Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout040300 RegularREGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES April 3, 2000 CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Mader called the meeting to order. Present were Mayor Mader, Councilmembers Gundlach, Petersen, Schenck and Ericson, City Manager Boyles, City Attorney Pace, Finance Director Teschner, Planning Director Rye, City Engineer Osmundson, Police Chief O'Rourke, Assistant City Manager Walsh, and Recording Secretary Meyer. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: MADER: Requested adding a quarterly performance review for the City Manager as part of the Executive Session. MOTION BY SCHENCK, SECOND BY PETERSEN TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach, Petersen, Schenck and Ericson, the motion carried. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM MARCH 20, 2000 REGULAR MEETING. MADER: Noted two instances (pg. 3 and pg. 6) where Councilmember Schenck had been included in the vote, and he, in fact, was absent from the meeting. PACE: Requested several changes. On page 5, the first time she speaks, the last line should be amended to read "which permits the property owner to apply for an increase in the density". On page 6, the first time she speaks, the last pad of the sentence should be amended to read "...regarding the position the applicant is willing to stipulate to regarding the history of this developmen¢'. Also on page 6, the second time she speaks, the third sentence should read "Based upon the complicated history of this property; conflicting provisions in the 1975 and 1983 zoning ordinance, and looking at this history in a light most favorable ...... ". And lastly, on page 6, immediately preceding the vote, her statement should be amended to read ". .... had concurred in a telephone conversation with Ms. Pace earlier in the day that the PUD should be analyzed in the context of a use district." MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECOND BY ERICSON TO APPROVE THE MARCH 20, 2000 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES AS AMENDED. VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach, Petersen and Ericson, the motion carried. Councilmember Schenck abstained. CONSENT AGENDA: (A) Consider Approval of Invoices to be Paid. (B) Consider Approval of Disposal of Excess City Equipment. (C) Consider Approval of Elimination of Fees. (~UNDLACH: Proposed removing Item B (Consider Approval of Disposal of Excess City Equipment), 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER City Council Meeting Minutes April 3, 2000 BOYLES: Briefly reviewed the remaining items on the Consent Agenda. MOTION BY SCHENCK, SECOND BY PETERSEN TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS (A) AND (C). VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach, Petersen, Schenck and Ericson, the motion carried. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA: Consider Approval of Disposal of Excess City Equipment GUNDLACH: Supported the action, but removed the item to suggest that a procedure or policy be put in place for regular disposal of excess or old equipment, After further discussion regarding how other companies dispose of equipment, there was consensus among the Councilmembers that staff should pursue developing such a policy that could apply to regular disposal of any old or unused property and equipment, including that property obtained through police actions. MOTION BY GUNDLACH, SECOND BY PETERSEN, TO APPROVE THE DISPOSAL OF EXCESS EQUIPMENT AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach, Petersen, Schenck and Ericson, the motion carried. PRESENTATIONS: NONE. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Public Hearing to Consider Approval of Resolution O0-XX Denying the Vacation of the Lake Access and Right-of-Way for Kneafsey's Street Adjacent to Lots 4 Through 15, Kneafsey's Cove. Mayor Mader declared the public hearing open. RYE: Provided a brief history the item in connection with the staff report, and described to the Council the relationship between the lake access, right-of-way and adjacent properties. Also advised of the issues before the Council and the alternatives available. MADER: Asked for clarification as to what part of the street is affected, and if there was a previous Council action to vacate the entire waterfront within the plat. RYE: Explained that the Council took action to approve the Lake access study, which recommended vacation of the roadway. The report was approved but the Council did not take any further action to vacate the roadway. JOE CADE: (attomey for applicant, and property owner on the bay across from the subject property): Discussed the plat drawing of the property and how narrow the area to be vacated actually is. Noted that the City had already vacated the area that had been dedicated to the public adjacent to lots 2 and 3. Further noted that the Planning Commission's recommendation comes from their consideration of the standard proposed in the DNR and Attorney General opinions that there was no reasonable use for the property. Discussed the actual statute standard that the Council must consider in