Loading...
2000-06-13MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - JUNE 13, 2000 MINUTES - CITY COUNCIL - JUNE 13, 2000 The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, June 13, 2000, at 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present were: Mayor Pat Meisel; Council Members: Andrea Ahrens, Bob Brown, Mark Hanus, and Leah Weycker. Also in attendance were City Attorney John Dean, Acting City Manager Fran Clark, Building Official Jon Sutherland, City Engineer John Cameron, Mound Visions Coordinator Bruce Chamberlain, James Prosser of Ehlers & Associates and Recording Secretary Diana Mestad. The following interested citizens were also present: Walter and Janea Carlsen, Ron Helmer of The Rottlund Company; Richard Palmiter of The Rottlund Company; Peter Meyer, Linda Skorseth, David Deters, John Royer, Steve Wagner, .Lorri Ham; Bill & Dorothy Netka, Annie Schmitt, and Greg Knutson. *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 Mayor Meisel opened the meeting at 7:30 p.m. and welcomed the people in attendance. The pledge of allegiance was recited. APPROVE AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA Acting City Manager Clark stated that asked to add two additional licenses for trees to Agenda Item B, Rob's Tree Service & Matt's Tree Service. Councilmember Hanus asked have Item C removed from the Consent Agenda. The Acting City Manager asked that Item E. 1 & 2 be pulled from the Consent Agenda. This item was replaced with Item 1.3. MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Brown, to approve the agenda and consent agenda with the removal of Item C, Item E being pulled from the Consent Agenda and replaced with Item 1.3. The roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 5-0. CONSENT AGENDA *1.0 APPROVE MINUTES: MAY 23, 2000, REGULAR MEETING. MOTION. Ahrens, Brown, unanimously. 409 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - JUNE 13~ 2000 *1.1 APPROVAL OF MISCELLANEOUS LICENSES. MOTION. Ahrens, Brown, unanimously. '1.2 SET PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS PERTAINING TO DOWNTOWN ZONING. (SUGGESTED DATE: JUNE 27, 2000. MOTION. Ahrens, Brown, unanimously. '1.3 SET DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE STREET/EASEMENT VACATION OF THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF MORTON LANE, LOCATED BETWEEN BLOCK 9 AND BLOCK 10 OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN ADDITION TO LAKESIDE PARK P&Z CASE//00-29. (SUGGESTED DATE: JUNE 27, 2000.) MOTION. Ahrens, Brown, unanimously. '1.4 PAYMENT OF BILLS MOTION. Ahrens, Brown, unanimously. 1.5 APPROVE DOCK COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION FOR A PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT FOR MARK HANUS AT 4446 DENBIGH ROAD, LOT 1, BLOCK 1, AVALON, DOCK SITE 33525. Councilmember Hanus stepped down and did not participate in discussion or vote on this issue. Councilmember Ahrens stated that this is straightforward issue. MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Brown, to approve the permit as submitted. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 4-0. 410 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - JUNE 13~ 2000 COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT ABOUT SUBJECTS NOT ON THE AGENDA. (PLEASE LIMIT TO 3 MINUTES PER SUBJECT.) Amy Klobacher, Hennepin County Attorney, has been visiting City Councils around the county. Ms. Klobacher stated that Mike Furnstall is Mound's liaison to her office and she will be sending a follow up letter with contact information. Ms. Klobacher is here tonight to discuss what her office does and to answer any questions. Mayor Meisel asked about juveniles sentenced as adults. Ms. Klobacher stated the youngest juvenile sentenced as an adult to date was 16 and all were 16 or 17. Councilmember Hanus asked about the success ratio of extended juvenile programs. Ms. Klobacher stated that there were statistics available on these programs, but she did not have them with her tonight. Councilmember Brown asked about a boot camp type of sentencing. Ms. Klobacher stated that Cheryl Ramstad Vass would be the person to ask about this. She further stated that most juveniles were sent out of state, as Minnesota does not have this kind of facility. 1.6 REPRESENTATIVES FROM ROTTLUND HOMES PRESENTING CONCEPT PLAN FOR LANGDON BAY SUBDIVISION. Tim Whitten, Vice President of The Rottlund Company, spoke to the Council about their concept for the l_ztngdon Bay subdivision. He mentioned that he has gone through the project with some of the members individually. Mr. Whitten stated that originally he had hoped to bring the issue to the Council in a few weeks, but the Planning Commission has a few more questions that need to be answered and Rottlund will need to appear before the Commission again. Mr. Whitten explained the general layout of the project and indicated the location. He stated that Rottlund had originally proposed building town homes on this site, but the property owner wanted single-family homes to be built. The original proposal was to build over 80 units, but after investigating the grades and the size of the wetlands, the proposal was reduced to 75 sites. Rottlund plans to develop the entire site. Several different home styles will be offered. Examples were shown. Mr. Whitten stated that Rottlund is looking for variances to the standard ordinances for setbacks. This flexibility is necessary because of the topography of the site. Rottlund is proposing a typical lot size of 10,000 sq. feet with a 70-foot wide minimum. Rottlund is looking for a 50-foot wide right of way, a 25-foot front yard setback (the standard is 30) and side yards of 10 feet and 6 feet instead of 10 feet and 10 feet. This is being requested in an effort to pull the houses closer to the street, which allows a larger backyard. A typical lot will be 75 ft wide and 144 feet deep. 411 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - JUNE 13~ 2000 Mr. Whitten stated that he has been working with Staff on all the issues. He has had a neighborhood meeting, two meetings with the Park Commission, and informal and formal meetings with the Planning Commission. Two major issues are the improvement of West Edge Blvd. where half the road is in Mound and half is in Minnetrista. There are also issues with the County on Lynwood Blvd. involving site lines and a left turn lane. Mr. Whitten stated that there is a meeting scheduled with Rottlund's engineers, Hennepin County, and Staff to discuss the issues. Rottlund has also worked with