Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0819 RegularREGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES August 19, 2002 CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Present were Mayor Haugen, Councilmembers Petersen, Zieska, and LeUair, City Manager Boyles, City Attorney Pace, Community Development Director Rye, Planning Coordinator Kansier, and Recording Secretary Meyer. Councilmember Gundlach and Public Works Director Osmundson joined the meeting after representing the City before the Watershed District Board Meeting. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Zieska: Requested adding a discussion under New Business regarding fencing regulations. Boyles: Also added an item under Other Business providing notice of upcoming meetings. MOTION BY ZIESKA, SECOND BY PETERSEN TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Petersen, Zieska and LeMair, the motion carried. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES July 15, 2002 Regular Meeting Minutes MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECOND BY ZIESKA TO APROVE THE JULY 15, 2002 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES. VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Petersen, Zieska and LeUair, the motion carried. July 29, 2002 Special Meeting Minutes MOTION BY LEMAIR, SECOND BY PETERSEN TO APPROVE THE JULY 29, 2002 SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES. VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Petersen, Zieska and LeUair, the motion carried. August 5, 2002 Regular Meeting Minutes MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECOND BY LEMAIR TO APPROVE THE AUGUST 5, 2002 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES. VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Petersen and LeUair, the motion carded. Councilmember Zieska abstained. CONSENT AGENDA: (A) Consider Approval of Invoices to be Paid. (B) Consider Approval of Treasurer's Report. (C) Consider Approval of Building Permit Report. (D) Consider Approval of Animal Warden Monthly Report. (E) Consider Approval of Monthly Fire Call Report. (F) Consider Approval of Resolution 02-130 Approving Full and Final Payment to Klein Electric for the Installation of Athletic Field Lighting at Ponds Athletic Complex. (G) Consider Approval of Resolution 02-131 Approving Participation in the Sentencing to Service Program and Authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to Enter into a Joint Powers Agreement with the County. Bo¥1es: Reviewed the remaining Consent Agenda Items. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECOND BY ZIESKA TO APPROVE CONSENT AGENDA AS SUBMITTED. VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Petersen, Zieska and LeMair, the motion carried. 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER City Council Meeting Minutes DRAFT August 19, 2002 ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA: NONE. PRESENTATIONS: Presentation Recognizing the Contributions of Gene White as Councilmember and HRA Commissioner (Mayor Haugen) Hau,qen: Thanked Gene for his numerous volunteer efforts on behalf of the Prior Lake community over the course of many years, and presented him with a recognition plaque. Presentation Recognizing Persons Who Made Lakefront Days 2002 a Success. (Mayor Haugen) Hauflen: Made a brief statement thanking the many volunteers, sponsors, City staff, and Chamber Board members, particularly Chamber President Darcy Rose, for making Lakefront Days the biggest and best yet. Metropolitan Council Update (Jules Smith) Jules Smith (Prior Lake Area Representative to Met Council): Discussed the Metropolitan Council's structure, role within the metropolitan area, including allocation of transportation funding, parks, assuring regulation of bonding by checking annual budgets for airports and sports facilities commission. Further noted the services the Met Council provides in coordination GIS utilization between cities and counties, establishing radio emergency communications in the metro area, and acting as a federal pass-through agency and administrator for Section 8 housing. Discussed the Livable Communities Act and the corresponding efforts the Met Council has with MHFA and the MPCA, as well as protection of agriculture. Also discussed the Met Council's role in approving Comprehensive Plans for cities. Boyles: Provided an example of The Wilds development in which the Metropolitan Council collaborated with the City to allow a revised MUSA line essential for the development to occur. LeMair: Commented on the difficulty in providing lower cost housing in a market where land is such a limited commodity. Asked how Mr. Smith would suggest the City go about meeting this need given those circumstances. Smith: Commented on the Met Council's role and programs that provide assistance for these types of projects. Noted that the applications for assistance far exceed the money available, and that the Met Council looks favorably on any partnering efforts between counties and municipalities when considering allocation of additional assistance. LeMair: Asked if a new stadium for the Twins is in the immediate future. Smith: Noted that in past, there has been a change of heart in the legislature and on the Sports Facilities Commission, whether the public dollar should be involved in these types of projects. There are many issues. Believed that someday a stadium will be built, but was not sure it would be done this time around. Haugen: Asked for Met Council support in the Jeffers Pond development, which will provide various segments of Iow-cost and senior housing, parkland, trails, school property, and a transit site. Advised that the project needs re-classification of Jeffers Pond by the DNR in order to make the project happen. 