1995-03-14March 14, 1995
MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - MARCH 14, 1995
The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday,
March 14, 1995, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City.
Those present were: Mayor Bob Polston, Councilmembers Andrea Ahrens, Mark Hanus, and
Liz Jensen. Councilmember Phyllis Jessen was absent and excused. Also present were: City
Manager Edward i. Shukle, Jr., City Clerk Fran Clark, City Attorney Curt Pearson, Building
Official Jon Sutherland and the following interested citizens: Lance Anderson, Jeanne Stortz,
Marilyn Brynes, Sue Cathers, Roland Herbst, Mr. & Mrs. Rodney Beystrom.
The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
1.0 MINUTES
MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Ahrens to approve the Minutes of the
February 28, 1995, Regular Meeting, as submitted. The vote was unanimously in
favor. Motion carried.
1.1
CASE #95-04: LANCE B. ANDERSON, 5220 LYNWOOD BLVD., P/LOTS 1 &
2, BLOCK 2, & P/LOTS 3 & 4, BLOCK 1, REARR. BLOCK 10, ABRAHAM
LINCOLN ADDITION TO LAKESIDE PARK, PID #13-117-24 31 0070,
VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A PORCH
The City Manager explained that staff has prepared a proposed resolution of approval as the
Council instructed at the last meeting.
Councilmember Hanus proposed the following changes in the proposed resolution:
The street frontage variance in both the tables should be corrected to read 40' not
60'.
The fourth Whereas be deleted because it is incorrect.
The seventh Whereas should read as follows: "WHEREAS, the Planning
Commission recommended denial, however, the applicant has since modified his
request by reducing the size of the porch to minimize the variance to the lake."
He suggested the following Whereas be added to the resolution in response to the
DNR's comments: "WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that there is
sufficient screening to satisfy the code requirements."
There was discussion on the Planning Commission recommendation to deny versus the Council's
direction at the last meeting to prepare a resolution of approval. The City Attorney stated, "This
is a procedural problem because the Planning Commission made a recommendation and
somewhere between that time and this Council Meeting, the Planning Staff said we'll make some
changes and then we'll give it to the Council with a recommendation of approval. Basically the
Staff has overridden the recommendation of the Planning Commission."
123
March 14, 1995
Polston moved and Hanus seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION//95-29
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE SETBACK
VARIANCES TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A
PORCH AT 5220 LYNWOOD BLVD., THAT PART
OF LOTS 1 & 2, BLOCK 2, AND LOTS 3 & 4,
BLOCK 1, REARRANGEMENT OF BLOCK 10,
ABRAHAM LINCOLN ADDITION TO LAKESIDE
PARK, PID//13-117-24 31 0070, P & Z CASE g95-04
Councilmember Jensen stated that she does not support this resolution because a hardship
has not been identified in the resolution. She asked what makes this case unique.
Councilmember Hanus stated that some of the things that were discussed at the last
meeting were: street frontage which is an existing situation; odd shaped lot; and the
home has two lakeshore frontages with 50 foot setbacks.
Councilmember Jensen stated she could support this if the porch were put on the channel
side of the home instead of the main lakeside. She also questioned whether there was
ever a variance granted for the deck. The Building Official stated that the deck was on
the original building plan when the home was built.
Councilmember Hanus suggested the following additional language be put in the proposed
resolution: "WHEREAS, the hardship is that this property is faced with two lakeshore
setback requirements."
Councilmember Ahrens asked that the question be called. The vote on calling the question was
3 in favor with Councilmember Jensen voting nay. Motion carded.
The vote on the resolution was 3 in favor with Councilmember Jensen voting nay. Motion
carried.
1.2
RESOLUTION TO SUPPORT INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT//277 AND
OTHERS IN AN EFFORT TO STUDY THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW
COMMUNITY CENTER FOR THE WESTONKA AREA AND ASSIST IN
FUNDING A COMMUNITY SURVEY NOT TO EXCEED $1500.
The City Manager explained that this item was tabled at the last meeting until Councilmember
Jensen was in attendance. He then reiterated the background.
Councilmember Hanus asked who the other entities were that may be contributing to this survey?
The City Manager listed the following entities: City of Mound, City of Minnetrista, City of
Spring Park, 2 hockey associations and the school district.
The following persons spoke in favor of doing the survey:' Jeanne Stortz, 3770 Enchanted Lane, Minnetrista.
