2000-02-08MINUTES ' CITY COUNCIL-FEBRUARY 8, 2000
The City Council of the City of Mound, Henncpin County, Minnesota, met in regular session
on Tuesday, February 8, 2000, at 7:30 P.M., in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood
Road, in said City.
Those present were: Mayor Pat Meisel; Councilmembers: Andrea Ahrens, Bob Brown,
Mark Hanus and Leah Weycker. Also in attendance were City Attorney John Dean, Acting
City Manager Fran Clark, Parks Director Jim Fackler, Assistant City Planner Loren Gordon,
and Secretary Carla Wirth. The following interested citizens were also present: Richard
Oliver, Nancy Clough, David Mongeon, Peter Meyer, Thomas Stokes, Steve Behnke, Steve
Hewitt, Kristyn Schmitz, Vern Hanson, Larissa Tadauarthy, and Lorrie Ham.
*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.
OPEN MEETING - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Mayor opened the meeting at 7:33 P.M. and welcomed the people in attendance. The
pledge of allegiance was recited.
APPROVE AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA
Councilmember Brown stated he would like Item D removed from the Consent Agenda.
Councilmember Weycker stated she would like Items A and B removed from the Consent
Agenda.
The Acting City Manager added Item 3J, Resolution Consolidating Pool Selection Committee
Recommending that CDBG Funding of Westonka Community Action Network (WECAN) be
Continued.
MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Hanus, to approve the agenda and consent
agenda with the removal of Items A, B, and D and addition of Item J. The vote
was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 5-0.
CONSENT AGENDA
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MINUTES FROM JANUARY 18, 2000
This item was removed from the Consent Agenda.
109
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -FEBRUARY 8~ 2000 ·
*1.0
MINUTES FROM JANUARY 2~, 2000. REGULAR MEETING
This item was removed from the Consent Agenda.
MINUTES FROM JANUARY 31.2000. spECIAL MEETING
MOTION.
Ahrens, Hanus, unanimously.
*1.1
SET DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING CASE 99-45: CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT TO ALLOW AN ADDITION TO MOUNT OLIVE LUTHERAN
CHURCH: 5218 BARTLETT BLVD.. BLOCK 2. TRACT A & PART OF BLK
2 SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT D. 62050. PID # 24-117-24-21-0036
MOTION.
Ahrens, Hanus, unanimously.
· 1.2
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF 2000 GRANT APPLICATION
FOR RECYCLING AND EXECUTION OF GRANT AGREEMENT
RESOLUTION #00-17
RESOL~ION AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL
OF 2000 GRANT APPLICATION FOR
RECYCLING AND EXECUTION OF GRANT
AGREEMENT.
Ahrens, Hanus, unanimously.
'1.3
RF_~OLUTION APPROVING THE CREATION OF PUBLICLY-TRADED
COMPANY BY MEDIACOM LLC, PARENT OF MEDIACOM MINNESOTA
LLC. CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISEE,
RESOLUTION//00-18
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE
CREATION OF PUBLICLY-TRADED
COMPANY BY MEDIACOM LLC, PARENT
OF MEDIACOM MINNESOTA LLC, CABLE
TELEVISION FRANCHISEE.
Ahrens, Hanus, unanimously.
110
MOUND C1TY COUNCIL MINUTES -FEBRUARY 8~ 2000
*1.4
RF~OMMENDATION$ TO THE CONSOLIDATED POOL SELECTION
COMMITTEE ON CDBG FUNDING.
RESOLUTION//00-19
RESOLUTION FROM THE CITY OF
MOUND TO THE CONSOLIDATED POOL
SELECTION COMMITTEE THAT CDBG
FUNDING OF SENIOR COMMUNITY
SERVICES' WESTONKA SENIOR CENTER
BE CONTINUED.
Ahrens, Hanus, unanimously.
ESOLUTION NO. 00-20
RESOLUTION FROM THE CITY OF MOUND TO
THE CONSOLIDATED POOL SELECTION
COMMITTEE RF~OMMENDING THAT CDBG
FUNDING OF WESTONKA COMMUNITY ACTION
NETWORK OVECAN-) BE CONTINUED
Ahrens, Hanus, unanimously.
· 1.5 PAYMENT OF BILLS
MOTION.
Ahrens, Hanus, unanimously.
1.6 MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 18. 2000. CO~E OF THE WHOLE
MEETING
CouncilmemberWeycker requested the following correction to the January 18,
2000,Committee of the Whole meeting minutes:
Page 459, 6th paragraph, last sentence: reword to indicate "Councilmember Weycker stated
this is the res_oonsibility of the Council Liaison."
