DEEPHAVEN CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MONDAY,
OCTOBER 1, 2007
MINUTES
1.
CALL MEETING TO ORDER: Mayor Paul Skrede called the
meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
ABSENT: Kim Crockett
STAFF: Police Chief Cory Johnson, Zoning
Coordinator Gus Karpas and City Administrator Dana
Young
2.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The
Council recited the Pledge of Allegiance.
3.
APPROVE CONSENT AGENDA
Motion
by Councilmember Kask to approve the Consent Agenda, consisting of the
following items:
A. September 17, 2007 Minutes
B. Monthly Verifieds
C. 2007 / 2008 Deer Management
Plan
Seconded
by Councilmember Adams. Motion carried
4-0.
Discussion
was held on the number of permitted deer authorized for removal by the Department
of Natural Resources, the timelines for deer removal and the potential
locations of the deer traps.
4.
MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There
were no Matters from the Floor.
5.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Public Hearing on the
assessment of delinquent sewer/storm sewer, water and garbage/recycling utility
charges – Adopt Resolution No. 30-07
Administrator Young
presented the assessment roll on the delinquent sewer/storm sewer, water
and garbage/recycling
charges for Council review.
Motion by Councilmember Kask
to adopt Resolution No. 30-07, A Resolution Adopting Delinquent
Utility Assessments. Seconded by Councilmember Wheaton. Motion carried 4-0.
face of a
fence to abut adjacent properties and to prohibit storage between a fence and
an
adjacent
property line.
Zoning
Coordinator Karpas reviewed the proposed change and reiterated the concern of
the Planning Commission that there be a prohibition in the setback area for a
fence. He said staff supports the
ordinance as submitted because it clarifies what is and is not a violation and
is easy to enforce.
Chief
Johnson agreed saying there needs to be a clear-cut definition of what is a
violation.
Councilmember
Wheaton was interested in what the Planning Commission had to say. Councilmember Adams said he brought the
discussion the Council had to the Commission to gauge their response. He said the Commission was comfortable with
the need to create a clear regulation, but still felt it was too restrictive as
drafted.
Mayor
Skrede said that the Council typically follows the recommendations of the Planning
Commission, stating that the Council typically agrees with the Commission
recommendations about ninety-five percent of the time. He said this speaks well of the work done by
the Commission, especially clarifying potential issues on a subject before it
reaches the Council level. He said if
the ordinance is passed as originally proposed it would not be a negative
reflection on their work.
Councilmember
Adams reiterated that the Planning Commission sees a need for the regulation,
just not as strictly defined in the proposed ordinance.
Councilmember
Wheaton said it’s a fundamental question in his mind of how far government
should intrude on the rights of private property owners to use their
property. He feels there are reasonable
alternatives available. He feels one
option is to remove the setback requirement for fences entirely. He said the required setback and prohibition
on the use of the setback area could be construed as a taking. Another idea would be to permit storage
screens or sheds on the outside portion of the fence to screen any storage.
Councilmember
Adams noted the setback comes into play when the adjacent neighbor does not
agree with the placement of a fence.
Wheaton said the city could lessen the setback requirement. Mayor Skrede said the required setback serves
a practical purpose in that it permits the installation and maintenance of a
fence without trespassing onto adjacent properties. Wheaton said he understands but feels it’s
unfortunate that the city has to take steps like this to address an issue
between two spiteful neighbors.
Councilmember
Kask noted that the setback permits the planting of vegetation, which could
ultimately take place of a fence for screening purposes. He said it benefits the city to maintain a
setback requirement for fences. He does
not believe a two-thirds requirement is punitive. He respects the views of Councilmember
Wheaton on the concern about infringing on private property right, but supports
the ordinance as drafted.
Mayor
Skrede agrees that the city shouldn’t have to get into neighbor disputes, but
doesn’t mind having to when there appears to be only one solution to the
dispute. Wheaton appreciates the need
for the ordinance but believes there are alternatives to solve the issue
without passing a law to settle a dispute.
Skrede said had the ordinance been thought through initially, the
proposed language may have already been in place.
Councilmember
Wheaton said there are many instances in the city where a property owner’s
storage is out of their view, but in the view of their neighbor. He questions where regulations like the one
proposed end.
