1995-03-28March 28, 1995
MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - MARCH 28, 1995
The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday,
March 28, 1995, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City.
Those present were: Mayor Bob Polston, Councilmembers Mark Hanus, and Liz Jensen.
Councilmembers Andrea Ahrens and Phyllis Jessen were absent and excused, Al~o pre~nt
were: City Manager Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Clerk Fran Clark, City Attorney Curt Pearson,
Building Official Jon Sutherland, Planner Bruce Chamberlain, and the following interested
citizens: Jon& Jusrine Goode, Dave Schmidt, Tom & Kathy Latcham, Ray Salazar, Donald
& Geraldine Swenson.
The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
The City Clerk submitted a replacement page for 979 with corrected rifles to three resolutions.
The Council accepted the page.
Councilmember Jensen questioned page 1 of the March 21, 1995, COW Minutes regarding the
make-up of the Commons Dock Task Force. That part of the minutes reads as follows:" ....
Discussion then focused on the number of persons that could serve on the task force, the number
suggested was twelve, with five abutters that have shared docks, three abutters who do not share
docks, three non abutters and one person at large." After discussion the Council changed the
wording to:" ...... , the number suggested was twelve, with five abutters who have docks other
than their own in front of their property; three abutters who have only their dock in front of
their property; and three non abutters and one person at large."
MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Hanus to approve the Minutes of the March
14, 1995, Regular Meeting and the March 21, 1995 Conunittee of the Whole
Meeting, as amended. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.1
CASE #95-08: JONA .THAN & JUSTINE CA)ODE, 5116 EDGEWATER DRIVE,
L.P. CREVIERS ..... LOT 2, BLOCK 1, PID #13-117-24 42 0002, VARIANCE FQR
SECOND STORY ADDITION.
The Council asked that the condition that the Planning Commission requested, be inserted into
the proposed resolution. It would read as follows: "7. Water towage from the roof be
contained within the site, to the satisfaction of the City Staff." The applicant agreed with the
condition.
Hanus moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution:
158
March 28, 1995
RESOLUTION ~95-34
RF3OLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE FOR A
SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 5116 EDGEWATER
DRIVE, LOT 2, BLOCK 1, "L.P. CREVIER'S
SUBDIVISION OF PART OF LOT 3§, LAFAYETTE
PARK", AND THAT PART OF VACATED LAKE
BOULEVARD, PI/)//13-117-24 42 0002, P & Z CASE
//95-08
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.2
CASE g95-10: TOM & KATHy LATCHAM, 4711 ISLAND VIEW DR., LOT 3,
BLOCK 7, DEVON, PID //30-117-23 22 0051, VARIANCE FOR DECK &
PORCH.
Jensen moved and Hanus seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION//95-35
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO
RECOGNIZE EXISTING NONCONFORMING
SETBACKS TO CONSTRUCTION A CONFORMING
DECK AND PORCH AT 4711 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE,
LOT 3, BLOCK 7, DEVON, PID//30-117-23 22 0051,
P & Z CASE//95-10
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carded.
COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT.
There were none.
1.3
APPOINTMENTS TO FILL UNEXPIRED TERMS ON MOUND HOUSING AND
REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (HRA).
The City Manager reported that the following two persons have been interviewed by the City
Council to fill two vacancies on the HRA: James H. Baer, term to expire 8/96 and Donna
Christensen, term to expire 8/97.
Jensen moved and Hanus seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION g95-36
RESOLUTION APPOINTING JAMES BAER AND
DONNA CHRISTENSEN TO FILL VACANCIES ON
THE MOUND HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carded.
159
March 28, 1995
1.4 RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A TASK FORCE QN COMMONS DOCKS.
The City Manager related the background on the item.
Councilmember Jensen stated that since the last COW Meeting, she is not comfortable with how
the Council is distributing the representation on the Task Force. She stated there are 517 people
using the Dock Program, and 179 of those users abut Commons land, 11 abutters share a dock.