the Park Commission to determine the best location for park dedication land. The Planning Commission has requested information on examples of setbacks, more information on what Hennepin County's position is on turn lanes, and there is a question on the existing right of way of a public street on the edge of the property. Mr. Whitten pointed out that as the single builder on this project, Rottlund can control the architecture; and can limit depth, width and sizes of the homes to better fit on the lots. The theme of the development is craftsman style and front door friendly. Rottlund will be promoting front porches. They are proposing sidewalks to tie into the trails, and a sidewalk in the boulevard with trees. Rottlund is proposing that utilities go through the streets. Councilmember Brown stated that the he had visited the Centennial Lakes project designed by Mr. Whitten and thought it was beautiful. Mr. Whitten wished to clarify that he had designed the Centennial Lakes project before he was associated with Rottlund. Councilmember Ahrens asked if on planned unit developments, there was an opportunity to alter setbacks. Councilmember Hanus stated that there were tradeoffs involved with this. The City Attorney stated that hardship issues would not be prevalent. Councilmember Hanus asked if Rottlund intended to adopt a homeowner's association. Mr. Whitten stated that they are open to that if the City desires it. Councilmember Hanus stated that he had heard comments some time ago from Council that there was some interest in using the dedicated park land to create a ball field rather than small parks. Mr. Whitten stated that this idea was brought up in the early stages and was discussed in front of the Park Commission, but the current concept is thought to take better advantage of the site. Councilmember Hanus stated that the City is under pressure to create ball fields and this may be one of the only sites left that is large enough for that purpose. Mr. Whitten stated that they are doing the improvement of trails as the .7 acre portion and the remaining land is 2.5 acres. This fulfills Rottlund's park land obligation. Councilmember Brown questioned the possibility of a 2.5-acre ball field. Councilmember Weycker stated that the Park Commission had considered this, but that it wasn't enough land. Mr. Whitten stated that because of the amount of wetlands on this site, the overall layout is greatly affected. Councilmember Hanus stated that he would like to hear the actual numbers on the ball field possibility. 412 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - JUNE 13t 2000 Councilmember Brown stated that Rottlund had decided to look at the lots individually to try to save trees. Mr. Whitten stated this would not be possible in every case, but where the road and the lot were close to the same elevation, they would do this. Councilmember Brown asked about the possibility of moving the original home onto the park land. Mr. Whitten stated that the house was too costly to remodel and it was the Park Commission that had considered moving the building onto the park site. He further stated that the Park Commission is investigating this option. Councilmember Weycker stated that the it was not feasible to move the building and use it as a park building; but possibly the fireplace could be saved or a mock up used. The Park Commission is interested in finding a way to highlight the Terry Redlin painting that was done on the site. Councilmember Hanus asked how the Council could get the data for the ball field numbers and the site areas that could support this idea. Councilmember Weycker stated that the City Planner might have those numbers or that possibly the Mound Visions Coordinator would have this information. The Mound Visions Coordinator stated that they would get that information to the City Council. Mayor Meisel stated that there was enough land early on, but the City Planner felt that the lay of the land did not lend itself to a ballpark. Mr. Whitten stated that Rottlund would analyze the land, contact Staff, and get the information to the City Council. Richard Palmer, of Rottlund Company, asked if parking would also be an aspect of the ball field. Councilmember Hanus stated that parking in some fashion would be necessary. Councilmember Brown confirmed the location of existing ball fields. Councilmember Weycker stated that a referendum in September would determine whether some of these ball fields would be kept. Councilmember Hanus asked what Rottlund was proposing in regard to the improvement of West Edge Blvd. Mr. Whitten stated that Rottlund was flexible as to the amount of improvement done to the road. He stated that the current difficulty was that Minnetrista was not planning to participate. Mr. Whitten stated that Rottlund was trying to find a proper solution and this is still in the early stages of the discussion. Mr. Whitten stated that he is aware of Staff's position and they need to respond. Mayor Meisel asked about abutting neighbors concerns. Mr. Whitten stated that some neighbors had previously requested an improvement to West Edge, but it was still a touchy issue. Councilmember Hanus stated that it is difficult when only one side can be assessed the cost and it was the City's plan to assess only the regular amount and the balance for the connector road would fall to the developer. Councilmember Brown stated that at the prior evening's Planning Commission meeting, it was suggested that blacktop curb could be used and not concrete curb and gutter. Mayor Meisel stated that she wanted to hear from the City Engineer before making those decisions. 413 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - JUNE 13~ 2000 Mr. Whitten stated that he felt this was premature to discuss this at this time. Councilmember Hanus stated that he was impressed with a tour of a similar neighborhood and the Council agreed with this. Councilmember Weycker stated that the preliminary plans for railroad abandonment had been received and Minnetrista may work more with Mound after this is settled. 