of the lot of record situation. He stated the lot of record status would alleviate most of the
variances that are outside of the street construction. The Planner stated that all the lots exceed
the minimum 6,000 square foot requirement.
The City Engineer stated that the width of the street and the size of the cul-de-sac is consistent
with Teal Pointe, the cul-de-sacs in Pelican Point and Maple Manors.
MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Jensen directing staff to prepare a resolution
of approval for the preliminary plat/PDA/variances, using all the conditions
recommended by the Planning Commission, City Planner and City Engineer and
adding the condition suggested by the City Attorney this evening. The vote was 4
in favor with Mayor Polston voting nay. Motion carried. This approval resolution
to be brought back to the Council on May 27, 1997.
1.10 PRESENTATION OF 1996 AUDIT - GINO BUSINARO, FINANCE DIRECTOR &
STEVE MC DONALD, ABDO, ABDO AND EICK
The 1996 Audit was presented by Steve McDonald of Abdo, Abdo & Eick and Finance Director,
Gino Businaro.
Jensen moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION//97-44 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING AND APPROVING THE
AUDIT AND FINANCIAL REPORT FOR 1996
250
I 11 I i i i~1
The vote was unanimously in favor.
1.11
Motion carried.
Minutes - Mound City Council - May 13, 1997
0'M6: C. kIt¥ N CItR1ZINIZR, 6fig6 CR RRYW00B Rt3 B, LOTg 6 &
BLOCK 9, THE HIGHLANDS, PID#23-117-24 34 0088, VARIANCE FOR
GARAGE ADDITION
The City Manager stated this was before the Council at the last meeting and was referred back
to the Planning Commission who heard it last night. The Planning Commission recommended
denial of the 26 or 28 foot garage and the proposed resolution was handed out this evening. The
Planning Commission again recommended approval of a 24 foot garage and that proposed
resolution is in the packet. The Planner stated that the Commission felt that giving a variance
for a 24 foot garage is a reasonable minimum in order to alleviate the hardship.
The Planner stated there are two resolutions in the packet, one denying the request for either a
26'or 28' garage and one approving a 24 foot garage.
The applicant was present and was still asking for at least a 26 foot garage. He showed more
pictures of his site.
MOTION by Hanus seconded by Ahrens to approve the proposed approval
resolution allowing a 24 foot garage
The City Attorney advised the Council that if they are not going to allow a 26'
or 28' garage, which is what was applied for, they need to adopt the denial
resolution. Then, if they are going to allow the 24' garage they could waive the
normal procedures and fees and adopt the proposed approval resolution if the
applicant would be satisfied with the 24 foot garage.
Councilmembers Hanus and Ahrens withdrew their motion.
The City Attorney suggest that the second to the last WHEREAS in the denial resolution be
modified to read as follows:
"WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has recommended approval of a 4 foot
variance in order to allow construction of a 24 foot deep garage addition, with the
findings that although a 24 foot deep garage addition is more representative of a minimal
situation and would afford the owner reasonable use of the property and the modified
proposal of a 26' deep garage does not represent the minimal situation in order to
alleviate the hardship."
The City Attorney also suggested deleting entirely the last Whereas in the proposed denial
resolution.
The Council agreed to modify the proposed denial resolution as suggested by the City Attorney.
Ahrens moved and Hanus seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION #97-45
RESOLUTION TO DENY A FRONT YARD SETBACK
VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A
GARAGE ADDITION AT 6056 CHERRYWOOD
251
Minutes - Mound City Council - May 13, 1997
ROAD, PART OF LOTS 6 & 7, BLOCK 9, THE
HIGHLANDS, PID $23-11%24 34 0088, P & Z CASE
//9%16
The vote was 4 in favor with Mayor Polston voting nay. Motion carried.
The Council discussed what would be a minimal variance.
The Council asked if the applicant would like the Council to adopt the proposed approval
resolution for the 24 foot deep garage. The applicant stated that he would agree to the 24 foot
deep garage.
Hanus moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION #9%46
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A FRONT YARD
SETBACK VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION
OF A GARAGE ADDITION AT 6056 CHERRYWOOD
ROAD, PART OF LOTS 6 & 7, BLOCK 9, THE
HIGHLANDS, PID $23-11%24 34 0088, P & Z CASE
//97-16
The City Attorney suggested adding a WHEREAS to this resolution that reads as follows:
"WHEREAS, the City Council is, at the request of the applicant, waiving any
of the procedures and formalities that might ordinarily accompany a variance application, in light
of the fact that this variance has been considered and acted upon tonight."
