1985-05-2191
May 21, 1985
MINUTES
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
MAY 21. 1985
The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota. met in
regular session on May 21, 1985, at 7:30 P.M. in the Council
Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City.
Those present were: Mayor Bob Polston,~Councilmembers Phyllis
Jessen, Gary Paulsen, Russ Peterson and Steve Smith.
Also present were: City Manager Jon Elam. City Attorney Curt
Pearson> City Planner Mark Koegler, City Engineer John Cameron,
Finance Director Sharon Legg. Building Inspector Jan Bertrand and
the following interested citizens: Audrey Evans,. Laura Osborne,
Mary Ellen DeVinney, Kenneth Osborne, Rick DeVinney, Jim
Hendricks, Curt Berg. Eileen Berg, Judy Pike, Connie Kolden,
Russell Kolden, Mike Colbert, Tom Prokasky, Reg Chambers, Jay
Gorton. Patricia Dodds: Mary Perbix, Donald Holste, Richard
Clifford, Herman Kraft, Richard Hall, Donna Smith, John Schluter,
Bill Alexander.
The Mayor opened the meeting an_d welcomed the people in
attendance.
MINUTES
MOTION was made by Councilmember Peterson. seconded by
Councilmember Paulsen to approve the Minutes of the May 14,
1985. Regular Meeting. as presented. The vote was
unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
INFORMATIONAL HEARING: ORDINANCE SECTION 55.38B REGARDING
TEMPORARY ELECTION SIGNS
The Mayor introduced the subject and asked if any of the Council
wished to speak at this point.
Councilmember Smith stated that after the hearing closes. he
w ould probably propose that the existing Ordinance, Section 55.38
B be repealed and would recommend reconsidering the campaign/lawn
sign proposal that was recommended by. the Planning Commission.
He then submitted copies of their proposal.
The Mayor opened the hearing and asked if anyone present wished
to speak on the temporary election sign subject.
FRANP. AHRENS, 4673 Island View Drive. Stated there were
three things that bothered him about Section 55.38 B as it
exists now.
92
May 21~ 1985
1. Setback of 10 feet from the curb line. This is too
restrictive and would give the encumbant an advantage.
It was also not enforced during the school board
election.
2. Signs could only be erected 28 days before election.
This denies the right of land owners to express their
opinions.
3. City Manager directing removal of signs. He stated he
feels the removal of the signs should be enforced by the
Staff. i.e. Building Inspector or Police Chief. not the
City Manager. This is another example of the government
trying to take away people's rights. Just like Pelican
Point the Council had to go with the mandate of the
people.
He asked that the Council take these items into consideration
and repeal Section 55.38 B of the City Code.
Mayor Polston explained to Mr. Ahrens that the only Staff person
the Council can direct (by law) is the City Manager.
BUZZ SYCKS. 5900 Beachwood Road. Stated that he does not
agree with the Mayor. He concurs completely with Mr. Ahrens.
He further-stated that he feels letting the City Manager
decide whose sign stays and whose sign goes is setting up a
dictatorship. The person whose sign is in violation should
be contacted to remove it.
The Mayor asked if anyone else wished to speak with regard to the
campaign sign ordinance. No one responded. The Mayor then
brought the subject back to the Council and asked if any of the
Council wished to speak.
Councilmember Paulsen asked Mr. Ahrens if he felt there
should be a time limit the signs could be up and if so what
it was. Mr. Ahrens stated that he felt perhaps 60 to 90 days
would be a good compromise. 28 days is too restrictive.
Councilmember Peterson stated that there was no follow-up on
the school board election signs because the ordinance was up
in the air and this meeting was pending. He further
mentioned that he knows there are specific cases where the
setback regulation would be too restrictive. therefore some
changes need to be made in the ordinance.
Councilmember Jessen stated that she too could see there
would be problems with the setback regulation and she would
go along with amending that. but that she really feels
strongly about erecting signs no m ore that 28 to 30 days
before the election.
93
May 21~ 1985
Councilmember Paulsen stated that he has some problems with
the existing ordinance being too restrictive and difficult to
enforce. He stated he supports Mr. Smith's proposal.
