Loading...
1999-04-19AGENDA MOUND CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MONDAY, APRH~ 19, 1999 7:30 PM MOUND CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS e OPEN MEETING - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ...................... PAGES DOCKS - DEVON COMMON, ROANOKE AREA ...................... 1335-1352 ADJOURNMENT 1334 CITY OF MOUND CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING NOTICE Notice is hereby given that there will be a Special City Council Meeting on Monday, April 19, 1999 at 7:30 P.M., in the City Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. The purpose of this meeting will be to discuss Docks on Devon Common, Roanoke Area. Francene C. Clark, CMC City Clerk ~h in The laker April 17, 1999 ED TO THE LAKER - APRIL 13, 1999 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - JANUARY 12, 1999 .1.12 APPROVAL OF 1999 DOCK LOCATION MAP. The DCAC held a public hearing in on November 19, 1998, for the 1999 Dock Location Map. Their recommendation is as follows: Dock Inspector McCaffrey presented the 1999 dock location map changes as detailed in his November 10, 1998 memorandum. In summary, the recommendation is to remove docksites//00030, g00115,//00155, #60785,//60825 and//61070, to add docksite//32750 (replaces #32775), change docksite//32760 to//32710, and add multiple docksite//42800 sites A through J and remove docksite //42821, //42856, //42871, //42901, and //42990. In addition, Hanus brought up an issue that was raised last summer, a request from Mark Smith on Island View Drive. Mr. Smith discovered last year that his dock was not centered in his dock location. He is now asking to have a new number assigned to his dock where it currently is located and has been for ~nany years. The dock is located next to a light pole that has underground wiring. He would like a new number assigned to his current location. Because of that small shift, it would also require the next dock (the Albrecht dock) to the east to be shifted. Albrecht leased the site last year, but never put in a dock. This would allow Smith to be where he has always been. It would also allow him to use the light pole. Hanus stated it wouldn't deprive anyone of anything. It is very flat and accessible along there. Smith currently has two water spaces in front of his house and will continue tc have two water spaces. Hanus stated that nothing is really changing and it is a valid and honest request. Smith requested this about 6 or 7 months ago and the City still hasn't taken any action on it. The neighborhood was going to get together before winter and try to come to a consensus. There has not even been a meeting on it. Staff has not resolved the issue. Hanus stated it is time to set the dock location map and he suggested this change be made as well, to clean up the area. Councilmember Hanus suggested the following: Move the Smith site (Dock//41866) to #41842 and then moving the next dock site to the east, which is currently//41824 up to//41790. This would also complete the pattern that's in the neighborhood, where you have the abutter docks, more or less toward the center of their lots and the inland docks that are in there tend to be closer to the lot lines. It spreads them out a little more evenly and it's less intrusion on the people that are there because the aeighbors that are coming into the neighborhood are more toward your lot lines rather than down toward the center of your lot. MOTION made by Hanus to approve the 1999 dock location map as recommended by the DCAC; moving the Smith site (Dock//41866) to//41842 and then moving the next dock site to tl~e east, which is currently//41824 up to//41790; and directing Staff to resolve this by the first Council Meeting in February,( February 9). If the affected people come up vAth another alternative that they can reach agreement on, that would be acceptable. 