Marilyn Brynes, Mound Park Commission and Community Center Task Force.
Sue Cathers, 3008 Highview Lane, Mound.
124
March 14, 1995
Councilmember Jensen stated that the survey would be a way to get a statistically accurate feel
of where this community is coming from. She further stated that other than changing a couple
of items in the resolution, she is in favor of the survey.
Councilmember Hanus stated that he. feels everyone would like to see something like a new
community center, but he is skeptical about whether there is community suppo, rt. He stated he
could probably support the resolution with some'conditions and stipulations in that resolution,
i.e. before the funds for the survey are released all other entities mentioned 'above commit to
funding the survey.
Councilmember Jensen stated that she is not interested in putting that condition in the resolution
because even if one of the entities was not willing to spend the $1500, she would still be
interested in obtaining the information gleahed fr6m the survey on community interest.
Councilmember.Ahrens agreed with, Councilmember Hanus on the condition for the survey.
Councilmember Jensen stated she feels this survey',would be market research. Asking what
people would want in a community center and how much are they willing to pay for it is
essential before even considering anything further.
The Council then discussed how a community center could be financed. The'City Manager
explained that the Task Force has already discussed scaling back the center to less than the $13.5
million that .was originally discussed. He further stated that this facility cannot be done if it is
completely on the backs of the citizens of Mound. The financing option that has been discussed
is a lease/revenue bond. Every entity that would participate would have to enter into a Joint
Powers Agreement and pay for a lease on an annual basis. They would have to budget for it
in each of their communities. Plus, there would be fees collected from the people using the
facility.
Mayor Polston stated he agreed 'with Hanus and Ahrens about adding the condition that if the
other cities do not participate in the survey, Mound would not either.
Councilmember Jensen stated she would like the fourth WHEREAS in the resolution amended
as follows: WHEREKS, the facility could serve both ..... ". She further stated that the NOW,
THEREFORE part of the resolution needs to have something in there that assures the Council
that the survey includes "what do you want and how much are you willing to spend". Also that
all the entities have input in the survey development.
Hanus moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION #95-30
RESOLUTION TO SUPPORT INDEPENDENT
SCHOOL DISTRICT //277 AND OTHERS IN AN
EFFORT TO STUDY THE CONSTRUCTION OF A
NEW COMMUNITY CENTER FOR THE WESTONKA
AREA AND ASSIST IN FUNDING A COMMUNITY
SURVEY NOT TO EXCEED $1500
125
March 14, 1995
Councilmember Hanus stated he is moving this with the following amendments to the
resolution to be incorporated in the NOW, THEREFORE portion:
The Mound City Council will have the opportunity to be involved in the
development of the questions (this would include participation in formulating the
questions).
No funds are to be released until, Minnetrista and Spring Park have agreed to
support this survey.
In the 4th WHEREAS," ..... the facility could ....... "
The seconder agreed with the amendments.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT.
Jeanne Stortz invited the Council to the next meeting of the Search Institute Task Force on
March 28. The Council informed Ms. Stortz that is a regular City Council Meeting night. She
encouraged collaboration between the communities. She thanked the Council for their action on
the survey for the community center.
The Mayor stated that several Councilmembers have asked that item 9 be addressed before item
6.
1.3
DISCUSSION: POSSIBLE MORATORIUM ON THE ADOPTION OF ANY NEW
POLICIES OR PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE COMMONS OR DOCK
PROGRAM.
The City Manager explained that at the COW Meeting on February 21, the City Council was
presented with a review of the Commons/Public Lands Permit process. Presented was
information on the authority and responsibility the City has as it relates to regulating Commons
and public lands, structures on public lands, and how they regulate them through the permit
process. Following that, the discussion focused on calling a moratorium on these issues dealing
with public lands and permits and then forming a task force on public lands and Commons to
look at the whole program. The task force item was continued to the March 21 COW Meeting.
Councilmember Hanus has suggested the following in a memo dated February 7, 1995:
Place a moratorium on the adoption of any new polices or procedures relating to
the commons or dock program until the Council can determine if it wishes to
apply current polices or adopt changes. Also, a moratorium on the current
proactive commons inventory activities by staff would be in order until the
Council determines if the current method is desired.