Councilmember Smith stated he~was not on the Council when
this ordinance was passed and he thanked the Council for
allowing him to bring this back before the Council at this
time. He further stated that he feels the existing ordinance
is bad and needs to be repealed because of the following
reasons:
1. It is too restrictive on private citizens to use
their private property as they want to.
2. It attacks a basic right we have in this country to
run for office and campaign freedom of speech.
3. Setback of 10 feet, the number of days, the size of
the signs, all of which tend to favor the incumbant.
The ordinance that Councilmember Smith is proposing is the
one that the Planning Commission recommended.
Smith moved and Paulsen seconded the following:
ORDINANCE #~75 'RESOLUTION TO REPEAL ORDINANCE ~~71 ,
SECTION 55.38 B OF THE CITY CODE RELATING
TO ELECTION CAMPAIGN SIGNS
A roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
Smith moved and .Paulsen seconded the following:
ORDINANCE ~~476 ORDINANCE ADOPTING SECTION 55.38 C OF THE
CITY CODE RELATING TO CAMPAIGN SIGNS AS
RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Councilmember Smith read the proposed Ordinance.
MOTION made by Councilmember Peterson to amend the above
proposed ordinance adding that there be a 6 foot setback from
the curb line of the surfaced or driven roadway. Mayor
Polston seconded the motion for the purpose of discussion.
Discussion followed on how the 6 feet was arrived at. The
vote was 1 in favor with Jessen, Paulsen, Polston and Smith
voting nay. Motion fails.
Discussion on the fact that there is no restriction in the
proposed ordinance restricting the size of the signs.
MOTION made by Councilmember Peterson, seconded by
Councilmember Jessen to table this ordinance and send back to
the Planning Commission for further study. A roll call vote
was Z in favor with Paulsen, Polston and Smith voting nay.
Motion fails.
94
May 21~ 1985
The Mayor stated that he feels the Council can add amendments
to the proposed ordinance as recommended by the Planning
Commission.
MOTION made by Councilmember Peterson, seconded by
Councilmember Jessen to amend Ordinance #~76 as proposed
above adding that no sign may exceed 3 feet by 5 feet or a
total of 15 square feet in an area on one side. Sign copy,
however, may be placed on both sides of a sign. Signs shall
not be designated to have more than two sides. A roll call
vote was 3 in favor with Paulsen and Smith voting no. Motion
carried.
Mayor Polston stated that he would like to offer an amendment
to the time limit the signs may be up because he feels it is
unfair to treat the candidates any differently than the
business community and the business community is only allowed
X40 days for a temporary-sign.
MOTION made by Mayor Polston. seconded by Councilmember
Peterson to amend the original ordinance proposal to limit
the number of days an election campaign sign may be erected
to 40 days per election (40 for a primary and 40 for a
general election). Councilmembers Smith and Paulsen stated
they would be against this amendment. The City Attorney
suggested that the motion read as follows: °No sign may be
placed more than forty (40) days before the date of the
election to which the sign relates. If the sign relates to
an office which is the subject of a primary election. it
shall not be placed before forty (40) days prior to such
primary election. A sign, which, when placed, relates to an
office which is the subject of a primary election, may be
retained in place after the primary election if it relates to
the next ensuing general election". The seconder agreed to
the language and so did the maker of the motion. A roll call
vote was 3 in favor with Paulsen and Smith voting nay.
Motion carried.
A roll call vote on the original Ordinance incorporating the
above amendments was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING- PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING MAP FOR LOTS
1 A 9, BLOCK 13, THE HIGHLANDS, CASE #85-41~•
The City Manager explained that this issue was moved to tonights
meeting after a deadlock appeared at the last meeting on what the
appropriate strategy would be for the rezoning. He explained
that there are 3 lots involved all are separate parcels at this
time and they are split between the R-1 and R-3 zones. The
Planning Commission recommended rezoning all three parcels to R-
3. The applicant applied for and requested they be rezoned to R-
2.
95
May 21 ~ 1985
The public hearing was closed at the last meeting. This is a
continuation.