9 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- JANUARY 12, 1999 Councilmember Weycker stated that the last time this was before the Council, it was decided that that neighborhood would get together and work this out. She stated that notices did go out in their dock packets encouraging them to get together with Staff and work this problem out. Brown seconded the motion. Hanus stated that this was to be taken care of before winter. Last Fall at a DCAC Meeting when it was discussed, he told the Park Director to do it then. He stated it is merely shifting 2 docks over a few feet. Weycker disagreed and encouraged the Council to delay action on shifting these particular docks until the neighborhood is notified of the possible shift and a meeting with them can be arranged. Hanus does not feel the neighborhood will be able to reach an agreement and that is why he is proposing this shift. He stated it will only affect the two docks in front of Mr. Smith's home. The Mayor stated she would rather see Staff work with these people and reach an agreement. Councilmember Ahrens stated that Mr. Smith has two dock locations in front of his house. The Park Director sent letters to 12 people asking them to agree on where the docks should be located in front of Mr. Smith's home. She did not feel this was appropriate. Brown suggested the Council go ahead and approve the motion as presented on the condition that Staff speaks to the two people involved and if they have no legitimate objections to moving the two docks, it will be resolved. The City Manager suggested giving these people some time to respond to Staff since the letters just went out in their dock packets. The Mayor stated she would like to see the neighborhood notified before a decision is mad:. The Council discussed moving ahead with the proposed motion. Having Staff notify the affected people and if the neighborhood comes up with a different solution, it can be changed. Councilmember Weycker did not agree. A vote on the motion was 4 in favor with Weycker voting nay. Motion carried. 10 MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 9, 1999 REI~RT FROM JANUARY 30. 1999 ~G OF REqID~ FROM THE DEVON COMMON AT ROANOKE ACCESS RE: DOCK PLA~. Park Director, Jim Fackler, relxa'ted that a meeting of lie ndghtxatxxxl (approximately 12 persons) was teld on January 30, 1999. He sl~nved an overtead of the plan t~t was approved at the January 12th Coundl fl~e dock spaces are determined by dividing half the lineal foaage on eittxx side of the dock. ~se may be off a tittle bit. He then showed an overhead ~ was an alternative plan put together by some of the individuals in lhe area as a result of the January 30th ndghborhc~ meeting. This allemate plan did not differ too mtr. h fi'om what was approved in January. Slaff was to go out and then mark lhose slxXs. This was done on Febmary 3rd. The orange markers showed the approved plan. The blue markers showed the alternative plan from the January slaffmtxaMs~loufili?elixirdockspaee. In other words, theirdock may not fit ~y in one area wilhintt~dockspace. They may move it over bemnqe of topography; sizeofboag or design of the dock. space. The Casey dock is about 9 to 11 feet east ofwhere it i.q shown on lhe ~ed map, which puts it on the Comm(xlS in front of the Ahrem ~. Peq)le normally want to work this out and not infringe on someone elm's water space. Greg Knulscm, 4701 Island V!ew Drive, gave a presmlation on the altemale plan which would leave a minimum of 46 feet between ~ dock. He laid the two ~q on top of each Oter to show fl~at the docks stay pretty much the same but the disla~:e between lhe docks is changed. He pointed out that the nombulfi~ dock stay on the lot lines as they have been. He poinled out the following differences in lhe approved plan, the altemale plan and the ac~_~J 1995-1998 location map: · MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 9, 1999 Approved 1999plan- 48 feet on the west sideand 66 feeton theeast side = 114 fee~ Al~emaleplan- 46 feet on fle west side and 57 feet on ~he east side = 103 feet. 1995-1998 map - 48 feet on hhe west side and 42 feet on the east side =90feet. SMflH DOCK STIE ~41842: ~ed 1999 plan- 66 feet on the west side and 52 feet on the east side = 118 feet 1995-1998 map - 42 feet on fl~e west side and 74 feet on