126
March 14, 1995
Councilmember Hanus: "The reasoning behind the proposal was that over the past four years
the lega/budget of the city has quintupled', which is part of the problem. The opinion of many,
many people not ,only within the City but outside.the City, is quite negative at it relates to the
Commons program. I hear this quite often and the efforts that were utilized over the past 20
years, were quite extensive and there was a lot of work that was done. They took a stab at
establishing a prograra that they wanted to try and see it work. Some of the things did and some
of things did not work to well. Now the City is starting to flex their muscle, per se, we're
finding ourselves deeper and deeper all the time in legal fights and legal bills. The direction that
the City is going in is not the way I would like to continue. I do not have the answers, but think
there are better ways to go to try to create a more harmonious system, and less regulation.
Those people who receive mailings every year for their dock applications understand how
negative it appears. They receive many, many pages of don't do this and don't do that. The
intent is to inform the people of' the rules, but the feel of this is overwhelming and negative.
I am also concerned about how the people in town perceive the system. I am also concerned
about how the people outside the town perceive the system." He stated that, "many of the
people who have lived on commons and move away have commented that they would not buy
on that kind of property again because they don't feel the system works. It is a confusing
program, so much so, that several years ago the'Council felt they had to adopt a policy manual
just to help staff deal with how to address al.l the diffeirent issues they have to deal with. These
are the kinds of things that have brought this original proposal on and as far as the moratorium
is concerned, I would just like to see us stop in our tracks. We probably should continue the
existing policies, until it is decided' where this Council really wants to go. There has been
somewhat of a change in opinion which has become apparent, but we don't know to what degree
yet and we need to find out what that is. I would like to get some extensive public input, but
not necessarily what has been done in the past. There have been some very restrictive guidelines
put on the task forces as to what they are to look at and I would like to have this much more
opened ended for some more widely encompassing ideas to come forward. Just to kick out some
new ideas. We have been working with this same system, massaging it a little and adjusting it
back and forth, and I would like to see some larger possibilities come up and be discussed. I
do not want to see anyone take anything from anyone that has something today. I do not
necessarily want to see the number of dock spaces reduced. I would just like a more
harmonious system that people who use it can work with a little better so that is really where
this is coming from."
The Mayor stated he would support the moratorium, but would like to see it limited to some
period of time to give the Council time to give the staff some direction so the staff can deal with
what it is the Council is trying to accomplish. As he understands it, it would be to establish a
moratorium on the removal of items from public property that is in the inventory. He stated this
needs to limited to some .specific period of time and then give the staff some direction on what
we would like to see them do and what kind of deadlines the Council would like to set up for
development of a task force and what their task would be.
Councilmember Hanus stated that one of things discussed at the COW meeting was the
possibility of continuing the process, but taking the position that if we ran into a property owner
who did not agree with the action, that would be held until we made further determinations as
to where we wanted to go. The inventory could possibly be continued, but actions on those
would only be taken by those who did not disagree with the City's request to remove items,
whatever they may be.
127
March 14, 1995
The Mayor asked if Councilmember Hanus would like to make a motion. Councilmember
Hanus asked for the City Attorney's help' in wording that motion.
The City Attorney commented on Councilmember Hanus' memo as follows: "The memo
indicates placing a moratorium on the adoption of any new policies or procedures relating to the
commons or dock programs until the Council can determine if it wishes to apply current policies
or adopt changes." The City Attorney stated, "There is no real legal significance to that
statement because what it says is that you are not going to adopt new policies or procedures.
The City does have ordinances which are on the books and unfortunately those ordinances were
not properly administered for a period of years. The prior Council and the Park Commission,
at the present time, have determined as a result of some of the problems that Mr. Hanus' made
reference to, to basically do what the ordinance requires which has not been done and that is to
inventory, issue maintenance permits, etc. So unless you are going to change the ordinance, I
do not understand what can be done."
The Attorney further stated that second part says, ".. a moratorium on the current proactive
commons inventory by staff would be in order until the council determines if the current method
is desired." The City Attorney stated that as he understands it, the staff is basically through a
good share of the inventory and that does go both to the Park Commission and the City Council
to make decisions on recommendations for the removal or how those things are maintained or
in what status they are held. Those recommendations can be acted upon by the Council when
they come forward, just like the ones that are before you tonight. The City Attorney stated,
"The word moratorium doesn't mean very much. You're not changing any ordinances. Unless
you're telling the staff not to enforce the ordinances and I don't think you're doing that. The
Council does have the power, as does the Park Commission, to make recommendations to you
to handle these on an individual basis within the terms of the existing ordinances. If you want
to change the ordinances, you can do so." He stated that he could not help Councilmember
Hanus in putting together a motion because the ordinances are still on the books and are
applicable to all the parties. The City Attorney then reminded the Council that the City will' be
trying the case as it relates to Wawanossa Commons. This will be before the Examiner of Titles
next week.