Smith moved and Peterson seconded the following:
ORDINANCE #477 ORDINANCE ANENDING THE ZONING MAP MAKING
LOTS. 1. 2. ~ 9~ BLOCK 13. THE HIGHLANDS TO
R-2 ZONING
Donna Smith stated that she is very happy that this motion
was made. She feels the R-2 will be an asset to the
neighborhood.
Rick DeVinney also stated that he is in favor of the R-2
zoning.
Councilmember Paulsen stated he does not agree with the R-2
zoning because it is spot zoning. He believes the most
consistent zoning for all three corners w ould be R-1. but he
realizes thi s will not be done. ,
A roll call vote was 3 in favor with Jessen and Paulsen voting
nay. Motion fails.
MOTION made by Councilmember Paulsen. seconded by
Councilmember Jessen to send this item back- to the Planning
Commission for them to consider rezoning the entire area (the
three corners of County Road 110 and 44) from R-3 to R-1.
Mayor Polston stated that he feels this motion to down-zone
the property on the three corners would be arbitrary and
capricious on the part of the City.
A roll call vote was 2 in favor with Peterson, Polston and
Smith voting nay. Motion fails.
Councilmember Peterson stated that at the last meeting he failed
to convince 4 members of the Council to vote for R-2 zoning and
thus would offer the following motion.
MOTION made by Councilmember Feterson. seconded by
Councilmember Jessen to rezone the lots to R-3.
Councilmember Peterson then stated that he pledges to
restrict building on these rezoned lots to single family
homes. Councilmembers Jessen and Paulsen agreed with
Councilmember Peterson's pledge.
A roll call vote was 3 in favor with Polston and Smith voting
nay. Motion fails.
Donna Smith stated it has always been her intention to have
single family dwellings on the lots.
96
May 21~ ~ 1 985
Councilmember Jessen asked if the lats could be subdivided. Ms.
Smith answered yes but financially it was nat feasible for them.
This would have to be done by a builder. She agreed this would
have been the best option. but also the most expensive.
Mayor Polston stated that because this land has been held in
single family ownership prior to the enactment of the zoning
ordinance he believes the Council could issue a variance for
construction of single family dwellings on Lots 1 and 9. because
he believes the City has done this before. The City Attorney
stated that the Council can grant a variance from 10.000 to 7 200
square feet if they wish. but it has nothing to do with hod long
the property has been owned. The applicant has stated that Lot 9
has 6,230 square feet in R-1 and 1 X020 square feet in R-3.
Polston moved and Smith seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION #85-59 RESOLUTION TO GRANT A VARIANCE FOR
BUILDING A SINGLE FAMILY UNIT ON LOTS 1 ~
9, BLOCK 13, THE HIGHLANDS
Mayor Polston asked that the record show that the reason he
made with motion is because the property has been in one
family ownership prior to the enactment of the zoning
ordinance.
A roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
CASE #$5-x#24• JOHN SCHLUTER, X339 WILSHIRE BLVD. LOT SPLITz
SUBDIVISION
The City Manager explained that this item was also carried over
from the last meeting because of a question as to how and what
way should park dedication .fees be applied to small- lot
splits/subdivisions. The lot split meets all the requirements of
the zoning ordinance.
The Building Inspector pointed out that the Planning Com mAssion
recommended approval with the condition that the boathouse
structure be relocated to meet all setbacks. but because= the
building is a concrete and stone structure built into the side of
the hill. and would be virtually impossible to move the Staff
recommends leaving it as is.
Paulsen moved and Peterson seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION #85-60 RESOLOTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING
COMMISSION RECOMMENBATION AND APPROVE THE
FINAL SUBDIVISION OF LAND FOR METES AND
BOUNDS DESCRIPTION, MAKING THE PARK
DEDICATION FEE ZERO, PART OF FIRST RE-
ARRANGEMENT OF PHELPSt ISLAND PARK 1ST
DIVISION, PID #19-117-23 13 0006 14339
97
May 21, 1985
WILSHIRE BLVD.)
Mayor Polston stated that he has a real problem setting the
park dedication fee at zero, unless the Council wishes to
amend the park dedication fee ordinance. He stated that he
was on the Council when this ordinance was passed and his
recollection was that the Council did not want to collect
park dedication fees on every 1, 2, or 3 lot splits.