There are 190 people abutting Commons that are participating in the program, which leaves 327
people who use the program but do not abut Commons. 37% of the users of the program abut
the Commons and 63 % of them do not abut and the way the distribution is on the Task Force
would be 42% for abutting users of the program which she did not think was a proper
representation on the Task Force. She stated that the Council needs to make sure that people
are fairly represented and she does not feel they have done that.
Councilmember Hanus stated that he thought the numbers chosen at the COW Meeting were
Councilmember Jensen's numbers. Councilmember Jensen stated that a lot of numbers were
discussed and the numbers chosen were to satisfy others in the room, based on what other people
in the room were willing to live with. They were not based on knowing there are 517 users of
the program and 63 % of them do not abut Commons. That was a detail the Council did not
have at the COW Meeting.
Councilmember Hanus questioned how many docks are actually used. No one had that answer.
He stated that it is his understanding that a lot of the 446 total docks are not used or are
unusable. Councilmember Jensen stated she does not have unused or unusable figures.
Councilmember Jensen stated she is still struggling with what ill we are trying to correct. She
stated that putting that aside, if this is use of Commons then you need to look at abutting people
who use the Commons, non-abutting people who use the Commons and a whole lot of people
who own the Commons but do not use it at all, and they only have one person representing them
on the Task Force as it is currently laid out.
Councilmember Hanus stated that he has a concern for everyone's interest in the system. He
stated he would like to include the Commons itself as a point of discussion or the possibility of
discussion for the group. However the primary focus of discussion is going to be the Dock
Program itself, and those that do not use a dock, don't fund the program and if we are only
affecting docks and they don't use a dock, what is their interest in docks? Councilmember
Jensen stated that as long as that is where the focus is, then she understood where he was
coming from. Councilmember Hanus stated that is where he sees the focus.
Councilmember Hanus then asked to add some language to the proposed resolution to include
the Commons because there are issues such as the use plan, classifications (how rules may or
may not be applied to different classifications) which may come up in discussion. So because
of those potential intertwining regulations and/or problems, he wanted to be careful not to
preclude the Commons as a possibility of discussion. He further stated that he sees most of the
problems that will be discussed are relative to the Dock Program itself. He stated he is not
looking to take anything'away from anybody. He stated he questions how much concern people
have about how the Dock Program may be administered if'they are not using the program and
are not funding it.
160
March
28, 1995
C0uncilmember Jensen Shared the f0110wing'th0ughts:
"The City of Mound owns 4 miles, plus or minus, of lakeshore. In years gone past,
there was a scramble at ice out for people to put in a dock' and. over time as the
population grew and as certain locations became more contested for dock sites, it became
a problem. So the citizens of the community gathered together and found a way to bring
peace to the program and bring some fairness to the program. -So we have a program
of putting private docks on public land."
"The City of Mound owns 4 miles, plus or minus, of lakeShore and we, as a community,
can do just about anything, within reason; that-we want to do with the land. Right now
we are using this land to provide .dock sites fo.r people who would not otherwise have
dock sites'. So we are in the business of providing dock sites and if we want to get some
feel for how our customers are' responding to the service we are providing to them, that
is one thing. If we are going to talk about administration of this part of the public lands
~that the City owns, that is another thing. So the people who fund it are the customers
for that service and if we want to find out how they are perceiving the product or service
that we are offering to them, that is all well ahd good. Administration of the public
lands may be something that should be-looked at separately. Again, I'm not sure what
the ill is we are trying to correct. If there is a problem with the Dock Program, then we
can certainly get people who use it, in those different categories, together to discuss what
that proble.m is and bring that customer feedback to us. If it is something'other than
that, then we may have to open it up to other people because iris the public's land'and
they do have a right to say what happens to their land."