Councilmember
Adams said he supports the ordinance in the form it was presented to the City
Council. He said the city is already in
the business of regulating fences and the current neighbor issue has shown a
weakness in that regulation. The
proposed ordinance provides the city a new tool for enforcement.
Zoning
Coordinator Karpas stated that the major concern of the Planning Commission,
more specifically Commissioner Linder was that the proposed ordinance has the
potential to create neighbor issues where there currently are none.
Councilmember
Adams feels the proposed ordinance is more a dispute resolution mechanism than
it is a dispute creating issue.
Motion
by Councilmember Adams to adopt Ordinance No. 13-44, An Ordinance Amending
Section 1310.08, requiring the face of a fence to abut adjacent property and to
prohibit storage between a fence and an adjacent property line as presented. Seconded by Councilmember Kask. Motion carried 3-1. Upon roll call vote on the motion to approve,
Council members Adam, Kask and Skrede voted aye. Councilmember Wheaton voted nay.
6. PLANNING & ZONING REQUESTS
A. VARIANCE – Mark and Julie Klauer, 4635 Old Kent Road, (R-2,
40,000) variance request to construct a screened accessory structure within the
required rear yard setback. The
requested variance is to construct the entire structure within the required
twenty-five foot rear yard setback. The
structure would be located seven feet from the rear property line.
Zoning
Coordinator Karpas presented the request.
He said the applicant is seeking to construct a one hundred ninety two
square foot accessory structure, which would encroach into the required rear
yard setback.
The
structure is intended to provide a protected outside area away from the
mosquitoes. The proposed structure
complies with the fifteen foot maximum accessory structure requirements and
would have a height of eleven feet. The
property is permitted a total of one thousand square feet of accessory
structure area. There are no other
accessory structures on the property.
The property is not located within the Shoreland Management district so
impervious surface coverage is not an issue.
The
applicant indicates an undue hardship exists in the need to provide a protected
outside area and that there are no other suitable locations on the property to
place the structure due to the terrain and an existing drainage pipe.
Karpas
said he has received two letters of support for the request. The first from Jerry Gens, 4645 Old Kent
Road, the property adjacent to the south.
The second from Dave Eastling, 19875 Andover Place, the property
directly north of the subject property.
Karpas
said he recommended denial for the request.
He felt the applicant had not demonstrated an undue hardship preventing
the reasonable use of the property and that design alternatives exist to
achieve the applicant’s desires without the need for a variance.
Councilmember
Adams presented the Planning Commission report.
He said the Commission voted unanimously to recommend denial of the
request. The primary issues were that
the applicant did not demonstrate undue hardship and that design alternatives
existed for placement of the structure.
Adams noted that since the Planning Commission meeting, the city has
received letters of support from adjacent neighbors. Karpas said he has received two letters of support
for the request. The first from Jerry
Gens, 4645 Old Kent Road, the property adjacent to the south. The second from Dave Eastling, 19875 Andover
Place, the property directly north of the subject property. He said he has not received any correspondence
from the property owner that would be most affected by the request.
Mayor
Skrede asked if there was anyone present to speak to the request.
Mark
Klauer introduced himself and said he and his wife would like to construct the
detached screened porch to permit them to enjoy their property by alleviating
the mosquito problem created by the adjacent drainage area. He said the request is unique in that the
proposed structure would be located adjacent to a portion of the neighboring
property that appears to have no future use.
He said he spoke with the new owners of that property, who said they
would send an email. Mr. Klauer said
there are particular issues on the property making alternate locations
unsuitable. He explained the home was
not always a walkout, and that when it was converted, a drainage pipe was
placed to carry the water away from the home.
In addition, he said if the structure was placed elsewhere, the yard
would look cluttered.
Mayor
Skrede asked for Councilmember comments.
Councilmember
Kask said the request isn’t dissimilar or different from the placement of a
gazebo. He agrees with the applicant
that the proposed location is a suitable location, but he’s troubled with the
idea of approving the placement of a structure without a clear hardship
demonstrated. He said he would feel
differently if the applicant was seeking to enclose an existing portion of the
principle structure. He said it is quite
possible that the neighbor agreed to the placement in order to be
neighborly. He said the Council should
be cautious in approving variances for structures that don’t serve the
principle structure.