Therefore: he would like to see this ordinance amended to
exclude lot splits of 3 or less from paying park dedication
fees or charge some minimal amount such as $300.00.
Councilmember Paulsen agreed with Mayor Polston.
The City Manager explained that the Planning Commission is
now studying a new subdivision ordinance which would charge a
flat amount to minor subdivisions (3 lots or less), rather
than the 10~ which would be charged on major subdivisions.
The City Manager stated that the applicant, in order to move
this item along, has agreed that $200 to 5300 would be
acceptable to him as a park dedication fee.
The applicant stated that since the first of the January,
198+, there have been five subidivison requests that the
Council has approved with no park dedication fees.
Councilmember Jensen stated that with the history that has
taken place• she would support a zero park dedication fee in
this case.
Mayor Polston stated that he could not support zero park
dedication without an amendment to the ordinance. The City
Attorney stated that if the Council approves this with no
park dedication fee, they will not be abiding by their own
ordinances.
Discussion on amending the ordinance and setting a fee.
MOTION made by Councilmember Paulsen. seconded by
Councilmember Peterson. to amend Resolution ;~85-60 to change
the park dedication fee from zero to X300.00 for each newly
created lot. The vote Was unanimously in favor. Motion
carried.
The vote on the
Motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING•
The City Manager
The Mayor opened
present who wish
original resolution was unanimously in favor.
DELINQUENT UTILITY BILLS FOR MAY
explained that the revised total is ~2,0~0.~6.
the public hearing and asked if there was anyone
ed to speak regarding a delinquent utility bill.
98
May 21. 19$5
No one responded. The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Paulsen moved and Peterson seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION #85-61 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE DELINQUENT
UTILITY BILLS IN THE AMOUNT OF #2,040.46
AND AUTHORIZING THE STAFF TO SHUT-OFF
WATER SERVICE FOR THOSE ACCOUNTS
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING• TO CONSIDER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CLASS 2
RESTRAURANT (CHANGE FROM CLASS 1), 5600 THREE
POINTS BLVD.
The City Manager explained that the Pizza Factory. next to PDQ~
would like to add a deli to their pizza business and therefore
needs to reclassify the restaurant from Class 1 to Class Z. This
basically means that the customers would be served food at a
counter rather than having food served at a table. The Planning
Commission has recommended approval.
The Mayor opened the public hearing and asked if there was anyone
present who wished to speak for or against this proposed change
in restaurant classification. No one responded. The Mayor
closed the public hearing.
Peterson moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION #85-62 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING
COMMISSION AUTHORIZING A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR PATRICK J. MC GINNIS, dba PIZZA
FACTORY, PID #13-1t7-24 22 OOt7
Councilmember Smith stated that he would like to see the
following added to the conditions of approval in the
resolution: "to limit making no structural changes to the
building. no drive-up windows no loud speakers. no external
aesthetics or landscaping or changes in access driveway; also
no sign changes unless addressed by the present sign
ordinance as the ordinance takes precedence".
The Mayor asked if the seconder and the maker of the motion
would agree with this language. Peterson and Jessen agreed.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
COMMENTS ~ SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT
The Mayor asked if there were any comments or suggestions from
the citizens present.
MOTION made by Councilmember Paulsen, seconded by
99
May 21 , 1985
Councilm ember Peterson to add Tom Prokasky to the Agenda for
later this evening. The vote Was unanimously in favor.
Motion carried.
PUBLIC DANCE (DANCE HALL) PERMIT APPLICATION FOR CAPTAIN BILLY'S,
521 SHORELINE BLVD.
Mr. Bob Abdo, attorney for Captain Billy's, asked to be
recognized. He stated he was here to address the Council about
the Dance Hall Permit Application and the confusion that Mr. Bill
Alexander, President of Captain Billy's, has with respect to his
obligations and the companies obligations with regard to permits.