The Mayor stated that when he was on the Council before, they put a moratorium on multiple
dwellings for a number of months until the ordinances were redone. He asked the City Attorney
how this would be different. The City Attorney stated there is a specific section in the Planning
Statute that indicates how you go about enacting a moratorium on some part of the zoning code.
The City Attorney stated that the point is that as long as you have a law on the books, the
Council had to apply it equally to everybody in the community and as has been done in the first
3 batches and now batch 4 is here this evening. The Building Official stated there are 12
batches total.
The Mayor stated he does not understand why a moratorium can't be enacted. He stated, "That
is why I wanted this item moved up to this part of the agenda, because on this Council I would
like to see us, if we are going to enact a moratorium, not treat people in a certain way, but that
we treat everyone fair and equitably. So if we are going to enact a moratorium, I want
everyone, including this batch, to have it applied to them as well as all the other people insofar
as them removing items from public land. The reason for this is that there are going to be
128
March 14, 1995
people, when you start looking at the things they are going to have to pay for removing, there
is.going to be one beck of a legal battle over whether or not it's going to be removed."
The City Attorney advised that there is a provision in the ordinance that allows people to apply
for a maintenance permit and that's what m.any of thes~ items are. If that procedure is followed
and it domes before the Council and they do not want to order them off, the Council does not
have to order them off. They can grant them a maintenance permit and they will continfe to
exist for the 3 or 5 years, whatever the flow chart or whatever the Council says. Or the Council
could grant it for a year, while this is studied.
The Mayor asked if what the Attornoy was suggesting is that they could grant everyone a year
while this i~ studied? The City Attorney said no that is not what he was saying. City Attorney:
"What I am saying is that if it is deemed that that is what the Council wants to do, you can do
so, but I arb not in a position to address this from the standpoint of not knowing what the safety
considerations are. The Building Official has made an issue out of unsafe stairs, electrical
outlets, etc.. I feel what is confusing this issue is that if there is something there, how does it
get removed and who pays for it? That is a discussion that has not been held in any depth
because it is something that needs to be worked out in a very practical manner and I agree with
Mayor Polston and Councilmember'Hanus, that there may be situations and maybe in a lot of
situations, where it's in the best interest of the City to go in and take these things out at general
expense. It may be better to do that then to end up in fights about it and again, nobody has
asked what legal right do we have to tell somebody who abuts public land, who claims to have
had no participation or reference to putting the thing there, to order them to take it out. We
have had that problem before and the Council has agreed to spend the money to take it out
because it is the most practical thing to do." He pointed out that what is being done and
considered proactive is merely following the ordinances as they currently exist.
Councilmember Ahrens asked if the attorney was recommending that rather than placing a
moratorium on, that on each individual case if the Council were in disagreement with what the
staff is doing or recommending, that the Council could just vote otherwise? The City Attorney
stated that he believed that would be a fair characterization if there is a rationale or reason, that
the Council certainly does not have to follow what the staff or the Park Commission is
recommending.
Councilmember Hanus asked if that is any better than what has been suggested because then you
are not following the flow chart that's in the ordinance? The City Attorney stated that the flow
chart is not a part of the ordinance. The flow chart is a policy and it's a method of assisting the
staff to carry out what is in the ordinance.
The Building Official stated that the previous Council has acted on some cases for stairways and
issued permits and some of those cases are not wrapped up so staff would like to be able to
proceed with those, in the event of a moratorium, just to clean up the previous actions of the
Council where the staff is working on existing stairways to complete their inspections, etc.