2 City Council Meeting Minutes August 19, 2002 Boyles: Added that there is also a request to re-classify Hass Lake in another area within the City, and asked for Met Council support in that regard as well. Smith: Advised that the Met Council works frequently with the DNR and he will pass along the beneficial impacts of those projects. Allina Ambulance Update (Chris Caulkins) Caulkins (Allina): Reviewed the ambulance response times in Scott County, Allina's self-imposed standards, the improvement of services through a signal preemption system, and implementation of an automatic vehicle Iocator system. Further discussed the Heart Safe Communities program provided for businesses and in the Prior Lake High School, additional pro-active measures taken in light of the events of Sept. 11th, and the newest programs initiated to enhance service to the community. Hau,qen: Asked the area that the Commerce Avenue ambulances are responsible for. Concerned that having an ambulance facility in the northernmost portion of the City does not provide adequate coverage to the southern part of Prior Lake. Caulkins: Discussed that where the ambulances respond to depends on how many ambulances are on-duty and where they are. Generally, the Commerce Avenue station serve Prior Lake, Savage, Credit River and Spring Lake Township. Further advised that the volume of calls dictates the facility locations. The number of calls to Prior Lake and the SMSC have the highest volume and the Commerce location is strategic in that regard. Should the number of calls at some point in the future change, adding a facility or changing the current location of the facility would be re-evaluated. Presentation of Check from Prior Lake Athletics for Youth (P.L.A. Y.) for Ponds Athletic Lighting (Mark Schroeder) Boyles: Noted that this item has been deferred to the October 7th agenda. Councilmember Gundlach joined the meeting in progress. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Public Hearing to Consider Approval of a Resolution Vacating the Drainage and Utility Easement Located on Lot 89, Sterling South at The Wilds (Case File #02-079) Kansier: Reviewed the agenda item in connection with the staff report. Mayor Haugen opened the public hearing and asked those persons who wished to speak to approach the podium and state their name and address for the record. No persons were present to address the Council. MOTION BY ZIESKA, SECOND BY GUNDLACH TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Gundlach, Petersen, Zieska and LeMair, the motion carried. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECOND BY ZIESKA, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 02-132 VACATING A PORTION OF THE DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT LOCATED ON LOT 89, BLOCK 1, STERLING SOUTH AT THE WILDS. VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Gundlach, Petersen, Zieska and LeUair, the motion carried. City Council Meeting Minutes August 19, 2002 The Council took a brief recess. Public Hearing to Consider an Appeal of the Planning Commission's Decision to Deny the Requested Variances to a Structures Rear Yard Setback, OHWM Setback, Sum of Side Yards, and Setback for a Building Wall over 50 Feet Long (Case File #02.068PC). Horsman: Reviewed the agenda item in connection with the staff report, discussing the vadance requests appealed and the action of the Planning Commission. Noted that the appeal has been revised requesting item 1, 2 and 7. Pace: Asked for an explanation of the odginal request. Horsman: Noted there were originally five variances requested, but that utilizing setback averaging, the need for one of the variances was eliminated. Advised that there was one variance which the Planning Commission felt met the hardship cdteda and was granted. Zieska: Asked if by granting the rear yard setback, variance #2 is still necessary. Horsman: Advised that he would need to re-calculate the measurements, but noted that the applicant is appealing the rear yard setback which was granted by the Planning Commission at a figure less than originally requested. LeMair: Asked the square footage of the proposed structure. Horsman: Slightly over 1700 square feet. Boyles: Asked for clarification as to where the 21.7 foot variance was needed to permit 3.23 foot rear yard setback. Horsman: Identified the vadance discussed as shown on the odginal survey. Noted that the revised survey submitted was necessary to eliminate the sum of side yards variance. Gundlach: Asked the rationale for the 25 foot setback. Horsman: Advised that setbacks are necessary to create uniform development and required yard areas. Such areas give separation from structures and usable green space. Setbacks also preserve structures from moving closer to adjacent structures, or in the case of this rear yard setback, from moving closer to the lake and thereby obstructing neighboring views. Noted that setback averaging was used in this instance to allow the house closer to the ordinary high water mark setback. Kansier: Explained the common area relevant to this property and discussed the calculation. Noted that variances of this type do not happen very often. Gundlach: Noted that if the City Council did not take any action, the variance granted by the Planning Commission with the setback averaging would still be effective. Kansier: Confirmed. Pace: Asked what three substandard lots had been combined in this instance. 