Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda & Minutes FORUM: 7:00 P.M. - 7:30 P.M. REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA Date: August 7,2000 1 CALL TO ORDER and PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:.......................... 7:30 p.m. 2 APPROVAL OF AGENDA: 3 CONSIDER APPROVAL OF JULY 17, 2000 MEETING MINUTES. 4 CONSENT AGENDA: Those items on the Council Agenda which are considered routine and non- controversial are included as part of the Consent Agenda. Unless the Mayor, a Councilmember, or member of the public specifically requests that an item on the Consent Agenda be removed and considered separately. Items on the Consent Agenda are considered under one motion, second and a roll call vote. Any item removed from the "Consent Agenda" shall be placed on the City Council Agenda as a separate category. A) Consider Approval of Invoices to Be Paid. B) Consider Approval of Election Judge Appointments for 2000 Primary and General Election. C) Consider Approval of Temporary 3.2 Liquor License for Conoco Softball Team and Waiver of License Fee. 5 ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT AGENDA: 6 PRESENTATIONS: A) Consider Report from Mark Koegler, Hoisington Koegler Regarding Downtown Redevelopment Guide. B) Consider Approval 0 f Report to City Council from Bud 0 smundson with Respect to Enforcement of Outdoor Water Restrictions. 7 PUBLIC HEARINGS: 8 OLD BUSINESS: A) Consider Approval of Ordinance OO-XX Approving an Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Relating to the Allowable Setback Encroachments to the Required Lakeshore and Bluff Setbacks and to the Definitions of Lot Area and Front Yard on a Lakeshore Lot (Case File #00-032). B) Consider Approval of Resolution OO-XX Declaring Costs to be Assessed and Ordering Preparation of Proposed Assessment Roll for Linden Circle Improvements (Project 14- 00) and Resolution OO-XX Establishing the Date of Assessment Hearing. 9 NEW BUSINESS: A) Consider Approval of Ordinance OO-XX Amending Section 600 of the Prior Lake City Code Adding Section 607: Lawn Fertilizer Application Control. B) Consider Approval of Resolution OO-XX Authorizing Staff to Solicit Bids for Trails, Basketball Court and Hard Surface Area. C) Consider Approval of Resolution DO-XX Approving the Purchase of Accessory Snow Plow Truck Equipment for Single-Axle Dump Trucks Previously Approved for Acquisition through the State Cooperative Purchasing Program. D) Consider Approval of Request to Declare Equipment Surplus to City Needs and Authorize Disposal of Same. 080700 '.._.~m_<< 'r"" E) Consider Approval of Ordinance DO-XX Approving a Zoning Change from PUD 9-93 (The Wilds PUD) District to the R-1 District and Resolution OO-XX Approving the Preliminary Plat to be known as The Wilds 5th Addition. F) Consider Approval of Resolution OO-XX Approving an Amendment to the Wilds PUD, Approval of Ordinance DO-XX Approving a Rezoning from PUD to R-1, and from PUD and R-1 and R-2, Approval of Resolution OO-XX Approving a Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan, and Approval of Resolution DO-XX Approving a Preliminary Plat to be known as Wensmann 1st Addition. G) Consider Approval of Ordinance DO-XX Approving an Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Relating to the Combination of Nonconforming Lots Divided by a Private Road but Under Single Ownership (Case File #00-046). H) Consider Approval of Appointment to Fill the Vacancy on the Economic Development Authority, Acting Mayor, and City Council Liaison to Lake Advisory Committee. 10 OTHER BUSINESSICOUNCILMEMBER REPORTS: A) Executive Session to Discuss Pending Litigation and Labor Negotiations. 11 ADJOURNMENT 080700 . --..---....--.-. ---..------.-'.----.<<----<<---- REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES July 17, 2000 CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Mader called the meeting to order. Present were Mayor Mader, Councilmembers Gundlach, Petersen and Ericson, City Manager Boyles, City Attorney Pace, Planning Director Rye, City Engineer Osmundson, Planning Coordinator Kansier, Assistant City Manager Walsh, and Recording Secretary Meyer. Council member Schenck was absent. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: MOTION BY GUNDLACH, SECOND BY PETERSEN TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS SUBMITTED. VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach, Petersen and Ericson, the motion carried. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM JUNE 19, 2000 REGULAR MEETING. MOTION BY GUNDLACH, SECOND BY PETERSEN TO APPROVE JUNE 19, 2000 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES AS PROPOSED. VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach and Petersen, the motion carried. Council member Ericson abstained due to his absence from the June 19th meeting. CONSENT AGENDA: (A) Consider Approval of Invoices to be Paid. (B) Consider Approval of Treasurer's Report. (C) Consider Approval of Monthly Building Permit Report for June and Building Permit Report for First Half of 2000. (D) Consider Approval of Monthly Fire Call Report for June. (E) Consider Approval of 2nd Quarter Fire Call Report. (F) Consider Approval of 2nd Quarter Investment Report. (G) Consider Approval of 2nd Quarter Budget Report. (H) Consider Approval of Temporary 3.2 Liquor License for Prior Lake Athletics for Youth (P.L.A. Y.) (I) Consider Approval of Temporary 3.2 Liquor License for Conoco Softball Team and Waiver of License Fee. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECOND BY ERICSON TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS SUBMITTED. BOYLES: Briefly reviewed each of the consent agenda items. VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach, Petersen and Ericson, the motion carried. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA: NONE. 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER T City Council Meeting Minutes DRAFT July 17, 2000 PRESENTATIONS: NONE. PUBLIC HEARINGS: NONE. OLD BUSINESS Consider Approval of Resolution 00-54 Approving the Final Plat and Developer's Agreement for Northwood Oaks Estates Second Addition. BOYLES: Reviewed the agenda item in connection with the staff report. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECOND BY ERICSON TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 00-54 APPROVING THE FINAL PLAT AND DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT FOR NORTHWOOD OAKS ESTATES SECOND ADDITION. MADER: Noted that there was no substantial change from the preliminary plat. VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach, Petersen and Ericson, the motion carried. Consider Approval of Resolution 00-55 Approving the Final Plat for Carlson's First Addition. RYE: Briefly reviewed the conditions of the final plat in connection with the staff report. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECOND BY GUNDLACH TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 00-55 APPROVING THE FINAL PLAT FOR CARLSON'S FIRST ADDITION. ERICSON: Asked if the issue with the utility easement at the corner had been resolved. RYE: Explained that NSP had suggested that they might want a utility easement reserved, but later determined that the location of that line did not require an easement. VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach, Petersen and Ericson, the motion carried. Consider Approval of Resolution 00-56 Approving the Final Planned Unit Development Plan and PUD Development Contract and Resolution 00-57 Approving Final Plat and Development Contract for Deerfield. BOYLES: Reviewed the final PUD plan and PUD Development contract, as well as the final plat and development contract for deerfield. ~: Explained that at this time there is an access easement that cannot be executed, but under a contractual agreement between the buyer and seller, the City is protected. MADER: Suggested dealing with the two items separately and commented that it appeared after a difficult process, that the parties have come to an acceptable agreement. 2 City Council Meeting Minutes DRAFT July 17, 2000 MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECOND BY ERICSON TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 00-56 APPROVING THE FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND PUD DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT FOR DEERFIELD. GUNDLACH: Asked for clarification as to the access easement to the adjoining property, as well as the water runoff issue. PACE: Explained that the buyer and seller will still be required to enter into an easement agreement. At this time their contractual agreement sufficiently protects the City. The water runoff issue has been resolved and an easement agreement signed addressing the water diversion. Reitereated that she was comfortable that the City would be adequately protected. Ayes by Mader, Gundlach, Petersen and Ericson, the motion carried. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECOND BY ERICSON TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 00-57 APPROVING THE FINAL PLAT AND DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT FOR DEERFIELD, DEERFIELD 2ND ADDITION AND DEERFIELD 3RD ADDITION. ~: Pointed out that there had been several changes made to the standard development contract. PETERSEN: Noted that condition #6 seemed to contain an incorrect date. KANSIER: Clarified that the date should be sixty days from the date of approval or September 17,2000. The motion and second accepted the friendly amendment. VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach, Petersen and Ericson, the motion carried. MADER: Thanked both the Developer and the staff for their efforts in working through many difficult issues and putting together an agreement acceptable to all parties. Consider Approval of Resolution 00-58 Approving the Conditional Use Permit for a Multi-Family Dwelling for Affordable Housing Solutions, Inc. on Properly Located at the Southeast Intersection of Tower Street and Toronto Avenue. BOYLES: Reviewed the conditions for approval and the issues the Council had previously asked to be addressed. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECOND BY GUNDLACH TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 00-58 APPROVING THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING SOLUTIONS, INC. ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST INTERSECTION OF TOWER STREET AND TORONTO AVENUE. ~ ~'t PETERSEN: Asked how much the City sold the property for, and commented that the costs tO~deve~p the property is nearly as much as the City sold it for. ERICSON: $90,000. ~ '-'~'-""-"I-'<<' City Council Meeting Minutes DRAFT July 17, 2000 MADER: Explained that the resolution limits the City's liability, but that Councilmember Petersen's observation was correct. ERICSON: Commented that the area is already overburdened, and where the majority of the public would favor the project, he does not believe the neighbors to the project will be happy with the additional volume. GUNDLACH: Believes the project has come along way and is an acceptable multi-housing development. MADER: Asked if the developer is acceptable to the terms of the resolution. HUEMOELLER (counsel for the developer): Advised that the Developer substantially agrees with the priority of the concept for diversion of water through the Post Office property first, and secondly by following the street right-of-way. Also advised that the developer agrees that the costs should be substantially allocated on the basis of contribution which would apply in the case of a special assessment. Further discussed the Developer's costs, the City's cap of $35,000, and the Post Office wanting compensation for the easement. The Developer wants to move forward and will use its best efforts to work with the Postal Service to keep the costs of the land and design down. If the Developer's share is $60,000 it may not be affordable. MADER: Advised that the resolution before the Council to grant the Conditional Use Permit does limit the City's cost to $35,200, and if that condition is found unacceptable, the CUP will not get issued. HUEMOELLER: Confirmed. PETERSEN: Commented that the Post Office will probably not charge for every foot of the pond since their runoff will be diverted there as well. HUEMOELLER: Agreed, but advised that at this point it is an unknown factor. ERICSON: Advised that the information provided by Mr. Huemoeller is different than the understandings previously reached, and the costs to the City become excessive. PETERSEN: Clarified that the resolution specifically states that the City's liability is limited to $35,200. ~: Advised that prior to this point, the staff had worked on the presumption that the Post Office would allow its site to be used. There was no discussion at that time that Post Office would seek compensation for the easement. VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach and Petersen, Nay by Ericson, the motion carried. Consider Approval of Resolution 00-59 Approving Plans & Specifications and Authorizing Advertisement for Bids for Linden Circle (City Project #14-00). BOYLES: Reviewed the project initiated by the area residents in connection with the staff report, and described the remaining process in order to complete the project. 4 City Council Meeting Minutes DRAFT July 17, 2000 MOTION BY GUNDLACH, SECOND BY PETERSEN TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 00-59 APPROVING PLANS & SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR LINDEN CIRCLE (City Project #14-00). MADER: Asked if all property owners petitioned for the improvement, and if the City would incur any additional costs between now and when the bids are available. McDERMOTT: Advised that there are 12 residents on the street, and 8 or 9 signed the petition. Also stated that the City would incur no additional costs and that the assessment hearing would be held in the meantime. Also noted that everyone on the street has signed and returned right of entry forms. MADER:' Concerned about the number of possible assessment appeals. Further asked if special agreements would be necessary as to the alignment of the street in the public right-of-way, or partly on private right-of-way and if those issue have been resolved. McDERMOTT: The existing street is not completely within the public right-of-way, which is why it was necessary to acquire easements to build the street. It would have cost more to move trees and garages and driveways if the street was reconstructed within the 20 foot strip. ERICSON: Asked if the timing for bids to be received was adequate. MCDERMOTT: Advised that the notice would be published the 21 st and 22nd, so that would allow ten days. OSMUNDSON: Noted that state statute requires ten days and the process has been acceptable in the past. VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach, Petersen and Ericson, the motion carried. Consider Approval of Ordinance DO-XX Approving an Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Relating to the Allowable Setback Encroachments to the Required Lakeshore and Bluff Setbacks and to the Definitions of Lot Area and Front Yard on a Lakeshore Lot (Case File #00- 032). KANSIER: Described to the Council the history of the process to date, the proposed amendments, and the staff and Planning Commission recommendations. MADER: Asked if the ordinance could be interpreted to prohibit having items such as a boat, fish house, jet ski, or whatever in the back yard. Did not want to restrict people from having in their back yards the normal items they would utilize. KANSIER: Advised the that current ordinance language does not consider recreational equipment an encroachment under the general provisions. The way the proposed amendment is written, it would be considered an encroachment. Language could be added exempting recreational equipment. RYE: Explained how the ordinance could be simply amended if the Council believed that provisions was not appropriate. 