Mr. Abdo explained that Captain Billy's contention is that he has
an Entertainment Permit and a Dinner Dance Permit and that he
does not need a Dance Hall Permit because any dancing done would
be in conjunction with his Dinner Dance Permit. Further that he
is not charging the public to dance but is charging a cover
charge to cover the cost of the entertainment. Captain Billy's
has a 12 foot by 12 foot dance floor and he cannot understand why
he would have to employ a police officer as the Dance Hall
ordinance and the State Statues states when he feels he is
operating under the Dinner Dance Permit and the Entertainment
Permit. Mr. Abdo further explained that Mr. Alexander served in
the Army and was trained as an MP (military police office),
consequently he has securty.training.
Mr. Abdo's request i•s than the Council determine that with the
activities going on at Captain Billy's it is properly licensed
and does not require a Dance Hall Permit.
The City Attorney stated that the there are two separate kinds of
dance permits. The Dinner Dance provision is questionable where
liquor is served. This ordinance was adopted in 1975 or 1976 and
was modeled after the Spring Park ordinance, where dancing in
liquor establishments was in doubt. But the section that came to
the Police attention, is where Captain Billy's is charging to get
into the establishment and the statute could not be more clear
where is states that if you are charging admission, directly or
indirectly, and dancing is allowed, you have a public dance. His
opinion is that there are clearly 2 separate dance permits. One,
Dinner Dance where you go and eat and music is playing, but it
incidental to the eating. Two, is just exactly what Mr. Abdo has
talked about, bringing in a big band and incurring expense, which
even if you considered this a concert would be treated under the
present ordinances as a public dance.
Mr. Abdo asked what an Entertainment License. The City Attorney
read the applicable ordinance X38.05. Mr. Abdo stated that he
felt Captain Billy's falls under this license. The City Manager
explained that where the problem came in was that he was allowing
dancing and charging a cover charge. Dancing seems to b.e the
problem.
100
May 21~ 1985
Mr. Abdo explained that it is his understanding that Captain
Billy's is not providing the bands for dancing but for listening
because their facilities are not set up like a dance hall.
The City Attorney explained that the City's Liquor Licenses are
set up so that hard liquor is sold in conjunction with the eating
of food. not with concerts or shows. He pointed out that having
a restaurant requires so many parking spaces. When you have a
concert it requires many more spaces than are available or
required for an eating establishment.
The City Attorney stated that when the ordinance was passed it
was on the Police Chief's recommendation at that time that his
officer's not be allowed to work in a place which serves
intoxicating liquor because of the potential conflict of interest
this could cause. Police Chief Harrell explained that this was
his attitude also. The Mound ordinance is more strict than the
State Statute in that it says the proprietor will pay a Mound
Police Officer and the State Statute says the Police Chief can
designate someone to be present at these public dances.
Mr. Abdo suggested changing the ordinance to be more in line with
the State Statute so this does not come up with someone else.
The Mayor stated that what is before the Council at this time is
whether to issue a Public Dance Permit or not. Or the Council
can amend the ordinance with regard to a public officer.
The City Attorney suggested that before the Council make a
determination they check with som a other municipalitie s such as
Spring Park, on the problems they have had with Public Dance
Permits.
Mr. Alexander stated that he has a nice place and does not want
any rowdy customers. He is trying to attract people who want
reasonable food at a reasonable price and he just wants to
upgrade it. He state he believes the cover charge helps this
cause not hinders it.
Mayor Polston stated that the Council has to follow its
ordinances and cannot change those ordinances to fit one
particular situation or person.
Mr. Abdo requested that the Council amend the Dance Hall
ordinance to,more closely follow the State Statute in allowing
the Police Chief to designate someone to cover these dances other
than a Police Officer.
Mayor Polston stated that until the Council receives some
clarification from the Attorney General on who an "officer of
the law" or a "public officer" are under the State Statute. this
issue seems to be at an impasse. Mr. Abdo disagreed and stated
he felt the Council could adopt the language in the State Statute
101
May 21, 1985
and then get the opinion on the terms. Then the Council could
allow Captain Billy's to operate.
Mayor Polston stated that his other concerns are with the zoning
aspect. Under the Conditional Use Permit, concerts were never
mentioned or considered when it was approved. Mr. Abdo stated
concerts are not what they are here for, it is a Dance Hall
Permit.