Councilmember Hanus requested the following correction to the January 18, 2000 Committee
of the Whole meeting minutes:
Page 6, 3rd paragraph, reword to indicate "The consensus of the Council was that they
would rather see park dedication on large new developments come in the form of land, rather
than money."
ttt
MOUND CITY COUNCIL M~'UTES -FEBRUARY 8, 2000
1.7 MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 25. 2000. REGULAR MEETING
Councilmember Weycker requested the following corrections to the January 25, 2000
Regular meeting minutes:
Page 4, 2"~ paragraph, first sentence: (make correction as previously indicated)
"Councilmember Weycker stated Mr. Alwin had every intention of preserving the complete
27 acres in the City of Mound."
Page 6, 2nd paragraph: reword to indicate "Councilmember Weycker stated in 1997 when
the dock commission was first formed then Mayor Polston stated he could only su?_~rt
creating this commission because of the make up of its members. At that time. he was ~h~
Council rep to the dock commission. He was also not a current user of the dock program,
Having Councilmember Hanus on the DCAC changes the makeup of the commission because
he is also an abutting pro_oerty owner."
Page 6, 6'~ paragraph, delete entire paragraph.
Councilmember Hanus requested the following corrections to the January 25, 2000 Regular
meeting minutes:
Page 14, 5th paragraph, reword to indicate "Councilmember Hanus stated the only new
home in this area that has been built has been with a combination of two lots, making it
conforming in size. He stated the other sites mentioned by Mr. Coddon were in R-1 and
were larger lots to begin with. Therefore, they had more room to work with.
Councilmember Hanus further stated this lot is a smaller lot to begin with. He stated the
garage would have to be established on the site or rear of this lot."
MOTION by Weycker, seconded by Hanus, to approve the minutes of January
18, 2000, Committee of the Whole meeting (Item 1.6) and the minutes of January
25, 2000 Regular meeting (Iteem 1.7), as amended. The vote was unanimously
in favor. Motion carried. 5-0.
1.8
CASE 99-47: RESOLUTION TO APPROVE FRONT YARD. SIDE YARD.
LOT AREA AND HARD(~QVER VARIANCES FOR REMODELING AND
ADDITIONS TO AN EXISTING RESIDENCE FOR STEPHEN L, HEWITT,
AT 4849 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, BLOCK 14, LOT ;~, DEVON, ~7~70, PID
25-11%24-11-0036
Councilmember Brown noted the conditions being imposed which includes that a private
driveway easement must be secured for the proposed driveway and adjacent driveway on the
property located at 4853 Island View Drive to allow cross access. He requested the
following sentence be added to condition lb: "Also, prior to granting any permits, this
easement must be secured."
~OUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -FEBRUARY 8~ 2000
City Attorney LeFevere agreed that prior to granting any permits this private easement
between the applicant and his neighbor should be secured and tiled on the properties. He
cxplain~ thc CoUncil want~xl to make sug thcr~ is ad~lUat~ access into both prolgrtics.
Councilmember Hanus stated that is true of conditions la and lb since they may not want to
spend money on their grading and drainage plans until it is approved. '
Councilmember Ahrens noted 'this is consistent with other situations where easements need to
be negotiated to assure it is obtained and filed prior to building permit issuance.
Brown moved and Hanus seconded the following resolution as amended above:
RESOLUTION//00-21
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE FRONT YARD, SIDE
YARD, LOT AREA AND HARDCOVER
VARIANCES FOR REMODELING AND
ADDITIONS TO AN EXISTING RESIDENCE FOR
STEPHEN L. HEWITT, AT 4849 ISLAND VIEW
DRIVE, BLOCK 14, LOT 3, DEVON, 37870, PID #
25-117-24-11-0036, P & Z CASE g99-47
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried 5-0.
COMMENTS AND SI. IGGE$TIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT (PLEASE LIMIT
TO 3 MINUTES PER SUB.IECTL
Peter Meyer, 5748 Sunset Road, invited the Mayor and Council to enjoy the
community skating rink for the last few weeks of the ice skating season. He stated he
hopes the referendum passes and the City can worl~ towards keeping that area park
land.
There were no other comments or suggestions from citizens present.
1.9
PUBLIC HEARING; TO CQNSWER VACATION OF UNIMPROVED
WATERFORD ROAD ADJACENT TO 25~17 AND 2541 WEXFORD LANE
LOCATED WITHIN ,THE R-2 SINGLE OR TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
ZONING DISTRICT. BLOCK 7. LOTS 1.2.3.15 & 16. PID #'S NQT YET
ASSIGNED. SETON. P& Z CASE #99-41.