1.6 CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT (CBD) PARKING. TO INCLUDE DISCUSSION OF CBD PARKING AGREEMENT AND BRAINSTORM PARKING FOR WEST COMMERCE BOULEVARD BUSINESSES, Mayor Meisel opened the discussion on this issue. She stated that page 2472 of the meeting packet references last year's action to terminate CBD parking and this is a brainstorming session. The Mound Visions Coordinator stated that he wanted to discuss the site plan, the concept drawing, and also to talk more about the CBD program. Mayor Meisel stated that a letter had been received from Mueller/Lancing stating that they did not want to participate in the renewal of the CBD parking program. James Prosser, Ehlers & Associates, stated that he felt it would be worthwhile to get the businesses together with a facilitator to discuss the timing of the improvements and to get feedback for potential solutions. Mr. Prosser stated that this issue had a lot to do with redevelopment and that interim and permanent solutions will be needed. Mayor Meisel asked what business people Mr. Prosser was referring to - the whole downtown or just those involved with the CBD Parking Program. Mr. Prosser stated they had not discussed it that far and wanted feedback before making that decision. Councilmember Brown asked whether there was any consideration given to helping the businesses on the west side of Commerce and the south side of the railroad tracks (Langdon Distric0 that were in need of more parking. Councilmember Brown stated that currently eight spaces were available in this location. Mr. Prosser stated that these would be the type of issues that needed to be explored. He felt that the problem with the redevelopment was to create density and value to make this project work. Mr. Prosser stated that the Mound Visions Coordinator would work with the City Planner to analyze this. The Mound Visions Coordinator stated that this was on the discussion list. Mr. Prosser requested that the City Council not make assumptions about what issues were being discussed, but to call the City Manager and let her know of any issues. Mayor Meisel stated that she liked the idea of getting together with the businesses and getting their input. The City Attorney asked Mr. Prosser how a facilitator situation would work. Mr. Prosser stated that the redevelopment could cause concern and disruption and retaining 414 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - JUNE 13, 2000 an independent facilitator or mediator to work through the issues would be helpful. Mr. Prosser stated that the mediator could be used in a limited capacity. He explained that he had a relationship with a mediator from the Mediation Center in St. Paul, and that would be one option. Mr. Prosser stated that Staff or another project team member could also do the mediator job, but that person might not appear as neutral. The Mound Visions Coordinator stated that one issue that had been brought out was the True Value development and the parking on that block. He stated that on Commerce Boulevard on-street parking is being added. Some other possibilities include a vacant lot to the west of the property that could be developed to add two parking bays and a drive lane. At this time, the curb cuts are too close to the intersection, but the County would remove the cuts if the building were demolished. Councilmember Hanus asked about access to the current driveway in the rear. The Mound Visions Coordinator stated that the County is concerned about narrowness of the lot and there would not be space to do curb work to make it a right turn only exit. Councilmember Hanus asked about backing out and exiting the same way you came in. The Mound Visions Coordinator stated that scenario would create a difficult situation and the County suggested reversing the direction of the traffic flow off of Commerce Boulevard allowing people to loop around easily to find a parking spot. It was also discussed that if the railroad goes away, this parking lot could be connected with the lot across the tracks, which would eliminate the need for the curb cut. Potential cost for this is $200,000, but the cost is dependent upon soils and wetland mitigation. Councilmember Hanus asked whether TIF could be used for parking. The Mound Visions Coordinator stated yes, but no TIF is being generated on this project. Councilmember Hanus stated that there was a 25 % rule that could be used. The Mound Visions Coordinator stated that the funds might not be there. Councilmember Brown stated this issue was very important as these owners had been in Mound for years and stuck it out during the hard times. Mayor Meisel stated that there would be parking, but possibly it would not be choice parking. She further stated that she is concerned about paying $200,000 for a parking lot. Mr. Prosser again stated that it would be beneficial to meet with business owners early in the process. Mayor Meisel asked if the public wished to comment on this discussion. John Royer, 2281 Commerce Boulevard, stated that he was glad to see progress. He has been in business there for 28 years and has invested about $100,000 in parking in this area. He feels it is unfair not to have parking close by. Mr. Royer stated that any consideration would be appreciated and he liked the idea of a business owner meeting to discuss the options. 415 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - JUNE 13~ 2000 Mayor Meisel stated that the redevelopment needed to work for both new and existing businesses. Mr. Royer stated that he had an additional concern in that he did not know where all the employees would be parking. He stated that he felt the new plans were 40% short of parking space. Mayor Meisel stated that the new plans meet criteria based on code. Councilmember Hanus stated that the code might be weak and need updating. Mayor Meisel stated that it was the City's desire to be creative with solutions. The Mound Visions Coordinator commented that it would be beneficial to have two meetings including one for all businesses and one to focus on the John's Variety block. Mayor Meisel asked who should have the first meeting. The Mound Visions Coordinator stated that the John's Variety block would be more immediate and suggested setting something up next week and he would set this up. Mr. Prosser stated that if a facilitator was going to be used, it is best to let him make the contact. Councilmember Weycker questioned when CBD expired. Mayor Meisel stated the expiration was June 30, 2000. Mayor Meisel reviewed the letter from Mueller/Lansing. She stated that the point the letter was making was his fear that the new True Value building would take away from his tenant's parking. Councilmember Hanus stated this concern would be valid, but when Mueller/Lansing does redevelop, they will need alternative parking unless they plan to use City parking at that time. He felt this step was being taken because they would no longer be paid. Councilmember Hanus stated that termination of the CBD program doesn't mean that