4 City Council Meeting Minutes August 19, 2002 Horsman: Advised Inguadona Beach Circle dissects the property. The combination was of Lots 17, 20 and 21. Hauflen: Asked how the current boathouse affected the setback, and how much farther than the existing house did the proposed house extended to the lake. Horsman: Advised that in the instance of a noncomplying structure, staff would recommend that such structures be eliminated. In this case, the boathouse is on common property owned by the property owners of Inguadona Beach. Also advised that the proposed home is farther from the OHW and that the existing home is over the lot line encroaching the common area. Boyles: Asked if the boathouse is included in the setback averaging calculation. Horsman: Advised that the boathouse was not used in the calculation. Gundlach: With respect to the revised survey, asked what items are different from what was approved. Horsman: Advised that he had not had time to formally review the revised survey since its submittal late last week. Pace: Asked if demolishing the current structure means that the encroachment in the common area would be removed. Horsman: Advised that is his understanding, and that the new structure would be located within the property boundaries but not meeting the OHW setback averaging and also not meeting the rear yard setback. Pace: Requested that there be a condition if a variance is enacted that no portion of the proposed structure encroach into the common area, with the exception of the boathouse. Mayor Haugen declared the public headng open. Loren Gross (attomey representing applicant): Introduced the petitioners who were present. Submitted a petition from the neighborhood in support of the requested variances. Advised that the draft agenda indicated there were no public meetings and therefore no persons from the neighborhood were present. Further discussed the three variances requested including the side yard setback, rear yard setback, and setback from the OHWM. Noted that interpretation of the ordinance by the staff and by the architect are not the same. Advised that the architect interpreted that the break in the garage would preclude the need for an additional variance. Staff did not interpret the ordinance provision in the same manner. Also noted that in 1924 it was intended that a 20-foot walkway be added along the lake. The line was not necessarily drawn from the OHWM, and now is more like 50 feet. Noted that if the boathouse was considered a structure, it could be factored into the setback averaging. Gundlach: Noted that the boathouse is being ignored because it is on common property. Pace: Asked who owns the boathouse. Gross: Because of the drawing of the rear yard setback, the boathouse belongs to Inguadona Beach Association and does not sit on any plat of record. Continued that the owners would like to build a newer home on the lot and believe the applicant has done everything they can to make reasonable use of the lot and address the concems of neighboring properties. Repeated that all parts of the proposed house will be within the property lines and the deck would be 10 feet further from the lake than the existing deck. 5 City Council Meeting Minutes August 19, 2002 LeMair: Noted that the owners of Lot 16 directly adjacent did not sign the petition. Gross: Confirmed, and advised that the property owners of Lot 16 had concems with the house unrelated to the requested variances. Gundlach: Asked why the City Council should overturn a decision that the Planning Commission thoroughly reviewed. Gross: Believed the hardship standards for the granting of variances was subjective and that the applicant proposed a reasonable use of the property. The same arbitrary standards were used in the staff's recommendation. Also noted that the Planning Commission does not grant variances, but rather make recommendations to the City Council for final approval. Zieska: Clarified that under Prior Lake City Code, the Planning Commission does grant variances and that the City Council only sees variance requests on appeal. LeMair: Asked what the square footage of the house becomes if the applicant does not receive the requested variances. Dennis Perrier (16502 Inguadona Beach, applicant): Advised that the proposed structure would be nearly 1500 square feet on one level in that case. Noted that only one variance was granted. Gross: Advised that the proposed structure is one level with a walkout in consideration of the impact an additional