determining City Council Meeting Minutes April 3, 2000 whether the vacation is in the public interest. Believed that the public access at this point does not make sense, and should be vacated by the City. MAD£R: Asked if the legal description on the plat dedicates the area to the use of the public. Added that there is a difference between a survey line drawn at the time intended to establish a property boundary at the waterfront, and land that has been specifically dedicated for public use. CADE: Confirmed that the plat specifically dedicates the waterfront and access to the public. CADE: Continued that the reasons for vacating the property include the narrow street, limited parking availability, that the access is not easily accessible and the lack of any turn-around. Noted that staff and the Lake Advisory Committee have both recommended vacating the access. Further discussed that the property owners in the area were under the impression that the vacation had already taken place in 1995. Asked for a vacation of the property from the OHW mark at 904' above sea level to the property line, together with the lake access. ERICSON: Advised that he had visited the area and agrees that the lake access is not conducive to heavy public use because there is no parking, and that the plat map is much more reflective of the area. LILLIAN (~OODENSON: (owner of Lot 4): Noted that her family has owned the property for 45 years, and that in trying to sell her property the implication of public use of the waterfront along her property has frightened off many potential buyers. D~CK KUYKENDAHL: (6495 Kneafsey's Street, Lots 9 and 10): Added that there is a question where the actual property line is located, and that the practicality is that the property is not easily accessible to the public. Noted that the DNR and Attorney General opinions take liberty with their authority to regulate property above the 904'. There is no parking available. Also discussed the burden for maintenance reverts to the adjacent property owners because they are the people who are there every day. There are also the issues of practical enforcement for the City in maintaining another public access. Stressed that there needs to be consistency in public policy. SCHENCK: Asked if Mr. Kuykendahl's property is taxed as a riparian lot. KUYKENDAHL: Could not confirm or deny, but it is implied. CADE: Advised that there has been some research into the taxes assessed for the waterfront properties and there is no differentiation from the Assessor's standpoint. Tax statements do not denote waterfront and non-waterfront properties. MADER: Added that the tax rate is based on market value, and that the problem described is not unique and exists for many properties on the Lake where it is unclear where the property line runs next to the Lake. No other persons chose to address the Council. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECOND BY GUNDLACH, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach, Petersen, Schenck, and Ericson, the motion carried. The public hearing closed at 8:18pm. 3 City Council Meeting Minutes April 3, 2000 GUNDLACH: Advised that he had, as did the Planning Commission, concern with the implications that there was no public purpose for maintaining this access and waterfront. Also noted that the City has never done anything with the Lake access with respect to grade at the water. Supported vacating the waterfront, but was concerned about vacating the access. PETERSEN: Noted his support for limiting public accesses to the Lake, but that property owners across the street should have the right to use the access. Further advised that there are many instances around the Lake where property owners are arguing about public use of beaches and lake accesses abutting their private property. (~OODEN$ON: Asked if the people in the Rustic Road area have their own Lake access, and noted that those property owners had no need to use the Kneafsey's access. MADER: Noted that the discussion should be limited to Councilmemberd since the public hearing had been closed. SCHENCK: Agrees with Councilmember Petersen that if property owners along the lakeshore have the illusion that the property is lakeshore, they should have the title to the property down to the 904' OHW. Noted that in 1994 the LAC completed a study and found that there were 36 accesses to Prior Lake. Since that time, the Council has attempted to reduce access. Supports the vacation of both the waterfront and the access. ERICSON: Noted that after viewing the area, believes there is no public interest in maintaining the property. Also supports vacating the remainder of the access as well as the waterfront. RYE: Explained that rationally the area seems to be private property available for private use. By implying there is a public use there are maintenance issues and issues of public liability. MADER: Believes that there needs to be a more long-term solution to the Lake access problems. However, also noted that once a public access is given up, there is no way to get that access back. Recommended vacation of the lakefront property, but to maintain the access. MOTION BY MADER, SECOND BY GUNDLACH TO VACATE THE WATERFRONT PROPERTY ADJACENT TO THE PRIVATE PROPERTIES, BUT TO MAINTAIN THE LAKE ACCESS AS PRIVATE PROPERTY. ERICSON: Suggested acting on each of the items separately. MADER withdrew the motion, GUNDLACH the second. MOTION BY MADER, SECOND BY GUNDLACH TO DENY THE VACATION OF THE LAKE ROADWAY ACCESS. SCHENCK: Suggested that there may be a public use for the property such as a scenic vista, with a park bench. VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach, Petersen and Ericson, Nay by Schenck, the motion carried. There was some discussion on amending the proposed resolution to deny the vacation of the Lake access, and eliminate any reference to the waterfront property. 