Councilmember Hanus;
"That's correct. But just so it's clearly understood, this body that we are looking at
forming is not a deciding bOdy of any kind. What I am fishing for is ideas. -I perceive
this as an idea group of people that are going to start kicking back ideas to us. The votes
that they take and the recommendations that they make are all well and good, but just as
important is the minutes and what is kicked around. Particularly if an item is pertaining
to the Commons, but probably Commons or Docks either one, I would SUspect that
procedure would be to take those recommendations through the Park Commission and
then to the Council. Through all of those bodies there is all kinds of opportunity for the
public at large to provide input. I am looking for this core group to be idea people who
have problems. That's the group of people I am trying to get ideas from. Once we
identify what those problems are and get some recommendations, then we can start
getting input and start trying to piece some improvements together. That's what is going
on in my mind."
Councilmember lensen:
"Reacting to your statement that you want to get ideas. I think that's commendable, but
then you focus it down to people with problems. So do you want ideas or do you want
people to come in to grind an axe. If you are looking for ideas, then why not open this
up to a broader body."
161
March 28, 1995
Mayor Polston: -
~My understanding of what was discussed at the COW Meeting was that we, in fact were
going to revisit something, system or program, that was started some 20 years ago and
invite a Task Force to look at, not only problems, but other aspects of the program and
to get feedback from them, as our customers..The main thrust being to have. the Task
Force look at and evaluate and make recommendations to the Park Commission and at
a public hearing with the City Council if there were changes that were going to be made.
I didn't understand or feel that there were any limitations of what the Task Force could
address, if they so choose to do so. My original recommendation was that 2 members
of the body be people at large from the City. The rest of the Councilmembers, that were
there, felt it should be restricted to people who were participating in the dock program.
I don't have a problem with that because there will be an evaluation by the Park
Commission and then a public hearing at the City Council, prior to any action to change
anything. With just cleaning up the resolution to reflect what was decided at the COW
Meeting, I would like to move ahead." Councilmember Hanus agreed.
Councilmember Jensen:
"I am still hung up on the distribution of the numbers. The original numbers that we
talked about at the COW Meeting for the Task Force were 4, 6 &' 2. That was 4 who
abutted, 6 who did not abut, and 2 at large. Those were the original numbers that were
kicked around and around until everybody was happy. The decision in the minutes of
5, 3, 3, and 1 - and 5 people who have docks in front of their abutting properties are
42% of the 12 member Task Force, but they are only 37% of the whole (all users of the
program). 63 % of the users of the program do not abut the lands we are talking about,
yet they only represent 25% of the Task Force. I just don't think that is a fair
distribution or representation on the Task Force. I haven't cranked out the percentages
on the 4, 6 and 2 but I know those were the first numbers we looked at and one
Councilmember thought it should be 6, 4 and 2 (6 being abutters, 4 non abutters and 2
at large). I'm willing to go back to the 4, 6, and 2, at least it is a little better
representation, in terms of usage."
Councilmember Hanus:
~Here we go back'to the same argument as before, the seriousness of the problems, the
magnitude of the problems, these different groups face and I think the most serious
problems that people face are the ones that abut that have other people's docks in front
of their property and there is actual trespassing on. their property to access docks and
things of that sort. That's probably the most serious type of problem, as well as the
littering, etc. The problems such as, the type of mailings you get and that kind of thing
are far more minor. That type of problem is experience by everybody who uses'docks."
Councilmember Jensen:' ...
"You're looking for a gwup to generate ideas and I don't think we want to set up a
group that could 'put 63 % of the users of the program in an Under-represented position
where we are trying to generate ideas. So if we are going to be looking at discussion
162
March 28, 1995
and mint~tes of discussion zather than recommendations, we get that wi~ a group that
represents the users of the program.. Even with 2 people at large, the owners of the
program could be considered under-represented, but they are potential users of the
program who could generate ideas on what could be done with this land, that we
wouldn't get without them being there."
Councilmember Hanus:
"My biggest problem with that comment is you rarely get ideas from people who do not
have a problem with something. You. don't get corrective ideas for a problem from
people who don't have a problem:','
Councilmember Jensen:
"I'm still trying to find the illness we are trying to fix."
Councilmember Hanus:
"Part of that's still trying to be identified too. That's part of their task is to identify, what
those problems are."
