Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0820 RegularREGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES August20,2001 CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCF: Mayor Mader called the meeting to order. Present were Mayor Mader, Councilmembers Petersen, Gundlach, Ericson and Zieska, City Manager Boyles, Assistant City Attorney Schmitt, Public Works Director Osmundson, City Engineer McDermott, Planning Director Rye, Planning Coordinator Kansier, Assistant City Manager Walsh and Recording Secretary Meyer. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: BOYLES: Advised that the presentation item was to be removed because Mediacom representatives were not available. Also asked that the Executive Session be removed. MOTION BY MADER, SECOND BY ERICSON TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach, Petersen, Ericson and Zieska, the motion carried. APPROVAL OF REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 6, 2001 MADER: Requested a change to page 7 clarifying that the number refers to the number of persons that casino operations brought into the City on a daily basis plus the population of the City. MOTION BY GUNDLACH, SECOND BY PETERSEN TO APPROVE THE AUGUST 6, MEETING MINUTES AS AMENDED. VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach, Petersen, Ericson and Zieska, the motion carried. 2001 CONSENT AGENDA: (A) Consider Approval (B) Consider Approval (C) Consider Approval (D) Consider Approval (E) Consider Approval of Invoices to be Paid. of Treasurer's Report. of Building Permit Report. of Animal Warden Monthly Report. of Fire Call Report. GUNDLACH: Asked that Item (A) Consider Approval of Invoices to be Paid be removed. BOYLES: Reviewed the remaining consent agenda items. MOTION BY GUNDLACH, SECOND BY ERICSON TO APPROVE CONSENT AGENDA ITEM (B) - (E) AS SUBMITTED. VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach, Petersen, Ericson and Zieska, the motion carried. City Council Meeting Minutes August 20, 2001 ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA: Invoices to be Paid GUNDLACH: Asked about a payment to Barbarossa & Sons in the amount of $314,414.14. BOYLES: Clarified that the invoice was the first progress payment on the $1.6 million Frogtown project. MOTION BY GUNDLACH, SECOND BY ERICSON TO APPROVE THE INVOICES TO BE PAID. VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach, Petersen, Ericson and Zieska, the motion carried. PRESENTATIONS: [REMOVED] Mediacom Presentation PUBLIC HEARINGS: Public Hearing to Consider an Appeal of the Planning Commission's Denial of a Variance to the Lakeshore Setback on Property Located at 15507 Calmut Avenue. KANSlER: Reviewed the agenda item in connection with the staff report. Advised of the Planning Commission and staff recommendation to deny the variance. PETERSEN: Asked how the house met the requirements for a permit in the first place. KANSlER: Advised that the house as originally approved met the 30% impervious surface and a condition of approval was that there only be 30% impervious surface on the lot. The extension to the north was not part of the original survey or permit. The house addition to the north was within the original setback requirement. The impervious surface issues are yet to be considered by the Planning Commission. ZIESKA: Asked for clarification that the house was built within the parameters of the permit issued in 1978, and that the setback problem is due to the addition of the deck. Further commented that the deck is on the edge of the lake. PETERSEN: Commented that the houses in the area are all very close to the lake. MADER: Reminded the Council that the issue is whether the ordinance hardship criteria are met requiring a variance. Mayor Mader declared the public hearing open. MARK CROUSE (15507 Calmut Avenue): Discussed his improvements to the property and the history and circumstances involved. Believed that if staff had told him at the time that the elevation work was done to move the structure closer to the street so that it could accommodate a deck, he would have done so. He was never given that option. MADER: Asked the applicant if he had asked the City at that time about such an option. 2 City Council Meeting Minutes August 20, 2001 CROUSE: Repeated that the City's instruction was to raise up the house but keep it on the original foundation. Further briefly discussed the impervious surface issue and right-of-way easement abutting the property. Believes that the hardship standards do apply because most of the properties in the area are less than 75 feet from the lake, and all have decks. Believes that not having the deck does prohibit his use and enjoyment of the property. Advised that the structures on the property do not inhibit his neighbors use of the property, and that the improvements do not diminish property values. Also discussed the intent of the zoning ordinance and his ability to enjoy his property. GUNDLACH: Asked when the deck was built and if there was a permit. CROUSE: Advised that the patio was installed in 