4 City Council Meeting Minutes April 3, 2000 MOTION BY MADER, SECOND BY PETERSEN, TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE VACATION OF THE WATERFRONT PROPERTY ADJACENT TO LOTS 4 THROUGH 15, KNEAFSEY'S COVE. VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach, Petersen, Schenck, and Ericson, the motion carried. MOTION BY SCHENCK, SECOND BY ERICSON, TO DIRECT STAFF TO CLOSE THE VACATED ACCESS AREA FOR USE AS A SCENIC VISTA. PETERSEN: Clarified that with this action, if the access needed to be opened twenty years from now, the City could do it. ERICSON: The purpose is that the City would maintain ownership, but the scenic vista would effectively cut off the access from heavy public use for now. SCHENCK: The area would also be available for the effective removal of snow. MADER: This way staff can come back with a specific plan, and Councilmember Schenck's action is to initiate that effort. VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach, Petersen, Schenck and Ericson, the motion carried. OLD BUSINESS: Consider Approval of Resolution 00-22 Approving the Final Plat and Development Contract for Glynwater Third Addition. BOYLES: Reviewed the item in connection with the staff report, as well as the recommendation by staff. MOTION BY SCHENCK, SECOND BY PETERSEN TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 00-22 APPROVING THE FINAL PLAT AND DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT FOR GLYNWATER THIRD ADDITION. ERICSON: Asked if Brookside Lane enters an area that is already developed. RYE: Confirmed that it enters Glynwater 2nd Addition. MADER: Asked the City Attorney if the Developer's Contract is the standard agreement. PACE: Confirmed. VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach, Petersen, Schenck, and Ericson, the motion carried. The Council took a brief recess. Consider Approval of Subcommittee Report Regarding City Council Bylaws. BOYLES: Briefly reviewed the agenda item in connection with the staff report. Also noted that the subcommittee worked hard to compose a set of bylaws that can be used as a long-standing document. 5 City Council Meeting Minutes April 3, 2000 Further noted that the Council may want to also discuss moving the Council meetings from Monday to Tuesday nights. Advised of the advantages to moving the meetings, including an additional business day after the weekend, avoiding conflicts with Monday holidays, and allowing the Council a greater opportunity to spend their weekends with family. ERICSON: Noted that the subcommittee diligently considered all of the input received. Also commented that he had no problems with meeting either Monday or Tuesday nights. MADER: Suggested that the Council discuss the proposed bylaws, and then rather than amending language tonight, the subcommittee consider the Council's comments and then bring the item back on the April 17th consent agenda. Commented that he did not have a conflict with meeting either Monday or Tuesday night, but suggested that if there was a conflict for any Councilmember that the meeting night remain unchanged. There was consensus among the Council that the meetings remain on Monday evenings, with greater flexibility to protect holiday weekends. SCHENCK: Asked for the City Attorney to clarify the intent of Sections 714 and 1002. PACE: Explained that Section 714 basically codifies the state statute stating that no individual Councilmember has administrative authority other than that held by the Council as a whole. MADER: Added that the intent in changing the language in Section 1002 was to clarify that the Council makes the final decision to approve the bylaws of the advisory committees. SCHENCK: Asked for clarification as to "censure" (Section 1305) and suggested that criteria and terms be added to define a process by which any disciplinary action of Councilmembers were to take place. ERICSON: Noted that the provision would allow for public reprimand. (~UNDLACH: Believed the intent was that the Council would police its own. SCHENCK: Suggested a more specific definition. MADER: Agreed with Councilmember Schenck that the provision be stricken at this time and further considered by the subcommittee for possible inclusion at a later date. PACE: Had concern with the censure provision and agrees that it needs to relate to Councilmembers official manner. Commented that the subcommittee did put considerable time and effort into considering the bylaws revisions. MADER: In Section 207.4, suggested rewording with respect to who has the authority to object to a speaker's presentation, keeping in mind that the Council only acts as a body, and the implication by the present wording is that the Council would have to vote on each objection. ERICSON: Explained that the intent was to allow any Councilmember the opportunity to object, not just reserving that authority to the presiding officer. PACE: Concerned that there may be issues with respect to the first amendment in terms of political speech. Suggested defining the parameters of the forum. 