story would create. The applicant also considers the proposed structure as a retirement home and would like to minimize the number of stairs. Perrier: Noted that the impervious surface calculation is well below the allowance, and that lot 20 and part of 21 would remain vacated for overflow parking for the area. Also noted that his neighbor Roger Wahl are not opposed to the variance request, but rather the design of the side wall and the overall size of the structure. Noted that he would probably make the size of the house smaller in consideration of Mr. Wahl's concerns. Did not believe the size of the home is excessive for the area. Further suggested that clarification needs to be made to the ordinance in the definition of rear and front yard for lake property. Zieska: Clarified that standard conforming lots in Prior Lake need to be 12,000 square feet, and that the applicant's lot is roughly half of that size, so adequate comparisons need to be made when discussing square footage versus lot size. Perrier: Noted that his property includes additional lots. Gundlach: Clarified that the ordinance would allow a garage accessory structures across the street on combined lots for lake property. Horsman: Suggested that with respect to lots 20 and 21, a condition be imposed that the compacted Class 5 materials and any structures be removed otherwise the impervious surface area is over 30%. Gross: Noted that Mr. Perrier does not object to removal of the Class 5 material. Perrier: Noted that the lot is used extensively to maintain the area and those lots were used for storage of construction materials. MOTION BY ZIESKA, SECOND BY LEMAIR TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Gundlach, Petersen, Zieska and LeMair, the motion carried. City Council Meeting Minutes August 19, 2002 Zieska: Noted that in review of the information tonight and from the Planning Commission, suggested that there is nothing the Council can do with respect to the current structure, and that properties with similar constraints find a way to build within the lot envelope. Commented that often times what an owner wants can't necessarily be built. Supported the Planning Commission decision. LeMair: Also supported the Planning Commission decision. Believed there is reom to comply with the rear yard setback granted by the Planning Commission and thereby eliminating the need for the additional variances. Petersen: Believed the issue was difficult and would like to address the needs of the applicant, but that there is concem about moving the house closer to the lake. Admired the choices of the applicant in respecting his neighborhood, but did not support granting the requested variances. Gundlach: Believed that if the Council took no action, the vadance granted by the Planning Commission becomes effective. Believed that many lake lots are unique, but that a 2800 square foot structure could adequately address the applicant's needs and that the request does not meet the hardship criteria. Supported the Planning Commission decision. Haugen: Asked for a brief recess to consult with counsel. The Council took a bdef recess. Zieska: Commented that ordinances are in place for consistency for the better of the overall community. The issue tonight is enforcement of those ordinances, despite what this particular neighborhood might feel is acceptable. If the overall ordinances should be addressed is a separate issue. Hau.qen: Reviewed each of the hardship criteda and discussed the relationship to the applicant's vadance requests. Noted that the Planning Commission did not find that the requests met the hardship criteria. Based upon the stated cdteda, did not believe the applicant faced hardship. Bo¥1es: Clarified that if the Council desired to uphold the Planning Commission decision, action on the two resolutions as recommended by staff were necessary. Further noted that upon reviewing the file, the City has complied with the statutory public notice and the notification required to residents by the ordinance, and there was no procedural problem as implied by Attomey Gross. MOTION BY GUNDLACH, SECOND BY LEMAIR TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 02-134 UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE A 9-FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 16-FOOT STRUCTURE SETBACK TO THE REAR PROPERTY LINE ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 16502 INGUADONA BEACH CIRCLE SW. Gundlach: Asked for clarification that the resolution was correctly worded. Horsman: Confirmed. VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Gundlach, Petersen, Zieska and LeMair, the motion carried. MOTION BY GUNDLACH, SECOND BY LEMAIR TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 02-135 UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENY THE REMAINING VARIANCE REQUESTS AS PROPOSED. Pace: Asked if the revised survey needed to be considered with respect to the resolution. City Council Meeting Minutes August 19, 2002 Horsman: Clarified that the Planning Commission action did not consider the revised survey, therefore the Council had no need to consider it. VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Gundlach, Petersen, Zieska, and LeMair, the motion