Mayor Polston:
"We are having the same problem that we had at the COW Meeting, where we seesawed
back and forth on numbers and make-up and I really thought we had arrived at a
breakdown of the Task Force and everybody felt it was equitable at the time. In lieu of
the fact that one of the members of the Council is not here and left with the
understanding that we had reached a consensus, I will make a motion to adopt the
resolution with the 5, 3, 3, and 1 numbers, and any other changes that the Council would
like."
Polston moved and Hanus seconded the following resolution:
RF~OLUTION//95-37
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A TASK FORCE ON
TIlE COMMONS DOCK PROGRAM
Councilmember Jensen:
can't support that motion."
Councilmember Hanus offered a friendly amendment. The first "WHEREAS, the City
of Mound operates a municipal dock program known as the Commons Dock Program
that is o_aerated u_n~n public pro_uerty designated as Conun0ns, and".
Councilmember Jensen:
"That is inaccurate. The Commons Dock Program utilizes other sites that are not
.Commons. '
163
March 28, 1995
Councilmember Hanus:
''Where I'm trying to go with this thing is, I'm trying to also get under the first;
,Be it further resolved, that the direction of the task force is to review the level
of frustration with the Dock Program and related Commons 'pro_nerties and
develop 'recommendations on how the program can be. imProved.' I want to add
that as a POssible discussion item, not that it will be but it could be and I don't
want to preclude the group from being able to discuss that. Because the problems
are intertwined and the rules may apply differently to one area than another and
· it limits the kinds of suggestions they may be able to make.' As far as the point
on the first Whereas, that doesn't have to be there, it was just to support what I
just said.''
Mayor Polston:
''I couldn't accept the Whereas change, but I can accept the second change as a
friendly amendment.''
The Mayor asked for any further discussion.
Councilmember Jensen:
''I still think that we have got misrepresentation and particularly have made that
misrepresentation worse by including Commons related properties, because now
you indeed have 37 % of the people representing 42 % of the Task Force. 63 %
of the users of the Dock Program do not abut Commons, and they represent 25 %
of the Task Force."
Councilmember Hanus:
''What if this group were talking about, i.e. applying a different set of rules to a
different classification of Commons because it may make more sense (maybe you
can do something on one type of Commons that you can't do on another). That
may affect the Commons properties as to their designation. There may a
recommendation from them, (because of problems in a particular area) to
redesignate a certain section of Commons. If you don't have that in here,
technically I don't think they can make that recommendation because they are not
allowed to talk about the Commons property."
Councilmember Jensen:
''Well, your intent then, with this resolution and what you've done by including
this, and I'm obviously in the minority here, you've already changed a resolution
that we said earlier all 4 of us had agreed to, and now we've changed that part,
but that's O.K. to mOVe forward on. But when we find out that the numbers that
we reached on Tuesday (COW Meeting), result in such a lopsided representation,
that it's still O.K. to move on that. Regardless of what they do or don't talk
about, or whether you do or don't include that, the representation aspect of this
164
March 28, 1995
Task Force is still skewed. 37% of the users of the program, represent 42% of
the Task Force."
Councilmember Hanus:
"If that were a determining body, I'd 'say it's skewed." .
Councilmember Jensen:
"The redommendations have the potential to be skewed. Their discussion has a
potential to be skewed."
Council/nember Hanus:
"But the people who make-the determination have the ability to get (will have to
get) regular public input and theoretically .they are not skewed, the elected
officials or appointed officials, on the .Park Commission. That's not skewed.
That's supposed to be fair representation. There is no determination being made
by .this group. I'm looking for ideas and you're not.going to get ideas from
people who don't have a problem with a program."
Councilmember Jensen:
"But, might you get ideas from these people about how else the program could
be used and you've excluded them from even being a part of the idea generation?
So you're looking for ideas and you've made it clear that the ideas that you want
are from 379[ of the users. Your idea generation body doesn't represent the
tx~ople in the 6ommunity. We don't need to go into whether or not the Park
Commission is representative. Those people are appointed for a variety of
reasons."