The City Planner advised that this is a public hearing for the vacation request which is
prompted by the desire of the property owner to have private lakeshore frontage and reduce
LMCD variances to put in a dock. The area requested for vacation is located in the Seton
development just south of its intersection with Longford Road. A survey shows the proposed
area adjacent to Lots 14 and 15 of Block 7, Seton, measuring 89.09 feet in length. The
119
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MIHUTES -FEBRUARY 8t 2000
right-of-waY, has a 30-foot width. If, Vacated, the adjacent properties, 2537 and 2541
Wexford Lane, would. receive the full 30-foot width because property west of Waterford is
city owned. ,.
The City Planner, advised that the proposed dock would be a three-finger dock originating
from the south lot' of the twinhome parcel. The south parcel has about 42 feet of lake
frontage and is afforded dock rights with LMCD approval. The applicant has submitted an
application to the LMCD for variances to length (350 foot dock when t00 foot is the
maximum), dock use irea, and side setbacks (the convergence of the extended property lines
restrict channel access). The Assistant City Planner noted if the road is vacated they are not
looking for a private dock but a joint dock used by both owners of the property.
The LMCD board has given conditional approval of the dock variance request based on the
City's action regarding Waterford Lane. Based on LMCD regulations, if Waterford Lane is
vacated the Board would not need to grant a sideyard setback variance. If that portion of
Waterford Lane remains with the City, the Board would need to consider granting a variance
for a sideyard setback. It appears that the dock will receive the necessary approvals to be
built regardless of the action the City chooses to take.
The City Planner explained that the issue at hand for the Council is a matter of shoreline
policy and resulting public benefit. This particular right-of-way is like many others in
channel areas where there are platted streets that are underwater. The reviews of the three
City Commissions have taken place. The Planning Commission was the first group to
review the application and recommends approval of the vacation request. The Park and
Open Space Commission recommends denial of the vacation request, viewing it as not in the
City's best interest since it would result in a loss of public shoreland which would reduce the
City's total lineal frontage. The Docks and Commons Commission considered the value
added to the property and the City's tax rolls and recommend approval of the vacation
request. He stated these recommendations supported staff's recommendations. It was noted
that the DNR Waters Division has no opposition to the vacation since most of Waterford
Lane is below the 929.4 lake level and has no impact on their jurisdictional issues.
However, the DNR Trails and Waterways strongly recommended denial of the vacation
request citing that standards for public use and access would be significantly compromised.
The City Planner stated this case relates to the dock issue and if there is a benefit to the
public with Waterford Road as it is today. If the Council fmds no benefit in keeping
Waterford Road as a public right-of-way then there is reason to vacate it. He noted that his
recommendation today is different than he recommended before the Planning Commission
last November. He stated that he found there does seem to be relationship with public good,
not that Waterford Road will be a street or trail system in the future, but this portion of
Waterford Road requesting to be vacated does serve to keep lineal footage in the docks
program. The City Planner stated this may be different than the issues reviewed by the
Planning Commission or the Dock and Commons Commission but it is an issue. He stated
that if the Council wants to keep all of its options open in the docks program, it may be
better to not consider vacating.
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -FEBRUARY 8~ 2000
\ .
Tile Acting City Manager noted the letter from Martha Reger, DNR Area Trails and
Waterways Supervisor, was not available to the Planning Commission during their review.
Councilmem~r Hanua noted the letter from MS~ RCger was viewed by the Planning
Commission during their second review of this application.
The Acting City Manager stated there was an impression that this roadway is under water but
that is not the case, it is above the ordinary high water mark. Councilmember Brown stated
that some of it is under water. He noted that one of the things that appears to be different
now is that during the Planning Commission meetings it was stated that this property and the
frontage was not included in the dock program and has never been included. He noted
several references in their meeting minutes that verified that indication. Councilmember
Brown stated that now it is being indicated that it is included in the dock program.
The Parks Director explained that a few years ago they were looking to get a number on the
totally owned footage in the program and investigated the possi$ility of doing a survey but
the cost was quite expensive so, to his best knowledge, they determined what lands do exist
that are dry above 929 without the benefit of a survey. He stated that the City now knows
the property in question is above 929 ~and could be counted in the dock program.
Councilmember Weycker noted all the numbers are estimates since a survey was not done so
the issue is not whether it is or is not in the dock program but, 'rather, that it could be in the
program. The Parks Director stated that is correct.
Councilmember Brown stated the Planning Commission was looking at BSU and that it
would take away from the BSU units. But, then they realized it was not taking away
anything according to the information they had before them which indicated it was not
counted in the lineal footage.