carried. Public Hearing to Consider an Appeal of the Planning Commission's Decision to Deny a Variance to Allow the Import of Materials, Grading and Filling within a Bluff Impact Zone. (Case File #02.076PC) Horsman: Reviewed the agenda item in connection with the staff report, together with the recommendation of the Planning Commission and staff that the vadance did not meet the hardship criteria. Noted that the original Stop Work order was lifted because the applicant submitted a Letter of Credit that would allow the City to restore the bluff if the builder failed to do so. Gundlach: Asked how a bluff can be restored. Horsman: Advised that the bluff has a high point of 932 feet with a 30% rate of slope. The builder would have to submit a grading plan for approval and identifying all corrective measures for removing the retaining walls and restoring the bluff. Advised that the issue is to keep the boulder wall within the bluff impact zone. Gundlach: Asked if there was an opinion by staff that the wall could be removed and the bluff restored. Horsman: Stated that what determines the adequate restoration of bluff and any impacts is beyond his expertise. Mayor Haugen declared the public hearing open. Chris Deanovic (Hi#crest Homes): Stated that if the issue was a deck or some other encroachment, it would just be removed. Stated this is the first time he has been in front of the Council for an after-the-fact variance. Believes that in order to maintain the integrity of the bluff, retaining walls are necessary. Believes that removal of the wall is contrary to the intent of the ordinance as it would adversely impact the bluff. Noted the extensive engineering for the site, and the opinion that the bluff would be unaffected with the construction of the house. A subsequent engineering report advised that removing the wall would be detrimental for the bluff and the site. Also advised that the DNR is of the same opinion. Further noted that the bluff is currently stable as evidenced by its stability during the course of recent rains. Believed that he has suffered a financial penalty due to the stop work order, and simply made a mistake in this case. Gundlach: Asked if the decision was made to not get a permit and expect the Council to approve the variance after the fact. Deanovic: Believes it was an honest mistake. His concern focused on the positioning of the house with respect to the top of the bluff. As a developer within the City, he has a reputable history in complying with building requirements. Gundlach: Asked about the corrective measures for the side retaining wall. Deanovic: Advised that the easterly retaining wall was moved and re-built. Noted that the Stop Work order dealt with three issues: (1) the southerly retaining wall, (2) the encroachment of the easterly retaining wall, and (3) the discharge of the drainage tube. Two of the three items were corrected. Petersen: Stated that his opinion was to not further disturb the bluff and that the applicant had leamed his lesson. 8 City Council Meeting Minutes August 19, 2002 LeMair: Agreed that there is no medt to further disturbing the bluff. Primarily concerned with the enforcement and/or penalty for the current action. The point is that the City seemed to be circumvented and currently left with few options. Zieska: Noted that upon his review of the site, particularly after the extensive rains, it would not be prudent to further disturb the site. Agreed with Councilmember LeUair with respect to a penalty to deter similar action by others. Haugen: Believes that in relation to the hardship criteria, the vadance probably wouldn't have been granted. It is likely that the property is enhanced, but the issue is the fact that regulations cannot be circumvented. The point is the issue is bigger than this property. Suggested that the wall stays, but the Letter of Credit is sacrificed. Gundlach: Agreed with the Mayor's position that the variance does not meet the hardship cdteda. Excluding the ramifications, the law indicates that the impact of the bluff is irrelevant. The Council does not have that luxury. Deanovic: Believes the analogy of the deal isn't a fair comparison. If this issue was a deck, he would agree with the position of the Council. The issue here is the bluff. If the wall was not in a bluff, he would have just taken it out. Because this situation seems to put us in the position of doing more harm than good by removing the wall, he is of a different opinion. Pace: Asked for what purpose the Letter of Credit was posted. Deanovic: So the City could maintain its leverage in the event the variance was denied, and the builder abandoned the project, that the City would have the funds to restore the bluff to its original condition. Pace: Clarified that if the Council, hypothetically, denies the variance, the developer would incur a cost in removing the retaining wall and regrading. Deanovic: Confirmed and suspected that the costs would be in the ballpark of the $10,000 Letter of Credit. Hau,qen: Asked if the market value of the home changes if the wall is removed. Deanovic: Advised that the wall does provide some aesthetic appeal which would factor into either market value or salability. Zieska: Asked if there is currently building on the site. Deanovic: Advised work was started yesterday. Gundlach: Commented that it seems the Planning Commission discussion was similar to this one. Asked why the Council should deviate from that determination. Deanovic: Advised that there was a philosophical difference between the builder and the Planning Commission as to the impact of the retaining wall. The Planning Commission believed the retaining wall was a landscaping feature. The DNR and the engineering reports indicate that removal of the wall will be detrimental to the bluff. Gundlach: Believes there is no evidence to suggest that the retaining wall is anything but landscaping. Zieska: Asked if there was engineering in connection with a building permit application. 