The City Attorney stated that there is no perfect answer to this because if you do this and you
have a stairway that is a dangerous thing and all of a sudden you don't issue permits and you
don't administer the ordinance and somebody injures themself, then the City has a problem
because it is on City land. City Attorney: "That is a very real potential just as there is if there
129
March 14, 1995
was a crack in the sidewalk in front of your house and the City knows about and it doesn't go
out and fix it. ~
"But the l~roblem is," the Mayor stated, "we do not go and tell the person living in the house
to go out and fix the sidewalk, the City goes out and takes care of the problem." The City
Attorney stated, "These items need to be approached on a case by case basis, which is what the
ordinance envisioned and there was a reason for that. If a person is applying to use a stairway
from their property to the Commons, they are the ones coming in here.. If the City were to do
it and just went out and tore out all the stairways, then you would have a big problem." "But,"
the Mayor stated, "the problem is that most of the people living on the property had nothing to
do with putting the thing on public land to start with, nor do they necessarily want it there, but
they are being told they have to pay to remove it and therein lies the legal dilemma that is going
to cause a real problem for the City."
The City Attorney suggested that the Council take these permits on a case by case basis and
make decisions. If a majority of the Council belie,~'es that it is in the best interest of the City,
for the City to go out and take these things out, they can do so.
The Mayor asked how you can do these on a case by case basis and be fair and equitable under
the law. The City Attorney slated, ~This can be done because you do what the ordinance says
and what the staff is currently doing which is to bring each one before the Council to take it
through the Park Commission to make recommendations and then whatever the encroachment
may be, if it is going to remain there, the people get a maintenance permit. Under that permit,
they have responsibilities. They transfer the responsibilities from the City to the property owner
because they want the encroachment. If they don't want the encroachment there and say take
it out, now you have a different question. Who's going to pay for it? That is the question
where I agree, and think the City should seriously consider the removal of some of these
encroachments. It may be in the City's best interest to do so."
Rollie Herbst, Bedford Road, spoke in favor of a moratorium on the adoption of any new
policies or procedures relating to the commons or dock program.
The Mayor stated, "This is a real dilemma and has to be addressed because it has the potential
of being extremely costly to the City. I understand that the staff has a job to do and under the
current ordinances and policies they have to carry it out and in doing so it has some serious legal
implications on the City. I think there is a whole different way to handle it by going through
a procedure where some of the ordinances are changed and the heavy-handedness of the
ordinance is changed to work with people. Nobody likes being dictated to or hit over the head
with a two-by-four and most people are willing to cooperate if you don't haul them into court
or threaten to haul them into court at the drop of a hat. I have talked to enough people to know
that is what's going on. I don't know if it is over zealous staff people or they are just carrying
out their job, some people interpret it different ways. It is an issue that has to be dealt with,
whether we have a moratorium or how we do it, it's got to be taken care of."
Councilmember Hanus stated, "If the primary problem with the moratorium is the safety issue,
why couldn't we-continue the inventory process, but only bring forward unsafe or dangerOus
cases?~ The City Attorney pointed out two things: "1) the City has brought action against
people, he stated that to his recollection there have been 3 cases that have been related to
130
March 14, 1995
commons and in none of those cases has the City been the party that started the action. The
action has be~n started by the property owner for one reason or another. That is the cam that
will be tried next week, which was brought by the property owner. 2) As a result of some of
the cases that have come up, it became obvious that there had been a lack of administration and
follow through on some of these things." The ordinahce has been on the books for many years
and he didn't think there had been a review process since the early 1980's. The City Attorney
then quoted Section 320:00, Subd. 2, "All stairways, retaining walls, fences, temporary
structures, stone work, concrete forming, or any type of construction shall require a special
permit." Section 320:00 Subd. 3. "Public Land Maintenance Permits. No person shall maintain
any boathouse or other structure on public lands without first receiving therefor a special
maintenance permit from the City ..... "The City Attorney pointed out that basically if someone
does not have a permit and they have a stairway there right now, they are in violation of the
ordinance and that's because the City has not done what it should have done over these past few
years.
The Mayor stated that he still does not see the rationale or the need to get extraordinarily tough
on people who have bought properties and have moved there and didn't have any understanding
of why an encroachment might be there because the City at some point in time neglected or
didn't do their job carrying out the ordinance.