Councilmember Peterson asked how the 300 capacity of Captain
Billy's will impact on the parking facilities. Mr. Alexander
stated that he does not start his entertainment until 8:00 P.M.
or later and by that time the patrons of the supermarket are thru
shopping, the liquor store is closed and the entire parking lot
is virtually his after 9:00 P.M. Councilmember Peterson asked
how many parking spaces-are at the center. Mr. Alexander
answered that he thought in excess of 200.
The City Attorney pointed out that when Mr. Alexander was granted
his Conditional Use Permit, that the lot to the east was
designated as overflow parking and if there was ariy kind of
problem the owner of the center would have to do something. His
recollection was that the operation was marginal as far as
parking spaces. The City Planner reminded the Council that the
parking requirements were based on the restaurant seating
capacity 160 not the total fire rated capacity .of the building.
The_Mayor stated this may require the Conditional Use Permit to
be amended.
Mr. Alexander stated he did not think the parking has been a
problem.
Councilmember Paulsen stated he would be in favor of an
ordinance prohibiting dancing when a cover charge is charged.
Mr. Alexander stated he did not feel this was an option. He
feels he is charging the cover charge to cover the expense of the
band not for dancing.
The Mayor stated that he can have the band, dancing and eating
under the Dinner Dance Permit, but he cannot charge a cover
charge.
Councilmember Peterson asked if Captain Billy's wants a Dance
Hall Permit. Mr. Abdo stated yes.
MO?ION made by Councilmember Peterson. seconded by
Councilmember Paulsen to issue a Public Dance Permit to
Captain Billy's with the present ordinances to apply. Mayor
Polston stated that this means there will be a Police
Officer in attendance if there is dancing and it will be
subject to approval of the Mound Police Chief. The vote was
unanimously in favor. Motion carried. ,
102
May 21, 1985
The City Manager reminded the applicant that he will have to
notify the Police Chief of their intentions as far as dancing is
concerned.
The Council directed the City Attorney to research the State
Statute as to the meaning of "public officer" or "officer of the
law" and return this information to the Council.
The Dance Hall Permit will expire on January 31, 1986.
The City Attorney pointed out that the Council has in effect
amended Captain Billy's Conditional Use Permit by allowing him a
use that is over and above the Conditional Use Permit that has
been granted.
The. City Manager pointed out that the Staff is spending an
inordinate amount of time m onitoring Captain Billy's operation.
i.e. parking lot use, checking if he has a Police Officer when
dancing is going on, checking to see that he does not have more
people inside than the Fire Marshal will allow, etc. Mayor
Polston stated that we may have to look at increasing the fees
for this type of permit to cover the extra work involved in
monitoring.
Discussion on the parking requirements in the Conditional Use
Permit which only allows 52 spaces for Captain Billy's. The City
Manager stated that the City will monitor the number of spaces
that are used and then the City will know if the CUP needs
amending. The Council told the applicant that he should
communicate what their intentions are with respect to the parking
and activities before they do it.
Councilmember Jessen left the meeting at this point.
MISCELLANEOUS LICENSE~_PERMIT RENEWALS
The following licenses
They all expire on Jun
July 1, 1985 to June 30,
Off-Sale Beer
Al & Alma's
Grimm's Store
PDQ Food Store
Steven's M-arket
On-Sale Liquor
Donnie's on the Lake
Captain Billy's
Set-UDS
Al & Alma's
and permits were presented for renewal.
e 30, 1985. New license period is from
1986.
On-Sale Beer
AI & Alma's
House of Moy
Club License
American Legion #398
VFW X5113
Sundav Liquor
Donnie's on the Lake
Captain Billy's
103
May 21 : 1985
Annual Dinner Dance Wine
Captain Billy's Al & Alma's
House of Moy
Fish Fry-June 21 to 23, 1985
Mound Volunteer Fire Dept.
Charitable Beer Permit & Set-Ups
MOTION made by Councilmember Smith, seconded by
Councilmember Peterson to authorize the renewal of the above
licenses as presented. The vote Was 4 in favor With
Councilmember Jessen absent and excused. Motion carried.