9 City Council Meeting Minutes August 19, 2002 Deanovic: Advised that they did not know that retaining walls needed to be included on the site plan. Jim Albers (realtor selling the property): Believes that the builder would not have made a mistake like this on purpose. Discussed the definition of top of bluff and toe of bluff and the difficulty in making those calculations. The staff would not discuss the possibility of the wall being from the toe of bluff. Believes the ordinance is subjective in its definitions involving the bluff. Believes the builder respects the ordinance and that the variance request meets the hardship criteria. Also believes forfeiture of the Letter of Credit is excessive and an unestablished policy and was intended to protect the City in the event the builder failed to remove or restore the bluff. Asked the Council to consider the issue from an after-the-fact perspective. Believed the wall added aesthetic and marketing value rather than monetary value. Believes the variance request is reasonable and complies with the hardship criteria. Zieska: Asked for clarification as to the separation needed between the fiat area and the hillside. Albers: Noted that some type of separation would be needed, and noted that with all the wet weather, the only part of the bluff that hasn't moved is behind that wall. LeMair: Advised that the issue at this point is this retaining wall. Zieska: Noted that the large trees on the site have been in place for many years and have not eroded from the bluff, and so it doesn't seem likely that the retaining wall is anything but aesthetic. The variance criteria don't appear to have been met. Albers: Indicated that things have changed due to the construction of the house. Gundlach: Asked what position Mr. Albers would recommend the next time a situation of this type presents itself. Albers: Believes the necessary action is to establish a policy for penalty. MOTION BY GUNDLACH, SECOND BY ZIESKA TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Gundlach, Petersen, Zieska and LeUair. Haugen: Believes that valid points had been made, and that it is unnecessary to debate the amount of fiow over that retaining wall. The issues are two-fold. First, whether the hardship criteria has been met, and secondly, any penalty. Believed Mr. Alber's point about the Letter of Credit was valid and was not intended to hold the builder hostage. MOTION BY ZIESKA, SECOND BY LEMAIR, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 02-XX UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENY THE VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE IMPORT OF MATERIALS, GRADING AND FILLING WITHIN THE BLUFF IMPACT ZONE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 14764 ROSEWOOD ROAD. Petersen: Believe the builder has been penalized for the action, and that removal of the bluff was more detrimental. Gundlach: Does not believe the hardship criteria are met in the case of this variance, and that it is not obvious that wall is being used for anything but aesthetics. Supported the Planning Commission decision. LeMair: Advised that his intention was not to worsen the impact on the bluff. Did not like after-the-fact approvals and believed a penalty was necessary. Did not support the motion. Zieska: Commented that as distasteful as after-the-fact decision may be, did not believe there was benefit for the bluff by removing the wall. 10 City Council Meeting Minutes August 19, 2002 Gundlach: Believed that sometimes a hard decision has to be made, and that letting the wall stay sends the wrong message to the next guy. Hau.qen: Commented that the ordinance may need to be reviewed. Understood the concems of Councilmember Gundlach. Read from page 8 of the Planning Commission meeting minutes of July 8, 2002 noting that removing the boulders and imported fill at this point may have greater potential for erosion and slope failure. Supported overturning the Planning Commission decision. Zieska: Also understood the concerns of Councilmember Gundlach. Believes there are exceptions in this case that will not establish precedent. Hau,qen: Advised that the City Attorney has recommended a possible solution, in that the decision of the Planning Commission be upheld, but that the City not enforce the removal of the wall. Pace: Clarified that it is for the Council to decide if a variance is appropriate, but there is also a concem about selective enforcement. Couldn't make a recommendation at this time whether not enforcing