Councilmember Hanus stated the Dock and Commons Advisory Commission did talk about
value but that was not the majority of the discussion v~hich had to do with the 3/4 BSU, the
38 feet, and its impact relative to the program. He asked about the statement on Page 510
indicating it appears the dock will receive the necessary approvals regardless of the actions
the City takes.
The City Planner stated he talked with Greg Nybeck of the LMCD and asked where the
application stood. Mr. Nybeck said it is a conditional approval for dock length variance and
dock use area, dependent on vacation. He stated it was Mr. Nybeck's opinion that they
would approve it one way or the other.
Councilmember Ahrens stated she also spoke to Greg Nybeck who is the Executive Director
but does not vote. She noted there are 14 board members who vote and Mr. Nybeck does
not have a "crystal ball." She stated she believes this is why the vacation is being requested
of the City Council; strong concern about the LMCD giving a third variance.
Councilmember Ahrens stated that this issue has been before the LMCD three times as well
as before the Council. She stated she questions whether or not the LMCD would grant
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -FEBRUARY % 2000
approval which is why this ap~.lication is back before Jhe Council again.
Councilmember Weycker stated the LMCD had noted this could be a more conforming dock
and requested it be moved over toget away from the side setback variance.. However, that
results in a longer length so she believes the LMCD is creating the need for that one
variance.
Councilmember Ahrens stated that' is being caused by the dredging issue since the LMCD
does nor want to impact the ecosystem.
Councilmember Brown stated the Planning Commission heard they do not want any dredging
and would prefer a variance to dredging.
Councilmember Ahrens stated that is what the DNR has advised the LMCD, they prefer a
longer dock than dredging.
Councilmember Hanus stated the only valid debate is the 3/4 BSU and nothini else.
Councilmember Brown asked if there is a way to vacate the road and keep it as commons to
allow the dock.
Councilmember Ahrens stated the lineal footage has to be under the City's control to be
added to the count.
Mayor Meisel opened the public hearing at 8:06 p.m.
Steve Behuke, representing Richard Oliver, stated he wanted to make a number of
corrections to the staff report. He stated they are not dealing with two land owners but,
rather, three since the property owner to the south has asked to be included as well. Mr.
Behnke pointed out the location of Jim Peterson's property, the twin home, and advised that
all three parties have decided to participate in this 3-slip (not finger) dock. He stated two of
the involved property owners had commons docks at the start of the process but would give
up their common dock to use this private dock. The new party just moved into Mound and
plans to get a slip on this private dock and not take a common dock.
Mr. Behnke .stated the issue of shoreline is valid but noted this is about 1.5 feet wide and 50
square feet of land. He stated the dock itself, per the LMCD approval, is not 350 feet but
348 feet 'is the maximum the LMCD approved and the applicant was strongly directed to stay
under that. It is now about 280 feet. He stated two variances are conditionally approved.
He noted the small triangular area that identified their dock use area, explaining it is to
swing that area out into the lake. The second variance is for the length beyond 100 feet
which they are allowed. The third setback variance has not been approved and will not be
considered until this land is vacated. He stated there have been a number of times where the
staff and LMCD have differing opinions. He stated he would not want to "test the waters"
with another vote of the LMCD since it was not a unanimous vote to approve the variances.
116
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -FEBRUARY 8, 2000
He advised the vote was a 1/3-2/3 vote to appro~'e the request with two variances.
Councilmcmbcr Hanus asked how that is effected by' the vacation issue. Mr. Behnke stated
it assumes thc City .will vacate and cxpl'aincd that at thc lO0-foot linc there is not a setback
issue.
Councilmember Hanus stated if th6re is no vacation, the setback has to be taken from that'
piece of property or a variance is needed.
Mr. Behnke stated he found the DNR letters as contradictory regarding access issues. He
stated the BSUs issue was discussed a lot and his own observation is if the City vacates they
may lose 3/4 of a BSU but would gain 2-3 common dock spaces for someone else to use
which is a positive;
Councilmember Brown stated that this is a 3-slip dock. Mr. Behnke stated that is correct.
Councilmember Brown stated there have been cases where two additional boats tie up making
it a five boat dock and asked if it will be written up for only three boats. Mr. Behnke stated
it would be and since there will be only minimal dredging, he does not think additional
boats would be able to dock.
Councilmember Hanus stated that is an LMCD issue so it does not matter to him how it is
registered.
Mr. Behnke stated the dock that was registered originally landed at Longford Road so the
City requested it be moved to a spot off the City right-of-way. He suggest~ that the
construction at that point brought it to the LMCD's attention. Mr. Behnke suggested that the
dock would have been able to exist in its original form if not requested by the City to
relocate it as part of the twinhome approval.