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT SECTION 6.16, SUBSECTIONS G ~ J. ~ ADDING
SUBSECTION F TO SECTION 20.03
The City Manager explained that this is the ordinance in its
formal state as submitted by the City Attorney and presented to
the Council several weeks ago.
Paulsen moved and~Peterson seconded the following:
ORDINANCE #477 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 6.16.
SUBSECTIONS (g) AND (j) OF THE CITY CODE
RELATING TO WATER CONNECTIONS; AND ADDING
SUBSECTION (F) TO SECTION 20.03 RELATING TO
SANITARY SEWER CONNECTION
The vote was 4 in favor with Councilmember Jessen being absent
and excused. Motion carried.
CANCEL ASSESSMENT ON TAX FORFEIT LAND - LOT 3~ BLOCK 2. WESTWOOD
The City Manager explained that this is a tax forfeit lot, that
Mr. Drey wishes to purchase (it adjoins his property), but it has
a large street assessment on it in the amount of X4,973.47 and
since the lot is unbuildable because of the deep ravine in it he
would like the assessment cancelled. It is an eyesore and
collects people's junk. By selling the lot to Mr. Drey it would
be put back on the tax roles.
Councilmember Paulsen stated that he has checked into this lot
and has found that to fill it in would be financially •not
feasible so he would agree with the recommendation to cancel the
assessment
Paulsen moved and Peterson seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION #85-63 RESOLUTION CANCELLING LEVY #8297. IN THE
AMOUNT OF #4.973.47 ON LOT 3. BLOCK 2.
WESTWOOD (PID #23-117-24 23 OO1~F) • AND
REQUESTIAG THE COUNTY BOARD TO IMPOSE
CONDITIONS ON THE SALE OF SAID TAX FORFEIT
10~
May 21~ 1985
LANDS AND TO RESTRICT THE SALE TO OWNERS
OF ADJOINING LANDS
The vote was ~+ in favor with Councilmember Jensen absent ana
excused. Motion carried. ~ {
PAYMENT OF BILLS
The bills were presented for consideration.
NOTION made by Councilmember Paulsen. seconded by Mayor
Polston to approve the payment of bills as presented on the
pre-list in the amount of #73.500.91. when funds are
available. A roll call vote Was ~ in favor with
Councilmember Jessen being absent and excused. Motion
carried.
PETITION FOR LOCAL IMPROVEMENT,I WAIVER OF HEARING; RESOLUTION
DETERMINING VALIDITY AND SUFFICIENCY OF PETITION FOR PUBLIC
IMPROVEMENT; RESOLUTION ORDERING THE IMPROVEMENT AND PREPARATION
OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATION: APPROVAL OF LOW BID FOR PROJECT;FOR
PORT HARRISON TOWNHOMES/CATALYST PROPERTIES. INC. (JOHN NELSON)
Peterson moved and Polston seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION #85-6~ RESOLUTION DETERMINING~THE VALIDITY AND
. SUFFICIENCY OF PETITION FOR PUBLIC
IMPROVEMENT (PORT HARRISON TOWNHOMES)
The vote was ~4 in favor with Councilmember Jensen being absent
and excused. Motion carried.
The City Manager stated that the City Engineer has reviewed the
plans and specifications and has recommended approval.
Peterson moved and Smith seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION #85-b5 RESOLUTION ORDERING THE IMPROVEMENT AND
PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
FOR THE SEWER AND WATER IMPROVEMENTS FOR
PORT HARRISON TOWNHOMES
The vote was ~ in favor with Councilmember Jessen absent and
excused. Motion carried.
Peterson moved and Smith seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION #85-66 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE BID OF YOLK
E%CAVATING IN THE AMOUNT OF #5.211.16 FOR
PORT HARRISON TOWNHOMES SEWER AND WATER
PROJECT
The vote was 4 in favor with Councilmember Jessen absent ana
105
May 21: 1985
excused. Motion carried.
The City Attorney recommended awarding the contract on a unit
price basis. The Council agreed.
CHAPHAN PLACE - TOM PROKASKY
The City Manager explained that the Building Inspector came to
him and stated that Mr. Prokasky has made some changes in the
plan that was submitted to the Council and approved and she
wanted the Council to approve those changes before she issues the
Building Permit.