the City cannot continue the program if the City picked up the cost. On a case-by-case basis, it may pay for one year to continue to maintain the lot. Mayor Meisel asked why they should do this when the lot is going to be cut up once the right of way issues are resolved, and the new tenants cannot wait. She felt that the point is that Mueller is better off not being tied up and keeping their land available for what they need to do. Councilmember Hanus debated whether it does any business any good to restrict parking only to their business. Mayor Meisel stated that years ago the old bank building was in the CBD parking program and she petitioned to have it pulled out. A deal was made to pay toward rental and snow plowing. Councilmember Hanus stated that this may not be equal money, but Mueller/Lansing may have an interest. The City Attorney stated that he could contact Mueller/Lansing to see if they would wish some type of temporary extension, as it would be good to know before meetings with business owners if this land is available. Councilmember Ahrens and Mayor Meisel both agreed to see if Mueller/Lansing had any interest at all in this. 416 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - JUNE 13~ 2000 Mayor Meisel stat~ that they would leave CBD alone until the last meeting in June with direction to Staff to set up meetings. The City Attorney asked about selecting a facilitator tonight. Mr. Prosser stated that he knew Amy Gullett from the Mediation Center who is trained as an attorney and a mediator, and that she is his recommendation. Mayor Melsel asked if he had spoken with the City Manger about this. Mr. Prosser stated that he had spoken with her briefly and he would again speak with her on this issue at the next team meeting and he would also have Ms. Gullett present to talk about her ideas. Councilmember Ahrens asked if any free mediation services were available. Mr. Prosser stated that these types of services are good, but this is a more difficult and sustained activity. Councilmember Ahrens stated her concern about TIF money being spent. Mr. Prosser stated that the Staff would not be present at these meetings and would, therefore, not be paid. Only the mediator and the business owners would attend. Mayor Meisel asked about the cost. Mr. Prosser thought a limit of $1,000 would be reasonable or it would be possible to try to find a free service. Mayor Meisel suggested spending up to $1,000 after a free mediation service has been researched. Councilmember Ahrens stated that she would also like to wait to look for a free mediator and then go with the $1,000 cap. The City Attorney confirmed that this plan would be discussed with the City Manger. Ken Custer, 5533 Shoreline Drive, stated that he did not have all the information from the last meeting, but he had understood that one year ago, the parking was tied in with the realigning of County Road 15. He stated that he wanted to participate in a snow removal plan as he feels that mounds of snow will cause site lines to be a problem if everyone plows their own lot. Mr. Custer likes the current program because it removes the snow from downtown. 1.7 STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN. The Mound Visions Coordinator introduced Dan Parks, storm water management consultant. The Mound Visions Coordinator stated that he has been meeting with the Watershed District to discuss issues. He discussed a memo written to the City Manager about the Lost Lake canal project. He then distributed a follow up memo. The Watershed District Board Members have changed and the permit process has to be redone. The permit application will be made in the next two weeks. The Mound Vision Coordinator stated that the other issue is the approval of a storm water management plan. The Watershed staff has reviewed this and they are looking for the buffer requirement. Once this plan is in effect, the City will have permit authority for the Lost Lake project. All of this is directly related to the downtown redevelopment project. Councilmember Hanus asked if buffers were a variance type of issue. He wondered if the City could adopt the buffer requirement, ignore it, and just grant variances. Dan Parks stated that if the buffer requirement were not upheld at some point, the Watershed District would come in. Mr. Parks stated that the main reason to enact a buffer ordinance was so 417 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - JUNE 13~ 2000 that the City could make these decisions not the Watershed. He further stated that the Watershed uses the numbers as a minimal requirement, but the Council could use the numbers as an average. Councilmember Hanus asked if the Watershed has come up with statistics that what they are doing is working. Mr. Parks stated that they are currently doing some studies to determine this. Mr. Parks stated that the buffer is only required on new projects and redevelopment projects. Councilmember Hanus stated he could see this growing to include all projects. Councilmember Brown agreed with this statement. The Mound Visions Coordinator stated that the buffering process is already in place. In reference to the Council's concern that this requirement would become more extensive, he stated that the only way to control the growth was to take control of the requirements. Councilmember Hanus stated that this requirement is out of synch with the purpose of the Council. The Mound Visions Coordinator suggested taking a bus tour to look at buffers in the area. Mr. Parks stated that there might be some buffers in town on the west side of Long Lake. The Mound Visions Coordinator stated that the greenway project does include a buffer, which is a perennial garden. Councilmember Ahrens asked how restrictive the requirements were. The Mound Visions Coordinator stated that the Watershed uses "unmaintained' as the qualifier, but every buffer has to be managed. Councilmember Ahrens asked if the buffer intended for Lost Lake was unmaintained. The Mound Visions Coordinator said no, it will be very garden like. Councilmember Brown stated that he had previously suggested that new developments put buffers in, but not require it. He does not believe landowners should be told what to do with personal property. The Mound Visions Coordinator stated the requirement is currently in place. Mayor Meisel stated her concern that this would be only the start. Councilmember Weycker stated that the ordinance is already in place and the issue is whether the Council wants to be determining this or if the Council wants to