Thomas Stokes, 5201 Waterbury Road, stated that Mr. Oliver has moved into 2541 Wezford
one-half of the twinhome and Francis & Jean Herman have moved into the other half, 2537
Wexford. He stated that they would not be here if they did not believe Council approval was
needed to get the dock. He stated that he hopes some consideration is given to Mr. Oliver
who bought a problem property, tore down the old house, and constructed a very nice
addition in this neighborhood. He stated that this was an economic risk and to not have a
dock would be a detriment to that property. Mr. Stokes stated he would think Mound would
want to encourage this type of investment and redevelopment. He restated they would not be
before the Council if they thought the LMCD would consider another variance.
Councilmember Weycker asked if the LMCD has ever denied dock rights to ~an. abutting
property owner. Mr. Stokes commented on another case where it was stated that a property
owner has rights to use the lakeshore with a dock. Councilmember Weycker stated she
would agree with that opinion and noted the variance is being created by the LMCD's desire
to limit dredging. Mr. Stokes explained that was a compromise for a minimal dredge and
minimal amount of dock, which determined the placement of the dock.
ti?
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -FEBRUARY 8, 2000
o
Councilmember Ahrens stated what is at issue is whether to vacate the road arid asked if.
there was a reason to vacate tho ro,4td. She stated she dOes not think {he c/jUncil should say
where to place the dock but, as a Council of a lake community, they should be concerned
about minimal.destruction to the shbreline and ecosystem.
Mr. Stokes stated some staff memos say the footage is in the dock program while others say
it is not included but, as far as they can tell, it has not ever been counted and is not counted
now so there should' be no 'impact on the lineal footage. He stated that otherwise, the City
would have to conduct a survey and make that determination of the exact footage.
Councilmember Weycker stated that is correct but the survey is cost prohibitive and the City
is not willing to spend the money for it. She stated it could effect the count since it is an
estimate.
Mr. Behnke stated it is only about one boat and in exchange three common docks would be
available for others to use.
Councilmember Ahrens stated a decision cannot be made on numbers that may come up next
month or next year and asked that the Council address the vacation request and whether it is
in the public good for the City to keep this property.
Peter Meyer, 5748 Sunset Road, agreed with the comment about sticking with the vacation
issues. He stated it would result in the loss of 38 feet of shoreland which is included it the
park land and nature count. He stated that even though the City's population has increased
from 6,500 to about 10,000 today, the City dOes not have football or soccer fields or City-
supported skating rink so he dOes not see where an increased tax base over the last 30 years
has improved the City's parks for the kids. He stated he dOes not "buy" the tax base issue.
Mr. Meyer stated he is against the vacation and asked how a vacation would benefit the
community.
Councilmember Hanus agreed the tax base comment is a non-issue.
Councilmember Brown stated the tax base has gone up and noted the resulting improvements
to the Fire Department which increases the quality of resident's life, including increased
community services and Police protection.
Mr. Behnke stated the public benefit is the three commons docks that'would be opened for
other Mound residents.
Mayor Meisel closed the public hearing at 8:21 p.m.
Councilmember Hanus noted the Reger letter mention of a court case involving a vacation in
which the court said "not capable of serving any public purpose" but he found that to be
ambiguous. He stated it boils down to a very subjective, almost personal, opinion. With
regard to wildlife, he noted the area is only 50 square feet. He asked if the' area is mowed
118
MOUND C1TY COUNCIL MINUTES -FEBRUARY 8~ 2000
or dirt.
Mr. Stokes stated it is weeds and a few tre~.
Councilrnember Weycker stated it is only 50 square feet and only one variance on paper as
opposed to 38 feet which is a clear benefit to the dock pwgram and the publit:.
Councilmember I-Ianus stated there is also a benefit to the Public who lives there, a cost
benefit for a less expensive dock, and a benefit in that it is easier to get to. He stated that he
is also looking at the loss to the public if it is vacated. Councilmember Hanus noted the
applicants have a purpose for it and questioned what the loss is to the public if it is vacated.
Mayor Meisel asked staff to justify why to not vacate.
The Parks Director stated total lineal footage count is an issue and what is happening on
Woodland Point is an issue since it will reduce the current 100 boat buffer. He stated there
will be a point in time when the City will have to look at the 474 sites and make sure the
boat count does not exceed the number allowed by the LMCD. He stated another thing
helping is that approximately 49 dock sites did not list a boat so that was not counted. He
agreed it is difficult to estimate what it will be next year but he believes it will go up with
the current developments.