Mayor Polston:
~We went around and around for several hours on the fine points of this thing.
I think the important thing is that we are going to revisit a system and invite
public participation through a Task Force, then through the Park Commission and
then though a public hearing at the City Council. I think we will. provide
everybody that wants to an opportunity, to be heard and to listen and to make
decisions based upon the ideas that are brought forth by the public at large.''
Councilmember Jensen:
"If, indeed, that's way this thing is going to go, then the folks who are here and
the folks who are watching, need to be aware of the fact that we have this skewed
Task Force that is going to be put in place and we need to do an outstanding job
of getting information out to the rest of the people as to when that Task Force is
going to be meeting so that they can get their input to those 12 people, as well
as well as when the Park Commission is going to be meeting and when this body
165
March 28, 1995
is going to'be discussing it."
· Mayor Polston agreed.
Councilmember Jensen:
"The Task Force meetings have to be public meetings. They have to be
consistent at a time when other people can get to them becaUse otherwise it's just
not going to work because it is still skewed. Floating locations, floating times
and floating days don't make it.'
Councilmember Hanus:
"We did discuss this and agreed that the meeting will have to take place at City
Hall, and I would imagine they will be in the evening. We also agreed that City
Staff will attend and minutes will be kept. All of those things have been agreed
to already."
Mayor Polston:
"I absolutely agree that we should make an all out effort to make sure that
everybody who wants to be heard or participate has an opportunity."
The Council then changed the wording in the resolution regarding the make-up of the
Task Force to read as follows:
5 persons - abutters who have docks other than their own in front of their homes;
3 persons - abutters who have only their docks in front of their homes;
3 persons - non abutting; and
1 person - at large.
The vote was 2 in favor with Jensen voting nay. Motion carded.
1.5
UPDATE ON LOST LAKE DREDGING PROJECT - BRUCE CHAMBERLAIN,
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR.
City Planner Bruce Chamberlain updated the Council on the Lost Lake Dredging Project and
reviewed his memo dated March 28, 1995. The following work (Round 1) has' been
accomplished to date:
2.
3.
4.
5.
Understanding of permits and environmental reviews.
Collection of site data.
Biological survey.
Pollution and geotechnical testing.
Audit°r's Road street alignment.
166
March 28, 1995
The next phase of work focuses on the preparation of preliminary construction plans, permits
and environmental reviews as well as resolving property' acquisition and business relocation
issues. More detailed project plans will be presented to the community during this time. The
Planner stated they are planning an. open house sometime in the Spring. He asked the Council
to share any ideas they may have on how to present this project creatively to the community.
The Mayor asked about MSA bonding capacity and capability that w~is discussed at the COW
Meeting..The City Manager stated that th~ City can borrow against future MSA construction
allotments, but you cannot borrow more than what the annual principal and interest payment
would be on the bonds. The amount will depend on how much is gfing to be borrowed, what
the interest rates will be and how the sch6dule is set up as far as the principal and interest
payments.
The City Engineer explain, ed that the dollar limit is based on the payment, so the maximum you
can pay back is half of what your yearly MSA construction allotment is, which is currently
$157,000, or roughly $78,000. He stated he does not know what the going interest rate is at
this time, but if you took $600,000, it would take about 8 years to pay back at approximately
$80,000 per year.
The Mayor asked the City Attorney's opinion. The City Attorney stated he has not looked at
the statute but thought it was fled to the City's construction and maintenance accounts.
The City Engineer reminded the Council that all the items have to be State Aid eligible. In
other words, this has to be a State Aid approved project and everything has to be eligible. He
stated there are some things in the project which are not eligible. Anything not eligible would
have to be paid for from City funds, not bonding money. The City Engineer suggested the
Council get some projections on what the bond payments would be with interest.
The Mayor asked for an opinion from the City Attorney on the ability to borrow against State
Aid money, using the $2 million as a worst case scenario, where the City might have to go to
the bonding.