The City Attorney stated that the most disconcerting thing that has happened over the years has
been the lack of understanding or knowledge on the part of people who have bought on
commons as to what they were getting. He stated, "I think it has been commonly understood
that realtors have sold much of it like private lakeshore and these people have gone into shock
when they come in and find out that is not correct. So there have been misunderstandings as
it relates to that and what these people can do, but as far as public commons as such, it is the
same as public park land. It is held in trust for all the people and the Council couldn't, if it
wanted to, sell it or give it away. You don't have the authority to do it because the City is the
trustee. '
Councilmember Hanus asked how the Council could go about slowing down or stopping the
enforcement of certain aspects of an ordinance except where there is a safety problem. He
stated the ordinance is on the books and he understands that, but we don't necessarily agree with
them, but at this stage of the game we're not ready to go in and wipe them out either. He stated
he is not sure what they want done until they have some input on this. He then asked again how
the Council could go about slowing down or stopping the enforcement of certain aspects of an
ordinance except where there is a safety problem.
The City Attorney a~ked what was meant by, "to stop the enforcement process"? He further
stated that the City administration and staff are basically administering this ordinance in telling
people that they are supposed to get a public lands maintenance permit, under Section 320:00,
Subd. 3 of the City Code.. So they are sending out these applicantions for permits. From that
point on, it is up to th6 Council to determine how they are going to enforce it and how they are
going to do it.
Councilmember Hanus stated that we have an ordinance and a flow chart to follow. He then
asked how the Council can vary from what's on the books. The City Attorney stated that the
Council can change the procedure if it is something the Council does not feel is correct.
131
March 14, 1995
Councilmember Hanus asked how this can be done today? Councilmember Hanus stated he is
hopeful that it would only be a short period of time before a task force is formed and their
findings can be brought back through the proper channels, ie. Park Commission and then to the
Council. He asked how we can deal with this in the meantime?
The City Attorney stated, "That to answer that question would be to simplify something that is
not that simple. It is something that has been a dilemma in this City for as long as I have been
here. Problems have been created, but those problems cannot be solved on the basis of we're
going to stop doing what the code says. The Council has th~ responsibility to take into account
the safety items that relate to those things; how you enforce it; and whether you do it on an
individual basis." The attorney explained that the Flow Chart is a way of trying to indicate
where you are trying to get rid of things and where you are going to let them remain for a
period of time. It is part of the procedures so there is some uniformity in how things are
handled.
The Building Official stated that the Park Commission has adopted guidelines for lighting on
commons that was adopted by the City Council. The City Attorney stated, "The City Council
could change those tonight, and instead of a moratorium, they could say they are not going to
follow those guidelines, they're retracted, and they are going to do it on a case by case basis."
The City Attorney cautioned that to do nothing would be to ignore the ordinances and possibly
leave the Council open to some other problems.
The Mayor stated he is inclined to grant, on a case by case basis, maintenance permits, except
where there is a threat to health, safety or welfare. Then he stated he would like to form a task
force. Councilmember Hanus agreed.
Councilmember Ahrens asked if the Council could change the length of time for which a l~rmit
is given. The City Attorney stated yes. He further stated that the ordinance also stated that the
Council can impose any reasonable conditions, it may deem advisable, to protect the public's
use of the shoreline.
The Mayor asked if the Council could pass on all the batches (12) at this time. The Building
Official stated they are not all ready at this time.
The Mayor asked if any of the Public Lands Permits in Batch 4 were a threat to health, safety
of welfare? The Building Official responded, no.
Councilmember Hanus asked that his permit be acted on separately so that he could step down
at that point. The Council agreed.
1.4
RF~OLUTION TO APPROVE SPECIAL PERMITS FOR PRIVATE STRUCTURES
QN PUBLIC LAND KNOWN AS STRATFORD LANE, "BATCH #4" DOCK
SITES 32670, 33407. 33487, 33525.
The Council removed dock site 33525 (Mark Hanus) to be dealt with separately.
Dock sites 32670 and 33487 have agreed to remove the encroachments. Rodney
Beystrom, dock site #33407 stated he does not agree with the staff recommendation to
relocate his light' onto private property. 'The Council agreed to exclude dock site #33407
132
March 14, 1995
for the pro~sed resolution and act on it separately.
Polston' moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION g95-31
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE SPECIAL PERMITS
FOR PRIVATE STRUCTURES ON PUBLIC LAND
KNOWN AS STRATFORD LANE. DOCK SITE
~3407, 5 YEAR PERMIT FOR ELECTRIC LIGHT
AND OUTLET
The vote was 3 in favor with Jensen voting nay. Motion carried.
1.5
Hanus moved and Polston seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION #95-32
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE
RECOMMENCATION OF THE PARK & OPEN
SPACE COMMISSION FOR DOCK SITES 32670 AND
33487
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
Councilmember Hanus removed himself from the Council.