Councilmember
Adams feels it’s important to consider the fact that the proposed encroachment
would be in an area that would not infringe on the use of the adjacent
property. He noted the adjacent lot is
heavily wooded and the principle structure is placed a great distance away from
the proposed structure. He said that
combined with the letters of support and the granting of a previous variance on
the adjacent property he is supportive of the request.
Councilmember
Wheaton said after reading the Staff Report and reviewing the recommendation of
the Planning Commission, he believes there are design alternatives available to
the applicant. He doesn’t see an undue
hardship, especially since the proposed structure is accessory and not an
essential part of the principle structure.
Mayor
Skrede said a variance request gives the Council an opportunity to see if there
is a uniqueness or special need attached to a property. He concedes the applicant can live without
the screened porch, but is sympathetic to the need to create a closed area for
the full enjoyment of the property. He
said the intent of ordinances is to protect neighboring properties and in this
case he doesn’t see an affected neighbor.
Skrede views the area of the adjacent property most impacted by the
request as not essential to the use of that property. He doesn’t foresee that portion of the
property developed in the future.
Councilmember
Kask said the applicant is struggling based on the location of pool and that
the pool creates the desire for this structure.
He feels that one variance begets another. He said the applicant included in his
argument that his variance has some merit due to a variance granted on an
adjacent property. He agrees with Staff
and the Planning Commission that an undue hardship has not been shown for an
amenity to support another amenity.
Councilmember
Adams said he has no issue approving the request for the proposed structure,
especially in light of no objecting neighbors.
Zoning
Coordinator Karpas stated that the use or potential non use of an adjacent
property and neighbor support are not grounds for granting a variance. He said the criteria contained in the
ordinance is clear that an undue hardship must be demonstrated showing the
ordinance provision prevent the reasonable use of the property in
question. He does not believe the
applicant meets this threshold. He
reminded the Council that they recently amended the ordinance to more strictly
regulate accessory structures by removing the special use permit standards and
applying the more restrictive variance standard.
Councilmember
Wheaton believes certain criteria must be met in order to grant a variance and
that a more careful eye needs to be given to uses that are accessory on the
property. He doesn’t believe the
variance granted on the neighboring property has any bearing on this
request. He stated the burden of
hardship has not been demonstrated by the applicant.
Mr.
Klauer asked for the definition of hardship.
He believes hardship is in the eye of the beholder. Councilmember Kask stated a hardship must be
demonstrated showing the property cannot be put to a reasonable use, which is
difficult to prove in this case.
Kask
said he is troubled with the prospect of granting a variance for a detached
structure. He said he’s not entirely
sold on the fact that the adjacent property couldn’t be put to some type of use
in the future. He noted that setbacks
are created to protect properties from activities on adjacent properties.
Councilmember
Adams understands the statutory standards.
He feels that past actions must be taken into account when considering
this request.
Mayor
Skrede informed the applicant that there appears to be an impasse and if the
Council were to act on the request it would most likely be a tie vote, which by
state statutes, constitutes a denial. He
said the applicant has the option of continuing this request to the October 15th
meeting so the full Council could hear it; otherwise it appears it would be
denied by default. The applicant
indicated he would like to continue the request.
The
Council agreed to close the public hearing and table the request to the October
15th meeting.
7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Adopt Ordinance No.
11-09, Amending Sign Ordinance
Zoning
Coordinator Karpas told the Council that the ordinance in front of them is
similar to the one presented to them a number of months ago. The proposed ordinance was reviewed twice by
the Planning Commission and their comments are reflected in the amended
ordinance. He said that even though they
weren’t required to, the Commission made a recommendation that the Council
adopt the ordinance.
Karpas discussed a memo he sent to the Planning Commission outlining the changes in the ordinance from the first time it was presented to the Council.
Councilmember
Adams said the proposed ordinance was discussed extensively by the Planning
Commission. He said the proposed
ordinance prohibits off site commercial signs, which is a useful tool to have
and also limits the use of temporary signs.