The City Engineer stated he can give the Council a list of the items that are not eligible for State
Aid, but they are making drastic changes in what is eligible, making things more eligible. The
Mayor stated that he feels the consensus of the Council is that before they go into the next
phase, they have all the necessary answers, financial and legal.
The City Attorney asked if Auditor's Road is on the State Aid System at this time. The
Engineer answered yes, but you still have to get the right-of-way plan approved which hasn't
even been sent in yet. Before you can buy right-of-way, you have to have construction plans
approved. The Mayor asked how close the City is to having plans and specifications approved.
The City Engineer stated they are not working on the construction plans, just the right-of-way
plans. The Council has to approve the right-of-way plan before it is submitted.
The City Manager explained that the right-of-way plans will come to the Council for approval
in the near future, along with the answers to the other questions the Council had. The Manager
stated he is trying to set up a meeting with Hennepin County about getting this on their five year
Capital Improvement Program.
167
March 28, 1995
There was discussion on relocating County Road 15. The City Engineer explained that the
Auditor's Road project is not dependent on the relocation of County Road 15. The County Road
15 relocation is somewhere in the future and the right-of-way plan would, be shown with the new
location of County Road 15, but the construction plans will show a temporary connection to the
current location of County Road 15 that goes through the parking lot next to the Post Office.
The Council asked that the whole package be presented at a future meeting, i.e. financial,
project, bonding, use of MSA funds, and results of the meeting with Hennepin County.
The Planner then presented the concept plan for the Lost Lake Greenway for which the City has
submitted an application for another ISTEA grant in addition to the Lost Lake Canal grant
already approved. The amount of the Lost Lake Greenway grant would be about $400,000. In
this plan, Auditor's Road would become the Main Street of Mound with on-street diagonal
parking. There would be a greenway or trail that would go along the lake from County Road
110 to the docking facility.
The Planner will keep the Council updated.
The next two items were taken off the Agenda because they require 4/5 approval by the
City Council and there were only 3 members present at this meeting.
1.6
APPLICATIQN FOR PUBLIC LAND PERMITS, #41110, RAY SALAZAR;
REQUEST TO TRIM VEGETATION.
This item was postponed until the April 25, 1995, Regular Meeting at the applicant's request.
1.7
APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC LAND PERMITS, #49520, DONALD AND
GERALDINE SWENSON: REQUEST TO TRIM VEGETATION.
This item was postponed until the April 11, 1995, Regular Meeting at the applicant's request.
1.8 APPROVE AND AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO SIGN
EASEMENTS RELATING TO THE PURCHASE OF PARKING LOT LANDS
(DAKOTA RAIL) WITH. METROPOLITAN COUNCIL WASTEWATER
SERVICES.
The City Manager explained that since the Dakota Rail settlement, the City Attorney has
negotiated the easements that were pertaining to the parking lots (across from the House of Moy
and next to the attorney's offices)'. These are sewer easements that the City needs to grant to
the Metropolitan Council for the interceptor that runs through these parking lots. The City will
be paid $45,000 for these easements.
MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Hanus to authorize the Mayor and City
Manager to execute the easements to the Metropolitan CoUncil and the City will
receive $45,000 for these sewer easements. The vote was unanimously in favor.
Motion carried.
168
March 28, 1995
L9
MOTION made' by Jensen, seconded by Hanus to authorize the payment of bills as
presented on the pre-list in the amount of $162,601.24, when funds are available.
A roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
INFORMATIONAL/MISCELLANEOUS
A. February 1995 Financial Report as prepared by Gino Businaro, Finance Director.
B. Park and Open Space Commission Minutes of March 9, 1995.
C. LMCD Mailings.
D. REMINDER: Interview with Donna Christensen HRA Candidate, Tuesday, March 28,
1995, 7:15 PM, City Hall, prior to regular meeting.
E. Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of March 13, 1995.
MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Jensen to adjourn at 9:00 P.M. The vote
was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
~:lward J. Shulc~-~., City Manager
Attest: City Clerk
169
BILLS, March 28, 1995
Batch 5032 $162,601.24
Total Bills $162,601.24