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.12 REQUEST FOR FINAL PLAT APPROVAL - JOE ZYLMAN, MAPLE MANORS
The City Manager reported that the applicant has asked that this item be tabled until the
May 27, 1997, City Council Meeting. The Council agreed.
1.13 APPROVAL OF MULTIPLE DOCK SLIPS - AMHURST LANE ACCESS (DEVON
COMMON) & FAIRVIEW LANE ACCESS
The City Manager explained that since the last Council meeting the DCAC (Dock & Commons
Advisory Commission) has met with the residents of these two areas, and the consensus
indicated that the multiple docks could be installed and that this should be done as soon as
possible. /There would be cooperation between the abutting and non-abutting site holders to
allow temporary dockage of boats at dock sites not in the location of the site for installation of
the multiple slip boat dock. The Park Director is working to obtain cost, installation time, and
dock design. The people wanted to get it in before Memorial Day. Up to $22,500 has been
budgeted in the 1997 Budget for this project. The proposed resolution for approval was handed
out this evening. Also handed out were the Minutes from the DCAC Meetings of April 3, April
17 and May 8 and the POSC (Park & Open Space Commission Minutes of May 6, 1997).
The City Clerk reviewed the revisions that have been made to the proposed resolution of
approval for these multiple dock systems.
252
Minutes - Mound City Council - May 13, 1997
Ahrens moved and Hanus seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION #97-47
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF MULTIPLE SLIP DOCK
SYSTEMS AT THE AMHURST ACCESS ON DEVON
COMMON, THE DEVON LANE ACCESS ON DEVON
COMMON, AND AT THE FAIRVIEW LANE ACCESS
ON LAKE BLVD.
Councilmember Ahrens stated that the third Whereas in the proposed resolution,
which has been deleted came about because that was the only direction the
Council had given the DCAC at that point. The Council agreed that it should be
deleted.
Councilmember Weycker stated that she has several concerns:
1. The 6th Whereas which reads as follows: "WHEREAS, the multiple-slip
docks are intended to be a small neighborhood dock system for individuals
within walking distance of their homes."
She stated that from what she read in the minutes, the intent in this is totally
being changed and the people who currently drive to the docks now are being
asked to find a dock elsewhere. She felt that the intent of having small
neighborhood docks and keeping them within walking distance, was so that the
City was not pulling people away from where they already walked, not restricting
people from driving to their dock. There are a lot of areas in Mound that are not
within walking distance of a Commons. So if the Council starts restricting people
with having to live in the neighborhood to use these multiple docks, it's wrong.
Councilmember Hanus stated that his understanding was that wherever
possible, we were going to keep docks within walking distance of people homes.
He did not feel this was to restrict people from driving. It was to benefit them
by trying to keep the sites in their neighborhood. Councilmember Weycker does
not feel that the DCAC Minutes reflect that.
2. Councilmember Weycker stated that another concern is the total number of
boats participating in the Commons, was another objective. She felt that was also
being skewed because they are restricting the boats to one boat, per person at
these multiple dock slips.
Councilmember Hanus reminded the Council that everyone participating
in the multiple boat dock slip is doing so voluntarily and the single boat issue is
the tradeoff for getting a City dock you don't have to put in, take out or maintain.
Councilmember Weycker stated that the Pembroke people in the pilot
multiple boat dock slip were never restricted to one boat.
Councilmember Hanus stated that was true only for the first year.
Mayor Polston stated that after this year, it has been written into the
criteria that in order to participate in this program you can only have one slip or
253
Minutes - Mound City Council - May 13, 1997
you have to move to another area.
Councilmember Weycker stated that it was her understanding at the
meeting with the Pembroke people and they were told that they were
grandfathered in and that would not be the case for them. She expressed concern
that people are not getting the correct information. At that meeting one person
questioned why the abutters were not bound by the same rules and the response
from the Commission was that the abutters have riparian rights.
Councilmember Ahrens stated that there was another response that came
later on after that. "An abutter can participate just as well in the multiple
program but they have to restrict themselves to one boat. They have to follow
the same rules as the non abutters if they are going to participate in the multiple.
Councilmember Weycker commented that right now it's all non-abutters
at the multiples.