let the Watershed do it. Councilmember Weycker stated that the Council is being asked to take a role to determine what happens in the City. Councilmember Brown asked what would happen if the City didn't take control of this. Councilmember Weycker stated that then the Watershed would. Councilmember Ahrens asked whether the Watershed would review the City's decisions if they took control. Councilmember Hanus asked what other cities were doing. Mr. Parks discussed ordinances from Chaska and Plymouth. He stated that the Plymouth ordinance specifically identifies what needs to be in the wetland, the seed mix to be maintained, and 418 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - JUNE 13~ 2000 what noxious weeds are to be removed. Councilmember Hanus stated that these were good examples, but he wants to see examples from this lake. Mr. Parks stated that Excelsior recently adopted the Watershed ordinance and Shorewood had developed ordinances based on the quality of the wetland. Councilmember Hanus asked if there was a way to write this ordinance and still leave it open and ambiguous. Mr. Parks stated they would need to meet the minimums, but most cities are going beyond this. Councilmember Hanus confirmed that Wayzata had adopted specific requirements. Mr. Parks stated that no, the Planning Commission made recommendations on a particular area using a sliding scale depending on the quality of the wetland. Councilmember Ahrens asked whether wetland referred to the entire lake or just the marshy stuff. Mr. Parks stated that most water bodies have a fringe wetland. Councilmember Ahrens asked if the Spring Park boat landing was wetland. Mr. Parks stated that it probably was not. The Mound Visions Coordinator defined wetland as emergent vegetation. Councilmember Weycker asked if there was something about core samples in the definition. Councilmember Hanus stated the level of groundwater was an issue. Mr. Parks stated it would be very difficult to prove something was not a wetland. Councilmember Hanus confirmed that this would then apply to lakes. Councilmember Weycker gave the example of a sandy beach and asked if that would be a buffer zone. Mr. Parks stated that this ordinance is not recommending destroying beaches and the word "unmaintained" comes from the Watershed and is a poor word to describe what should happen. Councilmember Hanus asked about areas where dredging is in front of property with emergent weeds. Councilmember Weycker suggested looking for a 2-acre property in Mound that would qualify and taking a look at it. The Mound Visions Coordinator addressed questions regarding his memo. He stated that basically if a property were left alone, the buffering requirement would not be in effect. Requirements of the plan could be no more stringent than the Watershed was now requiring; it was just a matter of taking control. Mayor Meisel asked how often the Watershed gives a variance. The Mound Visions Coordinator did not know. Councilmember Weycker pointed out that the senior center would not have had to go to the Watershed if the City had adopted this. Councilmember Hanus asked if the Watershed would take control back, if they did not like the City's interpretation. The City Attorney stated that if this was adopted, the Watershed would lose jurisdiction, but they could challenge a variance similar to the DNR's ability to challenge. 419 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - JUNE 13~ 2000 Mr. Parks commented that the City Council could go for some time before ruling on a buffer. Councilmember Ahrens asked if other cities were accepting this without question. Mr. Parks stated that Minnetrista struggled with the issue for a while, but felt it would improve environmental issues that were already being imposed in the city. Councilmember Ahrens asked if this could hold up a project. The City Attorney stated that this buffer is currently required whether the City is involved or not and the City could limit the size of the buffers. Councilmember Ahrens stated that she did not want to relinquish control. Councilmember Hanus asked that the Watershed requirements be restated and Mr. Parks provided these. The Mound Visions Coordinator suggested doing as Plymouth did as in addressing specific plants and maintenance requirements. Councilmember Hanus asked if the Watershed would view this as a violation. Mr. Parks stated that the Watershed would strongly recommend this. Councilmember Weycker asked for clarification on the direction needed. Mr. Parks stated that comments from the Watershed and consultants are waiting for final comments from the Met Council and he will distribute that when he receives it, but the Watershed has definitely pinpointed the buffer issue. Councilmember Hanus stated that the direction from Council was that they want to know what other cities are doing in relationship to this. Mr. Parks agreed to provide copies of the ordinances from the other lake cities. Councilmember Hanus also asked Mr. Parks to call cities that had not yet made a decision and find out what their thinking is. The City Attorney suggested finding out what pages had been struck from the proposed plan and possibly putting those back in as originally presented. The City Attorney asked if this would be another amendment that would require public notice. The Mound Visions Coordination did not know. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Weycker, to table this until the next City Council meeting so that further information could be obtained. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 5-0. Mayor Meisel called a 10-minute recess at 9:47 p.m. Mayor Meisel called the meeting to order at 10:02 p.m. 420 sb3? MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - JUNE 13~ 2000 1.8 CONSIDERATION AND COMMENT ON OPEN SPACE TASK FORCE ~TUDY. Mr. Prosser addressed this issue. He stated that there was a parcel size and location discrepancy regarding the exact area and space under consideration in that the task force thought it was about 11 acres. 