1995 and the deck in 2000. In both cases the contractor advised that no permit was required. ZIESKA: Asked if in 1995, the house was built larger than what the survey disclosed, and how the survey shows a setback of 13 feet from the OHW on the 1995 survey and is actually 1 foot from the OHW. CROUSE: Advised that the permit and the result of the construction work in 1995 was all according to code. Noted that the addition to the north was bumped back 1 foot from the lake in order to meet the setback. RYE: Clarified that the setback for the original structure in 1978 allowed for the 13 foot setback. ERICSON: Commented that he does not recommend building without a permit and has serious concerns about that issue, but that it appears that the applicant has done significant work to clean up the lakeshore and the house is on the original footprint. There seems to be less of an encroachment on the lake than before. GUNDLACH: Asked about the current boathouse structure. CROUSE: Advised that the boathouse is a tarp canopy and he has been advised to include the structure in the impervious surface calculations. Noted that removal is probably the best course so that it is no longer an issue. ZIESKA: Commented that he is aware that many houses on the lake have decks on substandard lots, but asked the applicant how many of those decks does he think are within 4 feet of the Ordinary High Water Mark. CROUSE: Commented that he has no idea of the number, but that many are very close to the lake. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECOND BY GUNDLACH TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach, Petersen, Ericson and Zieska, the motion carried. MADER: Noted that the decision of the Council does set a precedent for future variance applications, and that the issue is whether a hardship was created either by the ordinance or by the action of homeowners. City Council Meeting Minutes August 20, 2001 GUNDLACH: Commented that it is difficult to support a variance after-the-fact, despite the homeowner's efforts to improve his property. Advised that it has been this Council's policy to not grant variances in these types of circumstances. PETERSEN: Discussed that he is not happy about the impervious surface or the fact that homeowner's do what they want and then suffer the consequences later, but believed that the deck is in place and improves the property and it is a hardship to live on the lake and not have a deck. Supported the applicant's appeal. ERICSON: Commented that he did not distinguish the difference between the deck area and the patio area. If one is allowable, the other should be allowable. Also noted that every property is unique and that even though Council decisions do set a precedent, that doesn't necessarily mean the same circumstances apply. RYE: Advised that the concrete patio would count as impervious surface, but not in determining setback. ZIESKA: Believed it is very important for the Council to be consistent in its application of policy. Related this circumstance to an earlier decision by the Council. Supported the Planning Commission decision. MADER: Discussed how difficult variance issues are. Advised that the property is unique, but not necessarily more unique than other properties on the lake. Commented that even if there was contractor misinformation, that is not an acceptable criteria for granting a variance. Believes that allowing a deck at this distance from the lake amounts to carte blanche approval for anybody else who applies for a deck on the lake. Supported the Planning Commission decision. MOTION BY GUNDLACH, SECOND BY MADER TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 01-99 AFFIRMING THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO DENY THE VARIANCE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 15507 CALMUT AVENUE. VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach and Zieska, Nays by Petersen and Ericson, the motion carried. OLD BUSINESS: NONE. The Council took a brief recess. NEW BUSINESS: Consider Approval of a Resolution Amending the Regal Crest Conditional Use Permit to Allow Reduced Floor Area and Two Entry Monument Signs. KANSlER: Discussed the proposed amendment to the Conditional Use Permit in connection with the staff report. ERICSON: Asked if the entry monuments were included in the original plans. KANSIER: Advised that entry monuments are optional and none were included in the original plans. 