the east side = ll6feet. 1995-1998 map - 42 feet on the west side and 42 feet on the east side = 84 feet. Dock was not in lastyear. CASEY DOCK SrlE g42000 1995-1998 map - 44 feet on lhe west side and 42 feet on lhe east side = 86 feet. Comcilmember ~ ~ted out fik~t bo~,m of topography the Casey dockis acakally 11 feet east ofwheze it is shown on the 1999 appr,~ plan, which then gives Mr. Harring~ 55 feet on ~ east side of his dock and leaves Ahrem with 37 fi:et on the west side of their dock. Ahnms would slay where they have been. He asked if this ham't been a problem before, why is the alterm~ propos~ to move 7 docks? Mr. Schmidt ~ toal~er that he stat to fie Cotmdl regarding the~'s legal right toclmgethe dock location map without a ro:om.,mr~tion from the Dock Inspector or review by lhe DCAC. ~ Hanus did n~ agree wilh this and felt lhe ~ has the right ~ change lhe dock location map on its own. MINUTES- MOUND CITY COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 9, 1999 Keith Foresler, dock ff41437 staled he has anO~ issue that is not rela _~M to Ibis issue but shoukt be arkheased. Heproposed having the St__eaS_ rkxT, k site ff41477 placed behveen he and Mr. Kuetm~t~~~ plan shows it, itistoo shallo~v. He slated ff~at he had spolam toMr. Kuekn and he is in agreement wihh flfis proposal. TheCtxtmilasl~.ff~. S~~t_ Hewasnot. The Park Director ~ hetm not ~ ~ Mr. Stmd or Mr. Kuehn on this propoml. Rax~ T agomme, 4649 Island V'vzw Drive, staled she had spolam wilh Mr. Slead and about what had ~ at the ~_,_.~ay meeting. Sb~ told him that she thought his dock sile would probably be discussed tonight and mcxxuaged him Io come to 1Ns meeting. She felt he was vea'y agreeable and didn't seem to care wlxxe he was, just that he gets a dock spot that he can use. She asked if lhere was an open space at Pembroke Park for lhe Stead dock. The Park Director did not kx~v if lhere is a spot at Pembroke Parle Weycker slaled ~ when ~ Cotm61 was going to move the St__ead_ dock last year we asked the affected people in the Pembroke Park area to __a,,~J more siles and lhey ov~y voted bo. The Park Director ~t~ lhat he does not know at lhis poir t, if there is an available sile at Pembroke. Mark Smith, 4665 l.qland View Drive, staled he is the one who requesled the change in lhe 1999 dock location that wasat~xrn~ on January 12, 1999. He slated that he realized M 1998 thathewas sitting in lhe middleof The Park Direcl~ re_ted Ihat lhere was a letler ofrequest, but it was nevex acled on. He explained lhat flzae was a storm in May and a ~ree fell and the im~llation of the Smith dock went in at about his current spot, looked into wMae Smith's do~ was and ~ Ihat it was 4-6 feet into Abmcht's dock space. Thru Mr. MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 9, 1999 Mr. Smith agreed with lhe plan approved on January 12th because he felt it was reasonable. He felt the alternate plan would just aggravate an allwMy lense sih~fion and make it worse. He commenl~ ~ is someone is unhat:~ on comnx~, lhey !',ho~ go by privale lakeslx~. Pat Harfington, 4687 T~and V'~v Drive,(new resident in June) presented fl~e following plan and asked fl~at the Council give the people a permanent solution. "Harfingtons' positica on dock locations from foolage 41437 lhrough 42129 (January 12, 1999 dock ktafion map) Abutting spaoes eq,~ls eight (8) plus abe fire lane equals nine (9) Non-abutting spaces not to exceed four (4): 42043 (Schmidt) - Centered at fire lane centefline 41956 (Casey) - Centered at propeny line 41790 (Albrecht) - " "" 41477 (St~ " "" " No fi. Lrther consideration for multip{e docks b~ 41437 and 42129 foolages." Hanus passed ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~y offof ~; and there is a s.m~ i~land to the soufl~t, ff you wea.