Zoning Coordinator Karpas said the current ordinance permits a business
owner to obtain temporary sign permits for forty-five days as often as they
want. The proposed ordinance limits the
number of permits to two permits in a calendar year.
Councilmember
Adams said the ordinance is fairly strict and addresses a number of issues,
some of which are not issues at this point in time. He feels if would be proactive to have such
an ordinance in place before problems arise.
Councilmember
Kask said the proposed ordinance sets size limits on signs based on their
purpose and proposes clarity on some of the elements in the current
ordinance. He noted the city is not
trying to mute the right to free speech.
He supports the adoption of the ordinance with a second reading.
The
Council agreed to hold a second reading of the proposed sign ordinance at the
October 15th Council meeting.
B.
Review Comprehensive Plan
Amendments
Zoning
Coordinator Karpas discussed the draft Comprehensive Plan update saying the
bulk of the changes revolve around updating Census data and the comments
analyzing the data. He said the Planning
Commission has reviewed the plan and minor grammatical changes have been made,
but that the substance of the plan has not changed from the previous version.
The
Council discussed the process for reviewing the plan. It was decided to include this item on the
agenda for the Special Session to be held before the regular meeting on October
15th. At that time staff will
compile Council comments and bring the plan back for review at the November 5th
meeting. At that time it will be
determined when to hold the required public hearing.
C.
Authorize Request for
Proposals on Auditing Services
Administrator
Young stated that David Stene with EideBailly has informed the City that they
would no longer be performing the annual audit due to the increase in auditing
requirements. He stated that the
requirements have increased the costs to the point where it is no longer cost
effective for EideBailly to continue to provide auditing services for their
smaller clients without a significant increase in fees.
Motion
by Councilmember Kask to authorize staff to send out a Request for Proposals
for auditing services. Seconded by
Councilmember Adams. Motion carried 4-0.
D.
Authorize Payment in Lieu of
Group Health Coverage
Administrator
Young stated that he had presented this same proposal to the City Council in
September 2006 but the Council chose not to pursue this option due to concerns
that the healthiest employees would opt out thereby leaving the City with a
pool of less healthy and potentially more expensive employees to cover.
He stated that the reason he wanted to bring this issue back to the Council is that there is a real opportunity to save several thousand dollars per year on group health costs. He stated that there are currently three city employees who have single group health coverage that have the same or superior group health coverage through a spouse. The City is currently paying $486.88 per month for employee coverage they don’t need or particularly want. The City could offer a salary increase of $0.50 per hour to offset the loss of this group health benefit and could still save approximately $4,655.40 per year on each employee.
Mayor Skrede asked if the union agreements would have an impact on whether the City could offer a payment in lieu of group health coverage.
Administrator Young stated that he would verify the impact of the union agreements prior to presenting a Resolution authorizing payment in lieu of health care coverage at the next Council meeting.
8. DEPARTMENT REPORTS
A. Police Department
Police Chief Johnson stated that his department has received a number of inquiries asking why media reports were not appearing in the local paper. He stated that since he can’t control the information that is published in the paper media reports were now being included on the City’s website.
B. Excelsior Fire District
Administrator Young stated that the Excelsior Fire District Board met on September 26th and awarded the contract for Fiscal Agent Services to Deephaven for a three year period, subject to a mutually agreeable opt-out provision. He stated that the Board also discussed the purchase of a new rescue truck for 2009, which included discussion on the possibility of purchasing a demo vehicle.
C. Public Works
Administrator Young provided an update on recent and upcoming public work department activities.
D.
Administration
Administrator
Young provided a summary of the following items for Council review:
·
Verizon’s interest in constructing a cell phone tower in Deephaven
·
Upcoming 2008 Public Works Union Contract Negotiations
·
The hiring of warming house attendants
·
A note of appreciation to our part-time summer help
·
The approval of Deephaven as Fiscal Agent to the Fire District
·
An update on the Cooperative Maintenance Agreement with the Senior
Center
9. ADJOURNMENT
Motion to adjourn by Councilmember Wheaton. Seconded by Councilmember Adams. Motion carried 4-0. The meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m.
Respectfully
submitted,
Dana
H. Young
City
Administrator