Mr. Prokasky stated there are three points that the Staff felt
needed to be brought to the Council's attention:
1. There were 2 exhibits turned in and made a part of the
Resolution 84-204, one was a site plan dated October 5.
1984, and the other was the working drawing site plan.
On the current plan the Marina office juts out and has
been pulled back into the corner of the garage area.
This will leave a little more green area for the site.
Also his understanding of the approval was a maximum of
29 units. Since they desire to construct only 23 units.
the Staff felt the Council should be apprised of this.
2. The underground gas storage in the southwest corner of
the property and the dum Aster location in the southwest
corner of the garage as shown on the September 7, 198.4,
site plan are precisely in the sam a place. The only
question was that the 9-7-84 drawing was for the 35 unit
building. The Staff feels and he concurs that the 9-7-84
plan should be ignored and the new plan accepted.
3. Flood plain. The garage floor elevation should be at or
above the City's minimum elevation tat or above 933.5).
The garage is at 933.5. The problem is the elevator goes
down to the garage floor and there is a requirement that
there be a pit for the elevator which will go below the
minimum of 933.5. It is alright if the pit is flood
proofed.
The Building Inspector suggested amending the Conditional tJse
Permit granted in Resolution 84-204 to incorporate the plans
dated May 15,-1985, labeled A-1 and A-2.
The City Attorney stated that he does not agree with Mr.
Prokasky's statement. When the Council grants a Conditional Use
Permit, they adopted the plans and specifications and that is
what is to be built. In this case it appears that these are
minor technical problems and there should be no problem in• the
Council getting the proper plan attached to the Resolution, but
if you are amending a Conditional Use Permit, by allowing 28
106
May 21~ 1985
units instead of 29. you have to go back thru the process.
meaning a hearing. The City Manager agreed with the City
Attorney and stated that is what he suggested but Mr. Prokasky
is spending 51 500 per day and cannot move because of the
changes.
Discussion on dropping the units from 29 to 28 units. The
problem is that the plans submitted with Resolution #84-204were
before the Council cut the units from 35 to 29. Mr. Prokasky
stated that since they have been marketing the units. the two
bedroom units are going faster than the one bedroom and this is
the reason for the change in units.
Peterson moved and Paulsen seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION #85-6? RESOLUTION TO AHEND RESOLUTION #84-204 TO
READ A MAXIMUM OF 28 UNITS IN THE FIRST
WHEREAS
The vote was ~ in favor with Councilmember Jessen being absent
and excused.
MOTION made by Councilmember Paulsen seconded by
Councilmember Peterson to adjourn at 11:30 P.M. The vote was
4 in favor with Councilmember Jessen absent and eacu_sed.
Motion carried.
~~~
J n Elam, City Manager
Sharon Legg. Acting City Clerk
BILLS------------MAY 21, 1985
Batch 854046---Computer run dated 5/16/85
Batch 854052---Computer run dated 5/15/85
Batch 854053---Listed below
TOTAL BILLS
Autocon Industries
Acro-MN
Janet Bertrand
Bury ~ Carlson
Continental Tele
Jon Elam
Fidelity Products
Garys Diesel Serv
Glen Litfin Transfer
Internal Revenue
Kromer Co.
Litho/Color
MacQueen Equip
N.S.P.
NW Bell Tele
Joyce Olson
Sterne Electric
Signdesign
Teledyne Total Power
Waconia Ridgeview Hosp
Repair well 7 175.90
supplies 146.96
No Star Mtg exp 20.84
asphalt 1,166.80
May tele 1,2g6.g1
Exp-computer class 11.15
drawer files 268.28
repair truck 2,860.18
tow truck--black dirt 370.00
Liquor tax 54.00
shaft 20.00
handicap signs 22.46
Boss for bolt 44.02
May elec 4,348.97
Siren--dedicated line 270.05
Video council mtg 35.75
check compressor 40.00
recycling signs 662.15
air cleaner. 14.80
EMT class-Williams 225.00
13,343.77
48,102.72
12,054.42
73,SOO.gi