~ to smd on fl~e tx)hat and face lhe bridge be~ve~ Shady T~hp, d and F_achanted Island, the sand bar goes ~ctly tovnud the bridge, not ~ the Mack property. Harrington pointed out fl~at under his plan, no one would have to move. They would all slay where they are except fo~ ~ who could move either way to avoid having to deal with the trees if she was on center. He He woukt like to see a lock or the numher of docks and their location that go from Forester all the way to Smith on the oflxx ~de of the Roar~)ke firelane. Hanus slatefl lhat has already been done and the number is 14 from ~ to I atcJa~m. docks be delermin~ so this doesn't come up again. MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 9, 1999 propertylim? He asked if 0ere was going to be some sort of limilafion to the dock it~lf. He stated that he knows the Albrecht dock is going to be an H dock. Casey's dock is a straight one. Renee LaFonme agreed with the Hardngton plan beca__ u~ he burden is more evenly alloc~__t_~. She did not want to leave lhe meeting with the htgnession ~ if the dism~,4on ~t closes dem'min~ where ~e sites along ~ Access will be at fi'tis point, fl~at lhe neigh~ is happy _bemu~just resolving the current placxanent nonabutfi~ docks would be l:e~er in front ofparks and open space raflxx than in front of peopWs homes. She asked if a solution could be k~cked in for one year?. fun Albrecht, 4701 ~~ Road, smxl he just wants a dock. He related his saga of trying to get one last year. Heslaledhewanlsle get along with all the neighbors. He paid for a dock last year and did receive it but, couldn't put a dock in w thout forcing other people to move which he didn't feel was fair so he didn't put the dock fee this year. He ha~ alr~___y paid his dock fee this year and would like to know if he was getting lhe hie fees back. I~ conion cf nonabutters and abutters is that fl~e lake ~ Io everybody. she is forced onto a lot line bxause the access is not good. She would want to be able to shiit if ~ as }3 13 112 MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 9, 1999 nece~ to voe on the issue,,. tree. The City Attorney suggested lhat if fl~e only issue is the Casey dock, maybe fl~at should be dealt with irkqtead of coming up with a definiliott ofcmter. ~ber Weycker was also cotrm~ about lhe Albr~t and S~ doclc Mack voiced concern about the Albrecht dock beta_ j_~ it is an H shaped dock and lhat will infringe on Mack's waler Slmm. Frank Ahrens stated lifts has always been a problem, when you lalk about cenlefing docks, bern_ j_,~ what do you mean by cmtering? It'snot ~ea'e the dock me~ the land and saying ffat' s the center. If a stmight dock is put out it's not a problem but a U, H or L dock, can ~_um a problem when you lalk about centering. ~ ~ is lhat yo~ haw: to slay in your water spaee regardless of what the shape is. He felt center needed The Cout~ a~in looked at the adopted 1999 plan. That is why he was in favor of Mr. Knutson's plan, beck__ u~ it gave everyone a little more room at his end. adjust for lhingslike light poles, walerimn~, etc. Hewould liketo seethe neightxatxxxt get along andbury 113 MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 9, 1999 41956 (Casey) ~ at ~ line 41'P)0(Alx'ed]t - " "" " 41477 ~ - " "" " No furlher cmt~iesnlion f~ nndfiple docks between 41437 and 42129 penmn~ ~ f~' ~he ne,~ two ~rs. bet-,,--~- F~esier Kndm. Weycl~secont~lhe~. Weyck~ w~sdd I~e a frim~ ~ to address their ~ atmut lhe cnmi~ by Bro'~n s~d that Casey would stay where she isat 11 feet c~t of Ahrens propmy line. still in her waler space. Fmtk Ahrem staled this was O. K. wili~ him and his dock is slaying where it has been for :~ years. The Casey dock g41956 would remain where it is. Albrecht is on the Smifll Mack ~ line. The Park Director noted that Mr. Mack brought up apmblem hhat hewill have. dock is lomted to fl~e west of his center _be~___u~ of trees. If Albrecht goes in at bec~mse what we are adopting is the 1999 plan anyway. Ma:k objeaed, stating hhat it ~ Albrecht imo his wa~ space. Weycker maed the according Io the 1999 plan, Albrecht would be just east of the Smith Mack stat~fl ~ is 40 feet l~an:en the Mack site (41750) and fl~e ~ Albrecht sile (417~)). You can take two 20 feet spaces and butt flx~ right up next to each otto. infringing on his water sl~cc. Mack did not agree bern_use of the trees and the sandbar. He smaxl fiat is why he moved his dock west. Ha~us disagr~ ~ ~ ~. Mack says lie