6 City Council Meeting Minutes April 3, 2000 $CHENCK: Noted that there should also be more definition added to clarify items that are appropriate for public forum, with the idea of having comments on record as part of the public meeting when the issues are scheduled for consideration by the Council. MADER: Clarified that some of the language already exists, and that public comments can only be part of a public hearing. Further on page 6, suggested clarifying the timing of when it would be appropriate for the public to remove consent agenda items. Then, in Section 402, commented that there may be a need to clarify the provision for moving items on the agenda. Noted that Section 509.2 and 509.6 appear redundant. PACE: Clarified that for example, if the Council reached a public hearing prior to the scheduled time of the public notice, the Council would actually be deferring consideration on the public hearing, and could move on to another item. ERICSON: Agreed that the language in 509.6 should be moved to 509.2, and 509.2 should be removed. MADER: Regarding the definition of resolutions in section 804, asked the intent of the reference to purchases over $25,000. The language as written implies that resolutions are only used for purchases over $25,000, and not for many other purposes. PACE: Clarified the intent was that payment of invoices is done by motion, but that purchases over $25,000 must be considered by resolution. Agreed that the language could be clarified so as not to imply that that is the only time resolutions are required. MADER: Echoed the comments of the other Councilmembers that the subcommittee did a good job on the project. MOTION BY SCHENCK, SECOND BY MADER, TO DIRECT THE SUBCOMMITTEE AND CITY ATTORNEY TO FURTHER REVIEW THE COMMENTS MADE THIS EVENING, AND TO RECOMMEND A FINAL DOCUMENT FOR CONSIDERATION ON AN UPCOMING CONSENT AGENDA. VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach, Petersen, Schenck and Ericson, the motion carried. Consider Appointment of Official City Bank. BOYLES: Discussed the agenda item and the results of the requests for proposals directed by the City Council. Further noted the savings the City will recognized without the diminution of services. MOTION BY SCHENCK, SECOND BY GUNDLACH TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 00-XX APPOINTING PRIOR LAKE STATE BANK AS THE OFFICIAL CITY BANK FOR A TERM OF THREE YEARS. (~UNDLACH: Asked how it was that staff was able to negotiate such a large savings for the City. TESCHNER: Reviewed the RFP process between the three banks, discussed the costs of provided banking services and the recommendation of Prior Lake State Bank based upon the interest earnings/service fee analysis. 7 City Council Meeting Minutes April 3, 2000 MADER: Asked if the average daily balance is the $500,000 figure, and if the City has been taken advantage of by not using a competitive process for the official bank appointment in the past. TESCHNER: Commented that the $500,000 figure is the average daily balance from last year. Further added that he did not believe that the City had been taken advantage of because the procedure for any bank prior to our specific request was to use the standard corporate rate. Only upon a specific request for proposals did the banks go back and try to come up with a better government package. It is really something new for each of the banking entities. A flat solicitation would have had differences of a much smaller margin than actually proposed at this point. MADER: Noted that the US Bank proposal, which was the highest proposal received, would still be approximately $15,000 better than last year. ERICSON: Complimented the process. Noted that the City should continue to look for similar circumstances where these types of initiatives may save money. MADER: Asked to defer action at this time in order to review the spreadsheets and proposals submitted by the banks in order to see how the numbers work out due to the small margin of difference between the Prior Lake State Bank and Marquette Bank bids. Also noted that the motion is currently in conflict with the Council bylaws which call for an annual appointment of the official city bank rather than the three-year term proposed. Councilmember SCHENCK suggested an amendment to the motion to include only a one-year term in order to be compatible with the bylaws. TE$CHNER: Noted that the request for proposals specified a three-year term, and that if that term was changed, the City would have to solicit new bids based upon a one-year term. MADER: Suggested that the Bylaws subcommittee consider an amendment to the bylaws to allow for a longer