the removal of the wall was a viable solution. Zieska: Noted that considering the merits of this case, the hardship criteria could be met considering that the wall is in place and the comments of the hydrologist and engineer. Boyles: Suggested two separate actions, the first being action to uphold the Planning Commission decision, and then the second to direct the City Attorney to pursue the best course of action. Zieska: Asked if there is a statutory deadline. Pace: No because the variance would be denied. Zieska: Asked if the developer was comfortable with a 60 day window to resolve the enforcement issue. Deanovic: Advised that he understands the Council's direction, but he is concemed that if the vadance is denied, and enforcement is determined to be necessary, then he is compelled to remove the wall. Pace: Clarified that under the case law, no two properties are ever the same, so whereas we may be seeking an injunction to have a retaining wall removed that was built without a permit, the facts and circumstances of that case do not control this situations, just as this situation would not affect future decisions. VOTE: Ayes by Gundlach, Nay by Haugen, Petersen, Zieska and LeMair, the motion failed. Pace: Noted that the next appropriate action would be to direct staff to prepare a resolution with findings of fact to overturn the decision of the Planning Commission. MOTION BY ZIESKA, SECOND BY LEMAIR TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION WITH FINDINGS OF FACT TO OVERTURN THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION. VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Petersen, Zieska and LeMair, Nay by Gundlach, the motion carded. The Council took a brief recess. 11 City Council Meeting Minutes August 19, 2002 Hau.qen: Advised that the Executive Session to conduct the performance review of the City Manager would be postponed considering the late hour. The remaining items will be completed. OLD BUSINESS: Consider Approval of a Resolution Approving the Submission of an Application for Funding Assistance to the Minnesota Juvenile Justice Advisory Committee and the Minnesota Department of Economic Security for Dockside Youth Development Programs. Boyles: Reviewed the agenda item in connection with the staff report. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECOND BY ZIESKA TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 02-136 APPROVING THE SUBMISSION OF AN APPLICATION FOR FUNDING ASSISTANCE TO THE MINNESOTA JUVENILE JUSTICE ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY FOR DOCKSIDE YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS. Hau,qen: Advised that this item had been discussed at length at a previous meeting. VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Gundlach, Petersen, Zieska and LeMair, the motion carded. Consider Approval of Two Resolutions (1) Approving an Amendment to Sterling South at the Wilds Planned Unit Development; and (2) Approving a Combined Preliminary and Final Plat to be Known as Sterling Addition. Kansier: Reviewed the agenda item in connection with the staff report. LeMair: Asked why there was a change. Kansier: Advised the few remaining lots will not accommodate the detached single family homes due to the turn of the cul- de-sac and some of the odd angles at the front of the lots. The builder feels that by re-platting and shifting the lot lines, things will fit better. Gundlach: Asked if the perspective of the open space is changed. Kansier: Believed the impact will be insignificant, and may open the area up more because the number of units would be reduced. The rest of the PUD remains unchanged. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECOND BY GUNDLACH TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 02-139 AMENDING THE STERLING SOUTH AT THE WILDS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Gundlach, Petersen, Zieska and LeMair, the motion carded. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECOND BY GUNDLACH TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 02-140 APPROVING THE COMBINED PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT OF STERLING ADDITION AND SETTING FORTH CONDITIONS TO BE MET PRIOR TO RELEASE OF THE FINAL PLAT. VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Gundlach, Petersen, Zieska and LeMair, the motion carded. 12 City Council Meeting Minutes August 19, 2002 NEW BUSINESS Consider Approval of a Resolution Authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to Enter into an Agreement with the League of Minnesota Cities to Participate in the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Storm Water Guide Plan. Osmundson: Discussed the agenda item in connection with the staff report. MOTION BY LEMAIR, SECOND BY PETERSEN, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 02-141 AUTHORIZING THE PARTICIPATION IN THE LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES NPDES PHASE II STORM WATER GUIDE PLAN. Pace: Noted that the city has requested that the contract also add language that the cost to the city will not exceed $5000. VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Gundlach, Petersen, Zieska and LeMair, the motion carried. Consider Approval of a Resolution