sand~ is. 114 MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 9, 1999 to tt~ first dock which would have been lhe St__md dock as noted on the map. That is the way he sees this for the no n(mbulling dock area. That is the history lhat was Cotnty Map with the aerial on everything shows the mnd~ or the lower area to be right offLaFortune'spo~t. It is a line that mns off slxae that shows minimum 10 foot or less from that point in, but it runs the wtx)le shordine from that point all the wa) over to the clmnd it doesn't show any obmax:fions, according to the Sheriffs re[c betva~en 41650 (I_aF~) dock sile and 41477 (proposed St___ead__ dock site). The City A~z-g~ suggested eonsi~ an anendrrent which would locate the Alh~ht dock on the extension of the prolxxty line between the Mack/Smith property pro,,ided fl'~at it is pmsible to shi~ the Mack dock slightly to the east. In the event hhat is l~X possible, Ibm the Albrecht dock would be loca~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Janthary 12, 1999, approved Dock Location Map which would locate it slightly west of the Mack/Smith lxcpeny line. M,x:k staled he wants to stay where he has been for 11 years and does not want to easterly. so tl~t peo~ are mt inrr~:~g m otha' ~'s wata- spaee. Frank Ahrens comrrented that if the City is going to place monuments, then a monument would be 11 feet east of lhat rtonument. He asked if fl~is was O.K. with Caseyand Ahrms. 115 MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - FEBRUARY brought up at the ia, mary 30~h Meeting or she would have called Ibis Io everyone's a_~_eqlion. She sla~ that no one reatly wants to lell it like it is. Sheslated lhatMr. Mackhasag0 footlotand hedoes not want any nonab~tle~s waler space in fi'ont of his house. it from a wa_ret dep~ slandtx~int so as to allow the Albrecht dock to be localed as close to lhe prqxxty line as possible? W~s that part of the motion? Weyclax slaled she had ~ that as the sectmder asan~t to the motion. S~~if~~~itasthe~malax?. Mr. Brown ~_t_~ fl~at rix: way it goes is the way he slated it. Brown. "We are aco~aing Mr. Harrington's ~t. If Mr. Mack feels hencedsalittlea~.d~mce, lhcnhecan ask thc Dock ~ to work with us and wc'H work wilh Mr. Mack. I'm surcwe'renatoppo~ tohelping youout. Let's puteverylhi~ down tonight, setitin granite as much as)ou can for the next two years and let the neighbors get along and figure it out and if a neighl~' needs help with so~, we'H work it out wilh him." City Attormy. "I 6~n't disagree with lim My only concem, Councilmember Brown, waslhathased on -A~tt I was heating, it may be ih,at locating the Albrecht ciw. k on the exlmding at lt-e location where it is currently permitted to be." Ilanus. "Only if Mt. Mack is outside of his permil~ water space, ff he is inside of his currently assigned w~er space, ffere is no conflict." "But anybody can claim IMt. I don't believe Ii,at to be true and we've got a picage sitting here right now tMt acasally shows shallow water. This is an aerial picture of the point and you can see lhe shallow waler near the I ar, ortum doclc The I aF:omme dock goes right ov~ it and it goes out, vaughly half the dislance of ltxSr dock and the furltxx it get over loward the Ma~ks, the closer h~to shore lhe shallow area gets and by the time you get to the lot line, it's even shor~ yet. In all thc evidence I've seen, it would indi~_te absolu~y ff~e opposite." Hanus. "IhaveacoqaleofquestionsO~~of~~. First of all, I have to know what ~ difference is between ibis plan and what's already in place? That's lhe first firing. Brown. "Well, this t~an puts Mr. Albrecht on the lot line for one firing." Brown. "I look 41790 tO be just offthe lot line." Hanus. "By what criteria? Don't go by where lhe line is drawn, _beca_ n~ that's not accurate." 