term for the official bank. After the Bylaws are considered as part of the next meeting consent agenda, the appointment of an official bank could also take place. TESCHNER: Noted that the only disadvantage to deferring the item would be that it would cost the City about $1800 by foregoing one month of interest earnings. Councilmember SCHENCK and (~UNDLACH withdrew the earlier motion. MOTION BY SCHENCK, SECOND BY GUNDLACH TO DEFER THE ITEM UNTIL THE APRIL 17TH CONSENT AGENDA AND DIRECTING STAFF TO DISTRIBUTE THE SPREADSHEET INFORMATION TO THE COUNCILMEMBERS WITH THE NEXT WEEKLY UPDATE. VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach, Petersen, Schenck and Ericson, the motion carried. NEW BUSINESS: Consider Approval of Proposal to Retain a Consulting Engineer in Preparation for Development of a Jordan Well on the West Side of Prior Lake. BOYLE$: Provided a brief history of the City's pursuit of an additional well for Prior Lake with respect to the Savage Fen and the FIG, Mt. Simon-Hinkley, and Jordan aquifers, together with the current 8 City Council Meeting Minutes April 3, 2000 proposal recommended by staff. Briefly reviewed the advantages, disadvantages and risks involved for development of a well within each of the aquifers. OSMUNDS(~N: Discussed that options available to the City at this time with respect to the City's current and estimated future water use. Also discussed the issues that effect the development of any well including DNR approval, available land, and the best site, together with a timeline for the process. MADER: Asked if the current contract with the engineer was one with a cap, and if it is likely that the same consultant would bid again. Also asked if the staff has considered the economics of pumping capacity versus storage capacity. OSMUNDSON: Confirmed that the cap on the contract had been met and that it is likely the same consultant would bid again. Noted that storage typically costs about $1.50 per gallon, so a million gallon tank would cost about $1.5 million for storage compared to a new well estimated to cost about $600,000. (~UNDLACH: Asked if staff anticipated any problem with DNR approval. OSMUNDSON: Explained that the DNR appropriations permit is obtained after the well comes online. You have to go through the chance of making it work before the DNR permit is issued, although a permit from the Dept. of Health is required before any drilling. This is the very first step in a long cooperative process with the DNR. MADER: Asked if there have been any discussions with the Mdewakanton Community regarding a shared well. OSMUNDSON: Advised that only very preliminary discussions between staffs at this point. PETERSEN: Asked about the status of the pump from the Lake. OSMUNDSON: Advised that that particular well was sealed. MOTION BY SCHENCK, SECOND BY PETERSEN AUTHORIZING STAFF TO SOLICIT REQUESTS FOR PROPOSALS FOR AN ENGINEERING CONSULTANT FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW WELL. VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach, Petersen, Schenck and Ericson, the motion carried. Consider Approval of Report Regarding City Status with Respect to the Suburban Transit Association (STA). BOYLES: Briefly provided the Council with the options available to it, and the procedures for those options. MADER: Gave a background which included the Council's earlier direction to examine and initiate, if appropriate, the process to remove Prior Lake from the MVTA and/or the development of a Prior Lake transit system. The implication of the earlier decision is that the City is moving toward removing itself from the MVTA. With the purpose of the STA being to lobby for additional taxes for transit services, and given that the STA also supports the light rail project proposed by Governor Ventura, which may have little benefit to the City when taken in the context of the City's proportional financial share, 9 City Council Meeting Minutes April 3, 2000 recommended staff's alternative 2 which would immediately withdraw the City from the STA effective 12/31/00, and direct staff to notify the STA. MOTION BY MADER, SECOND BY GUNDLACH TO APPROVE RESOLUTION WITHDRAWING FROM THE SUBURBAN TRANSIT ASSOCIATION. VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach, Petersen, Schenck and Ericson, the motion carried. 00-23 Consider Approval of Initiation of an Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Allowing Garages and Accessory Buildings in Front Yards. RYE: Reviewed each of the options for ordinance language revisions, and discussed the issues before the Council. Also noted that the process for an ordinance requires a public hearing at the Planning Commission level. MAOER: Noted that the issue had come before the Council as a direct result of a variance request. Suggested that attached garages on new construction be required. Also recommended that when replacing garages, the grade of the property should be a consideration. The City should also maintain some control over the architecture of the structure, and that where existing detached garages are destroyed and need to be rebuilt, and a residence exists, that it be permitted. ERICSON: Asked why the Planning Commission