11/10/2008 Council Minutes (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

COUNCIL MINUTES November 10, 2008 APPROVED 043 Council Member O'Donnell moved that the city go forward with the audit request. Council Member Stoltz seconded the motion. 85 86 The council identified four themes brought forward for the audit request: possible conflict of 87 interest; compliance with Open Meeting Law; the application process for the commission; and 88 misappropration of funds. It was suggested that the council should further discuss the scope of 89 the audit. A council member remarked that the audit seems a bit retaliatory, however, it is 90 appropriate since the commission has never before been audited. 91 92 Attorney Baumgartner advised that the themes noted by the council seem an appropriate outline 93 for an audit. He suggested that the council may not want to limit the audit to exclude any thing 94 that is included in the statutory language that guides charter commissions. 95 96 There was no council objection to adding to the motion a direction to the city attorney to seek a 97 recommendation of independent counsel from the League of Minnesota Cities. 98 99 The motion was adopted on a unanimous voice vote. 100 PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT REPORT, DAVE PECCHIA 101 There was no report from the public safety department. 102 PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT REPORT, RICK DEGARDNER 033 There was no report from the Public Services Department. 104 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT, MICHAEL GROCHALA 105 6A. Approval of Resolution No. 08-130, Determining Intent of Zoning Ordinance 106 Relating to Sport Court Regulations — Community Development Director Grochala explained 107 that the city council is to act as a board of appeals in considering the matter of the building 108 permit requested by Mr. Mark Smith, 2120 Otter Lake Road. Mr. Smith is requesting a permit 109 for an addition that will include an exercise area and a recreation area identified by the architect 110 as a "sports court". Staff has determined that, in this case, the city's definition in the zoning 111 regulations of "sport court" doesn't apply because the Smith's proposed addition would be 112 entirely enclosed and the intent of the city's regulations are to regulate free-standing, exterior 113 facilities such as tennis or basketball courts. The council is being asked to hear this matter 114 because property owners adjacent to the Smith property, Paul and Julie Schwartz, 2140 Otter 115 Lake Road, have filed an appeal to the city's determination. Mr. Grochala explained that both 116 sides in the matter should be given an opportunity to address the council. 117 118 Attorney Bill Griffith, representing Mark Smith, suggested that this matter shouldn't involve 119 legal counsel because he agrees with staff's findings. Mr. Smith's project should have been 120 allowed to proceed months ago. As staff has stated, the proposed building project is clearly an 121 addition to the existing home and will appear as such. It is a recreation room, not a sport court. 122 There could in fact be the same type of recreation facility in other homes without the city's even . 23 being aware. It is clear that the city's regulations apply to exterior facilities. Further this can't 24 be deemed an accessory use and still be a part of the home as that is in conflict. Mr. Griffith -3-