Councilmember'Ahrens stated at a COW meeting the idea was raised about counting ail
lineal footage or counting just useable lineal footage. Since that discussion has not yet been
held, she does not know the philosophy of the Council as a whole but stated she would not
consider this footage as useable.
Mayor Meisel stated that is also her argument as well because it comes down to being 38
feet and she questions how useable it is. She stated she aiso does not want to hurt the dock
program, which makes this decision difficult.
The Parks Director stated it would be devastating to consider just the useable footage and
explained that what ailows the number of sites is the unusable areas. He explained that this
is why Woodland Point has an impact, since ail of the unusable lineal footage still counts
towards the number ailowed and provides the buffer.
Councilmember Weycker stated that says to her that if it is vacated, it will hurt the dock
program.
Councilmember Ahrens noted there was a unanimous vote for a street vacation on Island
View Drive where the City did not intend to use the easement as a road so it was vacated.
Councilmember Brown stated that was Hanover Road.
Councilmember Ahrens asked where the public good was in that vacation, except to the
119
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -FEBRL~ARY 8, 2000
abutting property owner who got one-half'of a lot.
The City Attorney explained that it is a two-pronged test, the first being that there is a,
definite public benefit in leaving the street in its current unvacated condition. If it is a
definite benefit then you don't vacate. However, if you.conclude there is no pul21ie benefit,
then the r~ext question is if mere is benefit in vacating the street. Clearly the couffx have
recognized that roads that go into navigable waters carry a higher stand,~r, d'when considering
vacation than other roads that do not go into navigable waters having to do with access. He
explained there are other suitable appropriate access nearby to this one and this particular
street probably has never served as a useable access point to the lake.
The City Attorney stated the typical challenge to vacation into navigable waters may not be
present here but his question is if the Council believes the loss of 3/4 BSU is a significant
factor to be considered. He stated there has been comment made that the lineal footage is
not currently counted but could be counted. He explained that some cases dealing with
access to streets abutting water addresses streets that could be used for that purpose but have
not been used for a long period of time and the courts have held the important consideration
is that they could be used for that purpose.
Councilmember Ahrens noted that not vacating could benefit someone else to 3/4 BSU or
vacation could benefit three residents. She stated the public benefit may not be to the benefit
of all the public.
Councilmember Weycker stated to deny does not prohibit the dock and she thinks LMCD has
not ever denied a lakeshore owner the benefit of a dock.
Councilmember Ahrens stated she does not know if they have ever denied anyone a dock but
the LMCD is making rules so it will be more difficult to get a dock.
Councilmember Hanus added that the LMCD does not like to grant variances.
Councilmember Weycker asked if this is granted, what would prohibit someone else by a
platted road under water from asking for the same thing.
Councilmember Hanus stated it is on a case-by-case basis consideration.
Councilmember Weycker asked how another request could be denied and noted that the
LMCD is creating the need for the variance since they prefer to dredge less, which she
supports, but she does not believe it is a benefit to these three people since they will get the
dock anyway.
Councilmember Brown stated this property is not benefiting anyone at this time.
Councilmember Weycker stated without a survey it is not known what the footage is so that
can not be determined.
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -FEBRUARY 8, 2000
Councilmember Brown stated that with what was shown at the Planning Commission
meeting, this property benefits no one at this time.
Councilmcmber Weycker stated if it is not in the program now, that does not mean it cannot
be included in the future.
Councilmember Brown stated that right now it is not included and that has been prOvided in
writing before the Planning Commission.
Councilmember Hanus stated the DCAC reviewed this and debated the 38 foot issue heavily
which he believes is the only issue. He stated they weighed that against the dock program
and their determination was that it was so insignificant to the program, they did not feel it
was worth hanging onto.
Ahrens moved and Hanus seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION//00-22
~LUTION TO APPROVE THE VACATION OF OF
PORTION OF WATERFORD ROAD ADJACENT TO 2537
& 2541 WEXFORD ROAD, P & Z CASE//99-41
The vote was in 4 in favor, with Weycker voting nay. Motion carried.
Councilmember Weycker stated she does not believe this vacation is in the public's interest.