rejected the language defined in option 2. RYE: Recalled that they determined that this was probably not going to be a common occurrence and could appropriately be handled through a variance. MADER: Noted that many homes on the Lake have detached garages, and the lots and/or the structure of the house in many cases would not be conducive to an attached garage. GUNDLACH: Asked if this is specific only to lakeshore property, and could it be addressed through the definition of front yards in the lakeshore district. MADER: Advised that it was one of the considerations, but not the only consideration. Part of the intent was that if garages were to be built, that it was attractive from the street side. SCHENOK: Asked staff the definition of front yard, and how the ordinance can address expansion of single detached garages. RYE: The front yard is considered the 'area between the public right-of-way and the front of the house. The staff's concern is how accessory buildings relate to the public right-of-way. In terms of regulating, the relationship is how that property relates to the public right-of-way whether you call it the front yard or the back yard. Detached garages are considered accessory buildings in the current ordinance and the ordinance limits the size of any accessory building. MADER: Suggested that Councilmembers get their comments to staff so that they can proceed with bringing the language to the Planning Commission. MOTION BY MADER, SECOND BY GUNDLACH TO DIRECT STAFF TO PROVIDE DRAFT ORDINANCE LANGUAGE REVISIONS FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE COUNCIL AT THE MAY 1, 10 City Council Meeting Minutes April 3, 2000 2000 REGULAR MEETING, AND THAT COUNCILMEMBERS PROVIDE COMMENTS TO STAFF BY APRIL 10, 2000. SCHENCK: Believes that the more expeditious process would be to take the proposed ordinance language revisions directly to the Planning Commission without further consideration by the Council. Believes the Planning Commission process would be compromised by approving the draft ordinance language prior to their process. ERICSON: Asked if the City Council had input prior to the Planning Commission in its last review of this language. MADER: Noted that the Council had input because the language was originally considered as a part of the adoption of the new zoning ordinance. Once the first variance was requested, the Council became aware of a situation that would lead to many other variance requests. Advised that this process is not unique, and the intent is to provide direction for the Planning Commission. VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach and Petersen, Nay by Schenck and Ericson, the motion carried. Consider Approval of Initiation of an Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to Allow Fences in Front Yards with More than 25% Opacity. BOYLES: Reviewed the item in connection with the staff report, the intent to make City ordinances more friendly, and the options available to the Council. MADER: Asked Police Chief O'Rourke if there is any concern going from 25% to 50% opacity. O'ROURKE: Noted that his only concern is that shrubbery used with fencing tends to create an opacity greater than 50%. There is no safety issue for officers approaching the house with a 50% fence opacity. Further noted that opacity really makes little difference from a police standpoint, because shrubbery can be used in any case that would limit visibility. RYE: Advised that limiting plantings along fences can be restricted, but would be difficult to enforce. MOTION BY MADER, SECOND BY ERICSON TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITH A 50% OPACITY. MADER: Noted that in this case there is very specific direction so the issue should go directly to the Planning Commission for its public hearing process. SCHENCK: Asked if there are separate regulations for swimming pools. RYE: Confirmed that there are separate regulations for swimming pools, and that this ordinance applies to front yards only. VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach, Petersen and Ericson, the motion carried. Due to illness, Councilmember Schenck left the meeting and did not participate in the Executive Session. 11 City Council Meeting Minutes April 3, 2000 OTHER BUSINESS / COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS: Executive Session to Discuss Labor Negotiations, Sportsman's Club Litigation, and the City Manager's Quarterly Performance Evaluation. The Council adjourned to Executive Session. The regular meeting resumed at 12:15 a.m. Mayor MADER noted that the Council discussed the status of current labor negotiations, as well as an update on the Sportsman's Club litigation. The Council also conducted the City Manager's quarterly performance evaluation. Staff was provided direction and no formal action was necessary. MADER: Noted that Councilmember Ericson and he met with two members of the Parks Advisory Committee regarding the naming of parks. A process was agreed upon to conclude the matter. Asked the City Manager to set up another meeting. A motion to adjourn was made and seconded. The meeting adjourned at 12,:18/a.m. Frank Boyles, Kelly ~eyer~e~l~,/jdg Secretary 12