1.g acres of the athletic field area are zoned commercial and the City Council should talk to the task force about this. Mr. Prosser felt there could be an issue regarding how much property could be acquired with the $1.3 million. There is also an issue regarding the minimum improvement level including code issues and building code updates that need to be made. He stated that typically when changing use it is preferable to be in a position to know the costs of bringing it up to code so that it can be considered as part of the purchase price. Another option is to fund this from an external source such as a second bond referendum question. It is necessary to have an inspection. The City Manager has had the League of Minnesota Insurance Trust out and inspect the property and they made a list of what needed to be done. There is still a question of whether code can be met. Mayor Meisel stated that she was surprised that bleachers were not part of the issue. Councilmember Hanus asked if the property was purchased, would they need to keep the cell tower and if not, would the City need to pay back a portion' of the monies paid to the school district. The first developer had stated they would maintain the tower. Councilmember Weycker agreed that this was part of the original purchase agreement with the developer. Councilmember Brown asked if $1.3 million was the bond referendum, was more money beyond that going to be required. Mr. Prosser stated that one issue was taking the property as is; the second issue was the minimum improvements needed to bring the property to code; and the third was a complete redevelopment. He stated that it was necessary to gather information on all three issues so that a decision could be made. Mayor Meisel stated the general public needs to understand the issues first of buying and then secondly, bringing it up to code and then maintenance of it afterward. Councilmember Brown stated the maintenance budget is over and above the $1.3 million. Councilmember Weycker asked what information was used to come up with the maintenance number. Mr. Prosser stated the task force looked at existing users that are contributing to the maintenance in addition to information from the school and City Staff. He feels that the numbers are reasonable for minimal use. Councilmember Brown asked if there was consideration given to minimal costs for upgrades such as bleachers, concessions, and a parking lot. Mr. Prosser stated that the task force feels if money were available, those would be great things to do. Mr. Prosser recommends that if money is spent on improvements, money should be spent on design to provide maximum use. Councilmember Hanus confirmed that because the referendum petition concerned using the $1.3 million to acquire the land, whatever improvements were done would need to be part of a second referendum. Mr. Prosser stated that the City Attorney's opinion was that code and 421 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - JUNE 13, 2000 safety issues could come out of the $1.3 million, but that would limit the money available for purchasing the land. Councilmember Hanus asked if $1.3 million would cover the 11 acres according to the appraisals. Mr. Prosser did not know this, as he had not seen the appraisals. Mayor Meisel asked how the appraisal played a part. Mr. Prosser stated that they pulled information out of the appraisal to see what costs should be. He stated the developer was willing to talk about options. Mr. Prosser is concerned that the developer will want to keep the commercially zoned portions of the athletic fields. Councilmember Brown asked if there was a way to find out how the $1.3 million would affect property taxes. Councilmember Hanus stated this would be part of the information distributed prior to the referendum. Mr. Prosser stated that the key question would show a model for several values and he would like a recommendation on what increments the Council wishes to use for this. Mr. Prosser stated that the task force recommendation was to identify what the method of public information would be and to fill this in more. He suggested a newspaper article, an open house including distributing a draft of a question and answer, and a final question and answer to be sent out prior to the election. He suggested timing the open house so there is enough time to make changes to the question and answer before the final is distributed. Mayor Meisel stated that she was in favor of having two questions on the ballot so that if the project goes forward, the money to maintain it will be there. Councilmember Ahrens agrees with this. Councilmember Hanus stated that the second question could cover the issues of maintenance and safety. Mr. Prosser stated that the considerations are: (1) More information on minimal improvement levels ($2000 cost); (2) Review of the appraisal ($2,000) including the cell tower antenna; and, (3) the communication issue. Councilmember Brown asked what would happen if the price of the land goes up after the ballot question. Mr. Prosser stated that the City could come up with the additional money or the City could not proceed with the levy, but it would be best to try to work this issue out ahead of time. Mr. Prosser stated that the language from the petition is ambiguous and he is not sure if it was meant to include the commercial portion. Councilmember Brown stated that it was his understanding that the issue was referring to all of the fields. Mr. Prosser stated that the actual acreage including the commercial portion is 13 acres. Mr. Prosser suggested meeting with the task force again to work through some of these issues. 422 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - JUNE 13~ 2000 Councilmember Brown wondered if the current owner is interested in negotiating a price range at this time. Mr. Prosser stated that if the property is over priced, condemnation could be involved. Mayor Meisel confirmed the costs involved in the three points Mr. Prosser had stated. Acting City Manager Clark stated that there IS ALSO a timing issue of September 12, but the ballots need to be ready August 12 for absentee voters. Mr. Prosser stated he, the City Attorney, and the City Clerk should discuss and develop a schedule for Council to work with. The Acting City Manager stated that the first week or two of July might be the deadline. Councilmember Ahrens asked what would happen if the drop dead date was not met and wondered if the general election ballot would be an option. Mr. Prosser stated that there is a state law that limits when the issue could be brought before the voters and he would check on this. He further stated that most issues were in good shape, but the toughest part was the second ballot question. He stated that he was hoping to allow the Council two weeks to consider the question. Councilmember Hanus asked Mr. Prosser if the referendum were passed and completed, would this put the entire Visions program in jeopardy financially. Mr. Prosser said it was too soon to say, but the City had relatively low debt levels. TIF impact was not counted on for this. He further stated that it was the Council's judgment on the issues regarding the costs, but the people would know up front what the levy cost would be. A directive to Mr. Prosser for his three points to cap at $7,500 was discussed. Councilmember Hanus asked where the money would come from and Mayor Meisel agreed that this was a problem. Councilmember Ahrens stated this would end up coming out of the 35 % reserve and this would need to be addressed in the second question. Councilmember Hanus asked for a cap on the amount spent. Councilmember Weycker stated a concern that if there were not enough money allotted, it would affect the timing. Mayor Meisel agreed and stated that good numbers were necessary. Mr. Prosser stated that communication estimates could be available at the next meeting. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Weycker, to direct Mr. Prosser to proceed on: (1) Obtaining more information on minimal improvement levels ($2,000 cost); (2) Review of the appraisal ($2,000) including the cell tower antenna; and, (3) The communication issue, all of which are not to exceed $10,000 total. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 5-0. Discussion: Councilmember Brown directed a question to members of the task force as to what was intended regarding the original acreage on the petition. Linda Skorseth stated that the figures were calculated at a previous Council meeting and 423 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - JUNE 13~ 2000 included the commercially zoned property. Councilmember Ahrens stated the $1.3 million price was not valid because the property was valued as to what the commercial property was worth for the entire parcel. Councilmember Weycker stated that this needed to be discussed with the developer. 1.9 CONSIDERATION AND COMMENT ON STORM WATER RATE STUDY. Mr. Prosser stated that the Council had previously directed looking at a storm sewer rate study. The cost is supported over a 15-year term of debt. Also added to the cost are normal maintenance and improvements projects. The information includes estimates. The implementation plan recommends communication first, a question and answer, and an open house; all to be completed before a public hearing is held. Mr. Prosser has provided a time for this. Revenue for this will not be available for three months. Mr. Prosser stated that timing is important and the Council may want to wait for another cycle. He offered the possibility of tabling this until the end of the year and stated that a decision does not need to be made right away. Mayor Meisel asked how long this has been put on hold to date. Councilmember Hanus stated it has been on hold for a few years because costs were not known. Councilmember Ahrens stated that there was a concern at the public hearing as to the cost. Mayor Meisel stated that costs are rising as these are put off. Mr. Prosser clarified that the rate structure would allow doing all the projects listed in the next year or two. The proposed tax is $1.63 per month on residential property. Councilmember Ahrens clarified that a loan to do the projects would be needed and then the money would be collected. Mr. Prosser agreed with that summary and said that although interest would be paid on the borrowed money, the cost of the projects would be in today's dollars. He further stated that a pay as you go option was possible. Councilmember Hanus asked what percentage of projects needed does the current list represent. The City Engineer stated that these were the projects that they felt needed to be done and he was not aware of any other projects at this time. Councilmember Hanus stated that a 15-year term seemed very long to him, as more projects would be added over the years before this first money was repaid. Councilmember Brown brought up the fire department and well needs for the future. Mayor Meisel pointed out that those are capital improvements. Councilmember Weycker asked if maintenance numbers were included in these estimates. The City Engineer confirmed this. Mr. Prosser pointed out the option of cutting the term to 10 years and simply doing the projects that would fall within that time period. Councilmember Ahrens asked what would happen if projects were changed during the term of the loan. Mr. Prosser stated this was 424 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - JUNE 13~ 2000 more of a political issue than a legal one. Mr. Prosser stated the Council should talk about the implementation plan. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Weycker, to entertain the rate structure as printed on page 2540 of the meeting packet and to use that structure to try to achieve the projects listed on page 2541 of the meeting packet including the implementation. Discussion: Councilmember Ahrens stated that she doesn't understand the motion and asked Mr. Prosser for clarification. Councilmember Hanus asked if both 10 and 15-year terms could both be brought before the public hearing. Mr. Prosser said that would be possible, but it would make communication more confusing. Mr. Prosser stated that a 10-year term would require dropping the last two or three projects. Mayor Meisel confirmed that the last three projects would be dropped because of the dollars funded guarantee. Mayor Meisel stated that she preferred it to stay at a 15-year term for now. Councilmember Hanus stated that he preferred to gather data and bring the issue to a public hearing and go from there. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 5-0. 1.10 STAFF SEEKING DIRECTION ON DCAC FEES. MOTION by Brown, to set dock fees at $300 across the board. Motion died for lack of second. Councilmember Ahrens stated that about 18 months ago she had sat down with the County Assessor and found that houses were valued differently. She recently saw dock prices in neighboring cities and the lowest was about $500 -700 per year. Mayor Meisel stated that the Park Director attempted to take information to the Dock Commission including suggestions and some ideas, but it died at the meeting. Councilmember Ahrens stated that she raised the issue at the last DCAC meeting and they do want to be involved. They are looking for direction from the City Council. Councilmember Brown stated that he had the impression that DCAC wants to make a decision. Councilmember Ahrens stated they wanted some recommendations. 