1.10 PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUATION; COMPREHENSIVE pLAN
The City Planner noted that as requested by the Council at the November 23, 1999 meeting,
this is a continuance of the Comprehensive Plan public hearing. He stated the Council is to
consider the Comprehensive Plan and SWMP but that is still in committee before the
Planning Commission. He stated the Council can consider approval of the Comprehensive
Plan absent the SWMP. The Comprehensive Plan would then be sent to the Metropolitan
Council which would take no formal review action until the SWMP is received. This
approach would suggest to the Metropolitan Council the City is making a gesture of good
faith in submitting the Plan which was due on December 31, 1999. After City approval of
the SWMP, it would then be sent to the Metropolitan Council to complete the required
submittal information. Only after a complete submittal is received, will the Metropolitan
Council start the time clock on the 60-day window for formal review. He advised that a
second approach would be to postpone action on the Comprehensive Plan until the SWMP is
completed. In that case, a fu~her continuance of the scheduled Public Hearing would be
needed. The City Planner stated that a third approach the Council could consider is to take
action on both Plans. The SWMP does not need a formal recommendation from the
Planning Commission for Council consideration and formal motions of approval would
secure approval of each plan. With this option, resolutions would be prepared for the
Iii
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -FEBRUARY 8~ 2000
February 22, 2000, meeting stating the City has approved the Plans and SUbmitted them
consistent with provisions provided in Minnesota State Statutes.
Councilmember Brown reviewed the Planning Commission discussion and their concern with
regard to the buffer zones and storm water management issues. He advised they have been
reviewing it page by page. Councilmember Brown stated there has been serious discussion
and estimated their recommendation will come before the Council on February 22. ,. .2000~
The Assistant City Planner agreed that the tough issues considered by the Planning
Commission have been resolved.
Councilmember Weycker suggested acting on the Comprehensive Plan at this time. She
noted the Planning Commission was given a deadline and could have scheduled additional
meetings. Councilmember Weycker stated that because of this, she would not object to
passing both Plans.
Councilmember Brown stated the Planning Commission knew about the deadline and could
have pushed it through without a thorough review but he believed the SWMP should not be
taken lightly. He stated all Commissioners have worked hard to assure this SWMP is a good
one for the City and he supports action to table consideration.
Mayor Meisel asked if the public heating should be opened if the matter is tabled.
City Attorney suggested the audience be asked if they would like to speak. He explained the
public hearing would also be continued on the tabled item until that date since the SWMP is
a component of the Comprehensive Plan.
Councilmember Hanus stated that the draft ordinances reviewed by the Council usually
contain underlines and redlines so it is easy to review. He stated he is not prepared to vote
on this portion tonight so he would have to vote against it.
Councilmember Brown agreed2
The City Planner distributed an inventory list of changes being recommended.
Councilmember Weycker asked if the Metropolitan Council has contacted him.
The City Planner stated that he has talked to the Metropolitan Council representative and
learned that about one-half of the cities are in the same situation. He explained that at first
the Metropolitan Council indicated they would issue no extensions but now they have
indicated they would issue extensions.
Councilmember Brown advised of his interest in drafting a recommendation on companies
that spray yards to possibly require use of phosphorous-free chemicals which would help the
quality of the lake.
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -FEBRUARY 8, 2000
The City Planner noted the Planning Commission's recommendations have been presented to
the Council. He stated the Parks Commission approved the Parks and Recreation component
early last summer and then follow~l up with their c, ommcnts in letter form last November.
He stat~l the comments received at the Planning Commission and Council hearings are also
included in the handout.
The City Planner advised of the language that will be drafted for Council's consideration at
the formal adoption. He stated he will prepare a similar handout for the comments on the
SWM?.
Councilmember Hanus asked for that information to be provided to the Council well before
the meeting so it can be reviewed. The City Planner noted the closely scfieduled meetings
and stated staff will attempt to do so.
Mayor Meisel opened the public hearing at 9:04 p.m.
MOTION by Brown, seconded by Ahrens, to table the Comprehensive Plan and
the Storm Water Management Plan to February 22, 2000, Council meeting and
cont'mue the public hearing on both to the same date. The vote was unanimously
in favor. Motion carried. 9-0.
1.11 APPROVAL OF TWIN PARK MULTIPLE DOCK SLIP FOR 2000
The Parks Director advised that funding has been included in the budget as a line item for
multiple dock slips. He advised that the Dock and Commons Advisory Commission (DCAC)
recommends that a City multiple slip dock be installed at the Twin Park access. They have
found by meeting with the current dock site holders and abutting property owners, that an
"H~ dock could be installed to accommodate four boats. The site has the size to allow two
more slips and the DCAC will review this addition in the future. The site location has 99.8
linear feet of shoreline of which the dock would use 27.5 feet. The LMCD required a ten-
foot setback to the private properties be allowed for so a boat with a ten-foot beam in slip 1
and 4 would leave 26.15 feet for the setback. The design will be for two 24 foot by ten foot
slips (2 and 3) and two 27.5 foot by ten foot slips (1 and .4).
Councilmember Hanus asked about the dollar estimate. The Parks Director estimated
between $4,000 to $5,000 for each one.