Authorizing the Installation of No Parking Vehicles with Trailers Signs at Walnut Avenue SW and at Willow Beach Trails SW. Osmundson: Reviewed the project in connection with the staff report. LeMair: Asked how many spots will be given up. Osmundson: Noted that 15 to 20 spots would be removed. Zieska: Believe this was a public safety issue. Barbara Sweeney and Michael Sweeney (3401 Willow Beach Trail): Discussed the narrowness of the streets and that the safety issues as well as just having the ability to pass the roads. Noted that there are many "No Parking with Trailers" signs in the Sand Point neighborhoods which have much wider streets. Believed it necessary to put "No Trailer Parking" signs on both sides of the street. Advised that the affected property owners are in agreement. Hau.qen: Suggested that there be general "No Parking" signs whether with or without trailers. Zieska: Believed it solved the problem if just trailers were not allowed to park because then the only on-street parking used is really by the residents. LeMair: Suggested having "No Parking" on one side, and allow trailer parking on the other side. Concerned about eliminating trailer parking spots when it is already difficult to get public access to the lake. Barbara Sweeney: Believed by virtue of their lake access lots, they are entitled to have access and that access is currently limited due to someone else parking in her neighborhood. LeMair: Equated the situation to having a soccer field in his neighborhood where he can't find a parking spot when there's a soccer game. Believed there was a bigger issue and it depends on the perspective of on-lake versus off-lake users. Zieska: Commented that the City isn't obligated to provide parking for every resident who needs a trailer parking spot. 13 City Council Meeting Minutes August 19, 2002 Gundlach: Agreed with the points made by Councilmember LeMair in that the issue is much larger than this neighborhood. In this case, the bigger issue is public safety. MOTION BY ZIESKA, SECOND BY PETERSEN TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 02-142 APPROVING THE INSTALLATION OF NO PARKING VEHICLES WITH TRAILER SIGNS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE STREET. VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Gundlach, Petersen and Zieska, Nay by LeMair, the motion carded. Consider Approval of a Resolution Authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to Enter Into a Standard Professional Services Contract with WSB & Associates to Provide Engineering Design Services for the Third Phase of the Ring Road Including CSAH 23/Five Hawks / TH 13 Intersection, City Project 02-06 Osmundson: Reviewed the agenda item in connection with the staff report. MOTION BY GUNDLACH, SECOND BY PETERSEN TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 02-143 AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A STANDARD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT WITH WSB & ASSOCIATES TO PROVIDE ENGINEERING DESIGN SERVICES FOR THE THIRD PHASE OF THE RING ROAD. Zieska: Asked if the engineering work includes providing the conduits for the signalized intersection but not actual lights. Osmundson: Confirmed. VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Gundlach, Petersen, Zieska and Edcson, the motion carried. Consider Approval of Recommendations to Improve Resident Comfort at City Council Meetings. Boyles: Briefly reviewed the agenda item in connection with the staff report. Hau.qen: Suggested deferring the discussion to the next meeting. Councilmembers concurred. OTHER BUSlNESSlCOUNClLMEMBER REPORTS Executive Session [This item was deferred to a later date.] Discussion Regarding Fence Ordinance Issues Bo¥1es: Noted that at the Public Forum a resident brought to the Council's attention some limitations in the current fence ordinance that may create unnecessary restrictions on rear yard fences and the definition of front yards within the ordinance. The options would be to review such cases through the variance process, or to direct the staff to revision the ordinance provisions. 14 City Council Meeting Minutes August 19, 2002 MOTION BY ZIESKA, SECOND BY PETERSEN TO DIRECT STAFF TO THE FURTHER REVIEW THE FENCE ORDINANCE WITH RESPECT TO THE DEFINITION OF FRONT YARDS, FENCE OPACITY, EXCEPTIONS FOR FENCING YARDS ALONG COLLECTOR STREETS, AND THE REGULATIONS OF FENCING ON LAKESHORE LOTS. VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Gundlach, Petersen, Zieska and LeMair, the motion carried. 2020 Vision and Strategic Plan Boyles: Briefly reviewed the meetings this week where the City will share its 2020 Vision and Strategic Plan with the Chamber, area businesses, the Rotary members, the City staff, and the Fire Department. Gundlach: Presented pictures where the sanitary sewer along the lake overflowed last month, and advised that the property owners have asked that a more permanent solution be considered for this problem. Asked staff to follow up. Hau.qen: Congratulated the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community on a successful Pow-Wow this past weekend. A motion to adjoum was made and seconded. The meeting adjourned at 12:25am. Frank Boyles,"'City {Vlanager Kelly Meyer, rding Secretary 15