425 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - JUNE 13, 2000 Councilmember Brown suggested that DCAC look at the fee structure and raise it for 2001. Councilmember Ahrens agrees that the structure needs a change, but would like to look at it. Mayor Meisel suggested an implementation of January 1. Councilmember Ahrens stated she wanted to hear the recommendation and the rationale behind it.. Councilmember Hanus agreed that DCAC would want to know the Council rationale. Councilmember Ahrens stated that she needed to know what is trying to be accomplished with the program and what this is funding. Councilmember Weycker stated that property values have nothing to do with dock fees. Councilmember Ahrens stated that houses are paying the same amount of taxes to the City, but one may not be paying the dock fee because private property owners do not have to pay the City for a dock. She stated that she felt people living on Commons lakeshore were paying twice. Councilmember Weycker stated that this argument could be used with any fund. Councilmember Hanus stated that the reason they were paying more was because of their proximity to the lake. Councilmember Brown stated that the easy way to solve this was to use the example of a marina where a boat owner is paying the same price per foot where ever the boat is docked. He stated that he felt the DCAC should charge the same price for a dock no matter where you live. Councilmember Weycker stated that people know in advance that they are not buying the lakeshore and should not be treated the same as a private property owners. The Acting City Manager pointed out that the Legislature dictates what the Assessor assesses. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Weycker ask the Dock Commission to come up with a fee structure and to bring the recommendation back to the Council. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 5-0. 1.11 STAFF PROPOSAL FOR REVISION TO SECTION 320 OF CITY CODE: CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LAND. Councilmember Ahrens asked why a 4/5 vote was still included. Councilmember Brown stated that the Council had asked for a simple majority. Mayor Meisel stated that the City Attorney is comfortable with this proposal. Councilmember Brown stated that he liked the proposal, but wanted the 4/5 voting requirement changed to a simple majority. Councilmembers Ahrens and Hanus were comfortable with the proposal except for the 4/5 voting requirement. 426 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - JUNE 13t 2000 Councilmember Weycker stated that she would like to keep the 4/5 voting requirement. Councilmember Hanus stated that the problem with the 4/5 voting requirement was that when a Councilmember had to abstain from voting in certain situations, it would not always be possible to act on the issue. Councilmember Weycker asked the City Building Official what would happen on split issues regarding public buildings. The City Building Official could not think of any in the past that were not unanimous. The City Building Official doubted this would allow encroachment without City Council approval. He also stated that these were soft changes that would be used as a method to speed up the system. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Hanus to bring this back in ordinance form as discussed using a simple majority voting requirement instead of a 4/5 voting requirement. Discussion: Councilmember Weycker asked the City Building Official how this would affect planting gardens on public land. The City Building Official stated that would require a permit, but Adopt a Green Space does not require a permit. Acting City Manager Clark stated that some lots are leased for gardens. The City Building Official stated that his intention was to cover dedicated Commons areas. Councilmember Hanus stated this was not prohibited in the past and has never been a problem. Councilmember Hanus also stated that by striking the line requiting a 4/5 vote, simple majority would become the default. Councilmember Weycker asked how this would help to link responsibility from one property owner to the next for encroachments. The City Building Official stated that this does not change the current policy or add to it and the City Council could still apply legal and reasonable avenues to solve these issues. Councilmember Ahrens stated that precedent has been set for the City to pay to remove encroachments that property owners won't remove. Councilmember Weycker stated that she thought the point of this ordinance was to tie the property owner to any encroachments on their property whether or not they were the initiator. The City Building Official stated that these issues would be handled on a case-by-case basis. Councilmember Hanus stated that this ordinance would only include encroachments that exist, not anything added new. Councilmember Weycker stated that she wished to tie the encroachment to the current property owner. The City Building Official again stated that this would be handled on a case-by-case basis and this ordinance would not take away from this type of enforcement. He further stated that he does not recommend adding this specifically to the ordinance because it would make all of the cases more difficult. 427 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - JUNE 13, 2000 Councilmember Hanus stated that it was less expense for the City to pay for removal of an encroachment then to fight the owner in court. Councilmember Weycker stated that she had thought the City Attorney would comment on this issue. The City Building Official stated that the City Attorney could be asked about this is the future. Councilmember Hanus suggested sending the proposal through and talking to the City Attorney at a later date. Mayor Meisel called the question on the above motion. The vote was 4 in favor with Weycker voting nay. Motion carried. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS 1. Financial Reports through June 1. 2. AMM Fax News. 3. LMC Friday Faxes. 4. Draft 2001 LMCD Budget. 5. LMC Dues Increase. 6. Hennepin County Letter on Open Book Board of Review. 7. Notice of Awards for Westonka Senior Center. 8. LMCD Minutes - April 26, 2000. 9. DCAC (Dock & Commons Advisory Commission) Minutes, May 18, 2000. May 11 & May 18, 2000. 10. POSC (Park and Open Space Commission) Minutes: ADJOURNMENT: MOTION by Brown, seconded by Weycker, to adjourn the meeting at 11:50 p.m. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 5-0. Attest: City Clerk Fran Clark, Acting City Manager 428 DATE: JUNE 13, 2000 PAYMENT BILLS BILLS ACCOUNTS PAYABLE BATCH # #0052 #0053 TOTAL BILLS $266,911.56 AMOUNT $ 87,730.35 $179,181.21