The Mayor stated that it was his understanding that once a person with
two boats gives up that one slip at the Pembroke multiple dock, then he will be
restricted to one boat.
Councilmember Weycker stated that all her concerns have come when
reading the minutes from the DCAC. She quoted a paragraph from the April 17,
1997 DCAC Minutes as follows: "Non-abutter dockholders within the multiple
slip dock system should be within walking distance of their homes. Dock site
holders outside the immediate neighborhood should be moved to another
Commons for the 1998 boating season." Councilmember Jensen expressed
concern about this also.
Councilmember Jensen asked for clarification on the following: "If
someone moves to one of the new multiple docks this year, they acknowledge that
they are limited to one boat? The Mayor stated that was correct. Do they then
have the option next year to go to a non-multiple dock location?"
Councilmember Hanus stated that they can always apply into the system to get
back into a privately installed dock, like anyone else can. He stated that because
they are already in the system, they would have priority like anyone else who is
currently on the system.
Mayor Polston quoted the following from the DCAC Minutes of April 17,
1997: "Non-abutting dock holders with more than one boat will be assigned an
additional dock slip (A or J) for their second boat for the 1997 boating season.
The Commission' s goal is to reduce the number of boat slips to one boat slip per
dock site holder. Therefore, as dock site holders reduce the number of boats of
record on their d6ck application to one boat, they may not increase that number
after that point. Current dock site holders with only one boat may not increase
the number of boats registered in the city dock program."
Councilmember Jensen felt that is a contradiction to what was just said.
Mayor Polston quoted the following from the DCAC Minutes of April 17,
254
Minutes - Mound City Council - May 13, 1997
1997: "Non-abutter dock holders within the multiple-slip dock system should be
within walking distance of their homes. Dock site holders outside of the
immediate neighborhood should be moved to another commons for the 1998
boating season."
Councilmember Hanus stated that he feels the confusion is in the last
sentence of the first quote which should read: "Current multiple slip dock site
holders with only one boat may not increase the number of boats registered in the
city dock program." He understands this to mean, that if a person decides to
leave their multiple slip and apply for a private dock again, or course they can
go back to the same rules that apply to a privately held dock.
Councilmember Weycker commented that in the meantime there may be
no docks within walking distance of their homes.
Councilmember Ahrens commented that is chance you take when you
volunteer to be at a multiple.
Councilmember Weycker stated that at the meetings with the residents on
the multiple dock slips, she still feels that the people were not convinced that this
was a good idea, and after reading the DCAC Minutes, they were not told all of
this information. She did not think they had adequate information to make a
decision.
Mayor Polston disagreed and felt that the Commission was very careful
and it was written into the minutes, what was intended and what was happening
with the multiple system. He felt the Commission was very concerned, that both
abutters and non-abutters, be given the correct information and that the program
is voluntary.
Councilmember Weycker asked the City Attorney if an abutter has riparian
rights to the commons in front of their house, anymore than anyone has riparian
rights to public land?
The City Attorney stated. "No one can answer that question because
that's one of the issues which need to be resolved in litigation. In other words,
What is the nature of the abutting property owner's interest in the Commons
area? What's the nature of the non-abutting property owner's interest in the
Commons area? If, in fact, the non-abutting property owner's right in the
Commons is nothing more than the use of the Commons for the purpose of
passage, moving from one point to another, then it may well be the case that the
abutting property owners do have something akin to riparian rights, if the interest
of the non-abutting property owners in the Commons would include the right to
use the shore, to fish, to do things that typically are only of interest to an abutting
property owner or a riparian property owner. Then the abutting property owner
doesn't have riparian rights to the exclusion of anyone else. It is one of those
issues that needs to be resolved. They may have them. They may not have
them, but to assert at this point that they do, in fact, have them, I think is
incorrect and I believe that was, arguably at least, that may have been corrected
at the time. He hopes they don't believe that they, to the exclusion of anyone
255
Minutes - Mound City Council - May 13, 1997
else, have the rights of riparian owners at the moment because the Commons lies
between their property and the lake."
Councilmember Weycker, encouraged everyone to read the minutes of the
DCAC meetings that were handed out this evening because she feels there are
things in them that were never intended, by the Council, like maintaining the total
number of boats. She felt we need to maintain the total number of participants,
not boats.
Councilmember Ahrens asked for the question to be called on the resolution. The vote on
calling the question was 3 in favor with Jensen and Weycker voting nay. Motion carried.