5 --~--'._-'------'-~-~-r----~--"-'-~""'--"~"--'" City Council Meeting Minutes DRAFT July 17, 2000 MADER: Commented that it seems that the Council would not intend to restrict normal recreational vehicles, but we would also not want to change the proposed amendment such that it would be open to items that were not appropriate. Suggested referring the item back to staff. KANSIER: Read the general provision of the current ordinance language that specifically referred to recreational vehicles. The language is not included in the items that would be allowed as encroachments in lakeshore or bluff setbacks. The problem is that recreational equipment has a fairly broad definition. Advised that the Planning Commission was fairly clear that things such as balconies where a different issue. There was not a lot of discussion on recreational vehicles. MADER: Concerned that if the ordinance is left open, pretty soon both the front yard and back yard become general storage areas. Did not wish to restrict canoes or sailboats, but could see how a 30- foot motorhome would be inappropriate. PETERSEN: Agreed that items such as motorhomes would not be appropriate. RYf: Clarified that what the Council is seeking is some further differentiation of recreational equipment beyond the current broad definition. MADER: Agreed. ~: Agreed with condensing the definition of recreational vehicles to include something less than equipment, structures and vehicles. Asked for Council direction as to those categories. MADER: From the structures standpoint, anything that is attached to the structure, is part of the building for purposes of setback. In terms of recreational stuff, if its normal, small recreational items it would be acceptable. If it involves parking a major item, such as a mobile home, that would not meet the intent of what we are looking for. ERICSON: Believes items such as fish houses are acceptable. Commented that it is difficult to regulate recreational vehicles in a lake community because what is acceptable to the property owner, isn't always acceptable to his neighbor. PETERSEN: Commented that it wouldn't be necessary to regulate if neighbors could get along. MOTION BY MADER, SECOND BY PETERSEN, TO DEFER THE ITEM BACK TO STAFF WITH THE INTENT OF NOT EXCLUDING RECREATIONAL TYPES OF EQUIPMENT THAT ARE COMMON TO A LAKE ENVIRONMENT. KANSIER: Asked for clarification if further review is direction only as specifically related to the encroachment issue. MADER: Confirmed. VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach, Petersen and Ericson, the motion carried. 6 City Council Meeting Minutes DRAFT July 17, 2000 Consider Approval of Ordinance 00-11 Approving an Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Allowing Garages and Accessory Buildings in the Front Yard (Case File #00-035). KANSIER: Reviewed the ordinance amendment, the rationale for the amendment, and the conditions under which a front yard detached garage may be permitted. MADER: Asked for clarification whether more than one detached building is permitted, and suggested that only one detached accessory building for use as a garage be permitted. Staff clarified the Planning Commission recommendation and Councilmembers concurred that the number of detached accessory buildings be limited to one. MOTION BY MADER, SECOND BY ERICSON TO APPROVE ORDINANCE 00-11 APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE ALLOWING GARAGES AND ACCESSORY BUILDING IN THE FRONT YARD\~CASE FILE #00-035). VOTE: Ayes by Mader,\GUndlaCh, Petersen and Ericson, the motion carried. tt~\I'T(f! ~ WI-rH LoR-lGECTED LA"HlU~4t, The Council took a 5-minute break. Consider Approval of Ordinance 00-12 Approving an Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Relating to Outdoor Display and Sales in the C-3 Specialty Use District (Case File #00-037). KANSIER: Reviewed the proposed ordinance amendment in connection with the staff report. MOTION BY ERICSON, SECOND BY GUNDLACH TO APPROVE ORDINANCE 00-12 APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING TO OUTDOOR DISPLAY AND SALES IN THE C-3 SPECIALTY USE DISTRICT (CASE FILE #00-037). GUNDLACH: Asked if the amendment would allow for businesses to sell items such as paintings or sunglasses in the right-of-way. KANSIER: Advised that this provision applies to the downtown area, and that some outdoor sales is permitted with conditions in other areas, and some temporary sales are permitted. VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach, Petersen and Ericson, the motion carried. Consider Approval of Ordinance 00-13 Approving an Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Deleting the Density Increase Allowed in a Planned Unit Development (Case File #00-039). KANSIER: Provided the staff report in connection with the agenda report, and noted that the Planning Commission does not recommend the amendment because the increased density is a planning tool that can be used as an incentive to encourage better design and that the Council would maintain its discretion because the approval is not automatic. MADER: Noted that the Council had previously asked staff to look at the issue of additional density for a PUD, and also that attorneys often cited the fact that the ordinance allows the 10% and it should then 7 .. ........,c..... ____..__.....__.._.