1.6 Ahrens moved Jensen seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION #95-33
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE
RECOMMENDATION OF THE PARK & OPEN
SPACE COMMISSION FOR DOCK SITE 33525 ALSO
KNOWN AS STRAFORD LANE
The vote was 3 in favor, with Hanus not present. Motion carded.
1.7
APPROVAL OF FINAL PAYMENT REQUEST FOR 1994 LIFT STATION
IMPROV~NT PROJECT - RICE LAKE CONTRACTING - $26.501.30.
MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Jensen to approve a f'mal payment request
for the 1994 Lift Station Improvement Project, by Rice Lake Contracting in the
amount of $26,501.30. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.8
SET PUBLIC I-IEARING TO CONSIDER THE MODIFICATION OF A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE OPERATION 0f fin
ADDITIONAL MINOR AUTO REPAIR BU$INF~$ KNOWN AS GLASS PLUS AT
5533 SHORFJJNE DRIVE (ARCO AUTO & MARINE) LOCATED IN THE B-1
CENTRAL BUSINFSS DISTRICT. (SUGGESTED DATE - APRIL 11. 1995l
MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Ahrens to consider the modification of a
Conditional Use Permit to allow the operation of an additional minor auto repair
business known as Glass Plus at 5533 Shoreline Drive (Arco Auto & Marine) located
133
March 14, 1995
in the B-1 Central business district, for April 11, 1995. The vote was unanimously
in favor. Motion carried.
1.9
POSTPONEMENT OF DISCUSSION RE; PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALKS ON
SHORELINE DRIVE (HOUSE OF MOY) AND COMMERCE BLVD. (POND
ARENA). (SUGGESTED DATE: APRIL 25. 1995)
The Mayor asked that this item be on the April 25, 1995, Agenda.
1.10 SET BID OPENING FOR 1995 SEAL COAT PROJECT. (SUGGESTED DATE:
APRIL 1;3, 1995, 11:O0 A,M.)
MOTION made by Jensen, seconded bY Hanus to set the bid opening for the 1995
Seal Coat Program for April 13, 1995, at 11:00 A.M. The vote was unanimously in
favor. Motion carried.
1.11 APPROVAL MISCELLANEOUS LICENSES & PERMITS
MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Ahrens to the following, contingent upon
all required forms, insurance, etc. being submitted. The vote was unanimously in
favor. Motion carried.
SET-IeTP PERMIT
TREE REMOVAL LICENSE
A1 & Alma's Supper Club
HAWKER
Blue Bell Ice Cream
Aaspen Tree Service
Emery's Tree Service
Four Seasons Tree
Randy's Tree Service
Shorewood Tree Service
The Tree Stump Company
Woodsman Tree Service
1.12 PAYMENT OF BILLS
MOTION made by Polston, seconded by Jensen to authorize the payment of bills as
presented on the pre-list in the amount of $227,238.32, when funds are available.
A roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
INFORMATIONAL/MISCELLANEOUS
A. Department Head Monthly Reports for February 1995.
B. LMCD Representative's Monthly Report for February 1995.
C. LMCD Mailings.
134
March 14, 1995
De
Letter from Shirley Hills Primary School RE: School of Excellence Celebration,
Wednesday, May 2~t, 1995, at Mound West0nka High School. Invitation indicates that
School Officials would like Mayor Polston to atten, d the picnic and speak at the program
to follow.
Eo
Information RE: 1995 League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) Annual Legislative Conference
in St. Paul, Thursday, March 30, 1995. Please contact Fran, ASAP, if you wish to
attend.
F. COW Meeting is Tuesday, March 21, 1995, 7:30 P.M.
The City Manager gave a brief report about his trip to Washington, D.C. to the National
League of Cities Conference.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
The Council went into Executive Session to discuss pending litigation at 9:30 P.M. The City
Attorney reported that the Council' discussed the Flack Case which is scheduled for trial next
week. Several other matters that are currently pending were discussed and some direction from
the Council was solicited regarding those matters.
MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Jensen to adjourn at 10:15 P.M. The vote
was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
Attest: City Clerk
135
BILLS --March 14, 1995
Batch 5023 $121,996.94
Batch 5024 105,741.38
TOTAL BILLS $227,738.32