4 City Council Meeting Minutes August 20, 2001 ERICSON: Believes the proposed amendment is more attractive and in accordance with what the Council would like to see from developments of this type. ZlESKA: Asked the location of the entry monuments. KANSlER: Explained that the entry monuments do not interrupt any traffic site lines. MADER: Commented that the report indicates that the total ground floor area is 4.07 acres. Asked how the size of the units can be reduced 10-20% but the total floor area remains unchanged. KELLY MURRAY (Wensman Homes): Advised that the change that did occur was relatively insignificant and mostly occurred on interior units. The units built will be market driven. Explained that the calculations were overstated based upon the largest middle unit available plus 10%. MOTION BY ERICSON, SECOND BY PETERSEN TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 01-100 APPROVING A MINOR AMENDMENT TO THE REGAL CREST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO REDUCE THE FLOOR AREA OF THE UNITS AND TO ALLOW ENTRY MONUMENT SIGNS. VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach, Petersen, Ericson and Zieska, the motion carried. Consider Approval of a Report Suggesting a Process for Addressing the Jeffer's Property Concept Plan. BOYLES: Briefly reviewed the agenda item in connection with the staff report. ERICSON: Suggested getting baseline information to the Council as soon as possible setting out how the zoning issues currently stand. MOTION BY ERICSON, SECOND BY ZIESKA TO APPOINT COUNCILMEMBERS GUNDLACH AND MAYOR MADER AS A SUBCOMMITTEE TO ACT AS LIAISON BETWEEN THE STAFF AND COUNCIL WITH RESPECT TO THE DEVELOPMENT, AND TO DIRECT STAFF TO COORDINATE A MEETING BETWEEN ALL PARTIES TO IDENTIFY INFORMATION WHICH IS NEEDED TO ADDRESS POLICY ISSUES. MADER: Commented that this property and its development has great potential and must be approached conservatively and diligently between all parties with an appreciation for the aesthetics and natural resources of the area. VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach, Petersen, Ericson and Zieska, the motion carried. Consider Approval of an Ordinance Amending the Policy Regarding City Council Compensation. 5 City Council Meeting Minutes August 20, 2001 BOYLES: Briefly discussed the agenda item in connection with the staff report. ERICSON: Noted that consideration of this item is not a raise for the current Council and will not be effective until after the next regular election. It is also important to note that this structure is basically pay-for-performance when participating in approved meetings beyond regular Council duties. ZIESKA: Discussed the significant number of hours Councilmembers devote to not only regular City responsibilities, but also the number of hours spent as liaisons to special projects and other government organizations such as the Watershed District, League of Minnesota Cities, Association of Metropolitan Municipalities, and so on. MADER: Also supported the policy given that it provides that only meetings specified by the ordinance and meeting certain criteria qualify as reimbursable time. MOTION BY GUNDLACH, SECOND BY ERICSON TO APPROVE ORDINANCE 01-08 AMENDING THE POLICY REGARDING CITY COUNCIL COMPENSATION. VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach, Petersen, Ericson and Zieska, the motion carried. OTHER BUSINESS / COUNCILMEMBER REPORT,':;: Mediacom Issues MADER: Discussed the frustrations of the Council and staff with the continued issues surrounding cable television services. Did not believe that the letter submitted by Mediacom was particularly responsive. The current programming guide for channel line-ups does not list a government access channel for Prior Lake. Recommended that Mediacom be advised that the Council would like them to be present at an upcoming meeting to specifically address the outstanding issues. ERICSON: Commented that it seems that every time questions are asked regarding the level of service provided to our residents, the same pitch is given about how excited Mediacom is about the new services it can provide. Particularly concerned about the level of service provided our residents. GUNDLACH: Added that sound levels appear to be another issue since the channels have been realigned. Also noted there has been no dated provided as far as customer service reports that are required quarterly. Lastly, discussed the timeline for roll out of the cable modems which are still not in place. They have not kept their word on many items, and he would like to see the City explore what the other options are. MADER: Noted that at the last meeting which the City was not able to broadcast live, Mediacom was asked to address the Council and explain why we should not declare them in default of the Franchise Agreement. MOTION BY MADER, SECOND BY PETERSEN, DIRECTING THAT STAFF DIRECT A LETTER TO MEDIACOM ASKING THEM TO SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS OUR CONCERNS AT A COUNCIL MEETING. VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach, Petersen, Ericson and Zieska, the motion carried. City Council Meeting Minutes August 20, 2001 ERICSON: Asked about any City policy in place regarding clean-up of construction sites on a daily basis. Asked staff to follow-up on some concerns regarding the Stonegate project. BOYLES: Believed that the development contract does require that construction sites be kept in a clean and orderly manner. Advised that he will bring the specific language from the contract to the Council. A motion to adjourn was made and seconded. The meeting adjourned at 9:15_.~/ Frank Boyles, City Manager Kelly Me.r, R~q~in~