The vote in the resolution was 3 in favor with Jensen and Weycker voting nay. Motion carried.
COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT.
There were none.
1.14 DISCUSSION: MEMBERSHIP IN THE SUBURBAN RATE AUTHORITY (SRA)
The City Manager reported that the City of Mound was asked to voluntarily participate in the
Suburban Rate Authority for the last nine months, at no charge. That membership expires at
the end of June. Councilmember Hanus has been Mound's delegate to this group.
The Manager stated that they provide information about what is going on in the utility industry
as it relates to municipalities and put out a lot of information. They are a force at the Public
Utilities Commission as well as the Legislature on utility rate matters. They are asking if we
would like to continue as a member and if so, adopt a resolution to that effect. The dues are
$800.00 a year but if we agree to continue though 1997 they will only charge us $400.00.
Councilmember Jensen withdrew herself from this discussion because of a conflict of interest
with her employer; she cannot participate in this.
Councilmember Hanus stated that he does feel the City does get some benefits from this
association. He also stated that he would still be the designated representative if the Council
wished. The Council agreed.
Polston moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION//97-48
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PARTICIPATION IN
THE SUBURBAN RATE AUTHORITY; AND
DESIGNATING MARK HANUS AS
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CITY AS ITS MEMBER
ON THE BOARD OF THE SUBURBAN RATE
AUTHORITY AND ED SHUKLE AS THE
ALTERNATE DELEGATE
The vote was 4 in favor with Jensen abstaining. Motion carried.
ADD-ONS
256
II II I
Minutes - Mound City Council - May 13, 1997
ADD-ONS
1AS DISCUSSION RE: LEGAL OPINION FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY ON THE
CITY'S LEGAL AUTHORITY TO REGULATE THE PLACEMENT OF DOCKS
ON WAWONAISSA COMMON AT THE END OF WOODLAND ROAD.
The City Attorney reviewed his legal opinion dated May 13, 1997, relating to the City authority
to regulate the placement of docks on Wawonaissa Common at the end of Woodland Road. The
conclusion is that the City's interest in the street does not create any special interest in the city
over the portion of the common lying at the end of the street. This is also not to say that the
abutting property owners have any special rights with respect either to that area or with respect
to the Commons in front of their properties, but whatever rights they may have by virtue of the
fact that they are fee owners abutting are rights that we do not have by virtue of the fact that we
have a street abutting. There was no formal action on this item.
1.16 DISCUSSION RE: REAPPLICATION OF G WILL LIQUORS FOR A OFF-SALE
LIQUOR LICENSE IN THE CITY OF SPRING PARK.
The City Manager reported that the City of Spring Park has notified the City that G Will
Liquors has submitted another application for an Off-Sale Liquor License in the City of Spring
Park. Spring Park will reconsider this on May 19, 1997. He and the Liquor Store Manager
will be in attendance. He asked if the Council wants a letter written objecting to issuance of this
license. The Council said yes.
1.17 POSSIBLE LITIGATION FOR TREE CUTTING ON WIOTA COMMONS
The City Attorney suggested that the Council go into Executive Session to discuss this possible
litigation. The Council agreed and went into Executive Session at 10:55 P.M.
INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS:
A. Department Head monthly reports for April, 1997.
B. LMCD Representative's monthly report for April, 1997
C. Letter from Gene Peterson, 6017 Ridgewood Road
D. Letter from Patricia Mikulski, 3015 Drury Lane
E. Letter from Perry Hanson, 2459 Lost Lake Road
F. Letter from Dorene Hanson, 2459 Ix)st Lake Road
G. Memorandum with Attachments from Jim Strommen, Kennedy & Graven and Suburban
Rate Authority Re: 612 Area Code Proposed Changes
REMINDER: Committee of the Whole Meeting, Tuesday, May 20, 1997, 7:30 P.M.
Ho
257
Minutes - Mound City Council - May 13, 1997
REMINDER: City Offices will be closed on Monday, May 26, 1997 in Observance of
Memorial Day.
Jo
REMINDER: HRA Meeting, 7:00 p.m., Tuesday, May 13, 1997, City Hall prior to
Regular City Council Meeting.
MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Ahrens to adjourn at 11:30 P.M. The vote
was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
At[est:' -City (~erk' -
258
BILLS -May 13~ 1997
BATCH 7043 $197,384.69
BATCH 7044 184,409.51
Total Bills $381,794.20