13q') 116 MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 9, 1999 mo6on on J~uary 12th and we were using numbers that we had from S~ff fl~t if you ad&d line. Maytx'.we'rejustdisagred~ ov~w~tl~numberis?" "Actually, I lhink hhe dimgmement came when the slakes got set. They said it's not Mack "That's cc~x~, not on the lot line." "Unformnatdy, the time before that lhey were 15 feet. You know, lhey were somewhat different again and lhen last year lhey were 15 feet diffenmt than the more ~t ~t The Slaff is aH over within 15 feet so I don't know if I can trust lhese numbers." "That's wh)' I said, I want it to go Ibis way with Mr. Han/ngton's plan, which put Mr. Schmidt on lhe fire lane; Ms. Casey's ~ spc~ for records, her crater spot will be on he Ahmns/Hardngton property line but, she is allowed Io go 11 feet to the east, where ithas always been; Mr. Albrecht' s ~t spot wo~ be on fl~e Smilh/Ma~ property line, and ff~ would be my plan. Have Jolm Cameron go out and survey these spots so lhat they come out on these lines and that's where it would be." Hanus. "O.K. Now, did you acc~ lhe anxaxtrr~t to define the center spaceor whatwasit, exactly? Is that what it was, to identify?" "To define centering. Jhn, I ~ clarified it better. Due to dock formation. You know, aT or H. Hanus. "Do we ha,,e that writ~ yet or not? But your planning on pa~.~ing the moron, so two weeks fi'om now l~df of lhe people s~tting here will be back complaining about. I don't know which half. It depends on how it eomes out, but someone will be back complaining lhat lhey don,t like the dentition. It's not good to pass a motion ..... or pass a resolution or a motion not Weycker. "J'm~ did say it. Can you repeat it Fackler. "Wlxae I addressed the ~y? I lhink I did lt~at in my memo a little bit, last parigrat~, page 1. Where I said,' ..... as long as the site holder is allowed to adjust the ;~cess point due to dock cmfigta'afion, boat size or ~y.'" Weycker. "That's good." Hanus. "And that's '~y whose interpre~atim, the individual?" "Nc,, basically, it's at ~he discretion of the Dock Inspo:t~." Hanus. "And so it will be back here. WeknowthaL They'llappeal. It's the same old thing. It's going to be l~Ac" Weycker. "Wall, I think it's better than nothing and Mr. Harfington said it best, I guess it's a corrxnon smseissue, ff you can't put your dat:kbecau~there'satreethere, it slx~ 117 /,.~ ~g MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 9, 1999 "But that's rny point. ThisisO. K. Idon'thaveamajorproblemwilhit. Ihaveamajor problem with ~ part of that motion. We'll get into fl~at in a minute. I don't have a problem, acamlly, with what Mr. I-hrfington's proposed dlher but, it's not the ~t wi~ this ~ way we're putting it mO.." "I don't have a problem wi~h it but, I ~ Mark said it best One year it's 15 feet onewayandncxtycarit's 15 fecttheothcrway. I would like to see it surveyed. If we':~e going to go of the lot lines. I want to know where my lot lines are so it's not be walking that are nonabuUem ..... ?" "Most of ~e ~ have ctancat modem surveys on ~cm and most of these ~ have proper.y irons m fl~r comc~. We don't have to su~ey it. They're alre~_y fl~re. Maybe we need to identify them but, I'm not crazy about spending ~ ~ ~ go ~ ~ "That's no excuse to go out and throw the money away, eilher. The point is, we have the irons out there. We don't have to resurvey. We've got bonded, licensed surveyors lhat have done it alrea:ly. Why do it again? Wejust need to fuxt out where those points are. " "I've bern over Ibis area a ~v thncs in ~e last few monlhs and I know where a number of ~e .... I know where the Knutson/Smith is, that coma'. I know where boS. sidesoftheHanington'sis. I know the access poinls. I'vefoundlhesenmny fin~s over the last year or two. IknowtheAhren's. I know the Smith's." ~rh~ o~e you have a problem with and I was just getting to lhat, is the ore up on the Smilfl/M,wA, where~isaliflstalion~. Tlereistoomw. hmeml. Idohave slal~,~areup. TleFores~property, as you go to Kuehns. Iknow~thato~e is. I'vebccaov~fl'fis manytimes. Icansmkeit Whether or not those irons have bcenmoved. I can't verify that A surveyor wiH verify that but, I can probably get 909,; of the s~s fl~at are out ~xc." MINUTES- MOUND CITY COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 9, 1999 ~One other t~t that I wanted to raise about the ~, lhat I cannot supl~ and thatis this idea ofloddng itin for 1 year, 2 years or 