Loading...
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 he w ould probably propose that the existing Ordinance, Section 55.38 B be repealed and would recommend reconsidering the campaign/lawn sign proposal that was recommended by.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