Councilmember Brown commented on a new type of dock material that was displayed at a
boat show and asked if high impact plastic material has been researched. The Parks Director
stated he has not seen that type of dock material. Councilmember Brown stated he will
provide that information to staff.
Councilmember Hanus commented on the need to address durability over winter weather
conditions.
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -FEBRUARY 8~ 2000
Councilmember Weycker asked what the cost estimate includes. The Parks Director stated
this is within the estimate for previous docks at about $200 to $250 per section plus in and
out costs, etc. Councilmember Weycker noted she calculated the cost to be $1,050 per slip~
Mayor Meisel asked if there was anyone present wishing to address the Council on the Twin
Park multiple dock site. No comments were made.
MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Brown, to approve the Twin Park multiple
dock slip for 2000 which adds an additional slip at this site, from 3 to 4. The
vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 5-0.
1.12 APPROVAL OF WATERBURY ACCESS MULTIPLE DOCK SLIP FOR 2000
The Parks Director advised that the Dock and Commons Advisory Commission (DCAC)
recommends that a City multiple slip dock be installed at the Waterbury access. They have
found by meeting with the current dock site holders and abutting property owners that an
'H" shaped dock could be installed to accommodate four boats. The site location has 65.3
linear feet of shoreline of which 27.5 feet would be used for the dock. There would be five
foot setbacks required by the LMCD to the private property while allowing for two 24 foot
by eight foot slips, and two 24 foot by ten foot slips at a dock that extends 48 feet into the
lake.
Mayor Meisel asked if there was anyone present wishing to address the Council on the Twin
Park multiple dock site. No comments were made.
Councilmember Hanus advised that in discussion at the DCAC, both of these locations were
well received with a little apprehension.
Councilmember Weycker stated she is pleased they were told they would be limited to one
boat.
MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Hanus, to approve the multiple slip dock
conKguration for Waterbury Access which adds an additional slip at this site,
from 3 to 4. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 5-0.
1.13 APPROVAL OF 2000 DQCK LOCATION MAP WITH CHANGES AS NOTED
lin ITEM 6 & 7 ABOVE
It was noted that the Dock Inspector recommended the following changes to the Dock
Location map:
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -FEBRUARY 8t 2000
Rcmovedock site 61130 at Ridgcwood Park. This dock site came open and removing
this site will allow the City to meet LMCD setback requirements.
Add. Waterbury multiple slip dock site location.
Add Twin Park multiple slip dock site location.
MOTION by Brown, seconded by Weycker, to approve the revisions to the Dock
Location Map as recommended by staff and indicated above. The vote was
unanimously in favor. Motion carried..~-0.
The Parks Director noted the addendum listing all the multiple dock sites which now assigns
a size to eliminate the problem with larger boats coming into a smaller slip.
The Acting City Manager thanked staff for their work in preparing this report which is very
useful.
INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS.
A. Preliminary Financial Report for December 31, 1999, as prepared by Finance
Director, Gino Businaro
B. Communication from Standard & Poor's on Mound's bond rating that is an A
C. Economic Development Commission Minutes from January 20, 2000,
Councilmember Brown advised that the Economical DevelOpment Commission
received three applications to fill the vacancy but, due to winter weather conditions,
they extended the interviewing to their next meeting, February 17th.
D Results of Community Survey of Tobacco Attitudes
E Dock & Commons Commission Minutes from January 20, 2000
F Draft Planning Commission Minutes of January 2, 2000
G. LMCD mailings
1.14 ADD-ON ITEM - LETTER TO NORTHERN HOSPITALITIES
The City Attorney read the letter he prepared for signature by Jim Prosser, Ehlers &
Associates, Inc., to be sent to Perry Platisha, Northern Hospitalities, Inc., terminating the
exclusive rights agreement between the City and Northern Hospitalities. He distributed a
copy of this letter and requested permission to forward the letter.
MOUND C1TY COUNCIL MINUTES -FEBRUARY 8~ 2000
MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Ahrens, to authorize staff to send the letter
from Jim Prosser, Ehlers & .Associates, Inc., to Perry Piatisha, Northern
Hospitalities, Inc., terminating the exclusive rights agreement. The vote was
unanimously in favor. Motion carried..%0.
MOTION by Brown, seconded by Ahrens, to adjourn the meeting at 9:18 p.m:
The vote was unsnimously in favor. Motion carried..%0.
Francene C. Clark, Acting City Manager
Attest: Secretary
PAYMENT BILLS
DATE: FEBRUARY 8, 2000
BILLS ACCOUNTS PAYABLE
BATCH #
#0011
#0012
AMOUN'F
$126,748.80
$138,041.94
TOTAL BILLS $264,790.74
/,47