5 years. The Coundl should be aware lt~at ifwe do usin. Ifwe want to go in and change ~, we go in and change ~ and to pass a naofion ~t rays we're not going to, doem't stop us from doing it. So I lhink it's not good pracfice to do that The intent is fine. The intmt is good but, the result won't be Uhere. It doesn't k~ us in and I don't want to suggest to anyone sitting out here bhat it would, lxx:ause it won't.' Meisel. "That's a ~u'y thought, Mark. Hanus. "Well it's tne though. Meisel. "I think Bob, you came up with the two years strictly because Ibis Council wouldn't be ~ fo~ two years." "Yeah, and [undersland ~ I'm looking at other flaings such as ~e to an area, altec that goes down. Something that causes you to not be able to use that site and we're locked in. Are you folt~ willing, if ~ happem to your site, are you willing to lose your site? A lock in is a true l~x:k in or are you ~ about a flexible lock in? "A ,'~hrnity of nature, I lhink would bring it back for disot~ion and we would have to nMsit thaL Just like the storm did last summer, but ~ lt~ aggravation lt~at we knownow, Ithink allowing fffis togo forward wilh reasonable care and saylhat we can lock this deal in. That's thel'isklt~at I as ataxpayer is asking you, the Court, to ~.ke tonight city Attorney. "One suggestion that is used as a sort of q.a~ lock-in some cities on matters ~ as this, would be for example, to say that for the two year period following the adoption of ~ thing, it can be modified or altered only by a 4/5 voe of ~ entire City That would allow for ~_h~re mhrnilies, extraordinary type si,~fions but, would also reqtdre that 4 City ~bers vote to clmge fie policy. Typically, that's what Brown. "I'11 amend to lock it in for two years, with a 4/5tbs vote of Cotu~ to amend it, for unforeseen "My suggestion was that the 4/51hs vo~e simply be lhe way lhat you would be able bre~k lhe lock-in and lhat you wouldn't need to artio fla~ and advance any reasom for that 4/5th's vo~e. Hanus. "So lhere's no lock-in. But the criteria to make a change is a ad5th's vo~e? "Ju~tfourmembersoflt~Cotmdl, lo vote in lhat si_n_~fion. But it would, of course, applyin~ like tha~ as welL As you prd~ly know, four ~bers vo6ng the same way is a difficult situation." · 119 /3,~ MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 9, 1999 Hanus did not ~ the 4/5tbs vote to required to make a change. Someone in the audience. "You don't even have even 5 people vothng on this issue." The City Attorney pointed ot~ that there are 4 people voting. That's 4/5ths. The City Clerk asked if the tollowing was Comcilmem~ Brown's motion: To accept Ihe Haffington Plan which allows Ms. Casey to move 11 east ofthe Harfingt~Ahrem lot line. Direct Slaff~ mark them on January 12~h Plan. Allowing hhe SLea,5__ dock to be plaeed lztween Forester and Kuehn. The City Eng/nea' ~o The Council discussed what would happen with centering H, U & L shatxxt docks. How the ccnler is ~. Facklers~ed~twoddhavetobe~. Themajorityofhhe~agrccdhhatccntering "I ltdnk a ~q~er way because the motion is so involved and amfi~g, I would be wli~g to wthdraw my seemd. ~ fl~e L099 plan." Hanus. "You don't Imve to do that. That's already fl~re." "Add, no furth~ considemt~ for multiple docks. Add nomlaa~ spaces n~ to e~ed fotw. Add, mt hhe lock-in but, fl~e 1 3n~r or 2 3n~ws and a 4/5~h's vote to Weycla~. N3ihenvise, what I just said could be a motion? Did you want to ammd wlmt I moved." Tne Weyci~ motion died fie lack of a second. Anda ~e 3mr Iock~ with 4/Sh's oflhe Counal voting to dmnge it. MINrjTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 9, 1999 '1he vc~e on the nmtion was 3 in ravin' wlh Hanus vc~g my. M~tion carried. year. Hanus slaled he feels Ihat is preferential trmammt and we doWt do that with ot~ folks. He ~ he W~[ ~ ~']at I~otio~, be~ll,_~_~ it SI~ a lem31e precedent. The Mayor ;~a:l when Mr. Albrecht's dock applimfion last year was submitted. The Park direct~ slat~d he would have to look that up. He lhought it was sometime in early August. slated that maybe we shouldn't have bom renting it anyway, if you couldn't put it there. The Park Direara' explained lhat Mr. Albrecht was aware of what was thxe. This was reviewed ~lhe v~e w'~ 2 in favor w~h Hanm and Meisd w~ting my. Motion fa~ The ~ adv4.sed that if Mr. Albny.