~. _.. <<',_"" ,.. City Council Meeting Minutes DRAFT July 17, 2000 automatically be granted. On the other hand, the Planning Commission has arrived at the other conclusion. Asked if the reason for the 10% density is an incentive to a developer, and the City still has the discretion to make a final det~rmination, could that provision or procedure to incorporated into any development regardless of whether it is a PUD. Believed the Council wanted to eliminate the discretionary nature of a potential 10% increase because it is subjective. Also any high-density development will likely go through considerable discussion and it is unlikely that that City would want to increase density by any percentage. KANSIER: Reiterated that the determination is strictly a policy issue for the Council to determine. The Planning Commission recommended not eliminating a provisions that the City may, at some point, find useful. MOTION BY MADER, SECOND BY GUNDLACH TO ORDINANCE 00-13 APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE DELETING THE DENSITY INCREASE ALLOWED IN A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (CASE FILE #00-039). VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach, Petersen and Ericson, the motion carried. NEW BUSINESS: Consider Approval of Resolution 00-60 Approving an Amendment to the Tax increment Financing Plan and Budget for Districts 1-1, 1-2 and 2-4. MADER: Noted that at the EDA meeting, the Commissioners recommended approval. Also noted that this process would take the present budget for two different taxing districts and breaks it into two separate budgets. Staff clarified that as a matter of state statute, there need to be budgets for individual tax districts, and that the numbers can be readjusted or rebudgeted in the future as numbers for the redevelopment projects become more concrete. MOTION BY MADER, SECOND BY PETERSEN TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 00-60 APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN AND BUDGET FOR DISTRICTS 1- 1, 1-2 AND 2-4. VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach, Petersen and Ericson, the motion carried. Consider Approval of Resolution 00-61 Authorizing Initiation of Eminent Domain Proceedings Pursuant to Minn. Stat. Chapter 117 to Acquire Fee Title to 8.9 Acres of Property at 16675 Franklin Trail. BOYLES: Reviewed the agenda item in connection with the staff report and advised that the intent was to come to an amicable resolution with the property owner for the sale of the property. Negotiations continue, and only if an agreement is not reached would the Council need to determine whether it wished to pursue condemnation. MADER: Asked if the owner of the property wished to address the Council. The owner of the property did not wish to address the Council at this time. MOTION BY GUNDLACH, SECOND BY PETERSEN TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 00-61 AUTHORIZING INITIATION OF EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO MINN. STAT. CHAPTER 117 TO ACQUIRE FEE TITLE TO 8.9 ACRES OF PROPERTY AT 16675 FRANKLIN TRAIL. 8 City Council Meeting Minutes DRAFT July 17, 2000 GUNDLACH: Noted that condemnation of property is not something governments should take lightly, but believes in this case the propos~d development of the property and road improvements, the public health issue, and the blight of the property constitutes acquisition for the good of the public. ERICSON: Commented that condemnation of this property does not necessarily mean that the Council fully support the development of any specific project. MADER: Noted that the City has done nothing to verify the degree of contamination on the property, if any. Also noted that there is a proposed development proposal that is contingent upon the City's ability to resolve this issue. In short, if there is hope to develop this property and develop a ring road, this property must be dealt with. VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach, Petersen and Ericson, the motion carried. Consider Approval of Resolution 00-62 Approving an Amendment to the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Request by Shepherd of the Lake Lutheran Church for Property Located in Section 22, Township 115, Range 22 (Case File #00-040). KANSIER: Discussed the project and application submitted by Shepherd of the Lake Lutheran Church and the issues surrounding the Comprehensive Plan amendment request. MADER: Asked if the alignment of McKenna Road south of County Road 42 is being reconsidered. RYE: Advised that the Public Works Director, City Manager and himself have been out to the site and preliminary review indicates that if McKenna is constructed exactly straight south there is a potential that topography would be difficult and may disrupt a development site unnecessarily. To move the road 300 feet to the west would be more desirable. The Council asked a representative from Shepherd of the Lake to answer questions. ERICSON: Asked if there was any part of the proposed development that would be retail/commercial in nature. Also asked if those elements of the concept are exempt from property taxes as part of the overall development. STEVE ERICKSON (BWBR Architects): Advised that the intent was to have some services available to serve the persons using the facility, and not to be marketed as a commercial center. In terms of commercial tax base, it does appear that City ordinances allow some minor uses as part of this type of development, but the Church has not yet reached the point where the implications of the tax impact are known. MADER: Clarified that the question seems to be "is the Church exempt from property tax for these types of commercial development". STEVE HASHIK (Senior Pastor): Advised that the Church is in the process of establishing a separately incorporated entity that will deal with these types of questions. It is the hope that by establishing a separate entity, partnerships for both profit and non-profit entities all fitting within the zoning ordinance can be established. At this point the intent is to work with the City to put the foundation of the concept 9 City Council Meeting Minutes DRAFT July 17, 2000 in place. However, there is not an answer to your specific question or how it will come about at this time. PETERSEN: Noted that Bethany Fellowship in Bloomington manufactured trailers and other items on Church property, and the potential for a similar situation here is what would concern the Council. MOTION BY ERICSON, SECOND BY GUNDLACH TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 00-62 APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE 2020 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REQUEST BY SHEPHERD OF THE LAKE LUTHERAN CHURCH FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 115, RANGE 22 (CASE FILE #00-040). VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach, Petersen and Ericson, the motion carried. MOTION BY ERICSON, SECOND BY MADER TO DIRECT STAFF TO REVIEW AND PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION THAT WOULD IDENTIFY LAND THAT COULD BE REDESIGNATED COMMERCIAL LAND TO REPLACE THE AMOUNT OF PROPERTY AFFECTED BY THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR SHEPHERD OF THE LAKE LUTHERAN CHURCH. RYE: Suggested referring the item directly to the Planning Commission which would in effect implement a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Motion and Second accepted the friendly amendment. VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach, Petersen and Ericson, the motion carried. MOTION BY MADER, SECOND BY ERICSON TO DIRECT STAFF TO FURTHER REVIEW AND RECOMMEND A PROPOSAL FOR THE PLANNED RELOCATION OF McKENNA ROAD. VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach, Petersen and Ericson, the motion carried. Consider Approval of the Resignation of Councilmember Pete Schenck, Declare a Vacancy and Consider Method for Filling City Council Vacancy. MOTION BY MADER, SECOND BY ERICSON TO ACCEPT THE RESIGNATION OF COUNCILMEMBER PETE SCHENCK EFFECTIVE JULY 5, 2000. VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach, Petersen and Ericson, the motion carried. MOTION BY MADER, SECOND BY ERICSON DECLARING A VACANCY ON THE PRIOR LAKE CITY COUNCIL. VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach, Petersen and Ericson, the motion carried. MADER: Commented on the controversy over the past process for filling City Council vacancies. BOYLES: Asked for Council action on the notice and publication, and then discussion on the process. MOTION BY MADER, SECOND BY PETERSEN TO APPROVE THE NOTICE OF VACANCY AND AUTHORIZE THAT IT BE PUBLISHED FOR TWO CONSECUTIVE WEEKS. VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach, Petersen and Ericson, the motion carried. MADER: Discussed the options available for reviewing the applications for City Council. 10 City Council Meeting Minutes DRAFT July 17, 2000 ERICSON: Commented that the procedure for interviews where the newspaper was present was inappropriate because applicants were not allowed to speak candidly without fear of retribution in the newspaper. Suggested that each Councilmember review the applications in private and then discuss them together at a Council meeting. MADER: Asked if Councilmembers are at liberty to discuss and answer questions of persons inquiring about the vacancy. Also advised that interviews conducted with the newspaper are destructive and the process becomes meaningless. PETERSEN: Commented that interviews conducted in front of a panel or large group is just like being interrogated. MADER: Suggested proceeding with the notices, and depending on the number of applicants, determine the remaining process. Also noted that the Council is not obligated to appoint an applicant from submitted applications. GUNDLACH: Asked how it would be that the Council could eliminate the possibility that applicants are personally criticized so that people are not deterred by an overzealous media. MADER: Suggested that persons interested in applying could speak to a Council member first to answer their questions. MOTION BY MADER, SECOND BY ERICSON ADVISING THAT MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL CAN ALSO ACCEPT INQUIRIES OF INTEREST FROM POTENTIAL APPLICANTS FOR THE CITY COUNCIL POSITION. ~: Noted that in this format the applications would not be the exclusive means by which to express interest. MADER: Revised the motion to reflect the recommendation of Ms. Pace. Motion and Second accepted the revision. VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach, Petersen and Ericson, the motion carried. MADER: Asked that Councilmembers who have an interest in serving on the EDA please advise and at the next meeting he will make an appointment, subject to Council approval. OTHER BUSINESS I COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS: NONE. Frank Boyles, City Manager A motion to adjourn was made and seconded. The meeting adjourned at 11 ~ "'"--"-'-~-"-~._---_._'~"<.'-~'-r--'''.-'''<''-----'-'-