~ disagreed, he st'z~d submit a letter outlining the facts as he sees them 121 ~.~-.~_~ April 16, 1999 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Council FROM: City Attorney SUBJECT: FAQ's pertaining to 4/19 special meeting Several questions have been asked concerning what might happen at the April 19 meeting on Devon Commons. 1. What impact will the "4/5ths lock-in" have on any action by the council? Action to Reconsider or to Rescind. Reconsideration is not possible because it must be at the same meeting. Recision is possible. Under Roberts Rules of Order, a motion to rescind requires a majority of the council. The practical effect of relying on that provision in the rules must be considered. · Action to modify ~rovisions of the resolution relatin~ s~ecificallv to dock locations. The council should carefully review the minutes of the February 9 council meeting. My review leads me to the conclusion that the so-called "lock-in" feature was applicable, at least to changes in the locations of individual docks. If you agree, then changing such a provision of the resolution would seem to require a 4/5ths vote. (Four affirmative votes). · Action to adovt orovisions which were not covered in the resolution, or to clarify the council's intent. If the council concludes that the February 9 resolution fails to give useful direction concerning how it should be applied to a particular situation, such as, for example, locating on center, the council could modify the resolution in order to adequately express the council's intention regarding that matter by majority vote. If on the other hand, the council now wishes to change a provision which was adequately covered in the February 9 resolution, a 4/5tbs vote would, in my opinion be required. 2. How will potential conflicts of interest be handled? A potential conflict of interest exists if a councilmember has a material financial interest in the outcome of the decision. Because one of the councilmembers owns property abutting on Devon Common, care must continue to be taken to avoid a conflict of interest. The determination that a conflict exists is extremely fact-driven. Consequently, it is not possible to render an opinion on a conflict until the exact issue being considered is known. During the discussions on Monday night, I would expect that the individual councilmembers will continue to monitor this matter, and, if concerned that a conflict situation may be eminent, bring it to the council's attention. I do want to add that the councilmember who lives on Devon is fully aware of this issue, and, in my judgment has been very careful to avoid conflicts of interest situations before the council.. In the event JBD-161467 MU220-6 a potential conflict of interest is found to exist, the eouncilmember should refrain from participating in the discussion of the item and the vote on it. 3. Does the matter need to be referred to the Dock and Commons Advisory Commission before council action? This question was answered in the negative in my letter to Ed Shukle dated March 4, 1999. Although the council is not obligated to refer this matter to the Dock and Commons Advisory Commission prior to taking action, it is permissible for it to do so. JBD-161467 MU220-6 c c 1999 ALTERNATE DOCK LOCATION PLAN SUBMITTED 1-30-99 OR£$T£R41437 ,,c ,~ FORESTER 40 ~~<,~ 41477 . STEAD Light Pole, located on Devon Commons, 37' from westerly property line "NOT TO SCALE" 1999 DOCK LOCATION PLAN APPROVED JANUARY 12, 1999 CITY COUNCIL ~,~O R £ s T £ R 40' 41437 Forester 41477 Stead Light Pole, located on Devon Commons, 37' from westerly property line "NOT TO SCALE" 1995-1998 DOCK LOCATIONS 41437 Forester 41477 Stead Light Pole, located on Devon Commons, 37' from westerly property line "NOT TO SCALE" 1994 DOCK LOCATIONS R E S T E R 40' 123, 41437 Forester 41477 Vacant Light Pole, located on Devon Commons, 37' from westerly property line "NOT TO SCALE"